Surfacing the Accessible Playground

2014 A publicaƟ on of the U.S. Access Board and the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility 1 Start with comprehensive planning and site selecƟ on. 2 Follow the Accessibility Standards for Play Areas. 3 Review the research fi ndings about accessibility issues for play surfaces. 4 Assess during the planning, installaƟ on and maintenance phases. 5Compare surface opƟ ons. 6 Recognize that proper installaƟ on of play surface systems is key. 7 Commit to ongoing maintenance of accessible playground surfaces as a responsibility of ownership. SelecƟ ng an Accessible Play Surface Is One of the Most Important Decisions The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2011) esƟ mates there to be 2.8 million school-aged children with disabiliƟ es in the United States. The Census Bureau (2009) esƟ mates that one in every seven American families is aff ected by disability. For children with and without disabiliƟ es, the community playground can facilitate a posiƟ ve environment for physical acƟ vity and inclusion. Today, lack of physical acƟ vity is considered one of the leading factors contribuƟ ng to poor health among children. The neighborhood playground fulfi lls a criƟ cal role in community wellness, enabling children to play with friends and burn calories at the same Ɵ me. When the playground has barriers prohibiƟ ng use by a child with a disability, the opportunity for play and physical acƟ vity is lost. Inaccessible surfaces can pose barriers for children with disabiliƟ es who may use canes, crutches, walkers or wheelchairs from ambulaƟ ng through the play area. Pushing a wheelchair over loose gravel or sand requires tremendous physical eff ort. When so much eff ort is exerted, liƩ le to no energy is leŌ for play. The presence of physical barriers can prevent children with disabiliƟ es from accessing all play elements on the playground. Most signifi cantly, inclusive play between children with disabiliƟ es and children without disabiliƟ es is threatened when the playground does not have accessible equipment and surfaces. Physical barriers also prohibit adult caregivers with disabiliƟ es from engaging with their children and/or responding when a child is in need of assistance. RecreaƟ on professionals and playground owners are confronted with quesƟ ons of how to install and maintain safe and accessible public playgrounds that are fun; promote inclusion and physical acƟ vity; are cost eff ecƟ ve and able to withstand a full life cycle of public use. Choosing play surfaces that are accessible and that can be maintained as accessible surfaces, becomes one of the most important decisions during the playground planning and design phases. The purpose of this guide is to provide pracƟ cal informaƟ on that every public playground owner should know about the accessibility of their playground surfaces. Surfacing the Accessible Playground Things Every Playground Owner Should Know About the Accessibility of Their Playground Surfaces 7

Surfacing the Accessible Playground: 7 Things Every Playground Owner Should Know About the Accessibility of Their Playground Surfaces From 2008 to 2012, the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility (NCA) at Indiana UniversityBloomington conducted a longitudinal study on the accessibility of playground surfaces. The research study was funded by the U.S. Access Board. The informaƟ on presented in this publicaƟ on is based on the research fi ndings and presented as guidance to public playground owners and operators. ReproducƟ on and disseminaƟ on of this publicaƟ on is encouraged. U.S. Access Board 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1111 (800) 872-2253 Voice (800) 993-2822 TTY access-board.gov NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility Indiana University - Bloomington School of Public Health Department of RecreaƟ on, Parks and Tourism Studies 501 N Morton St, Suite 109 Bloomington, IN 47404 (812) 856-4422 Voice (812) 856-4421 TTY nca@indiana.edu ncaonline.org 2

1All Successful, Inclusive Playgrounds Start with Comprehensive Planning An economic assessment conducted during the development of accessibility standards for play areas esƟ mated there to be 5,300 new public playgrounds constructed each year and more than 18,600 exisƟ ng playgrounds that are renovated. The decision to build a public playground, whether it be in a park, school, mall or childcare seƫ ng, is an iniƟ al fi nancial commitment of $60,000 to $100,000 and upward just for the purchase of equipment and construcƟ on (NCA Playground Surface Study, 2013). This cost can be overwhelming. OŌ en Ɵ mes, new playground owners do not realize that owning a playground is not a one-Ɵ me purchase. It is a commitment to maintain the equipment and surface for as long as it is open to the public. Most public playgrounds are designed to be in place for 10-20 years. At some point, the equipment will need to be serviced to meet revised safety standards and the surface will likely need to be repaired or replaced. A comprehensive planning process is essenƟ al to ensure everyone is educated on the safety requirements, the accessibility standards, design consideraƟ ons, installaƟ on and ongoing maintenance needs. An accessible playground starts with an accessible site plan. The site selecƟ on and layout of the accessible route should be considered alongside the selecƟ on of the play equipment. The accessible route must be designed as the main pedestrian route and connect all accessible equipment, both points of entry and egress. This means everyone enters and uses the site together. A site survey may be necessary even on sites deemed “relaƟ vely fl at.” A site survey, even for sites considered “fl at” or without substanƟ al change in elevaƟ on, should be conducted to design for a conƟ nuous accessible route, with compliant cross slope and adequate site drainage. At playgrounds without site surveys, the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility research found more instances of non-compliant accessible routes. Most oŌ en equipment was moved during construcƟ on, deviaƟ ng from the original plan, to accommodate the use zones. These changes negaƟ vely aff ected the accessible routes. The site plan should include the layout of equipment and the planned accessible route should be drawn on the site plan connecƟ ng entry and egress from each accessible elevated play component and each accessible ground level play component. It is highly recommended that the accessible route be clearly defi ned on the site plan and construcƟ on drawings. If the playground owner decides to go with a surface material, such as loose fi ll that has a higher degree of surface variability, designaƟ on of the accessible route on the site plan will give the installer and maintenance personnel specifi c guidance on the appropriate locaƟ on of the accessible route, installaƟ on of the surface material, and its ongoing maintenance to meet the accessibility standards. 3

