E E
FR
D E M R O F N I -STAY E B I R C S B -SU
- Magazine Issue Notifications Emailed Quarterly - Latest Play and Playground News Sent to Your Inbox Weekly
Are you a
PLAYGROUND PROFESSIONAL? playgroundprofessionals.com/subscribe
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 3
Contents
Play and Playground Magazine | Volume 15 No. 3 | Fall 2015
8
Features
Playground Surfacing
8
Solution or Mistake? By Jay Beckwith
Playground Surfacing Standards
12
Then and Now: A Report from ASTM By George Sushinsky
IPEMA Continues To Expand Its Surfacing Certification Program
14 Photo courtesy of Jay Beckwith
12
Playground Surfacing Requirements and Injury Reduction
16
Too much or too little? By Kenneth S. Kutska
20
Selecting Your Playground Surface By Rolf Huber
26
Accessibility, R & D
Could Hybrid Surface Systems be the New Option for Accessible Playground Surfaces? By Jennifer Skulski, CPSI
Photo courtesy of Pro-Tect TurfTM
16
DEPARTMENTS 5 7
CPSI Course Calendar PGPedia: Head Injury Criteria | Impact Attenuation
Cover photo: Summer - on a children's city playground, circa 1926. Library of Congress. Playground equipment and safety surfacing has come a long way! Courtesy of No Fault Sport Group 4 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
CPSI Course
Calendar September 23-25
Leesburg, VA
804-730-9447
28-30
San Diego, CA
916-665-2777
28-30
Griffin, GA
770-760-1403
29-01
Dublin, OH
614-895-2222
October 5-7
Missoula, MT
406-552-6252
14-15
Okemos, MI
517-485-9888
20-22
Torrance, CA
916-665-2777
20-22
Midlothian, IL
708-588-2287
20-22
Saratoga Springs, NY
518-584-0321
21-23
Jackson, NJ
609-356-0480
28-30
San Antonio, TX
512-267-5550
November 2-4
Farmington, NM
505-599-1402
4-6
Lexington, SC
803-808-7753
4-6
North Salt Lake, UT
801-782-5512
10-12
North Kansas City, MO
573-636-3828
17-19
Everett, WA
888-459-0009
18-20
Largo, FL
850-878-3221
18-20
South Portland, ME
207-767-7650
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 5
Curtis Stoddard - Publisher Magazine Publisher Curtis Stoddard
Editor Rita Watts
Advertising Director Tate Schuldies
Design Jake Amen
Accounting Evelyn Coolidge Webmaster Jake Amen
Contributing Authors Jay Beckwith Rolf Huber Jennifer Skulski Kenneth S. Kutska George Sushinsky
Copyright, 2015 published by Playground Professionals, LLC, 4 issues per year, sub rates, back copies, foreign, reproduction prohibitions, all rights reserved, not responsible for content of ads and submitted materials, mail permits.
Surfacing... PLAYGROUND SURFACING is a complex subject. It is the most misunderstood and controversial issue for playground designers and owners concerning play environments today. As a playground contractor, I have installed dozens of types and brands of playground surfacing. I am very familiar with loose-fill and unitary surfaces, and I like them all for their own strengths, but they also have their own limitations. Even with my vast experience, each playground project has required research and understanding of more details than just pricing and accessibility. Product longevity, adaptation to local climate, maintenance (or lack of maintenance), local flavor and opinion, drainage, and topography should all be included in a decision on what surfacing will be placed in a play area. Hard stable surfaces and impact attenuation surfacing attributes are at odds with each other. Accessibility demands hard surfaces to navigate the play area; safety from falls requires shock-absorbing materials to minimize the potential of injuries. Even if they weren’t at odds, it is not as simple as if 2 inches of rubber is good, 4 inches should be twice as good; or if 12 inches of engineered wood fiber is good, 24 inches should be great. And there is not a “one size fits all” solution to playground surfacing, since each play area has its own needs and designs. This issue of Play and Playground Magazine examines the history of surfacing products used on playgrounds and how they have developed through the years. Natural turf to synthetic turf, wood chips to rubber chips, and rubber mats to poured-in-place surfacing are all investigated. Since the early 1970s, the push for safety has brought us many choices of products, and each has its strong points. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and ASTM International (ASTM) have both worked through the years on developing standards and guidelines for using various surfacing products. These standards continue to be reworked, and they have become quite controversial. Safety is the important consideration, but the high cost of changing surfacing to meet new standards causes many to question the feasibility of making the standards more stringent. A clear description of how ASTM International works in its development of surfacing standards is outlined in this issue of Play and Playground Magazine. The International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association (IPEMA) has also approved a new certification program for surfacing manufacturers, which allows manufacturers to have their products validated to show that they meet the ASTM standards. This furthers IPEMA’s commitment to playground safety and aids consumers with the assurance that the playground surfacing they have chosen meets current standards and fits their needs. Since the advent of the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, playground designers have been faced with the issue of accessibility, which has greatly impacted the use of playground surfacing. Making accessibility and impact attenuation work together is a dilemma. With this surfacing issue and our last issue on accessibility, Play and Playground Magazine has tried to provide a great place to start to understand the complex subject of choosing playground surfacing.
CORPORATE OFFICE Playground Professionals LLC P.O. Box 807 Ashton, Idaho 83420
www.playgroundprofessionals.com
6 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
From the Play and Playground Encyclopedia playgroundprofessionals.com/encyclopedia/h/head-injury-criteria playgroundprofessionals.com/encyclopedia/i/impact-attenuation
Head Injury Criteria
Head Injury Criteria is a measurement of the time duration of head deceleration during impact. A mathematical formula is used to derive a value known as Head Injury Criteria or HIC. The value of HIC with regard to the impact on a playground surface may not be more than 1000. 1 This concept is important because head injuries are the most serious type of playground injuries. They are most frequently caused by a fall to the surface. Most recorded playground fall-related deaths involved head injury. 2 Children under the age of 4 are the most likely to suffer head injuries. 3 The testing for HIC on playground surfaces is done by using a Triax 2000 surface testing instrument. The Triax measures both the force of impact and the duration of deceleration during impact to be sure that the surface material being tested meets the specifications for impact attenuation of playground surfacing found in the ASTM F1292 standard, “Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment.” The specifications are that to reduce the severity of head injury, the force of the impact must be less than 200 g’s and the time of deceleration must be less than 1000. 4 The relationship between the impact magnitude and the risk of head injury is based on research done for automotive and aircraft safety. 5 Surfaces such as grass, dirt, and asphalt do not have impact absorbing characteristics and are not considered safe for playground use. Engineered wood fiber, shredded rubber, poured in place rubber, and rubber mats are considered safe surfaces if they are the proper depth in relation to the height of the play equipment. Manufacturers of compliant playground surfacing can provide certification that the depth of the surface recommended for playground use is appropriate for a particular playground installation.
Impact Attenuation
Impact attenuation of playground surfacing material is the measure of its shock absorbing properties. The shock absorbing properties are measured by dropping an instrumented metal headform onto the surface and recording the force of impact and the time of deceleration. The specifications for impact attenuation are found in ASTM International Standard F1292, “Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment.” 1 The purpose of the specification is to reduce the likelihood of life threatening head injuries. Head injuries are the most serious type of playground injuries. They are the most frequent cause of death from playground fall-related injuries. 2 The instrument used to measure impact attenuation is called a Triax 2000. An instrumented headform, simulating a child’s head, is dropped from various heights. The readings from the instrument allow the person conducting the test to determine the critical height of the surface material. Critical height is defined as “…the fall height below which a life threatening head injury would not be expected to occur.” 3 The testing for impact attenuation is usually done in a laboratory situation. Footnotes
1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) publication 325-97, “Handbook for Public Playground Safety,” Section 4.1, pp. 3-4. 2 Tinsworth, Deborah K. and Joyce E. McDonald. “Special Study: Injuries and Deaths Associated with Children’s Playground Equipment.” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. p. 25. 3 National Safe Kids Campaign (NSKC), “Playground Injury Fact Sheet.” Washington (DC): NSKC, 2004. 4 Skulski, Jennifer K. “City of Detroit Sets Strict Specs to Ensure New Playground Surfaces are Safe and Accessible.” < http://www.ncaonline. org/making-the-grade/detroit.shtml > 9 April 2012. 5 ASTM International (ASTM) Standard F 129209, “Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment,” Appendix X1, p. 16.
