Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Spring 2018
Prepared for
Dr. Cox Enterprises
01 March 2018
ABSTRACT
Playgrounds are a free resource to local children to have fun, make friends, and learn
about the world around them. Many children take this opportunity, and it benefits them greatly
in performance in school, in relationships, and in physical fitness. However, this chance “to be a
kid” is not afforded to all children. There is a distinct dichotomy in the opportunities for children
with disabilities and children who are able-bodied to play. A playground with equipment that
allows all students to use it is the solution to this contrast. The children who use it, parents,
teachers, and aides would each consider different aspects of the equipment to determine whether
a piece of equipment truly is barrier free. To account for this, each of our four concepts
generated for a barrier free merry-go-round was scored using a weighted point system in safety,
fun, and accessibility. The design leading in points was then considered, and a model of the
design was created using CAD. After creating the model, we predicted testing results and plan to
gather real data in the future and compared the two, and we expect the design to be successful.
Based on the results of the testing, future improvements can be made to achieve a truly barrier-
free merry-go-round.
EDSGN 100 Page 3 of 26
Spring 2018
CONTENTS
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6
1.1 Introduction 6
1.2 Identification of Stakeholders 6
1.3 Tabulation of Stakeholders Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 Identification of the Need for Intervention Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5 Summary 9
2 METHODS 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Establishing Assessment Criteria 10
2.3 Concept 01 - Single Wheelchair Design 10
2.4 Concept 02 12
2.5 Concept 03 13
2.6 Concept 04 14
2.7 Scoring Table 17
2.8 Summary 17
3 DATA ANALYSIS 18
3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Presentation of Intervention Prototype 18
3.3 Proposed Testing Plan 18
3.4 Proof of Technology 19
3.5 Predicted Results 21
3.6 Summary 21
4 CONCLUSIONS 22
4.1 Introduction 22
4.2 Review of Existing Conditions Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 Methodology 22
4.4 Evaluation of Success 23
4.5 Summary 23
REFERENCES 24
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Current Merry-Go-Round 7
5 Wheelchair Holder 15
LIST OF TABLES
2 Specifications 11
3 Scoring of Concepts 18
EDSGN 100 Page 6 of 26
Spring 2018
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1 Introduction
We, Kevin Patzuk, Sara Sohmer, Jacob May, and James Blaszkiewicz, are currently first-
year students at the Pennsylvania State University located in University Park, Pennsylvania. We
are presently in an engineering design class (EDSGN100) where we are role-playing as a design
team along with the rest of our class in order to build a “barrier-free” playground for children
with and without disabilities alike. Our assignment is to create an all-accessible “Merry-Go-
Round.” We were given the land plot, “F,” as seen in Appendix C. In the Existing Conditions
section we will discuss who our stakeholders are, their needs, and identify the need for an
intervention.
For as long as humans have existed, disease has as well. Some diseases may be fatal,
whereas others may be crippling or paralyzing. However, as time has gone on, so has the
research in pursuit of cures. While humans as a society have been able to eradicate many
immobilizing diseases throughout the years, such as smallpox, the black death, polio and the
bubonic plague; there are still some which have no cure. What able-bodied people fail to realize
is how life defining a disability really is, especially for children. Children, who are supposed to
run around and have fun with their friends on a playground are no longer able to if they are
disabled due to the lack of accommodations. The main stakeholders in this project are able-
bodied and disabled children, because they are the primary users. The secondary stakeholders
include the parents, teachers, and children’s aides. “The All-Accessible Merry-Go-Round” must
Currently, for a child with disabilities, these three goals previously stated goals are not
being met the majority of the time. In fact, according to a study from Procedia (2012), over
EDSGN 100 Page 7 of 26
Spring 2018
78.3% of people disagree that the current status of playgrounds are inclusive of disabled
children. The same study also revealed that over 86.5% of people disagree that the current status
of playgrounds accommodate the physical needs of children at play. (Soltani, Abbas, & Awang,
2012) This is due to the fact that children with disabilities are unable to use playground
equipment unless they are designed with them in mind. For example, a child in a wheelchair
would be unable to use a current merry-go-round, such as the one shown here (Reuter, 2016).