2Follow the Accessibility Standards The 2010 Americans with DisabiliƟ es Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design apply to state and local governments (Title II) and places of public accommodaƟ on (Title III). The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Standards apply to federal faciliƟ es. Both standards require newly constructed playgrounds and those exisƟ ng playgrounds that are altered to comply with a series of technical provisions for accessible play components and the accessible route connecƟ ng these components. The accessibility standards are minimum standards and do not require the enƟ re play surface area to be accessible. The only required accessible surface area includes the accessible route from the entry of the play area, at least one connecƟ on to each accessible play component (points of entry and egress) and any clear space requirements adjacent to accessible play components. Children’s play behavior indicates they spontaneously move throughout the play equipment, navigaƟ ng on their own preferred routes. Designing the enƟ re use zone as a congruent accessible route is recommended as a best pracƟ ce to accommodate the free play behavior of all children navigaƟ ng the play space. Playground owners, designers and maintenance personnel must have a good understanding of the requirements for accessible routes within the play area and comply with the provisions of the accessibility standards. Outside of the play area, an accessible route must connect at the site arrival point, include parking, and the path to the main entrance of the play area. The accessible route must also connect all accessible elements and features of the play area within the site. Within the play area, the clear width of the ground level accessible routes shall be 60 inches minimum. Two excepƟ ons may be applied: 1) In play areas less than 1000 square feet, the clear width of accessible routes shall be permiƩ ed to be 44 inches minimum, if at least one turning space is provided where the restricted accessible route exceeds 30 feet in length; or 2) the clear width of accessible routes shall be permiƩ ed to be 36 inches minimum for a distance of 60 inches maximum provided that mulƟ ple reduced width segments are separated by segments that are 60 inches wide minimum and 60 inches long minimum. 4

5 Where accessible routes serve ground level play components: • The verƟ cal clearance shall be 80 inches high minimum. • The running slope not steeper than 1:16 or 6.25%. • The cross slope shall not be steeper than 1:48 or 2.08%. • Openings in fl oor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere more than ½ inch diameter. • Changes in level between ¼ inch high minimum and ½ inch high maximum shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2. For a playground surface to be compliant, both safe and accessible, it must meet the above menƟ oned technical provisions for running slope, cross slope, openings, changes in level, and verƟ cal clearance. Public playgrounds must also meet referenced standards set by the American Society for TesƟ ng Materials (ASTM) related to resilency for falls (ASTM F1292-99/04) and accessibility (ASTM F1951-99) around accessible equipment. Some jurisdicƟ ons and municipaliƟ es require surface systems to have cerƟ fi cates of compliance with ASTM standards. These cerƟ fi cates are oŌ en awarded through laboratory tesƟ ng of surface samples. The standards require the actual site-installed surface systems to comply with ASTM F129299/04 and ASTM F1951-99. The surface for the accessible route within the play area must meet the technical provisions of the standards as long as it is open for public use. Further, ground surfaces used for the accessible route are required to be inspected and maintained regularly and frequently to ensure conƟ nued compliance with ASTM F 1951-99. From the grand opening celebraƟ on to the coldest January day when parents bring their children outside to play and get some fresh air; as long as the playground is open for use, it must meet safety and accessibility standards. Applying the Accessibility Standards to the Plan, InstallaƟ on, and Maintenance of Ground Level Accessible Routes for Playgrounds The following quesƟ ons can be used through the planning process, during construcƟ on and as part of rouƟ ne maintenance.  Is the surface for the accessible route, clear ground space and turning space compliant with ASTM F1951-99 Standard Specifi caƟ on for DeterminaƟ on of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment?  Does the playground surface comply with ASTM F129299/04 Standard Specifi caƟ on for Impact AƩ enuaƟ on of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment when ground surfaces are part of the accessible route and also located in the use zones?  Is the accessible route part of the main circulaƟ on path and is it conƟ nuous to each accessible play component?  Is the running slope for the ground level accessible route less than 1:16 or 6.25%?  Is the maximum cross slope for the ground level accessible route less than 1:48 or 2.08%?  Is there a minimum clear width of 60 inches for the ground level accessible route (some excepƟ ons apply)?  Are openings in the surface for the ground level accessible route no greater than .50 inch?  Are changes in level along the ground level accessible route less than .50 inch beveled?  Is the verƟ cal clearance a minimum of 80 inches for the ground level accessible route?  Does the clear ground space, 30 x 48 inches minimum, at egress of accessible equipment have a cross slope less than 1:48 or 2.08%?  Are the ground surfaces inspected and maintained regularly and frequently to ensure conƟ nued compliance with ASTM F1951-99? For more explanaƟ on on the applicaƟ on of the accessibility standards to public playgrounds, see A Summary of Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas, www.access-board. gov/guidelines-and-standards/recreaƟ on-faciliƟ es/guides/ play-areas.

