A playground

LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF CHILDREN PLAYGROUND USING MODULAR APPROACH

Abstract

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

A playground is an institutionalized environment consists of a planned, enclosed space with play equipment that encourages children's motor development [1]. It is a facility that provides service for the children, using resources such as humans, funds, materials and energy. Proper facilities layout and planning may support the optimization of the children activity in the playground.

Architects, landscape designers, builders, gardeners and teachers have all been called upon to design a children play area at some time. Despite the diversity of expertise, playgrounds have remained virtually the same throughout the world since their creation over a century ago [2]. They are fixed on the ground, with various combinations of play items and unstructured free layouts. The need for an “ideal” layout with innovative design for playground is hence inevitable.

Facilities planning can be utilized to develop optimized layouts for playgrounds with stated design objectives. Derivation and revision of the objectives have to be done before facilities planning can be applied. Design of the playground itself is then defined by using interchangeable modular approach. Innovative methods are required for the outlook design.

Currently, playgrounds with modular system are most commonly found in Singapore. The definition of modular system is where a system is subdivided into modules that can be assembled in a variety of ways to drive multiple functionalities. This system offers reduction in cost, flexibility in design, and augmentation. However, a higher flexibility and augmentation can be brought further if the modules in the system are interchangeable.

1.2 Objective

The objective of this project is to investigate the feasibility of applying facilities planning for generation of playground layout and to explore the alternative of applying rearrange-able modular approach for playground design to complement the layout generated. Eventually, it aims to develop a generalized framework for designing modular playgrounds.

1.3 Scope

The scope of this project includes:

1. Literature review on playground design, facilities planning, and modular design.

2. Modifying playground inputs such that facilities planning approach can be applied for generation of the layout of the playground.

3. Constructing a design for playground equipment using rearrange-able modular approach.

4. Modeling the design with CAD system.

5. Collecting and analyzing feedbacks for the modeled design.

The scope of the playground in this study includes:

1. Playgrounds with modular system.

2. Playgrounds to be located in Singapore.

3. Playgrounds for children of age 3-9.

4. Playgrounds for public use, indoor and outdoor.

1.4 Organization of Report

The background, objective and scope of the report are covered in the first chapter. The subsequent chapter 2 consists of literature reviews on existing playground design, Facilities Planning, and modular design. In chapter 3, the methodology used for the project is presented. In the next chapter 4, collected data is analyzed and the playground layout is generated using the proposed methodology. Subsequently in chapter 5, considerations for playground designs are discussed. Then in chapter 6, the overall playground design is modeled. In the following chapter 7, a discussion on the feasibility and compatibility of the modeled design is carried out. Finally in chapter 8, conclusion and recommendation for further study will be given.

Chapter 2 Literature Review
Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Existing Playground Design

Since its creation over the century, existing playgrounds remain virtually the same throughout the world [2]. They have similar equipments with different arrangements. In Singapore, while equipments are designed mostly based on safety guidelines implemented by National Parks Board in Specifications for Playground Equipment for Public Use [3], there are no specific guidelines set for the layout of the playground. This explains the restrictions to the playground equipments, and on the other hand, the variety of unstructured free layout.

2.1.1 Common Playground Items

In general, playgrounds use bright primary colors which are believed to be most effective in attracting children's attention. Current procurement methods have also led designers to locate equipment items as tightly together as possible to reduce costs [4].

There are a few common playground items in modular system:

· Slide

· Chin-up bar

· Monkey bars

· Adventure Bridge

· Funnels

· Rope climber

· Rock-climbing blocks

· Interactive panels.

2.1.2 Safety guidelines

Commonly hazards are linked to the following [5]:

· Inadequate protective surfacing around playground equipment

· Equipment height exceeding maximum height advised

· Instability of mechanism of the equipment

· Improper installation and maintenance of the equipment

· Protrusion of sharp edges and exposure of potentially hazardous components

· Insufficiently defined use zones of equipment

· Inappropriate location of playground site

· Improper allocation or arrangement of equipment

· Indistinct age separation for equipment

· Absence of supervision

A study in Singapore population has shown that 20% of childhood extremity fractures occur at the playground [3]. Although some injury should be expected during play, the figure occurs to be rather high. Design of playground equipments should follow closely to the revised guidelines set, with additional safety factors.