The child would not be able to climb on to the merry-go-round itself without having to
leave their wheelchair. Even once they did leave their wheelchair, they would most likely not be
able to stand up on the merry-go-round. This is only half the issue as well. Even if the child was
able to get on the merry-go-round, they have no way of spinning the merry-go-round and
actually using it for how it was made. This segregation stigmatizes disabilities rather than
group was created. This simulation included four engineering students acting as one
representative of each stakeholder in a focus group who assigned weights of importance to three
categories of provision of the designs. The four weights were then averaged for each category
for each stakeholder. Each of the stakeholder’s weights in the three categories adds to one. The
mean weight for each category was then taken and used for the final weight of the category
during the selection of a design. These weights (Table 1) are used for scoring potential designs
Playgrounds are a place children can express themselves, learn social skills, use their
imaginations, and have fun. Children with disabilities need playgrounds to escape from their
impairments and for the reasons above. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),
about 10% of the people in each country have a disability with one third of them being children
under fifteen years old (Soltani, Abbas, & Awang, 2012). Ignoring the needs of these children is
unacceptable. Over ten million American children have some sort of impairment. We can not
simply cater to able-bodied children. The current state of playground equipment does not meet
the needs of all children. Even when equipment for disabled children has been introduced, it is
EDSGN 100 Page 9 of 26
Spring 2018
not incorporated into playgrounds to encourage interaction between all kids. Existing conditions
are separate-but-equal and are typically not very fun. Our goal is to incorporate a design that is
inclusive for all children and still is both safe and fun.
1.5 Summary
Barrier-free playground equipment in the United States is significantly lacking. Current
accessible merry-go-rounds are stigmatizing, and are not used by able-bodied children because
they are not as fun as the non-accessible alternatives. The equipment was to be designed for a
school playground rather than a public playground, as equipment is more likely to be sociopetal
(Sommer, 1967) in nature to increase social interactions between children. The identified
stakeholders are the children, teachers or supervisors, parents, and aides. We created a simulation
of a focus group of stakeholders in order to weight the specifications for each stakeholder. We
averaged the weights of the different stakeholders to create a single weight for each specification
2 METHODS
2.1 Introduction
We found several ideas online and after brainstorming several ways to make merry-go-
rounds more inclusive, we split up and individually came up with several ideas on our own.
After further collaboration, we narrowed down our individual ideas to the four concepts below.
Safety, inclusiveness, and fun, are at the core of all of our designs. With these things in mind we
want to create something that is low risk, functionable with most disabilities, and still fun.
Additionally, we do not want to make a merry-go-round that would only be used by children
with impairments; able-bodied kids and disabled kids would benefit most from a playground that
In order to evaluate our concepts in order to move towards the prototyping stage, we
needed to develop a way to measure our stakeholders’ specifications. For each need, we created
a list of variables that are indicative of meeting the need, and were able to be measured. We
also, arbitrarily, but not randomly, chose a benchmark target value indicative of what we would
consider success. The variable comfort refers to the parent’s level of comfort in allowing the
child to play on the merry-go-round. A very safe merry-go-round would have a high value for
comfort. Ease of use would be measured in time spent getting on or off the merry-go-round.
This concept is closely related to the traditional merry-go-round design. Most merry-go-
rounds are just round and have several poles that allow kids to hold onto as they spin and to pull
EDSGN 100 Page 11 of 26
Spring 2018
from while running on the ground. The single wheelchair design is very similar but has one spot
for a wheelchair on it. Built into the ground, this design is easy for a child in a wheelchair to roll
onto. It spins around a central axis and a wheel in the middle of the set allows for any child
(including ones in wheelchairs) to make the merry-go-round turn. This is important because
children in a wheelchair would be unlikely to be able to run around the outside of the merry-go-
round and jump back on it as it spins. The single wheelchair design can only hold one
wheelchair but has eight more places for kids to stand. When a child rolls onto the merry-go-
round, they will put down the bar behind them and lock the wheels of their chair to make sure
they do not move or fall off. This design makes it easy to spin with children running around the
outside holding onto the bars or by turning the wheel in the middle but fails to be inclusive for all
disabilities.
2.4 Concept 02
us to understand how the current model functions. By doing this, we were able to see what we
needed to change in order to make something to accommodate our goals of accessibility. In this
concept, we made our merry-go-round flush with the ground so children with wheelchairs could
easily access the ride. Then, we created two designated areas for children with disabilities, such
as wheelchairs to sit. Then we also created two benches opposite each other for able-bodies
children to sit and enjoy the ride as well. In the center of the merry-go-round, we added a,
“spinner.” This spinner allows children to be able to spin themselves on the merry-go-round
without having to get off of the merry-go-round itself. This is especially helpful for children in
wheelchairs as they would be unable to run around the merry-go-round and jump back on to it as
it spins, as would be traditional. We then created two gates opposite each other for access onto
EDSGN 100 Page 13 of 26
Spring 2018
the merry-go-round, and surrounded the ride itself in a protective fence to prevent children from
falling off.