From 2008 to 2012, the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility at Indiana University-Bloomington, conducted a longitudinal study on the accessibility of playground surfaces. The study was funded by the U.S. Access Board. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a variety of playground surfaces, their ability to meet accessibility requirements, their costs upon iniƟ al installaƟ on and maintenance issues over a 3-5 year period. The research design for this study of playground surfaces began in 2005 with input from a naƟ onal advisory commiƩ ee. During the study, quanƟ taƟ ve and qualitaƟ ve data was collected through on-site inspecƟ ons for a 3-5 year period. A naƟ onal advisory commiƩ ee provided feedback on the categories of surfaces to be evaluated, the criteria to be used for evaluaƟ on, the locaƟ ons within each playground to be evaluated, data collecƟ on worksheets and on-site protocol. In addiƟ on, advisory commiƩ ee members helped to expand the network for recruitment in the study and increase naƟ onal awareness among playground owners. The sample populaƟ on for this study depended upon an established, or to be established, congenial relaƟ onship with the playground owner and the research team. The data for analysis required the research team to make a number of inquiries to the operaƟ on, planning, budgeƟ ng and maintenance procedures conducted by the playground owner. Most importantly, if there were any instances where locaƟ ons on the playground were found to be in non-compliance with the accessibility or safety guidelines, the playground owner was to be informed and then carried the burden of bringing those instances into compliance. Approximately 35 playground sites were recruited for parƟ cipaƟ on during the evaluaƟ on period from October 2008 through May 2011. Data collecƟ on concluded in September 2012 so that all playground sites in the study would have a minimum of two years of data. All of the playground sites were located in public parks owned/operated by 16 diff erent municipaliƟ es from Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. Sites included either neighborhood playgrounds or those located in regional parks. The 16 parƟ cipaƟ ng municipaliƟ es operated anywhere from 4 to 53 playgrounds each. None of the playground owners were “fi rst Ɵ me” owners. All of the owners had a history of managing playgrounds. They considered themselves somewhat knowledgeable of playground surface issues and eager to learn how they could improve upon their playground surface maintenance eff orts for costs savings. The playground surface products considered for this study had to iniƟ ally meet the requirements of the accessibility standards for: accessible routes; ground surfaces; the ASTM F1292-99/04 Standard Specifi caƟ on for Impact AƩ enuaƟ on of Surface Systems 3 Review the Research Findings to Learn More About Accessibility Issues for Surfaces Under and Around Playground Equipment as determined by the surface manufacturer in laboratory tesƟ ng; and the ASTM F195199 Standard Specifi caƟ on for DeterminaƟ on of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment as determined by the surface manufacturer in laboratory tesƟ ng. InformaƟ on on the surface vendor, specifi caƟ ons, costs and labor for installaƟ on was then collected. In turn, the research team contacted each vendor to collect addiƟ onal informaƟ on on laboratory cerƟ fi caƟ on with ASTM F1951-99 for each surface. Five categories of surfaces were studied: poured in place rubber (PIP), rubber Ɵ les (TIL), engineered wood fi ber (EWF), shredded rubber (SHR) and hybrid (HYB) systems. Nine criƟ cal areas were inspected within 12 months of installaƟ on and conƟ nued to be evaluated at least once a year for the longitudinal study: 1) Entry to playground where playground surface starts; 2) Accessible route connecƟ ng accessible play elements; 3) Egress point of slide(s); 4) Swings; 5) Entry point(s) to composite structure(s)/transfer staƟ ons; 6) Climber(s); 7) Ground level play element(s) such as spring rockers, play tables, interacƟ ve panels, etc; 8) Sliding poles; and 9) Other areas (i.e. water play elements, etc). A preliminary accessibility assessment of the playground surface was conducted and the surface tested for fi rmness and stability with the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer. At the discreƟ on of the playground owner, the playground surface was also tested for impact aƩ enuaƟ on with the TRIAX (surface impact tesƟ ng device). The playground owner was noƟ fi ed immediately of test results for both the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer (fi rmness/stability) and the TRIAX (impact aƩ enuaƟ on) and given opportunity to correct surfaces where defi ciencies or non-compliance with standards were noted. 6

7 NCA Play Surface Study Findings The most valuable lesson to be learned from this longitudinal study is that there is no perfect playground surface. Even within 12 months of installaƟ on, each type of surface had some type of issue or series of issues that aff ected the product’s performance and contributed to the necessity and frequency of surface maintenance to assure accessibility and safety for use by children on a daily basis. A playground surface with poured-inplace rubber had a use zone found in non-compliance with the ASTM standard for impact aƩ enuaƟ on. Playgrounds surfaced with Ɵ les were observed with puncture holes, buckling and separaƟ ng seams that created openings and changes in level on the accessible route. Inaccessible routes with undulaƟ ng surface material were idenƟ fi ed at playgrounds with engineered wood fi ber. Each occurrence and event was weighed and balanced with the product’s feature advantages and drawbacks. The informaƟ on can serve as guidance to both future playground planning and prioriƟ es for designing new research. The following are the predominant fi ndings from this study: 1. No single type of surface material/system was found to be the most accessible surface or beƩ er than others when comparing its ability to meet the accessibility standards with issues related to installaƟ on and maintenance. 2. Within 12 months of installaƟ on, playground sites in the sample with the loose fi ll EWF were found to have the greatest number of defi ciencies, such as excessive running slope, cross slope, and change in level, aff ecƟ ng the accessible route to play components. 3. Within 12 months of installaƟ on, playground sites in the sample with loose fi ll EWF were found to have the highest values for fi rmness and stability, indicaƟ ng greater work force needed to move across the surface, while playground sites with the unitary surfaces TIL and PIP were found to have the lowest values for fi rmness and stability– indicaƟ ng less work force necessary to move across the surface. 4. Defi ciencies (excessive running slope, cross slope, change in level, or openings) for PIP, TIL and HYB began to emerge 2436 months aŌ er installaƟ on. 5. Occurrences were idenƟ fi ed in the sample where the surface material installaƟ on did not parallel either the manufacturer’s installaƟ on instrucƟ ons or the procedural instrucƟ ons on the laboratory test sample for ASTM F195199. 6. A playground surface with fewer accessibility defi ciencies and a lower measurement for fi rmness and stability did not necessarily meet the safety standards for impact aƩ enuaƟ on. 7. Surface cost for material cannot serve as an indicator or predictor of performance. The full report A Longitudinal Study of Playground Surfaces to Evaluate Accessibility: Final Report is available on the NaƟ onal Center on Accessibility web site: ncaonline.org