The Play and Playground Encyclopedia playgroundprofessionals.com/encyclopedia www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Manufacturers submit samples of surfacing materials in various depths for testing. The test results are provided to surfacing customers who can then make an informed decision about the depth needed of their selected surfacing material, compared to the fall height of their play equipment, to be sure the surface has an appropriate critical height rating for the specific situation. Fall height is defined as “…the vertical distance between a designated play surface and the playground surface beneath it.” 4 In some cases, impact attenuation testing can be done in the field. The Triax 2000 instrument is available for purchase so individuals or businesses can do field testing. Owners of older playgrounds who want to know whether the surface still maintains its necessary critical height rating have had field testing done. Playground bids often require field testing before first use. Footnotes
1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), “Public Playground Safety Handbook, 2010, Section 2.4, p. 8. 2 ASTM International (ASTM), “Standard F 1292-09, “Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment,Introduction, p. 1. 3 Op. cit., CPSC, Section 2.4, p. 8. 4 Op. cit., ASTM F1292-09, Terminology, 3.1.3, p. 2.
Research over 630 listings of play and playground related companies, organizations, events, books, magazines, safety, people and blogs. FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 7
Photo courtesy of Surface America
Playground Surfacing
Solution or Mistake? by Jay Beckwith
THERE ARE MANY WAYS to think about playground surfacing. Is it accessible and safe, does it drain, what does it cost? How does it affect those who use the playground? Can we imagine what the future holds for playground design and surfacing needs? How did our current surfacing solutions evolve?
Sand The changes to landing surfaces over the past several decades have drastically transformed what can be expected from a playground. By the ួ70s most playgrounds had replaced dirt or asphalt with sand. The logic was that injuries from falls were reduced and the sand was a great play material. The first big change was brought about by the published safety guidelines by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and later by standards developed by the ASTM International (ASTM). The CPSC correctly pointed out that some 80% of injuries, and as many as 95% of serious injuries, were fall-related. This appeared at the time like an easy fix, but it turned out to be full of extremely difficult issues, and the solutions had some unfortunate unintended consequences. For example, CPSC gave recommendations for surfacing that showed that sand was not sufficiently fall attenuating. This guidance resulted in the wholesale removal of sand from playgrounds but was based on faulty data. First, the experimental apparatus used a sand containment box that was too small and the edges prevented the sand from displacing and lowering the test scores.
Secondly, the tests did not consider the shape of the sand particle. Much later tests using round particle sand found that this material is an adequate landing surface.
Rubber and wood chips With sand removed as an option, designers were left with rubber and wood chips. In this early phase there were two main options for rubber surfacing: mats and poured-in-place (PIP). Neither of these options was particularly appealing. Leaving aside the issue of cost, the interlocking mats tended to have problems with surface regularity and with corners and edges curling up. The early PIP had problems with installation quality. Recognizing these issues, the ASTM developed performance and testing standards to ensure consistent functioning. The upshot of these early experiences was that wood chips became the surfacing of choice. Problem solved. Well, not so fast. Turns out that wood chips are not accessible. Now what to do? The solution was Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) largely developed by Robert Heath. His Fibar product solved the access issue by fracturing the wood into long fibers, which then knit together making a firm and stable surface. Problem solved? Once again not quite solved as the early material was extremely sharp and there were a lot of complaints about splinters. After a decade and more of real life experience and a lot of work on the part of the industry, these early teething problems have largely been solved. But that is not the point by recounting this short history. In
8 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
hindsight, was the standards process the best that could be done? Was it a smart thing to require new landing surfacing on all playgrounds across the nation without some form of real world testing? What about efficacy? To this day there is no experimental or statistical evidence that adding EWF or PIP actually reduces injuries. It was known, or should have been known, that human behavior is complex, especially when it comes to play and playgrounds. There were, at the time of these changes, risk management studies that tended to support the notion that when things are made safer, children often tend to behave badly because they have a natural tendency to think that nothing will go wrong for them; that safety measures are for the other kid.
Have surfacing standards reduced injuries? It would not have been difficult to set up a test, but arrogant thinking that designers know best led to this glorious social experiment at tremendous cost. What could go wrong? What has gone wrong is that the predicted reduction in accidents has not materialized. Why? It actually is not known. Some think that rubber surfacing, while perhaps good at preventing head injuries, actually increases long bone injuries. Others feel that kids will always play up to the point of pain, and soft surfaces just encourage high-risk behavior. These folks cite the low incidence of injury on skateboard parks in which kids often fall as evidence of this human tendency. www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Undaunted by the failure of their expensive experiment and the total lack of an understanding of the human factors involved with playground injuries, the ASTM surfacing committee recently tried to make the surfacing standard even more stringent and require even more performance testing. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, but the issue may rise again. Yes, playgrounds are safer despite the lack of hard evidence. Yes, good surfacing options are available nowadays. But would designers do the same things the same way again? Probably not. Why then should they continue down the same path? Perhaps there can be a different approach to playground design and safety, one without unintended consequences, one more suited to the times.
Do million dollar playgrounds make sense? A recent article in the Washington Post bore the shocking headline: The cost of play tops $1 million for some local playgrounds. It is not a secret that playground design and construction costs have been steadily escalating over the past couple of decades, driven primarily by safety and access requirements. How did simple play become a million dollar investment? In the early days of the industrial revolution both parents often worked. If kids were too young to work in the factories, they played in the streets, which interrupted traffic. The solution was to create a place where children could exercise in
There is a huge difference between Playgrounds and Play! A: Playgrounds
B: Play
Play on
Play with
Maintenance free
Messy
Fixed
Flow
Entertaining
Engaging
Safe
Challenging
Expensive
Free
Created by adults
Created by players
Manufactured
Emergent
Age appropriate
Inappropriate
Play in the streets became exercise on the playground. Photos courtesy of Library of Congress. www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
a healthy way. The literature from those early years makes it clear one of the prime motives behind the creation of the first playgrounds was to control the “street urchins” and actually to put a stop to play. With the best intentions, designers think they are doing a “good thing” when they dedicate the space, money, and time to creating playgrounds, and to some extent, this is true. But all too often playground design is all from Column A with very little from Column B. (See above.)
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 9
What is the greatest design criterion for most playgrounds? Ask yourself, what is the single greatest design criterion for playgrounds, the test that must be met above all else? Play value? Safety? Cost? None of the above. The first and foremost design benchmark for most playgrounds is “maintenance free.” Nowhere is the issue of maintenance more prominent then when considering landing surfaces. As the million dollar playgrounds become more the norm, it is not surprising that so too does the installation of edge-to-edge PIP rubber surfacing. In other words, if cost is not a determining factor, then maintenance-free design rules the day. Playgrounds can and should be spaces for living creatures, i.e. children. They can even be places that are primarily drawn from Column B. The difference is that instead of a million-dollar investment, such play-focused spaces can cost a fraction of that, but may also have the on-going expense for play leaders and frequent maintenance. As many good exam-
ples have demonstrated, such softer spaces do not have to look like funky adventure playgrounds, not that there is anything wrong with that. Adventure playgrounds represent an extreme example of a Column B playspace. But if playground owners are willing to make million-dollar investments, why not make playspaces that combine the best qualities from both points of view? The photo below is from the Children’s Museum of Sonoma County. This water feature is just one of the many hands-on playspaces within the museum. While this example is likely to be both more expensive and more maintenance intensive than what many park departments can support, the experience gained in this installation and in similar children’s museums across the country will begin to develop a body of knowledge that can be transferred to public parks.
The environmental case The predominate trend in city planning these days is to include climate change in the discussion. Whether you
personally agree that climate change is real, the fact is that this trend will not go away, and the park and recreation professional would be well advised to align with this new direction. The choice of surfacing materials is a case in point. On one hand, it’s great to be able to repurpose automobile tires and keep them out of the solid waste flow, at least for a decade or more. A short-term fix at best, it should not be thought that rubber playground surfaces are a solution to this pernicious solid waste.
Loose-fill rubber A surfacing option not previously mentioned is loose-fill rubber nuggets. This is a strange beast. On one hand, when installed in sufficient depth, it has the best fall attenuating performance. On the other hand, it requires frequent releveling. There are also concerns about ingesting pieces and inhaling rubber dust as well as the potential fire hazard. EWF is obviously a better environmental choice than rubber. There has been an on-going debate about using recycled
Courtesy of Children's Museum of Sonoma County 10 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
lumber versus virgin timber. Recycling should be the best choice, provided that all contaminants such as nails, paint, and chemicals have been thoroughly removed. This is a labor-intensive task that increases the cost but reduces deforestation. There are EWF products that are actually using some of the millions of dead trees killed by the bark beetle infestations brought on by climate change. How ironic is that?
How will climate change affect the design of playgrounds? In the not too distant future, the standard for housing and community design will change drastically. We will see an end to McMansions and the rise of Micro-homes. The indicators are already out there in the popularity of Tiny Houses and Eco-villages. We will see the end of the backyard swimming pool and an increase in community pools. As homes become smaller, people spend much more time in common spaces, and these will have leisure components that are likely to fall under the parks and recreation jurisdiction. These new “commons” will be more akin to European village spaces and a distinct change from most current public spaces. What this discussion is intended to stimulate is to ask, if the budget for the typical destination playground is now close to a million dollars, does the way they are currently designed make sense? If it is true that common spaces will become increasingly important, then adequate budgets are certainly appropriate. But with significantly increased population density, does a playspace that is populated with metal and plastic furniture with wall-to-wall rubber make sense in human terms? As the public becomes increasing aware of the impact on the planet of the use of materials and energy, will the intensely manufactured playground paradigm of today match the sensibilities of tomorrow?
