HOME | READ MORE ARTICLES | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | CONTACT US |
February 2016 🍂
Playground Surfacing: Making Informed Choices from ADA to HIC Tests
Author: Chad Kennedy, Landscape Architect, ASLA

During a recent trip with the kids to a local playground, I witnessed an interesting interaction between a mother and her approximately 10 yr. old son. The young boy was climbing a 6' tall swirl slide from the bottom up and upon reaching the top was jumping off the side landing on a unitary poured in place rubber safety surface. For his alleged misuse of the slide he received a public scolding, was forced to prematurely end his playtime and was given a "time out" on a nearby bench where instruction on his misuse of the play equipment continued. The focus of this article however is not on unnecessary restrictions parents put on children in the play environment, but on one specific way to plan ahead for the child who will jump or fall off of a slide, climb a roof structure, or launch from the highest possible point of a swing's arc. (Yes, this was a frequent occurrence during my childhood) The planning process being referred to is the selection of an appropriate safety play surface.


National Standards / Codes
It is estimated that there are 200,000 injuries reported on playgrounds annually, 70% of which are related to falls. These statistics are the main reason why standards for play surfacing exist today. There are two main standards/codes that govern what types of play surfacing can be used in public playgrounds. The first is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F1292 standard specification which defines the minimum requirements for impact attenuation of surface systems under and around play equipment. This specification attempts to define critical heights for different material. If this critical height is not exceeded, the theory is that a resultant fall onto the surface will be unlikely to cause serious damage or to be fatal. The two measurements identified in the standard are the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) and G-Max (maximum acceleration during impact).

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is another requirement that must be met in playgrounds and dictates what type of surfaces can be used. These requirements are complex, but for this article I will simply refer to the code as a requirement for a stable, all weather surface.

Play Surface Design Considerations
When considering the myriad options for surfacing materials, it is important to weigh the design requirements of a given play space. The best possible surfacing option is the one that meets the most goals and requirements of the project. The most common surfacing materials to choose from are sand, gravel, engineered wood fiber, poured-in-place rubber, rubber tiles, loose fill rubber, artificial turf and a carpet-like material called Child'sPlay. The following, in no particular order, are some things to consider when trying to make a choice between all of these options:

  • Play Value - Is there any play value afforded by the option at hand? Can it be moved, manipulated, tasted, squeezed or otherwise interacted with?

  • Sensory Opportunity - Does the surface have a unique texture, sponginess, variety in shape and color or other stimulating value to the sensory systems?

  • Heat Absorption - Does the surface absorb or retain heat and cold? In some areas, the Central Valley of California for example, some surfaces retain heat and can actually cause burns to sensitive feet and hands.

  • Aesthetics - How much flexibility is there in the material for color selection, texture, compatibility with other surfaces, integration of shapes, and ability to create landforms and grade differential.

  • Maintenance - What is the required level of maintenance necessary to keep the surface in conformance to code? Will it require daily, monthly or annual maintenance? Is it susceptible to vandalism, and if so, how easy is it to repair and how available are the materials?

  • Safety Value - Does the surface meet the requirements for impact attenuation? (HIC=1000 and G-Max=200) Does it meet these requirements long-term, in variable weather and regardless of UV exposure?

  • Stormwater Drainage - Does the surface retain moisture, decompose, mold or freeze when wet?

  • Sanitation - Is the material clean and easily maintained free of litter, glass, cat feces and other undesirable objects?

  • Accessibility - Is the surface accessible per ADA code and if so can it be maintained in that condition permanently?

Advantages and Disadvantages
The process of determining the best safety surfacing can be daunting and challenging, because studies constantly reveal there are flaws with each type. To assist is the process of finding the most suitable option, the following compilation of pros and cons for each of the different types of common surfacing systems has been prepared. There are additional hybrid systems and emerging technologies that are not addressed, however, they may be potential topics for further discussions or articles.

