Accessible Seesaw

Vaidesh Raman
Nicholas McGrath
Sarah Azeez

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

Prepared for
Pennsylvania State University

01 March 2018

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802
ABSTRACT

We were proposed with the issue of designing a seesaw or “teeter totter” to be better accessible
to the physically disabled, without sacrificing important qualities. Within the report we discuss
the existing conditions that are found about the device as well as the methods used for designing
a prototype. Various methods include preliminary brainstorming, in depth research, and
secondary brainstorming/ data collection. Information present within the report includes
specifications and needs of the proposed users and stakeholders of the device, in addition to the
scenario in which those factors were decided. A view into the process that leads to the final
product is provided as a means to see the logic and thought that fueled the design and
implementation of the equipment. The conditions and specifications regarding disabled users are
investigated and used to influence the design process. The final prototype is also investigated and
determined to have potential to be successful in its task. However, it still requires more time and
planning regarding potential construction materials and manufacturing processes in order to be
ready for full scale development.
CONTENTS

1 EXISTING CONDITIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

1.1 Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
1.2 Current Design ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
1.3 Stakeholders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
1.4 Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

2 METHODS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
2.1 Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
2.2 Safety Specifications ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
2.3 Mainline Specifications --------------------------------------------------------------- 11
2.4 General Concept Generation --------------------------------------------------------- 11
2.5 Narrow Concept Generation ---------------------------------------------------------- 12
2.6 Concept Scoring ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13
2.7 Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
List of Figures

No. Page Title

1 6 Lever/Spring Type Seesaw Design

2 7 Balducci Seesaw Design

3 {} Anthropometric Data

4 {} Dimensioned Wheelchair

5 {} Auto/Arm Powered Seesaw Sketch

6 {} Free Hanging/Four Person Seesaw Sketch

7 {} Foldable Seat Seesaw Sketch

8 {} Computer Generated Concept Combination

9 {} Solidworks Seesaw Model

10 {} Colored Seesaw Rendering

11 {} 3D Printed Prototype
List of Tables

No. Page Title

1 8 Stakeholders-Users Needs

2 12 Scoring of Concepts
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

1.1 Introduction

Within this section, we will investigate the current state of seesaw playground equipment and use

it to influence the design process. Different variations of the seesaw are looked at in order to

form a baseline as to how this equipment is typically used. This section also focuses greatly on

who the proposed product will be for and why it is being created in the first place. The needs of

these stakeholders will be investigated since these will become the driving force behind the

creation of our proposed prototype.

1.2 Current Design

The seesaw in its current state follows one of two main designs. Most designs consist of two

seats placed on a simple lever with a central fulcrum acting as the support structure resulting in

the change in vertical motion (see fig. 1, left hand).

 Figure 1. ​Seesaws: left hand indicates fulcrum/lever type,
right hand indicates spring type
The second main design (see fig. 1, right hand) is that of four interconnected seats on individual

springs, allowing for a larger range of weight combinations to be placed on the structure. This

design, while not inherently different from the first, allows for the accommodation of more

riders, thus creatively enhancing the social atmosphere. Upon investigation into various

distributors of playground equipment such as ​Landscape Structures ​and ​AAA State of Play​, very

few accessible centered seesaws were found to have made their way to the wholesale market.

However, there does exist a prototype design created as a University project that was not pursued

to full production. This modern take on the design of the seesaw provides insight as to how other

designers have decided to tackle the task at hand. It is clear that rather than sitting on the

equipment, users are able to either stand or be in a wheelchair (see fig. 2), meaning this particular

design does not discriminate and accepts users from both sides of the accessibility spectrum.

Figure 2. ​Custom designed wheelchair accessible seesaw

1.3 Stakeholders
Currently, there are three main stakeholders in the design and execution of this playground

equipment. We decided that the children represent the top priority in terms of stakeholders, as

they are the individuals physically using the proposed playground. It can also be decided that the

needs of these particular users are their enjoyment as well as their accessibility to the seesaw. We

also decided that the enjoyment of the user can be adequately measured through the variables of

repeatability of the activity as well as excitement.