Can playgrounds be designed to last 100 years? Also, consider that it is now common practice to either replace or significantly upgrade playgrounds every 20 years or less. This pattern of rapid obsolescence will change as well. Why? As the community comes to use their public spaces more intensely, they will also come to value them more and more. The future will be so full of rapid change that there will be resistance www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
to uproot those places where the public has deep emotional bonds. That means designers should be designing play areas that will last a hundred years or more. The term “sustainable” is overused, but it is the right term to use here. Future playspaces must be alive, able to self-repair, accepting of intense use, and be filled with fundamental and enduring pleasures. The relationship between the public and the common space will change from a consumer to that of a mentorship. The community will be directly involved, nurturing the space and giving it a sense of place. The function of playgrounds is to provide a place where children come to grow, gain skills, find friends, and become confident in themselves and their community. As playgrounds serve multiple generations, they will increasingly become a point of shared interest within the community. They will become the heart of the community for everyone, not just a service for those families with young kids. What will a playspace designed to last 100+ years look like? Perhaps designers should look around for spaces that have such longevity and learn from those. What an exciting challenge!
PLAYGROUND PROFESSIONALS
Jay Beckwith
• Began designing play environments in 1970. • Has written several books on designing and building play equipment. • Is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector. • Has written publications and developed programs for playground safety. • Has consulted with playground manufacturers in their design process. • Writes a blog at playgroundguru.org. • Completed a comprehensive upgrade of the Gymboree Play and Music apparatus. • Currently developing location based mobile games with the goal of using smartphones in outdoor play. Read More at
playgroundprofessionals.com
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 11
Playground Surfacing Standards Then and Now: A Report from ASTM by George Sushinsky - Chairman of F08.63 Subcommittee
critical fall height (CFH): a measure of the impact attenuation performance of a playground surface or surfacing materials; defined as the highest theoretical drop height from which a surface meets the specified impact attenuation performance criterion. The critical fall height approximates the maximum fall height from which a life-threatening head injury would not be expected to occur.
WHEN I WAS A CHILD, the memorable parts of my playground were the tall metal slide, the bank of metal swings, and the metal climbing structure. These were set on a surface of asphalt. The ball field next to the play area was also asphalt. I bear the scar of falling to that surface to this day with a repaired chipped front tooth. Today that equipment and surface would be universally condemned as unsafe. Dr. Joe Frost, in his article titled “History of Playground Safety in America” (Children’s Environments Quarterly, Vol.2 No.4 (winter), 1988), traces the progress in playground design from the early 1930s to the 1980s. According to this report, efforts by the National Recreation Association and other recreation leaders in the 1930s resulted in a list of the desirable qualities of a play surface: “resilience, good drainage, dust-free, durability, nonabrasiveness, cleanliness, firmness, smoothness, utility, reasonable cost, and good appearance.” My asphalt playground
was a result of that work that recognized that asphalt was more resilient than concrete and easier to maintain than other surfaces. In 1974, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) granted a petition from Elayne Butwinick that requested a standard for playground equipment. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) convened a committee and submitted a draft standard to CPSC in May 1976. The draft had a section on surfacing with impact attenuation data on 13 materials. The tests, conducted by the Franklin Institute Research Laboratories in Philadelphia, followed the test procedures of a standard from the American Society for Testing and Materials, now called ASTM International (ASTM), for measuring impact attenuation of playing surfaces, ASTM F355-72. An “average” deceleration was measured for drops of a missile from various heights onto each surface. Their recommended average for a safe surface was 50 g's. CPSC recommended additional research on surfacing, and in 1977 issued a contract to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to develop a method to measure impact attenuation. The NBS work resulted in a recommendation to use an instrumented ANSI “C-size” metal headform dropped on a surface with the resulting deceleration measured. NBS also recommended that “peak” acceleration (G-max) rather than “average” deceleration be used as the criterion. The recommended criterion for an acceptable surface was a G-max of no more than 200. CPSC eventually terminated the effort to develop a mandatory playground standard and instead issued reports based on the NBS work as a two volume handbook in 1981. Volume II contained the technical recommendations for playground equipment and surfacing under and around that equipment. Surfacing was to be resilient and shock-absorbing, and
12 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
CPSC recommended the test and criterion from the NBS work. The NBS test used the basic procedures specified in ASTM F355-72. In 1986, ASTM established a subcommittee to specifically address impact attenuation of playground surfacing in a voluntary standard. At the same time, CPSC continued its work on surfacing impact. The CPSC published a Technical Information Guide in 1990 that showed critical fall heights of seven materials. In this guide, the specified impact criterion included a G-max no greater than 200 and another measure, the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) not to exceed 1000. HIC, was a measure used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It was believed to better predict the threshold for serious head injury, because it took into account the duration of the impact. HIC is calculated from the G-time deceleration data. The ASTM subcommittee, ASTM F08.63, after a series of tests on various playground surfaces, published its first standard in 1991. The standard, ASTM F1292-91, adopted the NBS test using the ANSI C headform and a G-max criterion of 200. In 1993, the ASTM subcommittee revised the standard to include the CPSC recommended HIC criterion. Today ASTM F08.63 has developed five standards dealing with playground surfacing: 1. F1292 Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials Within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment This specification establishes minimum performance requirements for the impact attenuation of playground surfacing materials installed within the use zone of playground equipment. 2. F1951 Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
This specification is a performance standard to determine the suitability of surfacing for persons with disabilities. 3. F2075 Specification for Engineered Wood Fiber for Use as a Playground Safety Surface Under and Around Playground Equipment This specification describes the technical requirements for engineered wood fiber. There are a number of tests performed on the subject material for particle size and distribution, heavy metals, and tramp metal, and sieve analysis. 4. F2479 Guide for Specification, Purchase, Installation and Maintenance of Poured-In-Place Playground Surfacing This guide covers standards for selecting and specifying surface systems under and around playground equipment. This guide describes how to apply existing ASTM standards to evaluate the impact attenuation, accessibility characteristics, and product characteristics when selecting surfacing systems for use under and around playground equipment. 5. F3012 Standard Specification for Loose-Fill Rubber for Use as a Playground Safety Surface under and around Playground Equipment
This standard defines the technical requirements for loose-fill rubber mulch used in and around playground equipment including performance requirements for size, hazardous metal content, tramp metal content, sharp metal content, and lead content. The standards are updated regularly with a requirement that a standard be revised or reaffirmed or dropped every five years. ASTM F1292 is the core standard of the subcommittee and has been updated over the years to include a field test, an instrumented free-fall test device, and the use of a hemispherical headform that replaces the ANSI C headform. The subcommittee on playground surfacing standards, ASTM F08.63, meets twice a year at the ASTM F08 Main Committee meeting. Our current efforts are aimed at revising the F1292 standard back into its basic form as a laboratory test to certify materials and to move the field test procedures to a separate, stand-alone standard. We also have a current ballot for a new standard for Rubber Poured-InPlace Playground Safety Surfacing Under and Around Playground Equipment. A new effort is underway to develop the requirements for indoor surfacing. The subcommittee currently consists
of a 164 members representing producers and general interest/consumers. The mix of people often leads to some contentious efforts to develop or change standards. Recently, the subcommittee was stymied in its efforts to ballot a change in the HIC requirement of F1292. More recent work by NHTSA shows that a HIC of 1000 may have as much as a 14 percent risk of death and serious head injury. Much medical literature also advocates the reduction in HIC below 1000. The subcommitteeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s effort to effect a change from 1000 to 700 was halted, at least for the moment, by the request for data correlating injury mechanism to surface properties. In the past, an effort to develop a portable test for determining the accessibility of an installed surface was ended after repeated failure to advance the standard. One other controversial issue before the subcommittee is whether or not to mandate testing of installed surfaces. The subcommittee meets twice a year as part of the ASTM F08 Main Committee meeting. Our next meeting is in Tampa, Florida on November 19 and 20, 2015. We welcome new members, especially those willing to get in the trenches and actively participate in the hard work to develop these consensus standards.
