This project aims to support a three-year-old child with autism in developing their gross motor skills. The child has shown a strong interest in climbing and sliding, and we are collaborating closely with their family to meet those needs by providing a safe and engaging indoor playground.
The family needs a playset for their child that will be able to fit in this room and allows the child to climb, slide, and play.
UPDATE:
The location for this playset has been moved to the basement
Our research consisted of looking at other products and combining the safety regulations needed in order to define the dimensions, assembly, and materials for the indoor playset.
Equipment – For ages 2-5, CPSC recommends short horizontal rung ladders, slides, stairways, and swings for climbing structures.
After talking with the family, the equipment we chose to implement are as follows:
Critical Fall Height – “The maximum fall height for free standing and composite climbing structures should be 32 inches.” (CPSC Page 36)
Choking/Entrapment Hazards – Avoid any area where the child may get their extremities or head stuck. CPSC recommends that netting be “between 3/8 in (to avoid finger entrapment) and 3.5 in (to avoid head entrapment).”
Sources Used:
Our first preliminary design includes a slide, monkey bars, toy storage, and a multitiered climbing platform that allows the child to climb to the upper platform in two ways, first using the rock wall then a built-in ladder. The netting at the top restricts the child to reach their hand/fingers touching the ceiling fan.
The bed on the bottom is slightly deeper than the upper platform to also prevent issues with the ceiling fan.
For our second preliminary design we made some major changes starting with moving the slide to the outside. This not only feels more aesthetically pleasing but makes the slide protrude less into the room, making it more compact. Changes to the rock wall were also made, we modified the rock wall to include an integrated later. Lastly we made the bed fold up for more space under the bed for a potentially more space for play.
For the third preliminary design we moved our climbing wall to the side of the build, the reason for doing so was a safety concern. Upon inspection of the second preliminary design we realized that when the child was climbing on the wall they could fall sideways and land on the railing of the bed frame potentially causing blunt trauma.
This change also made the geometry for the build much simpler as it removed the slanted wall shelves.
We decided on the second design because it was the safest, most engaging, and the best fit for the family.
It yielded the highest score on our decision matrix.
Our selected design took elements from our concepts, but ultimately the family decided to remove the bed and have just the play set. The play set will include the fidget wall, rock climbing wall, slide, swing, and a chalkboard wall. Depending on time constraints we are interested in adding another feature to provide a space for them to use measuring tools like a tape measure.
The rock climbing wall is one of our most important features. Since our structure is indoor the hight of the wall couldn’t exceed 5 and half feet since we needed room on top for them to walk and crawl around. We decided to make it less steep allowing for a longer board to climb while also making it easier to walk up the stairs.
The shape of our structure is also very important. We wanted as much room as possible for the child to play while also not taking up too much floor space. Ultimately we went with a 12 ft long by 8 foot wide ‘L’ shape. This allowed for the slide to not take up too much space in the middle of the room. It also allows us to move the play set into the corner of the room to take up minimal space.
Lastly the fidget wall. Other than being an area to keep the child busy, the wall includes educational elements. It has an analog clock to help with comprehension skills, a day of the week slider, and the planets in the solar system.
For the first analysis the floor of the structure was put under a simulated weight of 4000 newtons (N).
The average male weight is approximately 70 kg, which converts to about 686 newtons (N) under the effects of gravity.
Meaning this analysis simulates around 6 full grown men standing on the stop platform.
This load is much larger than the expected weight which is around 500 newtons (N)
Despite this the highest stress the structure experiences is 6.502 e+5 much lower than our yield stress of 4.140 e+10
This means the structure is stable and shouldn’t fail under these loads.
The displacement of the structure under this 4000 newton (N) load is also displayed. The max displacement experienced by the structure is
4.272 e-2 mm or 4.272 e-5 m
or
0.001682 in or 1.682 e-3 in
Meaning the structure despite being under relatively extreme condition has little to no deformation.
I think it is also worth mentioning that the stresses and deformation acting on the rail are 1 magnitude higher. This is to be expected and despite this the design is still well within the expected values for a safe structure.
For the second analysis the rock wall of the structure was put under a simulated weight of 2000 newtons (N).
The average male weight is approximately 70 kg, which converts to about 686 newtons (N) under the effects of gravity.
Meaning this analysis simulates around 4 full grown men standing on the stop platform.
This load is much larger than the expected weight which is around 500 newtons (N)
Despite this the highest stress the structure experiences is 1.321 e+6 much lower than our yield stress of 4.140 e+10
This means the structure is stable and shouldn’t fail under these loads.
The displacement of the structure under this 2000 newton (N) load is also displayed. The max displacement experienced by the structure is
6.002 e-2 mm or 6.002 e-5 m
or
0.002363 in or 2.363 e-3 in
Meaning the structure despite being under relatively extreme condition has little to no deformation.
For the second analysis the railing of the structure was put under a simulated weight of 2000 newtons (N) along the inside of the railing.
The average male weight is approximately 70 kg, which converts to about 686 newtons (N) under the effects of gravity.
Meaning this analysis simulates around 4 full grown men standing on the stop platform.
This load is much larger than the expected weight which is around 800 newtons (N)
Despite this the highest stress the structure experiences is 5.902 e+6 much lower than our yield stress of 4.140 e+10
This means the structure is stable and shouldn’t fail under these loads.
The displacement of the structure under this 2000 newton (N) load is also displayed. The max displacement experienced by the structure is
2.822 e-1 mm or 2.822 e-4 m
or
0.01111 in or 1.111 e-2 in
Meaning the structure despite being under relatively extreme condition has little to no deformation.