The second stakeholder is the parent/guardian of the child user, whose needs include the safety

of the child user, the accessibility of the device to the child, as well as the repeatability of the

activity to the child.

The group came to the conclusion that the third stakeholder is a local council member/leader.

This user is included to fulfill the role of the construction and funding of the actual playground.

The main need of this user is the cost of the design and implementation of the structure.

Following this are the same needs as the parent user of the safety of the child as well as the

accessibility of the device. See Table 1.

Table 1
STAKEHOLDERS-USERS NEEDS

USER 1: PARENT SAFE ACCESSIBILITY REPEATABILITY

USER 2: CHILD FUN ACCESSIBILITY

USER 3: COST SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY

LOCAL OFFICIAL
To get a better idea as to the specification of user needs, we took inspiration from distinguished

Penn State professor John Carroll and created a scenario that models typical data collection.

Within his research paper ​Getting Around the Task Artifact Cycle: How to Make Claims and

Design by Scenario​, Carroll asserts that “Such a representation makes it more feasible to convey

the design to users—both within the design process [21] and subsequently” (Carroll 183) in

reference to the feasibility of scenarios assisting the design process. Applying this concept to our

prototype, our constructed scenario allows us to supplement our predictions of the user

specifications with a comparison to a likely case study.

The scenario proceeds with a parent and child going to their local elementary school to vote on

the budget for the next fiscal school year. There is a local official giving a presentation on their

distribution of funds. The parent, child, and local official are proceeded to be asked about which

aspects would be found most important in a playground. They are then asked more specifically

what would be desired when the focus is placed on that of a seesaw. There exists some crossover

in some of the desired aspects.

It was discovered that the main concern of the parent was for the safety of their child. In order

for the child to be safe on a piece of playground equipment, it must be accessible. When

requested to elaborate on the accessibility of a design, they thought that the ability to find and

use the equipment in an easy manor was crucial. In terms of being interactive, the parent thought
that the seesaw should be more interactive where it would be best if two or more people had the

ability to use it, this way a more social atmosphere is promoted.

When asking the child what they wanted in a playground overall, their answer was to simply

have fun. More specifically in terms of a seesaw, the child would want to go as high and fast as

they could. The enjoyment of the child, while difficult to measure, is not considered

immeasurable, as many factors could give a successful read on their behavior. The group came to

the conclusion that the factors that represent the enjoyment of the child are the repeatability of

the experience as well as their exhibited excitement. We decided that the repeatability of the

experience can be measured by observing how often the children are returning to the device for

more, extended uses. More returns and more uses equates to great repeatability, thus fulfilling

that constraint. For the excitement of the child, it was determined that by issuing an

interview/survey to the child during and after their use of the equipment, their responses and

social cues could be used to see their enjoyment. If the child is obviously out of breath or

exhibiting a smile, then it could be extrapolated that they have a positive excitement factor, and

thusly a positive enjoyment factor.

The greatest concern of a local council man/woman would be that of cost for the manufacturing

and implementation of the equipment. The funds for the playground would have to come from a

budget or grant that is likely stringent. In addition, the safety and accessibility would be taken

into serious consideration since the injury of a child or harmful environment could lead to

negative economic impacts and unnecessary stress on the community.

1.4 Summary

The topics discussed in this section allowed for a more concise development of ideas which

brought a multitude of already established devices and their patents as a means to form a

benchmark with which to compare our concepts with how well they incorporate the

specifications that meet the user needs. The stakeholders and needs corresponding to said

stakeholders greatly impact the success of the next steps as it permits the project to be designed

according to the proposed specifications of the users. Furthering this process is the actual design

of the proposed mechanism.

2 METHODS

2.1 Introduction

​Within this section, the main developmental timeline will be discussed alongside the

corresponding research process. The exact specifications and constraints of existing seesaw

structures are examined alongside specifications of the users. The brainstorming process our

group underwent is also looked upon as well as all ideas proposed over the course of the design

process. This section closes out with a view placed on the scoring of concepts based on the needs

of the proposed stakeholders.