Steve Ambriz Park - courtesy of Pro-Tect Turf www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 13
IPEMA CONTINUES TO EXPAND ITS SURFACING CERTIFICATION PROGRAM The International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association (IPEMA) Board of Directors approved a new certification program for surfacing manufacturers in February 2015. The new program will validate surfacing products to the ASTM International (ASTM) F3012-14 Standard for Loose-Fill Rubber for Use as a Playground Safety Surface under and around Playground Equipment. As the number of companies using loose-fill rubber (LFR) for installation on playgrounds increases, IPEMA’s Surfacing Certification Committee believes a system should be in place for those who manufacture this product to have it validated to the Standard. Companies seeking this certification for their products must also certify them to the ASTM F1292-13 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation
of Surface Systems under and around Playground Equipment. IPEMA President Richard Hawley said, “IPEMA continues to promote public playground safety through its certification programs. We believe having products validated to the ASTM Standards ultimately holds the manufacturer, and their products, to a higher level than those companies that do not have their products validated to the Standards. IPEMA is committed to public playground safety, and we believe validating products to the ASTM Standards is one way we can put that commitment into action.” According to IPEMA Surfacing Certification Chair, Jeff Mrakovich, “The IPEMA certification program has helped to give ‘teeth’ to current and new ASTM standards that otherwise are considered
Photo courtesy of Surface America 14 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
voluntary and are not always accepted by playground owners as necessary when it comes to purchasing surfacing products. Take for example Engineered Wood FiberEWF. Most know this product as playground mulch. Simple, right? Just grind up some wood and install it in a playground and everything will be fine. It’s not rocket science… so they say. Well, I would answer, ‘not so fast!’ Where did the raw material come from to make that product? Was it from waste wood like pallets? Could there be chemicals or tramp metals like nails in it? IPEMA’s certification programs help to answer these questions.” Those interested in certifying their products to the ASTM F3012 Standard will not be able to promote their doing so until January 2016. This delay gives companies one full year from the date of approval to have their products tested to the Standard. Beginning in January 2016, the IPEMA website will have a list of products that have successfully been validated to that Standard. In addition to the ASTM F3012 and ASTM F1292 Standards, IPEMA also validates surfacing products to the ASTM F2075 (Engineered Wood Fiber) Standard. Verification of products which have successfully been validated to these Standards can be found at the IPEMA website (www. ipema.org). Clicking on the appropriate logo (blue for F1292, green for F2075, and brown for F3012) will take participants to a search function where individuals can look for certified products. According to Mrakovich, “One of the standard test methods used to certify www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
whether that playground mulch is able to be called EWF is ASTM F2075. This test method will check for hazardous chemicals like mercury and lead as well as making sure the product is free from metals, such as nails and staples. Is it ground to the proper consistency so that the wood fibers will knit together to form a firm and stable surface for those with disabilities? F2075 checks for that too. The same can be said for the newest product certification for loose-fill rubber which certifies to ASTM F3012, a new standard recently adopted by the ASTM committee on surfacing products used on playgrounds. Tramp metals as well as hazardous chemicals have always been something playground owners have feared with this type of product. Now IPEMA has added this to their certification program, so owners can feel safe that the LFR product they purchased has been thoroughly tested for this by a third party lab and backed by a certification program second to none.“ It is extremely important to verify certified products on the IPEMA website. That is the only place where verification can occur. There are some companies that try to promote their products are IPEMAcertified when they are not, so IPEMA strongly urges those looking for certified products to verify that certification at the IPEMA website. Mrakovich stated, “By asking for IPEMA’s certification certificate for a particular product during the purchasing process, the owner can have peace of mind that at least they’ve done their best to make sure their playground is getting a product that meets current standards and will do the job that it was intended to do.”
IPEMA provides certification logos, which are different from the membership logo, to participants in the certification program(s). IPEMA members who do not participate in a certification program may not use any of the IPEMA certification logos. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPRODUCE.
ABOUT IPEMA The International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association is a non-profit, membership, trade association that represents and promotes an open market for manufacturers of playground equipment and surfacing. IPEMA represents and serves its members by providing information on key economic and governmental issues affecting the play equipment industry and promotes relationships among related organizations. IPEMA provides third-party product certification services for public play equipment and surfacing in the United States and Canada, ensuring compliance with ASTM and CSA trade standards. www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 15
Playground Surfacing
REQUIREMENTS &
INJURY REDUCTION
Too much or too little? by Kenneth S. Kutska
It is somewhat of a delicate balancing act between providing enough safety requirements to keep children from being seriously harmed while not tipping the scale away from our ability to provide more challenging risky play opportunities. In reviewing the scoping statements of various international playground equipment and surfacing standards, it appears this line is blurred. How much regulation is needed to meet the needs of children as they seek the thrill of challenge versus the unintended consequences when their developmental abilities are inadequate to assess their risk of harm? What level of consequence (severity of injury) is a fair trade-off for the developmental benefits of risky challenging play opportunities?
16 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Falls to Surface Number one cause of injury and one of four top causes of death on playgrounds
We have known since the early 1970s the number one cause of serious playground injuries requiring medical attention is falls to the surface. What frequency and severity of fall-related injuries can we live with? Most of these fall injuries result in long bone fractures, which occur far more frequently than a serious head injury. Which injury is more severe? It depends on the level of severity, which is determined by trained medical professionals using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) rating system. The causes of these fall-related injuries are many. Sometimes the child lacks the physical and cognitive abilities necessary to successfully use the equipment as intended or the child decides to use the equipment in unintended ways. The equipment may have had some design issues or it was not properly installed. Often the owner/operator does not maintain the equipment or surfacing in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and the equipment breaks or the surfacing no longer provides the minimum protection required by the standards.
What about those serious injuries that occur on playgrounds that are well maintained within the minimum requirements of the standards? Should injuries occurring on playgrounds meeting or exceeding standards’ requirements be accepted as a part of everyday life, or should there be some change in our approach to the cause and effect of falls on the playground surface? The effort to reduce the current impact attenuation thresholds set by ASTM International (ASTM) F1292 (Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surfacing Materials within the Use Zone of Playground Equipment) has been going on for a long time. Parties on both sides of the issue have done their best to bring the most current information to the attention of the F08.63 (Playground Surfacing Systems) Subcommittee members.
A look at the recent vote to change from 1000 HIC to 700 HIC
Before getting into the real issue of surfacing performance and injury reduction, let’s address a little issue related to accusations made against the ASTM International organization and its members. ASTM and the ASTM F08.63 Subcommittee are due an apology for some of the comments that have been made and/or implied on how the ASTM and their volunteer members conduct the business of developing voluntary industry standards. The following statement was written by one of the interested parties against the threshold reduction to 700 HIC (Head Injury Criterion), and is true, to some extent.
“This is a complex issue with stronglyheld views. I will continue to foster reasoned, constructive debate and share news and views, here and elsewhere, to the best of my ability – though there are challenges, not least the lack of transparency in ASTM’s decision-making. To repeat: there is no doubt that the extent of debate and opposition to ASTM’s proposal has helped to get this result.” Determining what is the appropriate impact attenuation threshold is a complex issue, but to imply the ASTM process is underhanded and non-transparent or flawed could not be further from the truth. The question still remains whether the outcome of the last ballot and the successful appeal was the correct result. Let’s start with some background information to the issue at hand.
Here are the facts on the ASTM Process
There are many Committees within the ASTM organization. There are 36 Subcommittees within the F08 (Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities) Committee. The F08.63 Subcommittee is responsible for all playground-related surfacing standards and guides. This Subcommittee currently has about 160 voting members. Once a Subcommittee ballot item has gone through the Subcommittee approval process, it must then be upheld by the Main Committee ballot. The point is there are many opportunities for the dissenting opinions on any issue to have their negative vote and rationale heard. In this instance, the ASTM International voting process was followed. A 90% affirmative vote is required to continue to move the ballot issue forward to the next step in the approval process. The results in this first ballot were overwhelmingly in favor of the change (> 9 to 1).
ASTM and the ASTM F08.63 Subcommittee are due an apology for some of the comments that have been made..." www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 17
The next step in the voting process is to address any negative votes. The few negative votes received were then reviewed by the task group. Written rationale was provided to find the negative votes nonpersuasive. The rationale for finding the negatives non-persuasive was put in the form of a motion and a ballot was voted on by the entire F08 Main Committee. The results of this ballot were again overwhelmingly in favor of the change (> 8 to 1) to reduce the HIC to 700. This step requires a super majority (> 2/3rds) affirmative vote. All ballots are then approved by the ASTM Committee on Standards (COS) before they can get published. An appeal was made to the ASTM Committee on Standards. The appeal findings had nothing to do with the merits of the change to the HIC. The issue was whether or not the Subcommittee properly handled the negative vote process. The primary issue had to do with the timeline in which supplemental information related to the ballot item was sent to the Chair and distributed electronically to all F08.63 Subcommittee members. This information was believed, by some, to support those members who voted in opposition to the proposed HIC reduction. Distribution of these materials occurred after the ballot was posted for the vote to find the negative voters’ rationale non-persuasive. By the time the documents were distributed, some ASTM members had cast their vote. Regardless of the timeline issue, the documents were sent to everyone and the voting deadline was extended. Anyone who wished to change their vote was allowed to do so. The voting results were as stated above. If these voting results had been upheld by the COS, the reduction of the HIC from 1000 to 700 would have occurred. The COS heard and upheld the appeal based on the timeline for how this new information was handled in relationship to the ballot posting and closing dates. COS thought there should have been more time allowed prior to the ballot closing date or the ballot should have been delayed. The COS ruling on this appeal required this ballot item go out to a vote once again.