2.1.3 Existing Layouts

There is no universal playground layout up to date. Layouts are normally determined by the experience of the designers and builders.

Some layout designs are emphasized by the concept of “flow” of play, and the safety guidelines governing the overall layout, such as the necessity to separate passive play areas from active ones [6]. A few playground equipment manufacturers even encourage customers to choose equipment they desire and guide them to customize their layout and design. This lets parents to offer free play for their children.

To illustrate the free unstructured and non-universal layouts, followings are a few layouts of public playgrounds found in Singapore.

2.2 Facilities Planning

Facilities planning determine how an activity's tangible fixed assets best support achieving the activity's objectives [7]. It is concerned with the design, layout, location and accommodation of people, machines, and activities of a system or enterprise (manufacturing or service) within a physical spatial environment [8].

In determining the requirements of a facility, three important considerations are flow, space, and activity relationships [7]. Flow may determine the activity relationship which influences the location and design of a facility, while space requirements determine the size and the layout of the facilities.

Flow includes material management, material flow, physical distribution, and logistics. The most critical consideration is the pattern of flow. Planning for effective flow requires the consideration of flow patterns and flow principles which is to maximize directed flow paths, minimize flow, and minimize the costs of flow [7].

Flow can be measured in two ways as below [7]:

* In quantitative manner, flow is measured as the amount being moved between facilities, which can be illustrated by a from-to chart. The higher the amount of flow between two facilities, the closer these facilities should be arranged.

* In qualitative manner, flow is the connectivity relationship values. The stronger the relationship between two facilities, the closer they should be located.

Space is difficult to be projected as true space requirement is uncertain in future. Parkinson's Law makes tasks even more difficult as it states that things will expand to fill all available capacity sooner than planned [7]. Thus space requirements have to be determined carefully.

Activity relationship provides the basis for many decisions in facilities planning process. The primary relationships considered are organizational, flow, control, environmental and process relationships [7].

Besides minimizing the costs of flow, other considerations in layout planning are:

* Frequency of flow between facilities

* Shape and sizes/area of facilities

* Floor space available

* The number of facilities needed to minimize queuing

* The time spent by a material in a particular facilities

* Particular requirements between facilities

To develop facilities layout, a procedure named Systematic Layout Planning was developed. It is a technique established by Richard Muther. It establishes a step-by step planning procedure which allows users to identify, visualize, and classify the various activities, relationships, and alternatives in a layout generation project.

Product, quantity, routing and services are the main concern in Systematic Layout Planning Procedure. Even though timing is considered as one of the input, however, it is not used in the procedure. In this report, timing is put into consideration later on in chapter 3.

The framework is given as follow.

One of the computer softwares that can be used for purpose of facilities planning is Facility Layout Applet/Application (FLAP). FLAP is a program designed to facilitate the understanding and comparison of various sophisticated Facility Layout Problem heuristics [10].

FLAP takes relative sizes of the departments to the size of the facility as inputs, all of which must be predetermined before optimizing the layout of the various departments.

FLAP is particularly useful when the total floor space given is fixed, while different departments have different area. Taking a modern business as an example, the department spaces needed by each business unit are usually unique because they are determined by certain individual properties. For example, the sales unit might need large conference rooms whereas the research unit might only need half as much space for its equipment [10].

However, its application is limited on a single story facility. Multistory layouts can be manually adapted from its layout generated, nonetheless.

2.3 Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for dealing with complex decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps the decision makers find the one that best suits their needs and their understanding of the problem.

The AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. It is used around the world in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, and education.

The procedure for using AHP can be summarized as [11]:

1. Users of AHP first model the problem as a hierarchy containing the decision goal, the alternatives for reaching it, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives.

2. Establish priorities among the elements of the hierarchy by making a series of judgments based on pair-wise comparisons of the elements. For example, when comparing potential school, a student might prefer location over reputation of school and reputation over school fee.

3. Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. This would combine the student's judgments about location, reputation and fee for properties A, B, C, and D into overall priorities for each property.

4. Check the consistency of the judgments.

5. Based on the numerical results, come to a final decision.

Table 1 Fundamental Scale for pair-wise comparisons

Using AHP matrix, relative importance or scores of criteria can be drawn. Combining the scores of each alternative, final scores can be obtained to help decision makers to make his decision.