8 Poured in Place Rubber (PIP) Tiles (TIL) DESCRIPTION Wear layer with larger rubber parƟ cles and fi nished with a custom top layer of granular parƟ cles. A binding agent is used and the material is poured out on site or “in place” as it gets its name. DESCRIPTION Bonded rubber constructed as 2 Ō x 2 Ō squares with interlocking sides. COST (Average market cost 2009-2012)(MATERIAL ONLY) $6.59 to $19/sq Ō COST (Average market cost 2009-2012)(MATERIAL ONLY) $8.96 to $21/sq Ō INSTALLATION Installer must be specially trained/cerƟ fi ed by the manufacturer. INSTALLATION Can be installed by contractor or park/facility personnel. Learning curve associated with installaƟ on. REPAIRS Repairs must be conducted by trained installer. REPAIRS Repairs may be completed by contractor or park/facility personnel. COMMON ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES Cracking or fl aking of the top layer can lead to divots and openings greater than 1/2 inch. Top layer defi ciencies are oŌ en accelerated in high use areas (under swings, slides, teetertoƩ ers). Results in non-compliant routes and clear ground spaces at equipment. May also result in non-compliant cross slope at entry/egress. Surface defi ciencies can be traced to improper binding agent raƟ o, inability for product to properly cure, and deterioraƟ on of product over years of exposure to the elements. COMMON ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES Puncture holes and shiŌ ing seams can create openings and changes in level along the accessible route and at clear ground space for equipment. Foreign parƟ cles can lodge in seams causing separaƟ on including liŌ from adhesive for subsurface. Instances of cracking may occur as the product ages. SeƩ led or washed out subsurface may compromise structural integrity of individual Ɵ les. Comparison of Playground Surfaces Evaluated in NCA

9 Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) Hybrid Surface Systems (HYB) DESCRIPTION ASTM defi nes EWF as processed wood ground to a fi brous consistency, randomly sized, approximately 10 Ɵ mes longer than wide with a maximum length of 2 inches. Free of hazardous substances. Not to be confused with wood chips. DESCRIPTION MulƟ -layer system where the base layer may consist of either contained or loose parƟ cles like shredded rubber or carpet pad. The top layers may be outdoor carpeƟ ng, arƟ fi cial turf, or rubber top mat. COST (Average market cost 2009-2012)(MATERIAL ONLY) $ 0.74 to $2.50/sq Ō COST (Average market cost 2009-2012)(MATERIAL ONLY) $7.50 to $12.65/sq Ō INSTALLATION Can be installed by contractor or park/facility personnel. INSTALLATION Installer must be specially trained/cerƟ fi ed by the manufacturer. REPAIRS Repairs may be completed by contractor or park/facility personnel. REPAIRS Usually repairs must be conducted by the installer. In some cases, park/facility personnel may be trained to make smaller repairs. COMMON ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES Improper installaƟ on and/or maintenance can result in undulaƟ on across the horizon of the surface aff ecƟ ng running slope, cross slope and change in level. Product material should be installed in layers and compacted in order to achieve an accessible route and level clear ground space at equipment. Surface material is likely to displace at heavy use areas with moƟ on, such as at swings, slides, sliding poles, climbers, spinners and teeter toƩ ers. Displaced material should be raked level and compacted before addiƟ onal fi ll is added. COMMON ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES Seams may separate or detach from the border creaƟ ng changes in level and openings aff ecƟ ng the accessible route. ShiŌ ing of loose fi ll in the base layer may aff ect running and cross slopes. The arƟ fi cial turf top layer may experience build-up of staƟ c electricity requiring applicaƟ on of anƟ -staƟ c soluƟ on. Longitudinal Research Study

4 Assess During the Planning, InstallaƟ on and Maintenance Phases Once the playground surface is installed, an on-site inspecƟ on of the surface system should be conducted along the accessible routes, at the clear ground spaces for entry/egress of equipment and required turning spaces. A digital level can be used to measure the running slope and cross slope. A 2 Ō . digital level is most commonly used for accessibility assessments as it can measure greater variances within the cross slope than a longer level. A tape measure can be used to check any changes in level and openings on the accessible route. Changes in level should also be checked at transiƟ on points where the surface material changes. The fi rmness and stability of the playground surface along the accessible route can be measured in the fi eld with a RotaƟ onal Penetrometer. Quick Reference Running slope = 1:16 or 6.25% max Cross slope = 1:48 or 2.08% max Changes in level = 1/4 inch max (no bevel) 1/2 inch max (with bevel) Openings = 1/2 inch max Measure the clear ground space in all direcƟ ons with a digital level to ensure it is less than 1:48 or 2.08%. The clear ground space at all accessible play components entry and egress must be level for a child to transfer safely from a wheelchair to the play component. The maximum running slope for the ground level accessible route must not exceed 1:16 or 6.25%. Using a digital level is one opƟ on for measuring the slope of the ground level accessible route. Openings or gaps in the surface cannot exceed a 1/2 inch. Check for changes in level, especially at transiƟ ons between surfaces. Changes in level from 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch must be beveled. 10