  • Sand (minimum 12" depth) - Clean, natural material with minimal compaction properties

    • Pros: Low cost, locally sourced, non-flammable, simple installation, high play value, limited microbial growth, vandal resistant

    • Cons: Difficult to contain, messy, not ADA accessible, deleterious objects can be hidden, attracts cats, has limited attenuation potential, requires regular maintenance, must be replaced regularly, loses attenuation value in inclement weather, low critical fall height

  • Gravel (minimum 12" depth) - Clean, natural material with minimal compaction properties.

    • Pros: Low cost, locally sourced, non-flammable, simple installation, high play value, limited microbial growth, vandal resistant

    • Cons: Difficult to contain, messy, not ADA accessible, deleterious objects can be hidden, attracts cats, has limited attenuation potential, requires regular maintenance, must be replaced regularly, low critical fall height

  • Engineered Wood Fiber (minimum 9" depth) - Processed wood/mulch chips containing no twigs, bark or leaves.

    • Pros: Low cost, locally sourced, attractive natural appearance, simple installation, high play value, vandal resistant, ADA accessible, effective attenuation, interesting texture, integrates well with other surfaces

    • Cons: Difficult to contain, messy, flammable, deleterious objects can be hidden, decomposes over time, may mold and freeze, requires regular maintenance, must be replaced regularly, limited design options

  • Loose Rubber (minimum 6" depth) - Processed ground up tire material free of metal, wire, lead and toxins.

    • Pros: Durable, simple installation, high play value, vandal resistant, effective attenuation, interesting texture, limited microbial growth, integrates well with other surfaces, comes in many colors

    • Cons: Difficult to contain, flammable, not ADA accessible, deleterious objects can be hidden, may contain wire or toxins, requires regular maintenance, must be replaced regularly, surface can get hot

  • Poured-in-Place Rubber (depth varies) - Seamless synthetic surface formed by chemical binders and rubber filler. Air pockets create a spongy quality.

    • Pros: Durable, simple to clean, stays in place, consistent & effective attenuation, low maintenance costs, interesting texture, ADA accessible, limited microbial growth, requires little short-term replacement, integrates well with other surfaces, comes in many colors, designs are limitless

    • Cons: High installation cost, skilled installation required, flammable and subject to vandalism, quality is subject to installer, may lose attenuation properties over time, limited play value, repair requires skill, surface can get very hot

  • Rubber Tiles (depth varies) - Synthetic surface tiles formed by chemical binders and rubber filler. Air pockets create a spongy quality.

    • Pros: Durable, simple to clean, stays in place, easy to replace when vandalized, consistent & effective attenuation, low maintenance costs, interesting texture, ADA accessible, limited microbial growth, requires little short-term replacement, comes in several color options, sturdier than PIP

    • Cons: High installation cost, skilled installation required, flammable and subject to vandalism, quality is subject to installer, may lose attenuation properties over time, limited play value, repair requires skill, may separate at edges causing trip hazards, surface can get very hot, design is limited to squares and pixels

  • Artificial turf (depth varies) - Synthetic grass surface formed by filament strings. Air pockets and subsurface create a spongy quality.

    • Pros: Durable, simple to clean, stays in place, consistent & effective attenuation, low maintenance costs, interesting texture, ADA accessible, limited microbial growth, requires little short-term replacement, comes in several color options, has a more natural look and feel

    • Cons: High installation cost, skilled installation required, flammable and subject to vandalism, quality is subject to installer, repair requires skill and lead time, may separate at edges causing trip hazards, surface can get very hot, can cause "rug" burns, material quality varies greatly

  • Carpet-Like Surface (depth varies) - Synthetic carpet-like fibers formed by filament strings. Air pockets and foam subsurface create a spongy quality.