Did new documents in question support no change to the 1000 HIC?
So you might ask, what was so compelling about this new information in sup-
port of the status quo of 1000 HIC? Prior to the appeal hearing and action by the ASTM COS, the information in question was presented and discussed at the ASTM F08.63 Subcommittee meeting. I was at that meeting. It was a very lively discussion. These papers were determined to be of no consequence to the matter being balloted as they did not support either lowering or leaving the HIC at 1000. Some of the so-called supporting documents were National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) findings on fall injury reports and serious head injury reports from 2001-2008. What these reports do not represent is the real number of fall-related injuries and how many of these falls resulted in serious head injuries. NEISS report analysis is a statistical sampling of a small number of pre-selected hospitals that would be representative of the demographic distribution of all Americans. So NEISS numbers are a statistical projection of injuries based on the information gathered by the NEISS participating member hospitals. The information gathered from these reported fall injuries does not give enough detailed information about the accident to assist in this surface performance debate. Some just state, “person fell to surface.” Nothing is known about the characteristics of the surface or if it was compliant. The report states the person was transported to the hospital by ambulance, treated, and released. It is not known the extent of the injury or if there was any negative impact to the injured party after that initial treatment. Very few people stay in hospitals overnight if they can be observed, cared for, and treated at home. Are these injuries serious or not? Can anyone determine how many serious head injuries are too many? Is a number really necessary? There seem to be more questions than answers. The other research document was a research paper titled, School Playground Surfacing and Arm Fractures in Children: A Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Sand to Wood Chip Surfaces (Howard, 2009). This study was based on the Toronto Public School’s experience with injury reduction. This study appeared to have too many unanswered questions to provide concrete evidence that the 1000 HIC was adequate or that the benefits of a reduction to 700 HIC were measureable and substantial enough to be worth the cost.
18 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
The study’s conclusion that 12 compressed inches of this sand is superior to 12 compressed inches of wood chips raises some additional questions about surfacing recommendation in the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Public Playground Safety Handbook..."
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Two Points of View What can we learn from the Howard Study?
Since the initial discussion on the Howard Study and after the COS appeal decision, there were two presentations made by Subcommittee members at the following May ASTM meeting in Anaheim, California. These presentations were based on the findings of the Howard Study. This research paper was about injury reduction in Toronto Public Schools. The focus was on which of two types of loose-fill surfacing material was most effective in injury reduction, primarily fractures: wood chips or granitic sand. The study concluded a higher reduction in fractures on this special granitic sand than with wood chips. The study’s conclusion that 12 compressed inches of this sand is superior to 12 compressed inches of wood chips raises some additional questions about surfacing recommendation in the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Public Playground Safety Handbook, since it still shows a 4 foot critical height for 9 inches of compacted sand. This study proves that not all sand is the same or performs equally. While depth of surface material can have an effect on performance, there is no guarantee that more depth will result in better impact-attenuating results. What the study does not discuss are the changes the school district made to their playground design guidelines prior to the study. Before the study and new school guidelines there were many very tall wooden structures that did not conform to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) requirements. New policies were put in place that in effect brought all equipment and surfacing into compliance with current CSA Standards. This resulted in a lower fall height for most play equipment. These guidelines also required that a minimum depth of at least 12 inches for granitic sand or wood chip products be installed and maintained. Again, it is important to point out these conditions did not exist prior to the study. The study conducted after the equipment and surface improvements did show a significant injury reduction, but nobody took into consideration the performance of the preexisting surfaces in the Toronto Schools or the fall height of the old play equipment that contributed to all the baseline injury data. So, what is the www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
reason or reasons for the lower incidence in fractures and other serious injuries? One Anaheim presenter secured copies of actual field drop test reports from the Toronto Public Schools. He concluded that the field test results showed excellent impact attenuation of less than 500 HIC and 100g was the reason for fewer injuries. The other presenter concluded that surfaces which are in compliance with the existing standard thresholds of 200g and 1000 HIC resulted in fewer injuries. Which conclusion is more compelling? The actual in-field drop test reports for the Toronto Public Schools demonstrate impact attenuation results were both 50% better than current threshold requirements of 1000 HIC and even 50% better than the proposed reduction to 700 HIC. There are other variables that were not taken into consideration in the Howard Study, which would add to this discussion, but that horse has already left the barn. So what else, if anything, does the study show? First, we must consider the injury reduction results are based on lower equipment fall heights along with a minimum maintained 12 inch depth of surface materials. These conditions did not exist prior to the study. Regardless, the Howard Study demonstrates a lower HIC threshold will have a measurable reduction in frequency and severity of all fall-related injuries. The study also demonstrates not all sand performs equally. This granitic sand, which is found in Ontario Canada, has superior impact-attenuating properties, primarily because it is very uniform in particle size minimizing compaction characteristics.
Concluding thoughts
In conclusion, the ASTM Committee on Standards appeal was over nothing more than the timing of the release of the information presented. The appeal argued that the late distribution of the supporting documents in support of the negative voters’ position affected the voting results. These documents ultimately were discussed at two Subcommittee meetings. The discussion did little to persuade any voters one way or the other. Using the Howard Study along with the actual on-site surfacing drop test results makes for a pretty good argument that fewer fall-related injuries, including fractures and head injuries, will occur on surfaces with impact thresholds, even
lower than the proposed 700 HIC. These results can only be realized one of two ways: lower the fall heights or improve the performance of impact-attenuating surfacing systems. These surfacing systems must also be managed by conscientious and knowledgeable staff who implement a consistent inspection and maintenance program. Moving forward, we might begin to see the real correlation between surface performance and severity of injury if actual field drop test results were taken immediately after every serious fall-related playground injury. Some are requesting this kind of data before voting to reduce HIC thresholds. For many legal reasons this is unlikely to happen. What we can do is use the best information available. The automotive industry has 50 years of experience in the area of impact injury research. Why not start with that?
PLAYGROUND PROFESSIONALS
Ken Kutska
• Executive Director of the International Playground Safety Institute. • 31 year tenure as the Director of Parks and Planning, Wheaton Park District. • Past president of the National Recreation and Park Association. • Chairs ASTM F15.29 Subcommittee for the standard addressing consumer safety performance specifications for playground equipment for public use. • Member of IPEMA’s Voice of Play Advisory Board. • Founding member of the US Play Coalition. • Co-founder of the National Playground Safety Institute. • Instructor for Clemson University’s Playground Maintenance Technician course. • Has written numerous articles and authored the book Playground Safety Is No Accident. Read More at
playgroundprofessionals.com
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 19
Pho
Selecting Your Playground Surface by Rolf Huber
THE SELECTION of a protective surface must start with its purpose and end with the material that best suits the needs of the owner/operator, the child/user, and the caregivers. This is not a question of materials and sales pitches, but of a clear understanding on the part of the owners as to what they are asking the surface to do and how that will fit with laws, regulations, and standards. There must also be the development of the budget for initial installation and the maintenance required for the functional longevity of the system. Once these performance and budget matters have been determined, sales persons have been interviewed, sales pitches read, and warranties reviewed, it must be clearly understood that sales presentations are sugar-coated, positive pictures of the products. It is
the owners’ stewardship of the tax dollars entrusted to them that makes them determine the pros and cons of each surfacing type being offered.
A Bit of History In 1974, a consumer petitioned the newly formed U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to take on the challenge of reducing the frequency and severity of injuries on playgrounds. Falls to the surface were found to be the highest percentage of the injuries back then (59%) as they are today (79%), and the cost of playground injuries has risen to $11.7 billion annually. This is important, as it is not why the child falls, although that might lead to a product recall by the CPSC, but what the child lands on and the severity of the injury sustained. The opportunity
20 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
to fall is based on the quality and design of the play structure with some offering greater or lesser challenge to the child, the height that the structure manufacturer is allowing the child to climb to, and how the child uses the playspace based on “reasonable foreseeable misuse.” Society, or its surrogate, in this case the CPSC and later ASTM International (ASTM), established at the time what the acceptable level of injury was. For playgrounds, the CPSC set the limit as life-threatening, which has been adopted and perpetuated by ASTM and other standards-writing bodies, and this quite bluntly says that the goal is to avoid having a child die. Later, the prevention of the debilitating injury was added, so now we are leaving the child with an injury that has a legacy greater than one month www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
oto courtesy of Play Matta
after the injury occurs and likely could affect him for the rest of his life. So long as it is not your child suffering this level of injury, just meeting the standards might be OK. The new problem is that in 2008 Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which requires that serious injuries rated with an Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) >3 must be prevented in all consumer products. Since playgrounds are specifically marketed to children under 12, they are consumer products and are subject to the CPSIA. This threshold is significantly more stringent than that of ASTM F1487. This level of injury prevention is at the time of installation and over the life of the playground of 15-20 years.