11 When conducƟ ng an assessment of the ground level accessible route, it helps to start with “the big picture” -- to view the play area in its enƟ rety. Begin at the entry to the play area. IdenƟ fy the accessible play components and the path to entry/egress for each piece of accessible equipment. Then focus in on the accessible route. Each segment of the route should be assessed for compliance with the accessibility standards. Look for the worst areas, those locaƟ ons where the slope or cross slope may exceed the standard, where changes in level may be too high, or where openings may be too large. One method to assess the ground level route using the photo above would be to look at each route segment, such as: From the entry of the play area where the surface begins to the transfer system at the composite play structure. The clear ground space at the transfer system. Segments at each accessible elevated component egress to ground level, the clear ground space at egress, and the connector loop back to the transfer system, such as the segment from the right of the double slide and the clear ground space at the boƩ om of the slide to the transfer system; and The segment to the right of the transfer system to the climbing wall including the transiƟ on from the poured in place surface to the engineered wood fi ber and the clear ground space at the climber. The segments from the entry and composite structure to the swings, including the clear ground space at a swing. Segments to each accessible ground level play component. Segments to other accessible play areas. The purpose here is to look for defi ciencies in order to make correcƟ ve acƟ ons. All of the technical provisions must be met through the enƟ re route for it to be considered accessible. Thus, each segment should be assessed for slope, cross slope, change in level, openings, fi rmness and stability (which will be discussed in greater detail in the next secƟ ons). It would be inaccurate and incomplete to only measure slope at one segment, cross slope at another, or to average the data for three segments. Every segment of a route is used by people with disabiliƟ es, therefore it is criƟ cal that each segment meet the minimum standards. 2 1 3 5 4 6 7

A RotaƟ onal Penetrometer (RP) is used here to measure the fi rmness and stability of the surfaces. Regular inspecƟ ons of the playground surface and equipment should be conducted to ensure conƟ nued safety and accessibility for all users. These inspecƟ ons should include safety checks, the accessibility assessment of the accessible route, and fi eld tesƟ ng of the playground surface. Field tesƟ ng conducted on the playground surface in the use zone should measure the impact aƩ enuaƟ on for children who may fall, along with fi rmness and stability for accessibility to people with disabiliƟ es. This fi eld tesƟ ng should be conducted upon installaƟ on and throughout the life cycle of the playground. The Accessibility Standards require the accessible route within the play area comply with two referenced ASTM standards: ASTM F1951-99 Standard Specifi caƟ on for DeterminaƟ on of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment; and ASTM F1292-99/04 Standard Specifi caƟ on for Impact AƩ enuaƟ on of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment. ASTM F1951-99: Lab Test This is a laboratory test measuring the work force required for a 165 (+11 or -4.4) lb. individual in a manual wheelchair to propel across a given surface. The lab test uses a 7 percent ramp as a baseline for the wheelchair rider. AŌ er the baseline is established, the rider conducts a series of straight propulsions over the sample surface for a minimum distance of 6.56 Ō . The force needed to propel the wheelchair rider over the surface is measured. A Measuring Up: Playground Surface Field TesƟ ng The “wheelchair test” is conducted on a sample test bed in the lab to determine the results for ASTM F1951-99. 12 second series of tests are then run where the wheelchair rider makes a 90 degree turn and the force is measured again. If the average work per foot for the sample surface is less than the work force to propel up the 7 percent ramp, the surface sample is considered as passing ASTM F1951-99. The advantage of the ASTM F1951-99 test procedure is that it provides a starƟ ng point to compare various surfaces by an objecƟ ve measurement. However, the primary disadvantage and criƟ cism of the protocol is that it is designed as a lab test in a controlled environment and cannot be easily replicated in the fi eld or outdoors at mulƟ ple playground sites. Researchers have aƩ empted to address the portability of this test protocol with the development of the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer (RP) described below. Firmness and Stability: Field Test While the ASTM F1951-99 protocol does not include a procedure for fi eld tesƟ ng outdoors at a playground, a fi eld test method has been developed by the same engineering company that developed the original lab test method. A portable instrument known as a RotaƟ onal Penetrometer (RP) has been designed to measure the fi rmness and stability of surfaces. For the purpose of the NCA study, the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer was used as the fi eld instrument to measure fi rmness and stability in lieu of the costly equipment for ASTM F1951-99. Documented research has shown the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer to have a high degree of repeatability and reproducibility (ASTM, May 27, 2005; ASTM, September 2010). These research fi ndings also correlate to the lab test.