2.2 Safety Specifications

To start, it is found that some examples of current manufacturers of playground equipment,

namely seesaws, are ​Landscape Structures​ as well as ​AAA State of Play​. This information, when

used in tandem with previously established info regarding current designs, furthers the baseline

of existing devices. Alongside this data, it is found from a 2001-2008 study done within the

Children’s Safety Network​ that the main playground related injuries are fractures likely caused

by falling (O’Brien 2009). As for the relation to seesaws in general, it is also said that

seesaws/teeter totters resulted in the least amount of injuries (2%). However small this number

may be, it is imperative that nothing is done to negatively affect this value, as injuries are still

liable to happen, no matter the low probability. With these baseline safety specifications in mind,

it is far easier to adequately continue.

2.3 Mainline Specifications

The main disabilities that will be focused on in the creation of the device will be partial/complete

lower body injuries resulting in the use of a wheelchair/mobility improvement device. Other

disabilities are considered, but specific requirements fall within requirements for the previously

mentioned impairments. In order to adequately design a piece of equipment meant to

complement a wheelchair, the dimensions and general specifications of wheelchairs are

necessary, thus a wheelchair provider such as ​1800Wheelchair​, one of the first online providers

of specialized medical equipment such as devices for the mobility impaired was consulted. To

supplement the dimensions from ​1800Wheelchair, ​we also consulted anthropometric data from

Architectural Graphics ​by Ramsey Sleeper (see fig.3).

 Figure 3. ​Pediatric anthropometric data

From both of these sources, we are able to extrapolate roughly the size range and specifications

of wheelchairs we will accommodate, and make a ​Solidworks​ model of a wheelchair to use as a

frame of reference for our design (see fig. 4).

Figure 4. ​Dimensioned Solidworks Wheelchair Drawing

2.4 General Concept Generation

Our assigned project as students in an engineering-design class is specified as designing and

building a prototype of a piece of playground equipment with the caveat that it must be

accessible to those with physical disabilities. With the previous specifications in mind, we

collaborated in a rapid fire brainstorm process meant to generate as many concepts as possible,

using the user needs as well as the basic predicted structure as our basis. These ideas were meant

to just form basic rough concepts that would allow for future modifications to take place. These

ideas included a completely autonomous seesaw that required little to no input from the user (see

fig. 5, left hand) and arm powered teeter totter that allowed for the basic functions of a seesaw to

be performed but by using one’s arms instead of legs (see fig. 5, right hand).

Figure 5. ​Seesaws: Left hand indicates engine-driven design, right hand indicates arm-driven

seesaw
Other ideas that were laid out were a free hanging seesaw that takes the fulcrum of the device

and inverts to be placed on top of the seesaw and connected via chain/cord (see fig. 6, left hand)

as well as a four person seesaw that accommodates two wheelchairs/standing users and two

typical seats (see fig. 6, right hand).

Figure 6. ​Seesaws: Left hand indicates hanging design, right hand indicates four-person

accommodating design

One last rough idea we came up with was a typical two seat seesaw, but with foldable seat backs

allowing for wheelchair accommodation (see fig. 7). These ideas all came with their own

benefits and tradeoffs, with some possessing more than others.

 Figure 7. ​Sketch of seesaw with foldable back

2.5 Concept Scoring

With a baseline of ideas set in place, we were able to add more specific variables as a means to

augment and solve the issues/tradeoffs with previously mentioned ideas. Since the prototype is a

very user-centered device, we decided it best to use our previously defined user needs as the

specifications by which to use to craft a rating system. Using this system, we are able to assign

each proposed concept with a weighted rating in reference to each user need. Since the children

will be the physical users of the equipment, we decided that their needs of being enjoyable as

well as accessible should be weighted the most. Directly underneath in weighting comes the

safety of the users as well as how often they might repeatedly use the device. The specification

with the least amount of weight is the cost effectiveness of actually building the device. This

value is the least simply because at this moment in time, specifications regarding the actual

design of the product are more important and it is also difficult to pinpoint exactly how costly
these designs will be. In terms of the actual rating scale, we determined that each concept can

receive a rating ranging from -1 (actually being worse than the current state of the criteria) to +1

(improving or being better than the existing condition). See Table 2.