    • Pros: Durable, simple to clean, stays in place, consistent & effective attenuation, low maintenance costs, interesting texture, ADA accessible, limited microbial growth, requires little short-term replacement, comes in many color options, carpet designs are limitless, works well adjacent to sand

    • Cons: High installation cost, skilled installation required, flammable and subject to vandalism, quality is subject to installer, repair requires skill and lead time, may separate at edges causing trip hazards, surface can get hot, can cause "rug" burns

Across the country there are going to many children leaping from the sides of slide bays, falling from playground roof structures and belly flopping off swings. No one will be able to stop these activities from occurring, but hopefully, if the right play surface was chosen and maintained, those children will get up, dust off their clothes, maybe cry a little, and run-off to continue in the joy of playtime, perhaps having learned a valuable lesson in what further risks they are willing to take the next time. To learn more about play related issues and other landscape architecture topics, please visit the publications section of our website by clicking here.


1. "Comparison of Playground Surfacing Materials." Parachute Canada/Safe Kids Canada. 2005. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
2. Eager, David, James Nixon, and David Yearley. "Impact Attenuation - The Case for Natural Materials." 17th International Play Association World Conference . 2008. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
3. Gunatilaka, A.H., S. Sherker, and J. Ozanne-Smith. "Comparative Performance of Playground Surfacing Materials Including Conditions of Extreme Non-Compliance." Injury Prevention vol. 10 2004: 174-179. Web. 29 May 2015.
4. Henderson, Walt. "The Evolution of Playground Surfacing." The Play and Playground Magazine 22 Dec. 2014: n. pag. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
5. Mack, Mick G., Jeffrey J. Sacks, Donna Thompson. "Testing the Impact Attenuation of Loose-Fill Playground Surfaces." Injury Prevention vol 6 2000: 141-144. Web. 28 May 2015.
6. Marshall, Mike. "Playground Surfacing Materials ADA-Approved and Non-Approved." Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Risk Management. April 2011. Web.
7. Mittelstaedt, Jr., Arthur H. "Natural Surfaces: Organic vs. Inorganic." LASN Playground Safety July 2006: n. pag. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
8. National Center on Accessibility. A Longitudinal Study of Playground Surfaces to Evaluate Accessibility: Year One Findings. May 2011.
9. Poured in Place Surfacing Compared to Other Playground Surfaces. 2010. Graphic Chart. Web. www.duraplay.net.
Funding Opportunities

Due date: March 10, 2016

Tire-Derived Aggregate Grant Program (FY 2015-16) - The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) administers a program to provide opportunities to divert tires from landfill disposal, prevent illegal tire dumping, and promote markets for recycled-content products. The Tire-Derived Aggregate (TDA)Grant Program provides assistant to civil engineers in solving a variety of engineering challenges. TDA, which is produced from shredded tires, is lightweight, free-draining, and a less expensive alternative to conventional lightweight aggregates.. For additional information on this and other funding opportunities, please visit our Resource Center.

Media Updates

CPRS Conference 2016

O'Dell Engineering's Associate Landscape Architect, Chad Kennedy, will be presenting at this year's CPRS conference in Long Beach California. The session is on Wednesday March 9th at 3:00 p.m. and is entitled, "Drought Friendly Recreation-Responsible Approaches to Mitigate Water Use and Provide Alternative Recreation." He will be joined by Aaron Spohn of Spohn Ranch Skate Parks to discuss the current drought as it pertains to community's abilities to use parks, evaluate whether or not facilities and infrastructure are drought friendly and if adjustments are feasible, and how to develop a responsible plan that will reduce "green" footprints in parks without diminishing aesthetics or programming functionality.

Project Updates

Ryno Park, Ceres, CA

This neighborhood park renovation of an old storm water retention basin included the addition of a large playground area with multiple play structures, picnic facilities, a basketball court, trap fencing, additional grass open space, and site lighting. The playground and additional amenities were thoughtfully prepared with socially inclusive principals as a core design strategy.

Modesto
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite B
Modesto, CA 95350
Phone: 209.571.1765
[email protected]
Regional Offices in:

Pleasanton, Fresno & Palo Alto