2.5 Concept 03
The third concept (Fig. 04) for a barrier free merry-go-round rotates on a spherical bearing
This allows for tilting as well as the traditional rotation. Concept 03 also has a center
spinner, inspired by the teacup rides in many amusement parks. This is advantageous because it
allows for a stationary user, for instance, a child in a wheelchair, to spin themselves. The merry-
EDSGN 100 Page 14 of 26
Spring 2018
go-round would be flush with the surface of the playground in order to allow wheelchair access
without ramps. The design for the holding mechanism for the wheelchair (Fig. 05)
was inspired by mechanisms used to lift wheelchairs into vans. It has three panels that tilt out of
the floor and extend to safely hold the wheelchair while the merry-go-round is spinning. There
is no need for complicated belts or hooks. Additionally, the mechanism folds flat into the floor
2.6 Concept 04
The fourth concept (Figure 7) for a barrier free carousel was inspired by a snack bowl
that was popular in 2010 called the Gyro Bowl. This bowl was supposed to be able to be
EDSGN 100 Page 15 of 26
Spring 2018
Its gyroscopic properties and resemblance of a spaceship gave vision for this piece of playground
equipment.
EDSGN 100 Page 16 of 26
Spring 2018
Figure 7. Top view, side view, and two isometric views of Concept 4.
This design relies on a rocking motion to augment the traditional fun of a merry-go-
round. Because two perpendicular axles are used to create this motion, the rocking turns into a
swivel. This motion offers more freedom than one-dimensional rocking or spinning alone. This
gyroscopic motion deceives the senses into thinking the motion is more violent than in reality,
and the shallow angles at which the platform tilts maintain safe conditions for riders. This
concept is raised above the ground for ease of maintenance because spinning mechanisms need
to be kept free of rust. Also, the merry-go-round has an option to have a ramp that complies with
of the designs for each category in Table 3. We then multiplied each of the scores by the
assigned weight and added the total scores under the “Sum” column. The team chose to create
2.8 Summary
We established assessment criteria in order to concretely measure the success of each
in order to maximize the span of our ideas. Many of our concepts shared similar characteristics,
however their differences were stark. We combined complementary ideas into each of the four
concepts we presented. The goal was to create a concept that was fun and accessible, while still
being safe for kids. In order to establish if any of our concepts met this goal, we created a
3 DATA ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
In this section, we will discuss our proposed solution. We will propose and explain our
solution, testing plan, proof of technology and concept, our predicted results, and how our results
traditional merry-go-round, however, there are a few key differences. First, the merry-go-round
is level with the ground which allows those in wheelchairs to easily make it onto the merry-go-
round. The second is the addition of the two wheelchair holders across from each other. This
design is similar to the way those in wheelchairs are loaded into vans. Two end-plates extend up
and out in order to grab hold onto the wheels of the chair. This prevents the wheelchair from
moving, allowing the child to experience the rush of a merry-go-round. There is also a center
spinner in the center of the merry-go-round. This is put in place to allow those who are unable to
quickly get on and off the merry-go-round to spin themselves. Lastly, there are four more spots
for children without disabilities to enjoy the right as well, allowing for the merry-go-round to be,
“all-inclusive.”
After choosing Concept 03, we used Table 3: Weighting of Needs, and asked parents and
children what they thought of our prototype. Previously we determined the weights of fun,
accessibility, and safety in our concepts and found Concept 03 to be the highest rated. We
constructed our prototype at a local elementary school. After two months, we sat down with
parents of children with disabilities and parents of able-bodied children with their kids and asked
EDSGN 100 Page 19 of 26
Spring 2018
for feedback on our merry-go-round. We asked them to rate our design based off of safety,
accessibility, and fun, like we previously did, and for any other general feedback.
having a center spinner. The center spinner is a disk attached to a rod that drives down the center
of the merry-go-round and contacts the concrete foundation under the ground. This is possible
due to the bowl-in-bowl design of the bearing surface (Figure 9). This allows for tilting in order
to add to the novelty and fun of the merry-go-round. In this way, our proposed solution is not
decided to 3D print a model of our concept, because it is the cheapest and easiest way for us to
manufacture, especially when considering that we already created Solidworks models of our
concepts. This proved to be difficult, because at the scale of our mock playground, some of the
fine details of the mechanism were too small to be printable. To overcome this barrier, we
increased the proposed size of some of the parts, and printed them separately from the rest of the
model.
EDSGN 100 Page 20 of 26
Spring 2018
Due to the nature of the scope of this project, we are not able to conduct full scale testing.