Table 2
Alternatives

Autonomous Arm Powered Hanging/Inverted Four Person Foldable-Seat

Seesaw Seesaw Seesaw Seesaw Seesaw
Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
User
5 +1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Enjoyment
Accessibility 4 0 0 +1 4 0 0 +1 4 +1 4
User Safety 3 -1 -3 0 0 -1 -3 0 0 +1 3
User
2 +1 2 0 0 +1 2 0 0 0 0
Repeatability
Cost
1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0
Effectiveness
TOTAL 15 0 3 1 4 0 -1 0 3 2 7

It was found that while our ideas were very different from one another, each one only improved

or detracted from one or two particular areas. Due to the low scores being from the autonomous,

hanging, and four-person designs, we decided to eliminate them from the final equation and

focus on the two concepts with the highest scores. Also, instead of just focusing on the

foldable-seat seesaw which gained the highest score, we decided to go about combining it with

the arm-powered design. It is evident that the Arm-Powered seesaw offers an improvement in

accessibility due to the users not having to use their legs to control the motion of the device, thus

allowing wheelchair-bound users full capabilities to use the equipment. When combined with a

seat that can fold down, a seesaw is created that allows for a wide range of users and does not

detract from enjoyment while improving upon general safety.

2.6 Summary

Within this section, we defined the baseline safety specifications alongside specific concepts

regarding the accessibility of our device. We also found that of the ideas proposed, the so called

“best” design is one that implements our concepts of having an arm-powered seesaw alongside

one that is built to have fold-down seat backs to accommodate wheelchair-bound users.

3 DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction

​In this section, we will further develop our previously established concept of an arm-powered

seesaw with foldable seat backs. The testing we intend to perform on our prototype will also be

examined in order for us to move past the general concept phase and onto the proof of

technology phase.

3.2 Continuing Construction

With the basic general concept of our idea fleshed out in the previous sections, we continued

ahead and began doing more sketches of what the final design might look like, eventually

culminating in us using ​Windows Ink Workspace​ to combine the two general ideas into a

cohesive concep​t ​(see fig. 8).

 Figure 8.​ Computer generated concept combination

Using the created scale as a baseline, we were able to further flesh out our design within the

Solidworks​ 3D modeling software. ​Solidworks​, while initially a challenge to work with, allowed

us to create a three dimensional representation of our piece of playground equipment, thus

permitting it to be compared alongside various anthropometric statistics, such as our average

wheelchair size and the average size of a child, both sitting and standing up. The final result is a

fully scaled and dimensioned rendition of the device (see fig. 9).
 Figure 9.​ Dimensioned Solidworks seesaw drawing

3.3 Detailed Description of Device

The final design, as seen previously, is a seesaw with two seats available for use by children.

These seats are purposefully oversized to allow for wheelchairs to safely and effectively rest on

them. For non-wheelchair users, they are meant to stand up on the seat, as the safety bar in

adjustable for different heights. In terms of how the seesaw operates, it is arm driven through the

safety bar in front of the seat. By pulling towards themselves on the bar, users will make the

opposite side rise by moving a soft plunger-type block upwards into the bottom of their seat.

Users in wheelchairs are meant to enter the seesaw unassisted, for by pulling towards the back of

the seat on the right hand lever causes the entire back support of the seat to fold down, thus

creating a ramp for the wheelchair to ride up on. All that must be done to raise the back up again
is to push forward on the lever. Although not shown in the previous sketch, the prototype was

given a bright color scheme in order to further convey its purpose as a device for children in case

it was not adequately clear beforehand (see fig. 10).

Figure 10.​ Complete colored seesaw rendering

3.4 Testing and Usability

Using our ​solidworks​ render of the prototype, we continued on and converted the file into one

capable of being 3D printed. However, due to the class scale of all prototypes being ⅛ inch

equaling 1 foot, the print turned out to be extremely small (see fig. 11).
 Figure 11. ​3D printed seesaw at ⅛” to 1’ scale

The resultant print turned out to be the correct general shape, but with support structures

indistinguishable from the actual design. However, we are able to use the print to get a visual

representation of the orientation of the device in reference to the environment around it.