Accessibility came into view Although access for persons with disabilities to the built environment has been the subject of public interest for years, in 1990 this was formally recognized with the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by President George H. W. Bush. This law has evolved through rule making and standards to provide specific requirements for recreation facilities, and playgrounds have for a long time been part of these regulations. The current Department of Justice (DOJ) 2010 ADA Standards for www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Photo courtesy of Pro-Tect Turf
Accessible Design will be the governing document for playgrounds and particularly the ground level playground surface. The owner of every playground is required to meet the minimum requirements of this Standard at the time of installation, and â&#x20AC;&#x153;ground surfaces must be inspected and maintained regularly to ensure compliance with ASTM F1951.â&#x20AC;? Owners of playgrounds and surfaces in particular must know the entire document as it applies to the playground.
Specific regulations for playgrounds First to consider is section 240 that determines differences between elevated and ground level play components and the minimum numbers of each required in the playground. Remember that for the elevated play components that go to the ground, a ground level accessible route will be required, with a clear ground space for transitioning back to a mobility device and back to the starting point on
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 21
the structure. Then there is the need to provide the ground level accessible route from the outside of the playground to the start of the elevated play components and the required ground level play components. This ground level route must first and foremost be firm and stable according to section 302, and the required performance must be compliant in the field with ASTM F1951 as in 1008.206.1. To ensure that the surface is not too firm and will not injure a falling child in the use zone, the surface must also comply in the field to ASTM F1292 as per 1008.206.2 and also as a precondition to compliance with ASTM F1951. Although the title of F1951 is “determination of accessible surface systems,” there are other significant requirements for the ground level accessible route that are equally important. First, it must be a minimum of 60” wide and have a running slope not exceeding 1:16 (6.25%), and the cross-slope across or within must not exceed 1:48 (2%). At the transfer to or from the structure or play component, there must be a clear space a minimum of 48” x 30”, having a slope not greater than 1:48 (2%) in all directions. Beyond these requirements, there must be no changes in vertical height greater than ½”, with the first ¼” being vertical and the second ¼” not exceeding a slope of 1:2; no holes that allow for the insertion of a ½” sphere or a gap greater than ½” around or ½” deep; and a carpet/turf pile that cannot be higher than ½”. Finally, all of these performance characteristics must be “inspected and maintained frequently.” The MerriamWebster dictionary defines “frequently” as “frequent or short intervals.”
Early testing of injuries First and foremost, the protective surface within the use zone is to protect children from injuries considering “reasonable foreseeable misuse,” so how does that get measured and what does
Courtesy of No Fault Sport Group
it mean? Back in the 1950s and ’60s the safety concerns studied were pilots dying from ejecting from aircraft and family members dying or suffering severe head injuries from hitting the steel dashboard of cars and trucks that stopped abruptly. Experiments were performed on military personnel, sub-human primates, and cadavers, and later the automotive test dummies. These studies measured deceleration as measured in g (units of gravity) and the duration of the impact. This was first graphically described as the Wayne State Tolerance Curve (WSTC) outlining the relationship between g and duration. The next stage was converting the WSTC to the Severity Index (SI) value which the Comsis Report shows that an SI of 1000 is the median value for survival in human-simulated automobile accidents. Next the SI was modified to Head Injury Criteria (HIC), and the pass/fail value was set at 1000. This has been demonstrated as an 18% risk of skull fracture and a 16% risk of AIS >4 (severe, life-threatening with survival probable) head injury. These same studies also concluded that an impact of 200g was a 10% risk of skull fracture. The military and automotive studies required a high level of scientific sophistication and massive amounts of money. Playground surface testing is no different with the development of instrumentation that has been adopted in ASTM F355 and ASTM F1292 through long validation processes and comparisons to the original automotive Hybrid III headform. Meeting exacting electronic, mass, and dimensional requirements set out in the ASTM standards allows for comparisons to the military and automotive data. This assures the owner of the surface that the results from using the F1292 device are accurate and reproducible. This is critical to meeting Federal and State mandates and particularly important in litigation.
Practical examples of impact and outcomes An Olympic boxer punches at 53g, while a head going through a windshield in a 25 mph frontal impact in a car is 100g on the victim’s head. Alternatively, the risk of a long-bone fracture begins at 100g, and risk is two times greater for values over 200g than when it is less than 150g. These values help an owner determine the injury outcome, and this can be compared to their acceptable injury threshold for the
22 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
children in their community. When a child falls from a play structure, this is free fall and totally governed by gravity. Because gravity is a constant and velocity can be calculated, we are able to determine how fast that child is travelling at the point of impact. A fall from a swing at 8’ above the ground has a velocity of 14.5 mph; from 11’, 18 mph; at 12’, 19 mph; and at 13’, 20 mph. Those thinking that children will have the ability to protect themselves when falling should think again. Knowing that an object free falls at 32 ft/sec and realizing how quickly they will reach the ground, it is not reasonable to believe they will be able to tuck and roll, put an arm out, or throw extra padding in the way. This is why it is so important to have extra padding on a surface demonstrating lower g and HIC values long before the child falls.
Surfacing testing Typically, suppliers of surfacing must be able to provide critical height values through the performance of a three temperature test required in ASTM F1292. Remember that the critical height is the height at which the surface fails to provide values either below 200g or 1000 HIC, which results in a 10% risk of skull fracture and three times the risk of a long bone fracture on Gmax, and 20% risk of a skull fracture and 16% risk of a life-threatening head injury on HIC. In some cases, such as with Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and loose rubber, the Gmax and HIC can be significantly lowered though the addition of depth of surface at relatively low cost. Most best practices recommend loose-fill materials be installed to a minimum of 12” and more like 15” to allow for disruption to provide g and HIC values well below the minimum values set in ASTM F1292. For synthetic surfaces, such as poured-in-place (PIP), mats, and synthetic turf, providing lower values requires significantly more depth as well as cost if the supplier even has the technology to provide a better surface. As a result, from the point of view of injury prevention, you have a choice between loose fill at a relatively low cost vs. a technology that has a high capital cost and likely a significantly higher risk of injury severity. This is of particular concern as more and more challenging play structures are introduced to allow children to reach greater heights and present more challenges, with failure resulting in a fall. www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
vide the accessible route through the loose fill and meet the ADA requirements.
Synthetic surfaces
Courtesy of Rubber Smart Surface
Loose fill and ADA requirements Loose fill, EWF, and loose rubber appear to be the best solution until all of the requirements of the ADA are considered. These surfaces are not likely to comply at the time of installation, or shortly after installation, and owners fear that money will then be thrown at “frequent inspection and maintenance.” The good news is, that depending upon the design of the playspace and layout of the equipment, the minimum area of the playground that needs to meet the requirements of the ADA will be 18% to 22% of the playspace, leaving the balance to contend with injury prevention only. If the choice is EWF, the solution of maintenance reduction for EWF is installing it properly first by ensuring it meets the ASTM F2075 Standard and following the International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association (IPEMA) best practice for installation of EWF to meet ADA requirements at www.ipema.com/ news_articles/11/EWF_Mmaint_Install_ Position_Statement.pdf. For loose rubber, it must comply with ASTM F3012, but realize that this Standard does not limit the exposed wire quantity, just the length of the wire, and does not require compliance with ASTM F1951 as a precondition to the Standard. The CPSC Public Playground Safety Handbook requires that recycled tire rubber is metal free in section 3.7. Therefore, specifications should also include that no exposed wire will be allowed in the material supplied. Loose rubber would also benefit from the use of wear mats to compensate for displacement. There is also the possibility to use bonded mats to a minimum of the 60” width of the accessible route to prowww.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Synthetic surfaces would be PIP, tiles, and turf, and each will have their issues with compliance to our two main goals. Due to the cost, suppliers regularly market and install their systems at impact values 10% less or very close to the minimum requirements of the ASTM F1292 (200g, 1000 HIC). They do not field test their installations to the ASTM F1292, saying that testing is costly and unnecessary, which is questionable when you consider these are the highest cost systems available and the most likely to fail as shown in a 2007 State of California study. The ASTM F2479 outlines many of the factors that can cause failures in PIP and should be read by everyone considering a purchase. Additionally, most PIP uses aromatic MDI polyurethane binders that when exposed to UV light will lose flexibility, and the surface can fail F1292. It is for the high frequency of failure that the F2479 also recommends that owner/ operators of this type of surfacing should be writing their own warranty for the length of time they expect the surface to last. This should include continued compliance to F1292 and the ADA. This is to avoid having a surface that fails the ADA not many years after installation, placing the children at risk of more than AIS >4. You do not need the supplier telling you that the warranty is over and you are on your own. There currently are suppliers stating a 10 year warranty only to stipulate that compliance to F1292 is limited to 3 years, effectively making it a 3-year warranty, while other suppliers provide prorated warranties that have little or no value. These are critical to the stewardship of taxpayer money.