We can, however, predict the results of real world testing with acceptable accuracy. The team
predicts that the proposed solution, Concept 03 will meet the needs of the stakeholders
adequately. Specifically, our team believes that the need of fun will be fulfilled by meeting all
target values for the three variables, excitement, persistence, and repeatability. We expect that
zero injuries will be obtained because of the merry-go-round, but we realize that the target value
for comfort of adults overseeing the merry-go-round may be unattainable because the design is
unfamiliar to most teachers and parents. Because of the concept’s intuitive design, we believe
that both target values for accessibility can be met with the cooperation of the children using the
3.6 Summary
In Table 3: Weighting of Needs, we rated all four concepts on fun, safety, and
accessibility. Each weight was assigned based off what we felt was the most important aspects
of our playground. Safety received the highest weight at 0.375, fun was second at 0.350, and
accessibility received the lowest weight at 0.275 (the three combined weights add to equal one).
Collectively as a group, we then closely looked at each concept and gave them scores. We
multiplied the scores by the weight and added them together for the total rating. We chose to use
4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Introduction
Through reviewing the condition of play for children with disabilities, our team decided
that there is a dichotomy between playground equipment for able-bodied children and equipment
for children with disabilities. We intended to work on bridging this gap by creating an all
inclusive merry-go-round that allows children with and without disabilities equal opportunity to
play. After finalizing the design, we tested that solution and decided that while some
improvements can be made, the design is a good starting place to create a barrier-free merry-go-
round.
Children from around the world are faced with disabilities which limit how they are able
to use equipment designed for able bodied children. Although around 10% of kids are faced with
these debilitating disorders, current playground equipment does not cater to them. Many
playgrounds outright ignore disabled kids, and even the accessible playground equipment is still
not as fun as the traditional equipment. The stakeholders in our project were parents, kids, aides,
and teachers, with the kids needing fun and accessibility, and the teachers, aides, and parents
requiring safety and accessibility. We hosted a mock focus group among ourselves to develop
weights for each of the needs for more adequate scoring of the concepts.
4.3 Methodology
We chose the problem of trying to find a way to make playground equipment accessible
to all children for one big reason. We wanted to find a way to allow kids to be kids, no matter
what. Even if we are able to make a child with a disability forget about what it is that is holding
them in life for even just a second, we have succeeded in our eyes, and hopefully theirs as well.
EDSGN 100 Page 23 of 26
Spring 2018
In order to solve the problem between the gap in playground equipment for children with
equipment that could be accessible to both children with and without disabilities. We decided to
do this because it would allow for children with disabilities to forget about what it was that was
holding them back, and allow them to socialize, have fun, and just be a kid, like they should be
able to. In our design, we wanted to make sure that anything a child without disabilities could do,
a child with disabilities could do, and vice versa. This way, kids could just focus on being kids.
To some degree, we think our inclusive merry-go-round was a success. We believe our
inclusive. Our final design can hold two children in wheelchairs which we had not seen before.
The center spinner allows them to spin from their chairs or to be pushed from the outside in the
normal way. To improve on design, we can make it more inclusive to disabilities (not just to
children in wheelchairs). Our design is very safe for children. In the future, we would need to
focus more attention on materials research and the possibility of using gear ratios to make the
merry-go-round spin faster. Overall, our design was a success and was a fairly basic design that
4.5 Summary
With the success of our design, we carefully considered future improvements to the
barrier free merry-go-round. With the improvements our design makes on traditional merry-go-
rounds and the improvements to be made in the future, the path to achieving an inclusive
5 REFERENCES
Benincasa, R. (2013). For Kids With Special Needs, More Places to Play. National Public
Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2013/08/27/213827534/for-kids-with-special
-needs-more-places-to-play.
Dahlquist, K. J., Bizzell, D. L., Kovacevich, I. D. (2013). US Patent No. US8348084.
Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark Office
Playworld. (2015). Inclusive Play Design Guide. Playworld Systems, Inc. Retrieved from
https://playworld.com/site-specifications.
Reuter, R. (2016). Merry-Go-Round Physics. Unfettered Thoughts. Retrieved from
http://unfetteredpotential.com/merry-go-round-physics/.
Soltani, S. H. K., Abbas, M. Y., Awang, M. B. (2012). Disabled Children in Public Playgrounds:
A Pilot Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281200540X.
Sommer, R. (1967). "Sociofugal Space". American Journal of Sociology. The University of
Chicago Press. 27 (6): 654–660. JSTOR 2775826.
6 APPENDICES
6.1 Appendix A
EDSGN 100 Page 25 of 26
Spring 2018