2.4 Modular Design

Modular products refer to assemblies and components that fulfill various overall functions through the combination of distinct building blocks or modules to achieve rationalization of product development [12].

Modules should be produced by similar technique whenever possible. Since overall function results from a combination of discrete units, this calls for greater design effort during the conceptual and embodiment phases [12].

Besides fulfilling a variety of functions, modular systems can also serve to increase the production batch size of identical parts for use as building blocks in a variety of products. This objective is attained by the breakdown of the product into elementary components [12].

2.4.1 Advantages and limitations of modular systems

Modular systems provide advantages as following [12]:

* Additional design effort is needed for unforeseeable orders only

* Combinations with non-modules are possible

* Computer-aided execution of orders is greatly facilitated.

* Calculations are simplified

* Overall schedule can be cut short as parts can be supplied quickly

* More appropriate subdivision of assemblies ensures favorable assembly conditions

* Modular product technology can be applied at successive stages of product development

* Better exchange possibilities and easier maintenance

* Better spare parts service

* Possible changes of functions and extensions of the range

Modular systems also have the following limitations [12]:

* Adaptation to special customer's wishes are not as easily made as with individual designs

* Technical features are more strongly influenced by the design of modules and the modularity than they would be by individual designs.

* Higher manufacturing costs as manufacturing quality has to be higher.

* Weights and structural volumes of modular products are usually greater and so space requirements and foundation costs may increase.

2.4.2 Interchangeable and rearrange-able system

Interchangeable system means that the parts are made according to specifications such that they are nearly identical and hence are able to be replaced by new parts without any custom fitting. This interchangeability allows easy assembly and maintenance as particular parts are able to be replaced easily so that the whole system can continue its function.

Rearrange-able system refers to system in which parts with different functions are able to interchange with one another within the system. This means that the parts do not have to be identical, but their connectors have to be standardized and the utilized space has to be the same.

Chapter 3 Methodology
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Overview

This project aims to provide a general framework for designing children playgrounds using a modular approach. Facilities planning method is applied to obtain optimal layouts for children playground and rearrange-able modular system is then applied to obtain the modular design of the playground.

Inputs of facilities planning are synthesized first before using FLAP applets to generate layouts. Based on the generated layouts, a modular playground is built using CAD software Solidworks. Rearrange-able playground items are then developed to enable rearrangement of equipment based on optimal layouts.

The methodology will be further explained in subsequent sub-chapters.

3.2 Playground equipments and Layout Criteria

The first step of the proposed methodology is to set the playground equipments to be used. Any number of equipments (n) is acceptable.

For this project, we shall use a few common and most popular equipments. Following are the basic modules which shall be set for the playground:

1. Slides

2. Monkey bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

Auxiliary modules joining the modules will be added later on, such as:

1. Staircases

2. Deck

Layout criteria have to be set beforehand too. These criteria set the basis for the layout plan as it will determine the connectivity relationship between the equipment.

Unlike facility planning for factories or hospitals, the quantitative flow of materials/ children in the playground cannot be used. This is because of the inaccuracy of values that may be resulted due to the location of equipments in the studied playgrounds. In another way, it means that children may move from one equipment to another mainly for the proximity of the equipment that has been located.

Hence, the qualitative flow or the connectivity relationship of the equipment is used. Connectivity relationship between equipments shall not be based on only one criterion. A few criteria should be considered before setting the relationship of the equipment and thus the layout of the playground.

Following are the criteria set for the playground equipment for this project.

Similarity of equipments in skill developments

Equipments which develop similar skills for children should be grouped closer together. For example, equipments that similarly develop motor skills, such as upper body muscles should be grouped closer. This goes according to the layout planning proposed by Robin C. Moore in Play for All guidelines.

Similarity in level of difficulties

Equipments with similar level of difficulties should be located nearer to each other. This grouping helps to distinct age separation of equipment, complying with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Handbook of playground safety.

Similarity in popularity of equipments

Equipments with similar popularity should be located further from each other. High popularity of equipment causes queuing and cluttering which are best avoided for smooth traffic or flow of children. Cluttering also increases chance of collisions and bullying which are not favorable for safety.

The third criteria inputs timing into the Systematic Layout Planning procedure. Weighing the similarity in popularity of equipments helps to reduce queuing and cluttering. Hence, besides space, usage timing for equipment is also taken into consideration.