limited by their technology in meeting critical heights much above 11’. This is problematic when an owner wants to have better injury protection. Additional issues for tiles can be that they must only be installed on a bound hard base, such as concrete or asphalt, or weather and time can cause loose materials to gather around stations causing premature failures to F1292. Submersion in water, due to lack of drainage or frozen ground in the spring, can affect the polyurethane binder, causing the tiles to curl or shrink. Shrinking is a big problem in that if the gap is larger than ½”, it fails the ADA, and if dirt fills the cracks and compacts, the surface also fails ASTM F1292 and the ADA. Depending upon the manufacture of the tile, there can be a number of problems, and they will be different for each manufacturer. It would be wise for the prospective buyer to visit older sites. Potential owners of tiles should also write their own warranty terms and conditions on failures that could occur over time. Synthetic turf is relatively new to the playground scene, and the durability and impact attenuation issues are just starting to emerge. Many of these systems have foam systems as an impact-attenuating underlay and secondary attenuation with rubber infill in the upper layer. The problem is that foot traffic and scuffing will move the loose rubber, exposing more than ½” of carpet pile, failing the ADA. The loss of loose rubber causes a reduction of the resilience and potentially causes failing ASTM F1292 and the ADA again. Other problems will occur at the perimeter of the playground where the change in vertical height is greater than ¼”, as it is difficult to terminate the turf with that precision, again failing the ADA.
Problems with synthetic surfacing Although ASTM has no standard for tiles or synthetic turf in playgrounds, this does not mean they are without problems. Generally, they have the same problems with cost and compliance to ASTM F1292. These systems are often
Courtesy of No Fault Sport Group
Surfacing solutions Obviously, there is no perfect surface, but there are surfacing solutions based on
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 23
judicious use of standards, asking the right questions, and writing a good specification, including regular testing and warranties. ASTM standards can be used to the advantage of the owner/operator in selecting surfaces that will meet their needs. ASTM F1292 requires that all suppliers of playground surfacing shall provide a copy of the tests performed on nine surfacing samples that are “identical in design, materials, components, thickness and manufacture as the installed playground surface.” These tests are intended to determine the “critical height,” which is the height at which the surface fails the requirements of F1292. This typically means the traditional limits of 200g and 1000 HIC; however, section 4.4.3 allows for the owner/operator to specify lower values at the time of field testing, and this begins with setting the critical height of your choosing. It is very easy, if the testing is performed to the full ASTM F1292, to demonstrate the height at which a lower HIC value such as 700 was achieved. This is the first step in providing better protection for the children. The next step to providing ongoing protection for children is to require testing of the surface at the time of installation and annually during the warranty period and for the functional life of the playground. Section 14 of ASTM F2479 can be used to develop the terms that should be in every warranty.
Field testing procedures To ensure continued compliance and the protection of children, field testing the installed surface with the device stipulated in the ASTM F1292 that is within the two year calibration period and following the
exacting test procedure, including using only trained personnel, is necessary. Prior to specifying testing the field, it is time to take further advantage of the provisions of ASTM F1292. Sections 4.4.1 and 19.1.2 require that the owner/operator stipulate the drop height for field testing, and this can be any height as long as it is higher than the fall height in ASTM F1487. This allows the owner/operator to move the drop height from the deck or platform height to the tops of barriers and guardrails where children under “reasonable foreseeable misuse” will climb to and fall from. Once the drop height is selected, the owner/operator can again utilize section 4.4.3 and set lower values for the test results. These are the ultimate steps towards protecting children from the potential of death. The judicious use of the F1292 can get surfaces, whether EWF, loose rubber, PIP, tiles, or turf, to provide a Gmax below 100g and HIC below 500, which is the ASTM F1487 maximum value of impact to the head with a swing seat.
ADA compliance and safety considerations Compliance to the ADA is a little more difficult for some surfaces, but again ASTM standards can come to the rescue. The first test for firmness and stability is the ASTM F1951. The standard requires that the sample tested first comply with F1292, and that standard requires materials to be identical to what is to be installed. This allows the owner to demand that the supplier provide the detail of the samples that were tested to both of the standards and how they were prepared. This should be included in the
ADA Compliance Gauge
1:2
0.25" 6.4mm 0.25" 6.4mm
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
1:2
0.5" 12.7mm 0.5" 12.7mm
1 inch 25.4 mm
0.5" 12.7mm
This ADA Compliance Gauge can be used to determine the accessibility of your playground surfacing. 24 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
test report from the testing laboratory and forms the second part of a specification. Once the performance to ASTM F1951 is established, the surface must be installed exactly as specified, and the surface should then be tested using the Rotational Penetrometer to establish a base line for performance for firmness and stability. This will become important in ensuring the Department of Justice that the surface is being “frequently inspected and maintained to ASTM F1951.” For the balance of the ADA compliance, some additional tools will be needed. First will be a straightedge that is exactly 60” to confirm the minimum width of the ground level accessible route. Coupled with a digital level, the running and cross slopes can be determined. There will then be the need to be able to measure the change in vertical height, the size of holes and gaps, and the pile height of carpet. Knowing what these measurements should be allows the owner to place compliance into the specification and the tools allowed for the testing, forcing suppliers to comply with the ADA. The State of California has published a Best Management Practice for Compliance with ADA in Playgrounds at www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/ Documents/1496/20141496.pdf. Ultimately, this is not a choice of materials, but a determination of the requirements for the playground surface and the owner/operator writing a high quality specification and warranty, followed by field testing to confirm and ensure compliance. This may mean not paying a supplier until the surfacing is compliant, or asking them to repair surfaces that may not comply with warranty requirements. With this information in mind, the owner is now equipped to meet with surfacing sales representatives and select the surface that protects children, allows for the removal of architectural barriers, and meets both installation and maintenance budgets.
Rolf Huber is the founder of the Canadian Playground Advisory, Inc., and has been involved in the manufacture and installation of athletic and playground surfaces since 1981. Since the early 1990s, Rolf has worked to set standards for surfacing in both the ASTM International and the Canadian Standards Association. www.playgroundadvisory.com
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
Tough enough to handle the toughest game of four square?
