You are on page 1of 25

EDSGN 100 Page 1 of 26

Spring 2018

BARRIER FREE MERRY-GO-ROUND

James Blaszkiewicz, Jacob May, Kevin Patzuk,, Sara Sohmer


College of Engineering
Hammond Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA

Prepared for
Dr. Cox Enterprises

01 March 2018

The Pennsylvania State University


University Park, PA 16802
EDSGN 100 Page 2 of 26
Spring 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 20
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

6 APPENDIX A Error! Bookmark not defined.


EDSGN 100 Page 4 of 26
Spring 2018

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title page

1 Current Merry-Go-Round 7

2 Picture of Concept 01 “Single Wheelchair” 12

3 Picture of Concept 02 “Bench and Gates” 13

4 Picture of Concept 03 “The Top” 14

5 Wheelchair Holder 15

6 Patent for GyroBowl 16

7 Picture of Concept 04 “The Gyro” 17

8 Picture of the Printed Prototype 19

9 Bearing Surface Detail 20


EDSGN 100 Page 5 of 26
Spring 2018

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title page

1 Stakeholders’ weighting of needs 8

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.

1.2 Identification of Stakeholders

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 be fun, safe, and accessible for all

children.

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 78.3%

of people disagree that the current status of playgrounds are inclusive of disabled children. The
EDSGN 100 Page 7 of 26
Spring 2018

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).

Figure 1: A Current, Non-Accessible Merry-Go-Round

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 helping the

children to normalize them.

1.3 Tabulation of Stakeholders


EDSGN 100 Page 8 of 26
Spring 2018

In order to determine the effectiveness of each design, a simulation of a stakeholder focus

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 so that what

is most important to stakeholders is taken into consideration most.

Table 1 Stakeholders’ weighting of needs


Stakeholder Safety Fun Accessibility Sum

Children 0.1 0.6 0.3 1

Teachers 0.5 0.2 0.3 1

Aides 0.4 0.2 0.4 1

Parents 0.5 0.4 0.1 1

Mean Weight 0.375 0.350 0.275 1

1.4 Identification of the Need for Intervention

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

that would be used to analyze the effectiveness of each concept.

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 lets everyone play

together at the same time.


EDSGN 100 Page 10 of 26
Spring 2018

2.2 Establishing Assessment Criteria

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.

Table 02: Specifications Table: Fun, Safety, Accessibility

Need Variable Instrument Target Value

Fun Persistence Time 10 Min

Repeatability Tally 5 Times

Excitement Interview 7/10

Safety Comfort Interview 7/10

Injuries Obtained Interview 0

Accessibility Feeling of Inclusion Interview 8/10

Ease of Use Time Less than 15 sec.

2.3 Concept 01 - Single Wheelchair Design

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.

Figure 02: Concept 01 Single Wheelchair Design


EDSGN 100 Page 12 of 26
Spring 2018

2.4 Concept 02

Figure 03: Concept 02 Bench And Gates


For our second concept, we first began looking at existing merry-go-rounds. This enabled

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 the merry-go-round, and

surrounded the ride itself in a protective fence to prevent children from falling off.
EDSGN 100 Page 13 of 26
Spring 2018

2.5 Concept 03

The third concept (Fig. 04) for a barrier free merry-go-round rotates on a spherical bearing

surface above the ground.

Figure 04: Concept 03 Top Spinner

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-

go-round would be flush with the surface of the playground in order to allow wheelchair access
EDSGN 100 Page 14 of 26
Spring 2018

without ramps. The design for the holding mechanism for the wheelchair (Fig. 05)

Figure 5: Wheelchair Holder

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 of

the merry-go-round, so when it is not in use it looks like a non-accessible merry-go-round.

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 handled
EDSGN 100 Page 15 of 26
Spring 2018

roughly by a child without spilling its contents (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Gyro Bowl patent drawing. Dahlquist, Bizzell, Kovacevich, 2013.

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 ADA

standards that attaches to the outside supports.


EDSGN 100 Page 17 of 26
Spring 2018

2.7 Scoring Table


After reviewing each of the designs, the team assigned values of ±1, ±2, or zero to each 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 the model

with the highest sum, which was Concept 3.

Table 3. Weighting of Needs.

Concept Safety Fun Accessibility Sum

Score Weight Score Weight Score Weight

1 0 .375 +1 .350 +1 .275 .650

2 +2 .375 0 .350 -1 .275 .475

3 +1 .375 +1 .350 +2 .275 1.275

4 -1 .375 +2 .350 0 .275 .325

2.8 Summary
We established assessment criteria in order to concretely measure the success of each

concept in solving the stakeholders’ needs. We designed concepts in an individualistic approach

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 scoring

table that would quantitatively score each concept.


EDSGN 100 Page 18 of 26
Spring 2018

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

compare to the actual results.

3.2 Presentation of Intervention Prototype

The prototype we have decided to go with is Concept 03. Concept 03 is close to a 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.”

3.3 Proposed Testing Plan

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.

3.4 Proof of Technology


The proposed solution (Figure 8) spins on a bearing surface above the ground, while still

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 simply an

accessible merry-go-round, it is something different from the traditional carousel. We 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

Figure 8: Picture of the Printed Prototype

Figure 9: Detail of Bearing Surface from Concept 03

3.5 Predicted Results

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 equipment and aides

helping to secure wheels to the platform.


EDSGN 100 Page 21 of 26
Spring 2018

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 Concept 03 because

it had the highest total score of 1.275.


EDSGN 100 Page 22 of 26
Spring 2018

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.

4.2 Review of Existing Conditions

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. In order

to solve the problem between the gap in playground equipment for children with disabilities
EDSGN 100 Page 23 of 26
Spring 2018

compared to children without disabilities, we decided to create a piece of playground 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.

4.4 Evaluation of Success

To some degree, we think our inclusive merry-go-round was a success. We believe our

intervention was successful. We upgraded past attempts to make merry-go-rounds more 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 improved upon

wheelchair accessible merry-go-rounds.

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 playground

becomes clearer.
EDSGN 100 Page 24 of 26
Spring 2018

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

You might also like