3.3 Applying Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP)

AHP is then applied to each of the selected equipments, setting the weight of the three criteria above and calculating the strength of connectivity of the equipments as alternatives.

For example, there are 6 equipments selected to be in a playground with slide as the first equipment (1). There are 3 criteria to be used, which is the similarity in skill development (A), similarity in difficulties (B), and similarity in popularity (C). Please note that for C, the value should be inversed. Then, the connectivity relationships of equipment 1 with each of the other equipments (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) are evaluated, based on each criteria. (Refer to Appendix)

SLIDES (1)

A

B

C

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

The calculated value for 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6 refers to the connectivity relationship between equipment 1 and equipment 2, between equipment 1 and equipment 3, and so on. This value is then used to be tabulated for the flow matrix in the facilities planning process.

AHP is then applied to each of the rest of the equipments 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, to obtain a complete flow matrix.
3.4 Using Facilities Layout Applets (FLAP)

Using the connectivity values obtained from above, the flow values for the flow matrix are implied. As FLAP only accepts valid float values from 1-15, while the connectivity relationship values generated with AHP are normalized with values of 0-1, here are the modifications to be made to fit the connectivity values into the flow matrix.

Take the connectivity value obtained in AHP as x, where. This means that the connectivity values have to be normalized.

Take the flow value to be obtained for flow matrix as y, where.

And y can be obtained from the equation: y = (x/ maximum x value) * 15

The y values calculated are then input into the flow matrix in the FLAP application, as below, where (a-b) represents the y value calculated from the x value obtained from the connectivity relationship between a and b.

Table 2 Qualitative Flow Matrix Model

To

1

2

3

4

5

6

From

1

(1-2)

(1-3)

(1-4)

(1-5)

(1-6)

2

(2-1)

(2-3)

(2-4)

(2-5)

(2-6)

3

(3-1)

(3-2)

(3-4)

(3-5)

(3-6)

4

(4-1)

(4-2)

(4-3)

(4-5)

(4-6)

5

(5-1)

(5-2)

(5-3)

(5-4)

(5-6)

6

(6-1)

(6-2)

(6-3)

(6-4)

(6-5)

Using identical dimensions of all the equipments for FLAP, optimal and alternative layouts are generated.