Yes. PlayGuard速 comes with a 15 year warranty for thousands of days of play! Our tiles meet the 2-10-foot fall height requirement per ASTM 1292-04 and are CPS compliant. PayGuard is designed to exclusively reduce the risk of serious injury associated with falls from playground equipment. www.playguardsurfacing.com | 1.800.851.4746
Accessibility, R & D Could Hybrid Surface Systems be the New Option for Accessible Playground Surfaces? by Jennifer Skulski, CPSI
THE RESEARCH FINDINGS are in and the facts are clear, THERE IS NO PERFECT PLAYGROUND SURFACE. If there were any such thing as a perfect surface, repaving of sidewalks, streets and highways wouldn’t be the billion dollar industry it is today. But the fact that there is no perfect playground surface doesn’t bode well for the public playground owner constrained by budgets and other facility maintenance priorities. Has the time come for playground surface manufacturers to re-engineer their products and give the public playground owner bigger bang for his buck? Playground owners have long struggled with selection of surfacing that meets performance criteria for falls and is also accessible to children with disabilities. From 2008 to 2012, the U.S. Access Board funded a longitudinal study on the accessibility of playground surfaces. The research project is the most compre-
hensive study of playground surfaces to date. It was designed to gather data and present findings that would assist playground owners in purchasing and longterm maintenance decisions appropriate to their facilities, budgets, personnel resources, and the expectations of their citizens. The research was initiated after years of frustration at the ASTM F08.63 Subcommittee on Playground Surfaces. Subcommittee members and accessibility advocates met up with many roadblocks while trying to improve the ASTM F1951-99 Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment and develop a field test to verify the surface has been installed and maintained as accessible. Instead of dealing with more roadblocks, the research team decided to collect meaningful data on playground surfaces to directly educate public playground owners. The
26 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
information has been anecdotal for years, the research simply quantified the field conditions and presented the findings to be widely and readily available for public playground owners. “Prior to the study many users believed and perhaps some suppliers thought that, if a surface was certified (by a lab) to meet F1951-99, you could just put it in and forget it. [The Access Board] study brought home the fact that this was not the case and led to an increased emphasis on the importance of proper installation and maintenance by the International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association (IPEMA – the industry trade association), suppliers, consultants and users,” says Walt Henderson, longtime consultant to the playground industry. In 2011, IPEMA issued a position statement on the installation and maintenance of engineered wood fiber shortly after the first year findings from the study were released. Then www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
SMARTE SYSTEM - courtesy of Playworld
in 2013, subsequent position statements, including an informative guide of playground surfaces, were released in anticipation of the Access Board announcing the publication of the final report. While many were eager to see how unitary surfaces like poured-in-place rubber and rubber tiles would fare against loose-fill products like engineered wood fiber and shredded rubber, hybrid surface systems quietly emerged as a new contender in the competitive industry. The research study brought to light the growing potential of hybrid surface systems to achieve both accessibility criteria and safety requirements for impact attenuation. The hybrid surface systems use a combination of surface materials, usually a loose fill or spongy pad as a base surface and mat or carpet as a top layer. The research implications suggested that “data on the performance of the hybrid surface systems may be promising enough to lead to further research and product development as the next generation of accessible protective playground surfacing.” Hybrid surface systems range in material cost from $5 to $12 per square foot. They have been developed to serve as a middle cost option between loose fill options like engineered wood fiber and unitary surfaces like poured in place rubber and tiles. The research study suggested that hybrid systems “could eventually provide a more middle ground in terms of costs and overall performance if the data on longevwww.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
ity and durability are made available up front for the playground owner prior to the decision to purchase.” But you didn’t have to tell this to Elaine Sherman or Keith Sacks. They have both been working on developing better playground surfaces that are accessible to people with disabilities and offer the protective surfacing characteristics required for impact attenuation while being priced reasonably in the middle of the field of product competitors. Elaine Sherman first started working on the development of the SMARTE playground surface system back in 1999 when she took her sewing machine to the storage garage at the Illinois Park and Recreation Association (IPRA) headquarters. She was on an IPRA team that had received a state grant to find new uses for recycled rubber and the shreds from used tires. Sherman believed if she could contain the tire shreds in the base of the surface system, preventing them from moving around and install a mat over the top, it might prove to be effective as an accessible playground surface. So she began sewing pillows of all sizes to figure out which size could hold the optimal amount of tire shred that could be carried and repositioned by park maintenance crews during installation and pass for impact attenuation at the same time. Sherman has spent years perfecting and patenting the surface system. Tom Kalousek was part of the IPRA grant team that gave advice for the SMARTE product testing and development. Kalousek has more than 40 years of experience in parks and recreation. He is the Director of Play Safe for All, one of the founding members of the National Playground Safety Institute, a career
member of ASTM, and conducts playground safety training courses around the world. Kalousek says of the product development, “I can honestly say that I believe the SMARTE SYSTEM is one of the safest and mostly effectively useable accessible surfacing systems in existence today. From the impact attenuation values for the critical height of surfacing materials to the criteria for accessible routes throughout the play area, SMARTE provides the optimum surface for both. It is also effective in climates where temperatures create issues with freezing.” Through the product development, Sherman has worked to install the product at playgrounds throughout the United States. More often than not, she was the lead on-site giving direction to maintenance crews and playground contractors on how to install the surface. She would work side by side, lugging 50 lb. pillows of crumb tire into position and gluing seams of the top mat. Recognizing the need to be able to more widely distribute the product, Sherman recently sold the rights to the SMARTE surface system to Playworld. So now the pressure is on one of the largest playground companies in the world to take one of the most promising new surfaces to come on the market in the last 20 years up to the next level. “We found SMARTE to be a great, innovative surfacing that offered superior safety to other surfacing. Test results show that SMARTE surfacing achieves HIC numbers lower than the ASTM standard of 1000 HIC from fall heights up to 10’. Playworld acquired SMARTE, and its patented design, to add to our product offering because we believe it is the best surfacing for playgrounds,” says Kevin
SMARTE SYSTEM - courtesy of Playworld FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 27
Cook, Director of Sales at Playworld. In terms of continued research and development, Cook says, “We have been experimenting with different top surfaces for SMARTE. We currently offer SMARTE surfacing with an accessible turf top layer. When we acquired SMARTE, there was an alternate top layer available. That material contained PVC and we are a 99.9% PVC-free company, so we have never offered a top layer other than the turf. Some customers prefer a different look for their surfacing, so we have been investigating and testing other options. We will continue to explore new options to make SMARTE more appealing to a wider customer base.” It’s been no secret over the last 10 years, that some of the strongest opponents to a field test for ASTM F1951-99 have come from the shredded rubber surface industry. But that all changed for Keith Sacks, Vice President at RubberRecycle, the day he walked into the office of Morris Hassan, Owner of RubberRecycle, to find him cutting out cardboard triangles at his desk. Sacks recalls, “They kinda looked like egg crates. So we tried to make a few out of rubber, filling them in with rubber and one with sand. Then we made a mold so that we could use our recycled tire product as part of the compression molded product.” Sacks has led RubberRecycle's efforts to research and develop a surface system that would be safe and accessible for people with disabilities. “We are trying to stick with our focus of being a green company. The company has always focused on the safety aspect of the product and struggled with accessibility.” Sacks believes the development of the Accessamat product is a great marriage of safety and accessibility. They have used the product for some beach route installations on the East Coast. Most recently the product was used at a swim club to convert the surface of an existing playground where the owner still wanted to maintain the sandy beach aesthetic and provide an accessible route to the new equipment. Other manufacturers like SYNLawn and ForeverLawn have been working at developing hybrid turf grass systems for playgrounds. Different suppliers are offering options in bases between shredded rubber and engineered composite padding. The hybrid turf grass manufacturers are in need of utilizing research and development to address the accessibility
Photos courtesy of RubberRecycle
standard for carpet pile and build-up of static electric charge. Some are now offering shorter pile for better mobility and liquid applications to reduce static. Like all surfaces, both the SMARTE and Accessamat surface systems require periodic maintenance. The SMARTE system requires attention to ensure the top mat seams are secure preventing gaps or openings. The Accessamat requires top dressing of the loose-fill to also prevent gaps or openings. With the advent of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the release of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, the last 25 years have proved most challenging for public playground owners and the playground surface industry. The surface must be protective to minimize injuries from falls. The surface must be accessible when used as part of the accessible route. The surface must be cost effective, easy to
28 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
install and easy to maintain. Now that the published research findings present playground owners with better information on the performance expectations for various surfaces, two prevalent needs still remain: more product R & D! and a field test for accessibility! The ingenuity of Sherman and Sacks through their product research and development proves there are more playground surface options to explore. Just 15 years ago, many wondered or even doubted that safety criteria and accessibility standards could be achieved by the same surface material. There always seemed to be a natural conflict between the two, and playground owners questioned whether safety would trump accessibility. The creativity and determination of Sherman and Sacks to develop better surfacing systems confirm that it is possible for the safety and accessibility standards to be exceeded www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
by new innovative approaches to hybrid surface systems. The research findings are in. There are new products in development. But we still need an objective field test for accessibility to give playground owners the tools they need to confirm their playground surfaces have been properly installed and are being maintained to the standards. “I would like to see surface field testing on all newly installed surface products to verify correct installation and compliance along with periodic follow-up testing to make sure the surface remains compliant throughout the life of the product,” says Bill Botten, Accessibility Specialist at the U.S. Access Board and the agency’s representative to ASTM. Botten continues, “Products are being sold as compliant that have never passed any testing and that were never certified after installation as compliant. Many manufacturers have only one sample of their product tested from one of their suppliers and use the same laboratory certificate for all. Additionally, a play area surface material sample from a single supplier may have been lab tested many years ago. At this time, consumers and advocates have no means to evaluate surfaces for compliance. The only way to ensure initial and continued compliance with accessibility and safety standards after installation is through a field test. Consumers and advocates must demand field testing from play area surface product manufacturers after installation. Additionally, periodic field testing is essential throughout the life of the product to ensure compliance.” So, while some playground surface manufacturers are working to create better surface systems, maybe the time has now come for the ASTM F08.63 Subcommittee on Playground Surfaces to step back up to the plate and get an accessibility field test passed that can actually be utilized as an objective measurement by playground owners and suppliers that want to ensure the surfaces are installed and maintained to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
PM15
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jennifer Skulski is a thought leader on accessibility management and inclusion of people with disabilities. She provides consultation to federal, state and local governments, recreation and land management agencies on ADA/504 compliance.
www.accessibilitymanagementnews.com
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 29
30 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE FALL 2015
www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
SURFACING RESOURCES LOOSE-FILL • UNITARY RUBBER • ARTIFICIAL TURF
Safe Play Starts with Safe Surfaces
866.637.7678 | nofault.com
800-999-0555 I SurfaceAmerica.com
Find more at playgroundprofessionals.com/equipment www.playgroundprofessionals.com/magazine
FALL 2015 PLAY AND PLAYGROUND MAGAZINE 31
Š 2015 Playworld Systems, Inc.