13 The RP design includes a wheelchair caster placed on a spring loaded caliber in a metal tripod frame which suspends the caster about 6 inches over the surface. When the caster is released, the spring load gauge replicates the force of an individual in a wheelchair over a given surface. The penetraƟ on into the surfaces is measured for readings of “fi rmness” and “stability.” NaƟ onal experts recognize the use of the RotaƟ onal Penetrometer as a portable and relaƟ vely easy device to use for surface tesƟ ng. The fi eld test method with the RP can be added to the assessment process just as measurements for slope, cross slope, change in level and openings are taken along segments of the accessible route for the play area. The RP can measure those segments for fi rmness and stability. This can be valuable in assessing how an installed surface performs over Ɵ me. Impact AƩ enuaƟ on: Lab & Field Test In the fi eld, ASTM F1292-99/04 Standard Specifi caƟ on for Impact AƩ enuaƟ on of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment is also known as the “head drop test.” It is a test to make sure the surface is resilient enough to prevent a lifethreatening injury from a fall. A 6 inch diameter aluminum hemisphere in the shape of a child’s head is dropped from the top of a tripod based on the fall height of play components. The aluminum hemisphere, or missile as it is called, contains an accelerometer. When dropped, the impact aƩ enuaƟ on of the surface is measured in G-max and by the Head Injury Criteria (HIC). G-max is a measurement of the maximum acceleraƟ on, while HIC measures an integral of the acceleraƟ on Ɵ me. The maximum values allowable by the standard are 200 for G-max and 1,000 for HIC. A TRIAX is the instrument used to conduct this test in the fi eld. Playground Owners Can UƟ lize Field TesƟ ng to Get the Most Out of Their Surface InstallaƟ on The NCA surface study found the need to conduct fi eld tesƟ ng immediately following installaƟ on and throughout the life of the playground surface is criƟ cal to insure compliance with ASTM F1292-99/04 and ASTM F1951-99. A surface locaƟ on can appear to be very accessible by the “look” of it. However, results may be surprising when the surface is actually fi eld tested. This point is illustrated at NCA study sites managed by two diff erent agencies. One of the parƟ cipaƟ ng municipaliƟ es manages more than 30 park playgrounds, predominately surfaced with engineered wood fi ber (EWF). The park maintenance personnel usually install the EWF by raking it level, allowing it to seƩ le over Ɵ me and topping off seasonally. The research team found the results for fi rmness and stability were not consistent with the manufacturer’s ASTM F195199 results. The inconsistency was found in the installaƟ on process. The research team informed the playground owner of the fi eld test results. Then the park maintenance crew changed their procedure for installaƟ on and also began compacƟ ng the surface material when it was topped off . Subsequent fi eld tesƟ ng yielded much beƩ er results for fi rmness and stability. Another playground owner opted to also have the surface tested for impact aƩ enuaƟ on and compliance with ASTM F1292. Drop heights from composite equipment up to 8 Ō . high passed the fi eld test. But it was the poured in place (PIP) surface at two swing bays that was found in non-compliance with HIC scores well over the 1,000 HIC allowable under the standard. The playground owner used the terms of the warranty and purchase order as a binding agreement requiring the manufacturer, at its own expense, to return to the site and repair the surface installaƟ on. Approximately 2,000 sq. Ō . at the swing bays was resurfaced to add more depth to the PIP. When the surface area was retested, the HIC ranged from 650-750 at the swings, well under the 1,000 maximum allowable by the standard. Had the playground owner not discovered the non-compliant surface area unƟ l aŌ er the warranty had expired, it would have cost the agency in excess of $35,000 to correct the surface area serving four swings. During the course of the longitudinal study, at least two addiƟ onal playgrounds surfaced with PIP were found in non-compliance with ASTM F1292. In each case, the playground owners required the installers to return to the site to make correcƟ ve acƟ ons. The only way to verify the surface is installed similar to that in which it passed the laboratory test is to conduct fi eld tesƟ ng. A TRIAX is used here to test impact aƩ enuaƟ on or the play surface’s ability to absorb a fall and reduce severity of injury.