Chapter 4 Data Analysis
Chapter 4 Data Analysis

Table 3 Criterion Relative Importance

Criterion

Importance

Similarity in Skill Development

5

Similarity in Level of Difficulties

7

Difference in Popularity

3

38

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

Table 4 Scores under Criterion A: Similarity in Skill development

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

3

5

3

3

1

7

5

3

1

5

5

3

7

3

54

2. Monkey Bars

3

3

7

7

1

3

3

5

1

3

7

1

3

5

52

3. Adventure Bridge

5

3

3

3

1

5

5

7

1

3

3

1

3

5

48

4. Cliff Hanger

3

7

3

9

1

1

3

3

1

1

7

3

7

5

54

5. Rope Climber

3

7

3

9

1

1

1

3

1

1

7

3

7

9

56

6. Music Panel

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

9

1

1

3

1

1

26

7. Swings

7

3

5

1

1

3

3

3

1

5

7

5

3

1

48

8. Tunnels

5

3

5

3

1

1

3

7

1

1

3

1

3

1

38

9. Balance Beam

3

5

7

3

3

1

3

7

1

3

5

3

7

3

54

10. Puzzle Panel

1

1

1

1

1

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

22

11. Merry Go Round

5

3

3

1

1

1

5

1

3

1

3

5

3

1

36

12. Glider

5

7

3

7

7

1

7

3

5

1

3

3

7

1

60

13. Spring Rockers

3

1

1

3

3

3

5

1

3

1

5

3

1

1

34

14. Pole Slider

7

3

3

7

7

1

3

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

56

15. Play Webs

3

5

5

5

9

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

3

40

Table 5 Scores under Criterion B: Similarity in Level of Difficulties

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

1

5

3

3

9

7

5

3

9

7

3

9

1

3

68

2. Monkey Bars

1

5

7

7

1

3

5

7

1

3

7

1

9

7

64

3. Adventure Bridge

5

5

7

7

5

7

9

7

5

7

7

5

5

7

88

4. Cliff Hanger

3

7

7

9

3

5

7

9

3

5

9

3

7

9

86

5. Rope Climber

3

7

7

9

3

5

7

9

3

5

9

3

7

9

86

6. Music Panel

9

1

5

3

3

7

5

3

9

7

3

9

1

3

68

7. Swings

7

3

7

5

5

7

7

5

7

9

5

7

3

5

82

8. Tunnels

5

5

9

7

7

5

7

7

5

7

7

5

5

7

88

9. Balance Beam

3

7

7

9

9

3

5

7

3

5

9

3

7

9

86

10. Puzzle Panel

9

1

5

3

3

9

7

5

3

7

3

9

1

3

68

11. Merry Go Round

7

3

7

5

5

7

9

7

5

7

5

7

3

5

82

12. Glider

3

7

7

9

9

3

5

7

9

3

5

3

7

9

86

13. Spring Rockers

9

1

5

3

3

9

7

5

3

9

7

3

1

3

68

14. Pole Slider

1

9

5

7

7

1

3

5

7

1

3

7

1

7

64

15. Play Webs

3

7

7

9

9

3

5

7

9

3

5

9

3

7

86

Table 6 Scores Under Criterion C: Difference in Popularity

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

5

3

5

5

7

1

5

7

7

3

3

5

9

5

70

2. Monkey Bars

5

3

1

1

3

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

40

3. Adventure Bridge

3

3

3

3

5

3

3

5

5

1

1

3

5

3

46

4. Cliff Hanger

5

1

3

1

3

5

1

3

3

3

3

1

3

1

36

5. Rope Climber

5

1

3

1

1

7

1

1

1

3

3

3

1

1

32

6. Music Panel

7

3

5

3

1

7

1

1

1

5

5

5

1

3

48

7. Swings

1

5

3

5

7

7

5

7

7

3

3

5

9

5

72

8. Tunnels

5

3

3

1

1

1

5

1

1

3

3

1

3

1

32

9. Balance Beam

7

3

5

3

1

1

7

1

1

5

5

5

1

3

48

10. Puzzle Panel

7

3

5

3

1

1

7

1

1

5

5

5

1

3

48

11. Merry Go Round

3

3

1

3

3

5

3

3

5

5

1

3

5

3

46

12. Glider

3

3

1

3

3

5

3

3

5

5

1

3

5

3

46

13. Spring Rockers

5

3

3

1

3

5

5

1

5

5

3

3

5

3

50

14. Pole Slider

9

3

5

3

1

1

9

3

1

1

5

5

5

3

54

15. Play Webs

5

1

3

1

1

3

5

1

3

3

3

3

3

3

38

Table 7 Normalized Score relative to Criterion Importance (A)

Criterion (A): Similarity in Skill Development

Importance:

5

Normalized Score relative to Criterion

Normalized score relative to Criterion =

Scores * Criterion importance / Total row score

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

0.278

0.463

0.278

0.278

0.093

0.648

0.463

0.278

0.093

0.463

0.463

0.278

0.648

0.278

5

2. Monkey Bars

0.288

0.288

0.673

0.673

0.096

0.288

0.288

0.481

0.096

0.288

0.673

0.096

0.288

0.481

5

3. Adventure Bridge

0.521

0.313

0.313

0.313

0.104

0.521

0.521

0.729

0.104

0.313

0.313

0.104

0.313

0.521

5

4. Cliff Hanger

0.278

0.648

0.278

0.833

0.093

0.093

0.278

0.278

0.093

0.093

0.648

0.278

0.648

0.463

5

5. Rope Climber

0.268

0.625

0.268

0.804

0.089

0.089

0.089

0.268

0.089

0.089

0.625

0.268

0.625

0.804

5

6. Music Panel

0.192

0.192

0.192

0.192

0.192

0.577

0.192

0.192

1.731

0.192

0.192

0.577

0.192

0.192

5

7. Swings

0.729

0.313

0.521

0.104

0.104

0.313

0.313

0.313

0.104

0.521

0.729

0.521

0.313

0.104

5

8. Tunnels

0.658

0.395

0.658

0.395

0.132

0.132

0.395

0.921

0.132

0.132

0.395

0.132

0.395

0.132

5

9. Balance Beam

0.278

0.463

0.648

0.278

0.278

0.093

0.278

0.648

0.093

0.278

0.463

0.278

0.648

0.278

5

10. Puzzle Panel

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

2.045

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

0.227

5

11. Merry Go Round

0.694

0.417

0.417

0.139

0.139

0.139

0.694

0.139

0.417

0.139

0.417

0.694

0.417

0.139

5

12. Glider

0.417

0.583

0.25

0.583

0.583

0.083

0.583

0.25

0.417

0.083

0.25

0.25

0.583

0.083

5

13. Spring Rockers

0.441

0.147

0.147

0.441

0.441

0.441

0.735

0.147

0.441

0.147

0.735

0.441

0.147

0.147

5

14. Pole Slider

0.625

0.268

0.268

0.625

0.625

0.089

0.268

0.268

0.625

0.089

0.268

0.625

0.089

0.268

5

15. Play Webs

0.375

0.625

0.625

0.625

1.125

0.125

0.125

0.125

0.375

0.125

0.125

0.125

0.125

0.375

5

Table 8 Normalized Score relative to Criterion Importance (B)

Criterion (B): Similarity in Level Of Difficulties

Importance:

7

Normalized Score relative to Criterion

Normalized score relative to Criterion =

Scores * Criterion importance / Total row score

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

0.103

0.515

0.309

0.309

0.926

0.721

0.515

0.309

0.926

0.721

0.309

0.926

0.103

0.309

7

2. Monkey Bars

0.109

0.547

0.766

0.766

0.109

0.328

0.547

0.766

0.109

0.328

0.766

0.109

0.984

0.766

7

3. Adventure Bridge

0.398

0.398

0.557

0.557

0.398

0.557

0.716

0.557

0.398

0.557

0.557

0.398

0.398

0.557

7

4. Cliff Hanger

0.244

0.57

0.57

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.57

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.733

0.244

0.57

0.733

7

5. Rope Climber

0.244

0.57

0.57

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.57

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.733

0.244

0.57

0.733

7

6. Music Panel

0.926

0.103

0.515

0.309

0.309

0.721

0.515

0.309

0.926

0.721

0.309

0.926

0.103

0.309

7

7. Swings

0.598

0.256

0.598

0.427

0.427

0.598

0.598

0.427

0.598

0.768

0.427

0.598

0.256

0.427

7

8. Tunnels

0.398

0.398

0.716

0.557

0.557

0.398

0.557

0.557

0.398

0.557

0.557

0.398

0.398

0.557

7

9. Balance Beam

0.244

0.57

0.57

0.733

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.57

0.244

0.407

0.733

0.244

0.57

0.733

7

10. Puzzle Panel

0.926

0.103

0.515

0.309

0.309

0.926

0.721

0.515

0.309

0.721

0.309

0.926

0.103

0.309

7

11. Merry Go Round

0.598

0.256

0.598

0.427

0.427

0.598

0.768

0.598

0.427

0.598

0.427

0.598

0.256

0.427

7

12. Glider

0.244

0.57

0.57

0.733

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.57

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.244

0.57

0.733

7

13. Spring Rockers

0.926

0.103

0.515

0.309

0.309

0.926

0.721

0.515

0.309

0.926

0.721

0.309

0.103

0.309

7

14. Pole Slider

0.109

0.984

0.547

0.766

0.766

0.109

0.328

0.547

0.766

0.109

0.328

0.766

0.109

0.766

7

15. Play Webs

0.244

0.57

0.57

0.733

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.57

0.733

0.244

0.407

0.733

0.244

0.57

7

Table 9 Normalized Score relative to Criterion Importance (C)

Criterion (C): Difference in Popularity

Importance:

3

Normalized Score relative to Criterion

Normalized score relative to Criterion =

Scores * Criterion importance / Total row score

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

0.214

0.129

0.214

0.214

0.3

0.043

0.214

0.3

0.3

0.129

0.129

0.214

0.386

0.214

3

2. Monkey Bars

0.375

0.225

0.075

0.075

0.225

0.375

0.225

0.225

0.225

0.225

0.225

0.225

0.225

0.075

3

3. Adventure Bridge

0.196

0.196

0.196

0.196

0.326

0.196

0.196

0.326

0.326

0.065

0.065

0.196

0.326

0.196

3

4. Cliff Hanger

0.417

0.083

0.25

0.083

0.25

0.417

0.083

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.083

0.25

0.083

3

5. Rope Climber

0.469

0.094

0.281

0.094

0.094

0.656

0.094

0.094

0.094

0.281

0.281

0.281

0.094

0.094

3

6. Music Panel

0.438

0.188

0.313

0.188

0.063

0.438

0.063

0.063

0.063

0.313

0.313

0.313

0.063

0.188

3

7. Swings

0.042

0.208

0.125

0.208

0.292

0.292

0.208

0.292

0.292

0.125

0.125

0.208

0.375

0.208

3

8. Tunnels

0.469

0.281

0.281

0.094

0.094

0.094

0.469

0.094

0.094

0.281

0.281

0.094

0.281

0.094

3

9. Balance Beam

0.438

0.188

0.313

0.188

0.063

0.063

0.438

0.063

0.063

0.313

0.313

0.313

0.063

0.188

3

10. Puzzle Panel

0.438

0.188

0.313

0.188

0.063

0.063

0.438

0.063

0.063

0.313

0.313

0.313

0.063

0.188

3

11. Merry Go Round

0.196

0.196

0.065

0.196

0.196

0.326

0.196

0.196

0.326

0.326

0.065

0.196

0.326

0.196

3

12. Glider

0.196

0.196

0.065

0.196

0.196

0.326

0.196

0.196

0.326

0.326

0.065

0.196

0.326

0.196

3

13. Spring Rockers

0.3

0.18

0.18

0.06

0.18

0.3

0.3

0.06

0.3

0.3

0.18

0.18

0.3

0.18

3

14. Pole Slider

0.5

0.167

0.278

0.167

0.056

0.056

0.5

0.167

0.056

0.056

0.278

0.278

0.278

0.167

3

15. Play Webs

0.395

0.079

0.237

0.079

0.079

0.237

0.395

0.079

0.237

0.237

0.237

0.237

0.237

0.237

3

Table 10 Total Normalized Score for All Criteria

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

ROW TOTAL

1. Slides

0.04

0.074

0.053

0.053

0.088

0.094

0.079

0.059

0.088

0.087

0.06

0.095

0.076

0.053

1

2. Monkey Bars

0.052

0.071

0.101

0.101

0.029

0.066

0.071

0.098

0.029

0.056

0.111

0.029

0.1

0.088

1

3. Adventure Bridge

0.074

0.06

0.071

0.071

0.055

0.085

0.095

0.107

0.055

0.062

0.062

0.047

0.069

0.085

1

4. Cliff Hanger

0.063

0.087

0.073

0.11

0.039

0.061

0.062

0.084

0.039

0.05

0.109

0.04

0.098

0.085

1

5. Rope Climber

0.065

0.086

0.075

0.109

0.028

0.077

0.05

0.073

0.028

0.052

0.109

0.053

0.086

0.109

1

6. Music Panel

0.104

0.032

0.068

0.046

0.038

0.116

0.051

0.038

0.181

0.082

0.054

0.121

0.024

0.046

1

7. Swings

0.091

0.052

0.083

0.049

0.055

0.08

0.075

0.069

0.066

0.094

0.085

0.088

0.063

0.049

1

8. Tunnels

0.102

0.072

0.11

0.07

0.052

0.042

0.095

0.105

0.042

0.065

0.082

0.042

0.072

0.052

1

9. Balance Beam

0.064

0.081

0.102

0.08

0.072

0.027

0.075

0.085

0.027

0.066

0.101

0.056

0.085

0.08

1

10. Puzzle Panel

0.106

0.035

0.07

0.048

0.04

0.202

0.092

0.054

0.04

0.084

0.057

0.098

0.026

0.048

1

11. Merry Go Round

0.099

0.058

0.072

0.051

0.051

0.071

0.111

0.062

0.078

0.071

0.061

0.099

0.067

0.051

1

12. Glider

0.057

0.09

0.059

0.101

0.101

0.044

0.079

0.068

0.098

0.044

0.048

0.046

0.099

0.067

1

13. Spring Rockers

0.111

0.029

0.056

0.054

0.062

0.111

0.117

0.048

0.07

0.092

0.109

0.062

0.037

0.042

1

14. Pole Slider

0.082

0.095

0.073

0.104

0.096

0.017

0.073

0.065

0.096

0.017

0.058

0.111

0.032

0.08

1

15. Play Webs

0.068

0.085

0.095

0.096

0.129

0.04

0.062

0.052

0.09

0.04

0.051

0.073

0.04

0.079

1

Total Normalized Score =

Sum of Normalized Scores relative to Criterions / Sum of Criterion importance values