3.5 Summar​y

Within this section, we further developed our design into a three dimensional model, then

transformed it into a physical object, albeit drastically scaled down. These models allowed us to

exhibit the minute details and functions of the prototype and convey that information in a much

more concise manner.

4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Summary of Process

As a team, we assessed potential stakeholders and analyzed each of their needs/specifications,

eventually coming to an agreement that the users are children, the parents of the children, and

members of the local council. Further deliberation brought us to the obvious conclusion that the

children represent the most important stakeholder, as they are the ones that are physically

making use of the designed equipment.

After sorting our stakeholders and granting their specifications, we moved on to defining the

baseline safety characteristics and disability requirements of our concept, supplementing this

with a dimensioned drawing of the typical wheelchair we would accommodate. This leads to our

concept generation phase, where multiple ideas were brainstormed, eventually culminating in the

scoring of each of the five generated concepts against the weighted specifications of the users.

With the arm-powered and foldable-back seesaws scoring the highest, we decided to combine the

ideas and created further developed sketches using anthropometric data to create a scaling

system. Through multiple drawings and sketches using the ​Solidworks​ 3D modeling software, we

created a version of the prototype capable of being printed at the assigned ⅛” to 1’ scale. Using

our 3D printed model, we were able to gauge the potential success of the device as compared to

the ground.

4.2 Overall Success and Future

Overall, we determine that our team has achieved moderate success in terms of the proposed

intervention. The concept and general execution of the design is very sound, however if it were

to be pursued further into development, there are multiple additions that would be extremely
beneficial. While designing the scale, the angle of the ramp created by the back of the seat was

not expressly considered, thus in its current state the ramp would be extremely steep, which

reduces its accessibility. We have determined that the solution to this problem is relatively

simple, as the addition of a partial stationary ramp to each side would allow for a more shallow

incline. The backs of the seats would still fold down, but instead of folding directly onto the

ground, they would fold onto an already established ramp. Other possible directions for future

development include the addition of more features directed at other disabilities, such as a low

frequency sound emitter for the auditory impaired. As mentioned however, further development

is absolutely necessary if these features were to come to fruition.

In terms of the playground the class constructed, the result is a crude, yet effective representation

of what a fully accessible playground might look like (see fig. 12).

Figure 12. ​Final class-wide playground model

Each piece of equipment is scaled to the required ⅛” to 1’ measurement, and each necessary plot

of land has a prototype on it. For future development, the class should use a more cohesive unit

of modeling and pick a consistent theme. This way, the model would be more appealing to the

eye and easier for observers to understand.

5 REFERENCES

AAA State of Play​. (n.d.). Retrieved from ​https://www.aaastateofplay.com/

Balducci, P. (2013, November 23). [Wheelchair accessible seesaw]. Retrieved from

​https://www.behance.net/gallery/12485687/Accessible-wheelchair-see-saw-(University-project)

Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make
claims and design by scenario. ​ACM Transactions on Information Systems,10​(2), 181-212.

Higgins, R. A. (1948). ​U.S. Patent No. US2442543A​. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.

Manus, R. G. (1980). ​U.S. Patent No. US4226411A​. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.

O'Brien, C. W. (n.d.). Playground-Related Injuries Treated in the Emergency Department.

Retrieved from ​https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/playground-infographic

Playground Equipment and Designs​ - Landscape Structures. (n.d.). Retrieved from

​https://www.playlsi.com/

Ramsey, C. G., Sleeper, H. R., & American Institute of Architects. (1988). ​Ramsey/Sleeper
Architectural Graphic Standards​(8th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Solidworks (Version 2017) [Computer software]. (2017). Dassault Systèmes.

1800 Wheelchair​, www.1800wheelchair.com/category/pediatric-wheelchairs/.

Windows Ink Workspace (Version 2017) [Computer software]. (2017). Microsoft.