5 Comparing Surface OpƟ ons Can Assist Planning Team in SelecƟ on Process Like any big Ɵ cket purchase, comparison shopping is essenƟ al in the planning process. The planning team should embark on a purposeful mission to determine the playground surface system most appropriate for their site and operaƟ onal resources. Some agencies may have more capital dollars at the front of the project for a surface system that costs a liƩ le more but requires less maintenance. Others may have a smaller project budget for a less costly surface, but have more operaƟ onal funds for daily/ weekly maintenance. The planning team should engage with all representaƟ ves from all surface systems under consideraƟ on. Decision-makers should dialogue with the surface supplier regarding realisƟ c, objecƟ ve measurements to evaluate surface performance and maintain the surface material over the life span of the playground. Decision makers must ask very specifi c quesƟ ons to fully benefi t from the advantages and costs-savings of a surface system. The dialogue with the manufacturer or sales rep should address: • Specifi c wriƩ en instrucƟ ons for installaƟ on. • WriƩ en descripƟ on of the base, sub-base and required drainage system. • Results of ASTM F1951-99 laboratory tests, including the values for the baseline, straight propulsion and turning runs. The test results should also include a descripƟ on of how the surface was prepared for the lab tests and should be consistent with the installaƟ on instrucƟ ons. • Results of ASTM F1292-99/04, with wriƩ en confi rmaƟ on of the criƟ cal fall height for the surface material. These test results should include the depth of the surface material for drop heights. The criƟ cal fall height shall be higher than the fall height of the highest equipment on the playground. • WriƩ en descripƟ on of the maintenance and frequency necessary to maintain the accessible route and clear ground spaces. • The fi eld test procedures to assess the surface for impact aƩ enuaƟ on and accessibility upon iniƟ al installaƟ on and periodically through the life of the product. This should include selecƟ on of an independent tesƟ ng agent and opƟ mum values for ASTM F1292-99/04 and ASTM F1951-99 when fi eld tested. • A minimum 5-year warranty that sƟ pulates compliance with ASTM F1292-99/04 and ASTM F1951-99, fi eld tesƟ ng strategy, limitaƟ ons, exclusions or precondiƟ ons, remedies available to the playground owner, and process for making a claim. The playground owner should also ask the manufacturer for a list of customers in the area that have installed the surface material in the last 5-10 years. The planning team should talk to those customers and visit older installaƟ ons to fi nd out what issues may have come up with installaƟ on and maintenance. 14 If the surface system is to be installed by a contractor, those customer sites should also be visited to view the contractor’s experƟ se and craŌ smanship. It is important to visit older installaƟ ons to see how the product has aged and what maintenance issues may have arisen over Ɵ me. The chart provided on pages 8-9 describes the playground surfaces included in the NCA surface study: poured in place rubber, rubber Ɵ les, engineered wood fi ber and hybrid systems. Other surface materials such as sand, pea gravel and shredded rubber have been used in playground construcƟ on. However, if used as part of the ground level accessible route, these surface materials must meet the accessibility standards, including the referenced ASTM standards. Many manufacturers conƟ nue to use technology and research to develop new and improved surface systems. The planning team should be on the lookout for new innovaƟ ons, but at the same Ɵ me ask quesƟ ons and visit site installaƟ ons. This inquiry will give the decision makers a greater understanding of what to expect from diff erent products over the lifespan of the playground.

6 Proper InstallaƟ on of Playground Surface is Key for Long Term Use and Maintenance An accessible surface system can be rendered useless if it is not properly installed. InstallaƟ on of surface systems should be performed by individuals knowledgeable of the accessibility standards and with experƟ se working with the surface materials. Surface materials/systems can be installed by both contractors and the playground owner’s maintenance staff . Some manufacturers require contractors/installers to have special training and/or cerƟ fi caƟ on. Poured in place rubber (PIP) is almost exclusively installed by contractors specializing in the surface material. Some playground owners believe the intensive installaƟ on requirements for PIP, from mixing the binder to troweling the material level, are best completed by contractors experienced with the surface material. On the other end of the spectrum, engineered wood fi ber (EWF) is most frequently installed by park maintenance crews and perceived as relaƟ vely easy compared to other surface materials. Somewhere in the middle, Ɵ le (TIL) and hybrid systems (HYB) are known to be installed by both contractors and park maintenance personnel. There is a percepƟ on among playground owners that installaƟ on of surface systems by their own park crew will produce cost savings for the agency. However, there is a learning curve with the installaƟ on process that can prove to be challenging. During the NCA surface study, a playground owner selected a surface based on the percepƟ on it would be easy for park crews to install. The fi rst installaƟ on was perceived as so diffi cult for the park maintenance crew that any cost savings was miƟ gated by the lengthy learning process. By the Ɵ me the playground owner had installed its fourth playground with TIL, the agency had decided to transiƟ on to a diff erent surface. On the contrary, another playground owner that contracted the installaƟ on to a preferred manufacturer’s installer was very pleased. Intensive installaƟ on may mean the contractor is the only one able to make repairs such as those due to vandalism or patches at locaƟ ons where equipment may have been removed. The costs for return repairs or patches can be dependent upon whether the project is covered under the warranty. CriƟ cal details must be communicated between the design and construcƟ on phases, regardless of whether the installaƟ on is by contractor or park/facility personnel. Site plans and construcƟ on drawings should provide details like maximum running slopes and cross slopes, beveled edges, transiƟ ons, adjoining seams and affi xing the surface material to the border. PreparaƟ on of the base and sub-surfaces should be explained. Lack of aƩ enƟ on to drainage or omission of weed barriers between layers can lead to sub-surfaces being washed away, base layers infi ltraƟ ng top layers, and excessive moisture contribuƟ ng to the growth of mold and vegetaƟ on. All of these issues can aff ect the usability, the safety and the accessibility of the playground surface. Accessibility defi ciencies arising out of installaƟ on were associated with all of the surfaces in the NCA study. 15 The playground site has been graded with earth-moving equipment. The concrete base has been prepared and is awaiƟ ng the applicaƟ on of the poured-in-place rubber (PIP) system. At this site, the playground equipment and surface system will be installed by a contractor specializing in playground construcƟ on. The base layer of crumb rubber has been installed. The top layer, a rubber mat system, is fi t around equipment and the seams are joined. Both the equipment and surface system at this site will be installed by the park maintenance crew.