Sum of Normalized Scores relative to Criterions / Sum of Criterion importance values =

5 +7 + 3 =

15

Table 11 Final Qualitative Flow Chart

1. Slides

2. Monkey Bars

3. Adventure Bridge

4. Cliff Hanger

5. Rope Climber

6. Music Panel

7. Swings

8. Tunnels

9. Balance Beam

10. Puzzle Panel

11. Merry Go Round

12. Glider

13. Spring Rockers

14. Pole Slider

15. Play Webs

1. Slides

3

6

4

4

7

7

6

4

7

7

5

7

6

4

2. Monkey Bars

4

5

8

8

2

5

5

7

2

4

8

2

7

7

3. Adventure Bridge

6

5

5

5

4

6

7

8

4

5

5

3

5

6

4. Cliff Hanger

5

7

5

8

3

5

5

6

3

4

8

3

7

6

5. Rope Climber

5

6

6

8

2

6

4

5

2

4

8

4

6

8

6. Music Panel

8

2

5

3

3

9

4

3

14

6

4

9

2

3

7. Swings

7

4

6

4

4

6

6

5

5

7

6

7

5

4

8. Tunnels

8

5

8

5

4

3

7

8

3

5

6

3

5

4

9. Balance Beam

5

6

8

6

5

2

6

6

2

5

8

4

6

6

10. Puzzle Panel

8

3

5

4

3

15

7

4

3

6

4

7

2

4

11. Merry Go Round

7

4

5

4

4

5

8

5

6

5

5

7

5

4

12. Glider

4

7

4

8

8

3

6

5

7

3

4

3

7

5

13. Spring Rockers

8

2

4

4

5

8

9

4

5

7

8

5

3

3

14. Pole Slider

6

7

5

8

7

1

5

5

7

1

4

8

2

6

15. Play Webs

5

6

7

7

10

3

5

4

7

3

4

5

3

6

As the highest Normalized score is 0.2, while the maximum flow value applicable for FLAP is 15,

Qualitative Flow Value =

(Total Normalized Score/0.2) * 15

Chapter 5 Design Considerations
Chapter 5 Design Considerations

References

[1] Dictionary.com, "playground," in © Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.. Source location: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/playground. Accessed: November 02, 2009

[2] Barbara E. Hendricks. Designing for Play. Ashgate Publishing, 2001

[3] A Mahadev, M Y H Soon, K S Lam. Monkey Bars are for Monkeys: A study in Playground Equipment Related Extremity Fractures in Singapore, 2004

[4] API, Association of play industry. Technical Guidance relating to playground layout and design. http://www.api-play.org. Accessed: November 09, 2009

[5] U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C., Handbook for public playground safety, 2007

[6] Robin C. Moore. Play for All Guidelines: planning, design, and management of outdoor play settings for all children. Berkeley: Mig Communications, 1992

[7] James A. Tompkins, John A. White, Yavuz A. Bozer, Edward H. Frazelle, J.M.A. Tanchoco, Jaime Trevino. Facilities Planning. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1996

[8] Alberto Garcia-Diaz, J. MacGregor Smith. Facilities Planning and Design. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008

[9] R. Muther. Systematic Layout Planning. Industrial Education Institute, Boston, Mass, 1961

[10] The Regents of the University of California. Facilities Layout Applet/Application (FLAP) v1.0. http://riot.ieor.berkeley.edu/riot/Applications/flap. Accessed: October, 2009

[11] Saaty, Thomas L.. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications, 1999

[12] Gerald Pahl, Wolfgang Beitz, translated by Ken Wallace, Lucienne Blessing, and Frank Bauert; edited by Ken Wallace. Engineering Design: A systematic Approach. London; New York; Springer, 1996

Please be aware that the free essay that you were just reading was not written by us. This essay, and all of the others available to view on the website, were provided to us by students in exchange for services that we offer. This relationship helps our students to get an even better deal while also contributing to the biggest free essay resource in the UK!