16 Poured in Place Rubber (PIP) Accessibility defi ciencies at PIP sites were commonly found in areas where the granules from the top layer had started fl aking off . This fl aking condiƟ on has been linked to either inadequate raƟ o of bonding agent to granules when mixed on site; and/or failure of the bonding agent to properly cure when installed at 40 degrees Fahrenheit and falling. The manufacturer installaƟ on instrucƟ ons show the preferred atmospheric temperature for installaƟ on to be 40 degrees Fahrenheit and rising. LeŌ unaƩ ended over Ɵ me, areas where the top granular layer has fl aked away can lead to non-compliant clear ground space at play equipment such as swings, transfer systems and the egress of slides. Defi ciencies related to installaƟ on methods may not become evident for months or even years. Thus, it is necessary for the playground owner to prepare for these situaƟ ons prior to purchase through the terms of the warranty and/or specifi ed funds for maintenance. Tiles (TIL) The NCA study idenƟ fi ed accessibility defi ciencies with TIL most oŌ en related to puncture holes ranging from .50 inches to more than 2 inches in diameter and locaƟ ons where the seams had started to shiŌ or buckle creaƟ ng openings and changes in level along the accessible route. The puncture holes may be products of intenƟ onal vandalism or unintenƟ onal damage from users stepping on rocks and other foreign objects with enough force to penetrate the surface. Loose parƟ cles are also known for lodging in the TIL seams causing separaƟ on at the seams. LeŌ unaƩ ended, the parƟ cles can lodge so deep in the seams that the adhesive can degrade and the TIL can separate from the concrete subsurface. As the product conƟ nues to age, instances of cracking have been idenƟ fi ed where either the subsurface or structural integrity of the surface product is compromised. Because TIL are made from rubber product, the surface should conƟ nue to be monitored throughout its life cycle for its ability to meet the impact aƩ enuaƟ on requirements of ASTM F1292. Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) Sites installed with EWF were found to have the highest number of accessibility defi ciencies within the fi rst year of installaƟ on. Because EWF is a loose fi ll surface, it is frequently observed with accessibility defi ciencies related to running slope, cross slope and change in level. EWF has been observed with undulaƟ on across the horizon of the surface area. The undulaƟ ng surface material creates changes in level, running and cross slopes exceeding the maximum allowable standards resulƟ ng in noncompliant accessible routes to play components. It is criƟ cal for the manufacturer/supplier and the playground owner to communicate the process for installaƟ on. In most instances it is necessary for the loose material to be installed in layers, watered and compacted in order to achieve an accessible route and level clear ground space at equipment. Some playground owners consider the installaƟ on of EWF as an opportunity to use volunteers to assist in compacƟ on by running drum roller teams across the surface area. Hybrid Surface Systems (HYB) Two of the three diff erent types of HYB systems (outdoor carpet and arƟ fi cial grass) were installed by contractors represenƟ ng the manufacturers. These surface systems required installers experienced with laying the sub-surface, adjoining seams, and affi xing the surface material to the border. SeparaƟ on at the seams appeared to be the most prevalent concern following installaƟ on. Repairs to seams must be made by the contractor and costs are dependent upon the terms of the product warranty.

7 Commitment to Ongoing Care and Maintenance Maintenance is one of the greatest factors aff ecƟ ng the accessibility of playground surfaces. The accessibility standards require ground surfaces to be inspected and maintained regularly and frequently to ensure conƟ nued compliance with ASTM F1951-99. Therefore playground owners should have a thorough understanding of the care and maintenance required for their selected surface systems. Some surface materials may only require seasonal maintenance, while others may require weekly or daily maintenance. The frequency of maintenance is dependent on the surface material and number of users. The NCA surface study showed there was a lack of installaƟ on/ maintenance informaƟ on provided by the manufacturer to the playground owner prior to purchase and there was a steep learning curve related to working with various surface systems. Each of the 16 parƟ cipaƟ ng municipaliƟ es had maintenance personnel trained through either the NaƟ onal RecreaƟ on and Park AssociaƟ on’s CerƟ fi ed Playground Safety Inspector program or the Illinois Park District Risk Management AssociaƟ on (PDRMA). The parƟ cipaƟ ng agencies recognized maintenance as a criƟ cal need in order to provide a safe environment for the public to recreate. All of the municipaliƟ es had “playground crews” responsible for visiƟ ng each playground site, making visual inspecƟ on of the area, collecƟ ng trash, and compleƟ ng repairs as needed. The playground crews ranged in number from 1-3 staff , usually with one full-Ɵ me employee and 2-3 seasonal staff during the summer months. At least 30 minutes was spent on site. However, the frequency of visits to each site varied among the diff erent agencies. Large playgrounds at regional parks and sites where programming occurred were most oŌ en visited. Some were visited daily during peak summer months. Smaller neighborhood parks may have been visited 1-3 Ɵ mes per week or two Ɵ mes per month. Surface defi ciencies were found to exist at each site regardless of the frequency of visits by the playground crew. Maintenance crews should receive training both on the accessibility standards and the care specifi c to the surface material. Over the course of the longitudinal study, the research team found that where the playground crews became more engaged in the study, the maintenance specifi c to accessibility began to improve. At least three EWF sites had improved accessibility where the surface material was observed as more level and beƩ er compacted than previous site visits. One site uƟ lizing PIP as the primary access route and EWF as the secondary access route was assessed with less than 1 percent slope at the transiƟ on between the two surface materials. This was observed as the most improved and maintained transiƟ on between surface materials of the sample. Over Ɵ me, the unitary surface may separate at the seams or from the border creaƟ ng gaps, openings or changes in level that will require repair. Loose fi ll materials, like EWF, may experience undulaƟ on of the surface material and or displacement under heavy use areas with moƟ on such as at swings, slides, sliding pools, climbers, spinners and teeter toƩ ers. This will require the surface material to be raked level, fi lled and compacted so that the clear ground space is level in all direcƟ ons for a safe transfer onto and off the equipment. 17

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTkzMzk=