1

EDSGN100 Project01: Monkey Bars

Ryan Poss
Andrew Loviscky
Asa Shin
Corbin DeSantis
College of Engineering
Hammond Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA

Prepared For:
Playground Grant Agency

March 1, 2018

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802

Abstract
 2

As visible by today’s standards, playground equipment is not accessible for all children. Even if
there is one or two pieces of equipment for handicapped children, the equipment is easily viewed
as the “disabled equipment” because they are seen as boring or lame compared to the other
equipment. All four group members came up with a design to redefine monkey bars. To make
our playground equipment both fun and accessible we used a point scale to measure it. Using the
scale with factors such as fun, safety, and accessibility we found that our first design (Figure 4)
was the best in all factors. This design, containing the x-supports and rope throughout, would be
tested ideally through observation of its use, then taking into account persistence, popularity,
accessibility, and time spent on the equipment through this observation, as well as conducting
surveys. Starting with the simple idea of classic monkey bars, we expanded the idea to make
something accessible and fun to as many children as possible. We believe we had succeeded in
doing this, giving most kids a chance to use the equipment in the chosen design. Future research
could include testing current monkey bar models and see how they compare to our design.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 6
 3

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Accessibility of Playgrounds ...................................................................................... 6
1.3 Current Monkey Bars .................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Disability Specific Monkey Bars ................................................................................ 8
1.5 Need For Playgrounds ................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Table of Needs .............................................................................................................. 9
1.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 10
2 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Concept 01: Cuboid Net .............................................................................................. 10
2.3 Concept 02: Step Through ........................................................................................... 12
2.4 Concept 03: Platonic Solid .......................................................................................... 13
2.5 Concept 04: Overhead Dome ...................................................................................... 15
2.6 Scoring ........................................................................................................................ 16
2.7 Summary...................................................................................................................... 17
3 DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Taking Safety Into Account ....................................................................................... 18
3.3 Prototype ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Testing ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Summary....................................................................................................................... 19
4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 20
4.1 Process .........................................................................................................................20
4.2 Achieve Goal ............................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Accessibility ................................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Future Research ............................................................................................................ 21
4.5 Final Playground .......................................................................................................... 21
5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 22

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page

 4

1 Current Monkey Bars 7

2 Distribution of Injuries Per Playground Equipment 8

3 SII Wheelchair Accessible Monkey Bars 8

4 3rd Angle View Concept 01

11

5 Axonometric View Concept 01 12

6 Axonometric View Springs

12

7 3rd angle View Concept 02

13

8 Axonometric View Concept 02

13

9 3rd Angle View Concept 03

14

10 Axonometric View Concept 03

15

11 3rd Angle View Concept 04

16

12 Prototype on Topography Map 19

13 Final Playground 21
 5

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 Specific Needs for Each Group 9

2 Scoring of Concepts 17
 6

1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

1.1 Introduction

Playground equipment is crucial to the youth, and current playgrounds, especially monkey bars,
do not enable every child to meet their needs. Below are the reasons why the construction of
fully accessible playgrounds are important in terms of the current lack of accessible playgrounds
and why they are essential to children.

1.2 Accessibility of Playgrounds

Special education professionals don’t view most current playgrounds as fully accessible to all the
needs of disabled students (Stanton-Chapman & Schmidt, 2016). Many designs are simply not
tailored for disabled children, and the ones that do are very specific to a certain disability. Such
designs are not inclusive which will leave disabled children feeling left out. According to the
Disability Statistics Annual Report through the Disability Compendium, 5.6% of children
between the ages of 5 and 17 suffer from a disability. This percentage breaks down into 4.2%
cognitive, 0.6% ambulatory, 0.4% visual and 0.4% auditory (2017).This is a significant amount
of children who cannot participate in the fun activities that their peers enjoy. For example, if
there was a county with 10,000 children, 560 of them suffer from some form of disability that
can prevent them from interacting with the other children on playgrounds.

1.3 Current Monkey Bars

Current Monkey Bars are extremely basic being a pair of upright ladders with a ladder placed
between them (see Figure 1). How primitive they are has not changed that much since their
inception. The first evidence of a playground climbing structure is still standing at Crow Island
School and it is simply an entanglement of metal rods built in 1920 (Crow Island History, 2017).
For current monkey bars, The objective is to use the rungs of the ladder that was parallel to the
ground to traverse the distance between the two upright ladders. This is a very simple climbing
structure, and is very durable and easy to grasp as a concept. The problems that present
themselves is that it is not very accessible to the differently abled, namely those children and
young adults that are confined to a wheelchair or do not have the leg strength necessary to carry
themselves up those upright ladders. Children who are also visually impaired would find
immense difficulty with two different rungs.
 7

Figure 1: Current Monkey Bars (Sportsplay Horizontal Ladder, 2018)

Some of the main manufacturers of monkey bars, and other playground equipment, are Ultra
Play, SportsPlay Equipment, and SII. Typical materials on their monkey bars consist of PVC,
plastic flex, rope, wood, and high grade steel. Nearly all of the designs are inaccessible to
disabled children, especially those who need wheelchairs. Only SII produces equipment to
accommodate these needs, but this equipment is made specifically for the disability (More in
Section 1.4). Regardless of a child’s disabilities, monkey bars are the most dangerous piece of
playground equipment. 36% of all injuries are a result of monkey bars (O’Brien, 2009, Figure 2
Displays the distribution for all playground equipment) This was something we eventually took
into account when coming up with concepts. O’Brien’s statistics brought to light that there is a
problem with monkey bars and jungle gyms outside the fact that they are very inaccessible. They
cause an immense amount of injuries. 44% of injuries result from a fall and such injuries are
36% fractures, 20% contusions, 12% sprains, 5% internal organ injuries, etc (O’Brien, 2009).
 8

Figure 2: Distribution of Injuries Per Playground Equipment (O’Brien, 2009)

1.4: Disability Specific Monkey Bars

The few designs for monkey bars that accommodate disabilities only are for children who require
a wheelchair to move around. All designs are extremely similar and follow the same concept
seen below.

Figure 3: SII Wheelchair Accessible Monkey Bars (Wheelchair Scaling Ladder, 2018)

The overhead rungs of the monkey bars are brought down to the height of 4 foot 6 inches to
allow one sitting in a wheelchair to reach them and still be close to their seat, and there are side
panels which guide the wheelchair in a straight line (Wheelchair Scaling Ladder, 2018). The
main manufacturer and the manufacturer of the above design is SII with the only other large
 9

manufacturer being SportsPlay Equipment. The minimal amount of designs further exemplifies
the underrepresentation of disabled kids for playground equipment.

1.5: Need For Playgrounds

Regardless of how much fun and enjoyment playground equipment causes, they serve an
essential role in the classroom. The physical exertion that children get when using monkey bars
and playing during recess helps them focus during class and creates a more meaningful and
enriching environment for the kids (Reilly, 2017). A set period to go play outside on equipment
promotes a more fulfilling learning experience, and children who are unable to participate, due to
a disability, are missing out on this opportunity. It is essential for all children to have this
exercise period to achieve the best school experience possible.

1.6: Table Of Needs

Table 1: Specific Needs for Each Group

Group Needs Specification

Disabled Fun Interview children and see how excited they are for the monkey
Children bars and observe to see how many children use the monkey bars
in a designated period of time.
Benchmark: 5 children every 15 minutes

Disabled Accessibility Interview children and ask them how easy it was for them to
Children play on the monkey bars
Benchmark: 80% of children say they were able to use it

Disabled Equality Observe children playing to see how often and for how long
Children disabled children are playing with able-bodied children
Benchmark: 80% of the time is “joint” play

Able-Bodied Fun Interview children and see how excited they are for the monkey
Children bars and observe to see how many children use the monkey bars
in a designated period of time
Benchmark: 5 children every 15 minutes

Parents Child’s Safety Report how many children get injured on the monkey bars over
a one week period
Benchmark: No more than 2 children per week
 10

Interview children and see how excited they are for the monkey
bars and observe to see how many children use the monkey bars
Parents Child’s in a designated period of time
Amusement Benchmark: 5 children every 15 minutes

Community No Liabilities Report how many children get injured on the monkey bars over
a one week period
Benchmark: No more than 2 children per week

The cost of this piece of equipment is within 20% of the average

Schools Cost Effective price of monkey bars

1.7 Summary

Playground equipment is just not made the same for disabled children as it is for able bodied
children. Most equipment has not changed from their original designs and monkey bars are no
different. The straight 90 degree angle climb up gets rid of the ability for most disabled children
to use them. That is why we are tasked with trying to make monkey bars that all children can
use. Through tests with disabled and able bodied children, their parents, and the community we
will be able to determine which of the designs we have come up with will be the replacement for
current, outdated monkey bars at parks everywhere. Disabled children need to be represented
more in playgrounds due to the positive physical and education effects that able bodied children
gain from it.

2 METHODS

2.1 Introduction

After identifying existing conditions, we began developing concepts. We kept in mind the needs
of each group but especially the aspects of fun and inclusiveness for the children. We included
multiple views of each design as well as a grading chart for which design we would eventually
bring into prototyping.

2.2 Concept 01: Cuboid Net

 11

For our first concept, we generated a structure that originally takes shape as a jungle gym;
however, we introduced ropes to the entirety of the equipment. Such design would enable
children to climb around in three dimensions. Each of the support beams, made out of metal to
ensure maximum support, is cylindrical and 4 inches in diameter. Each of the four sides consist
of an x-pattern as seen in Figure 1 below:

Figure 4: 3rd Angle View Concept 01

The ends of these supports all meet at each of the 8 vertices on this cuboid structure, and this
design leaves the top free from any cross support so there are only ropes covering the top. Each
side is 16 feet and each x-support is about 22.6 feet. The x-support section allows for any child to
approach the equipment and climb right in and the scale of it can support a multitude of children
so they can all feel involved. The distance in between each rope is 1.5 feet. Below each of the
bases there would be a spring which would cause the structure to randomly dip when many
children play on it. It can also allow the structure to dip slightly so a child in a wheelchair can
find it easier to climb in. The structure in its entirety can be seen in axonometric view below in
Figure 5:

Figure 5: Axonometric View Concept 01

 12

The spring found under each leg of the base can be seen below in figure 6. The top and bottom of
the spring is six inches by six inches and it is eight inches tall. The stiffness of the spring is
incredibly high since the structure weighs very much. The high stiffness also prevents is from
dipping too much so children don’t fall off.

Figure 6: Axonometric View Springs

2.3 Concept 02: Step Through

For this second figure, we stuck with the basic idea behind the current design of Monkey Bars,
but we still needed to make it accessible. To this end, we decided to do away with the initial and
final ladders that were on each end of the structure and instead decided to make it a curved
structure that had the last rung close enough to the ground so that a young child in a wheelchair
could grab onto it and climb from there.

Figure 7: 3rd angle View Concept 02

 13

After this first rung, the rungs will start to climb up until they reach their apex which is eight feet
off of the ground. From there the rungs start to descend until they are brought back to their
starting point. An important design feature is that this figure has two axes of symmetry, one from
the top view, and on from the side view, splitting it into two halves from the apex. This is done
so that if child reaches the end and is not quite able to make it from one end to the other does not
have a constant drop of eight feet, as opposed to the original design which would have a constant
drop from the highest point. This is done intentionally to preserve the most safety for the
children, as well as the least liability for the manufacturer and the school.

Figure 8: Axonometric View Concept 02

2.4 Concept 03: Platonic Solid

For our third concept, we generated a metal structure in the shape of an icosahedron, a
polyhedron that fits under the category of a platonic solid. The shape is based upon an
intersection of three perpendicular golden rectangles in the center. It would normally include
twenty faces and twelve vertices, but with this design, it has been truncated so that the
pentagonal pyramid normally located at the base has been removed. This shape would be the
metal frame of the structure with ropes inside for children to climb on. Each bar would be 8 feet
long, which is each side of the two pentagons and each side of every triangle.
 14

Figure 9: 3rd Angle View Concept 03

This concept, is more of an adaptation of monkey bars into a jungle gym type space with various
ropes inside to climb on. This design does not fully limit children in wheelchairs, still allowing
them to start from the bottom and make their way up. However, they might still need assistance
from someone else to make it higher up. If a child were to fall somewhere inside the structure, it
should still be safe from any height due to other ropes being present below.

Figure 10: Axonometric View Concept 03

2.5 Concept 04: Overhead Dome

 15

For our fourth concept we decided to mix the two ideas of straight up monkey bars along with
the dome structures we have been trying. This would keep the same basic concept of monkey
bars along with something new to amuse all kids with. The dome structure is 3 feet off of the
ground and each entrance is 3 feet wide, tall and wide enough for children with wheelchairs to fit
under. Then the two monkey bars lead to a spinning wheel to be able to transport oneself from
one part to the other. This keep the concept of monkey bars by hanging from the bars but also
allowing maneuverability in all directions.

Figure 11: 3rd Angle View Concept 04

The structure is supposed to stem from the 2 sets of monkey bars, but because of the design there
are 4 entrances to the monkey bars. This allows up to 4 disabled children to use the easier
entrance while anyone else can just grab onto the bar going around and climb the triangle
structure in between the monkey bar base structure. The design for making triangles to fill the
gaps is from the idea of most metal dome structures, which are still easily climbed. The only
issue is that it is easy for disabled children to get onto the structure due to the design, but getting
off they will need assistance because the only way off is to fall and catch yourself, and that can
be difficult for some children. That is why the design has it only being a 3 foot fall from the top
but it could still be an issue.

2.6 Scoring

When it came to determining which concept would be the best fit based off all the needs, we
decided which needs were the most crucial overall. We then designated multipliers to each of the
specs according to their importance.
 16

Spec 1- Fun Multiplier- 0.4

Spec 2- Accessibility Multiplier- 0.3
Spec 3- Equality Multiplier- 0.3

For each spec, the concept can be rated from -2 through 2. A 0 indicates that the concept met the
benchmark based on Table 1 for that spec. Each point above or below indicates that the concept
exceeded the benchmark by 5% above or below, respectively.

Table 2: Scoring of Concepts

Concept Spec 1 Spec 2 Spec 3 Total

Concept 1 +2 +1 +2 -

With .8 .3 .6 1.7
Multiplier

Concept 2 0 +2 +1 -

With 0 .6 .3 0.9
Multiplier

Concept 3 +2 +1 +1 -

With .8 .3 .3 1.4
Multiplier

Concept 4 +1 +1 +2 -

With .4 .3 .6 1.3
Multiplier

2.7 Summary

In this section, we discussed and viewed the various benefits that these new designs could bring
to a community wherein the standard monkey bars are still in operation. After each design was
discussed and the various benefits it offered were reviewed, a table was made to score the
concepts, taking into account the increase in fun it offered, the increase in accessibility it offered,
and whether or not it was design that was inclusive and was meant to be used by all. Through
this table, after running each design through this metric, produced the most exciting and likeable
design as concept number 1, which takes some interesting and more complicated ideas than the
 17

typical monkey bar, but uses these different ideas to make a product and design that both safer,
more fun, and more equally accessible by all.

3.0 Data Analysis

3.1 Introduction

Going back to our table from earlier, we went with our first concept design (the rope structure).
Not only was it the most fun, but as the designers we decided it would be the most fun with
safety in mind. We had to also make a scale design of our model to fit onto our scale model we
made in class. Providing potential tests and experiments to carry out, we give a procedure to
know if our design meets our speculations.

3.2 Taking Safety Into Account

Now that we have determined which design to build based purely on fun, accessibility and
inclusivity, safety had to be addressed. Concept 01 originally had springs under each of the legs
to add some random movements to increase fun; however, in actuality this could prove
problematic. If a child is high up and one side dips down significantly, there is a high chance the
child can fall off from 16 feet up. Removing the springs seemed to be the first priority, and it
also brings up another issue. Adding some padding or mulch at the bottom of the design is
important to help diminish the injuries from monkey bars mentioned in Section 1.3. The removal
of springs and implementation of some padding at the bottom of the design drastically improve
safety while still keeping the equipment fun for children.

3.3 Prototype

Originally, we were thinking of going with Concept 02 because of safety reasons, but then we
went back and decided to focus more on fun due to how poorly Concept 02 scored. Then it came
to designing Concept 01. We ended up making a model on SolidWorks to export as an .stl file to
3D print. We had to maintain a ⅛” = 1’ scale to fit onto our class model we created.This causes
each side to be 2 inches long and to have less than ⅛ of an inch for its depth. We assembled the
3D model (the structure/frame) with hot glue and floss (for the rope). While the thickness and
tensile strength of the floss is not comparable or accurate to what the actual rope would be, it
correctly displays the checker-like design that would be covering all sides and continue into the
structure. The design fits perfectly on the highest point of our topography map, which is to the
same scale. Our prototype on the topography map can be seen below in figure 12.
 18

Figure 12: Prototype on Topography Map

3.4 Testing

In order to understand if our prototype will work in reality, there a few experiments that we
believe need to happen. To measure fun, a naturalistic observation of children in a playground
with our design would be ideal. Measuring persistence: the amount of times an individual child
goes on our design; popularity; the amount of children who played on it in total; and the amount
of time each child played on the equipment. To average out the results, this observation will need
to happen a couple hours at a time over the course of a couple weeks. Children selected at
random over several towns should be used as well. Testing accessibility would have similar
aspects to the aforementioned experiment in terms of needing observation. Children who suffer
from disabilities will individually be observed to see if they are able to use and, if so, have fun
on the equipment. To gain this information, interviews will be needed, and the children need to
be asked whether or not they were able to use the equipment, how easy was it to use the
equipment, and did they have fun using the equipment. The final test, which is for inclusivity,
will practically be identical to the test for fun, but what is being observed is different. This time,
it will be observed how often and for how long able bodied children as well as disabled children
play together and interact ond the equipment. Moreover, there can also be and interview after for
children who are disabled to see if they felt included.

3.5 Summary

The final step before constructing the prototype was establishing how to make our design ethical
and safe. Once slight modifications were made we were able to build the prototype with 3D
printed material and floss. Inserting the model onto the topography map made the scaled size
prototype complete. Finally, we developed possible tests to carry out to understand if the design
would actually succeed in what it was intended to do.
 19

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 Process

We started with the problem of making accessible monkey so we first had to identify existing
conditions. Gathering research helped us design our initial concepts down the road as well as
creating a table of needs for the stakeholders. Each member of our group set out and designed a
unique concept that brought different strengths and ideas to the table. We took each design and
evaluated them to find the best design (Table 2). We used the specs of fun, accessibility, and
equality, giving each of them arbitrary multipliers based on what we perceived as the most
important. Once we narrowed down the four concepts to the one we used, we created a 3D model
on SolidWorks of just the structure (no ropes) for concept 01. It was essential for the equipment
to be safe so we had to revise the design to make it safer for children. After 3D printing the
structure in separate parts and decided to use floss as the ropes that would go through the
structure. Then we hot glued the structure together and hot glued the “ropes” on. That’s how we
got the scale model and put it onto our scaled plot as seen in Figure 12.

4.2 Achieve Goal

We were given the goal to create monkey bars that are accessible to all children. I think we
achieved our goal in the best way we could. For example, if a child has no use of their arms it
would not be possible for them to use any form of monkey bars. Almost every other kid can find
something to do with the design we came up with. With ropes starting low and allowing kids to
climb further and further up and down as they like. The webbed design gives room children to
weave in and out but also catch the children as they fall. The design itself inherits both safety and
accessibility that we were looking for along with an exciting design children are bound to love.

4.3 Accessibility

The main focus of all of our designs was to keep them accessible for all children. This can easily
be seen in Concept 02 where it was all about allowing everyone to use it and be safe, but it didn’t
have any of an excitement factor to it. That is why Concept 01 is just better than the rest of the
ideas. It is safe and fun for all children.

4.4 Future Research

Conceivable future research could be testing current monkey bar models to see how they
compare to our design. If this design were to eventually be built, completing the experiments in
 20

section 3.4 should be the first action. Gathering results from these tests will shed light on what
modifications need to be made to further improve improve the design. The altered design would
then need to be tested again as it is further refined until it exceeds all of the benchmarks. If the
new design proves to be beneficial to most student it should be manufactured and installed at
schools and public parks.

4.5 Final Playground

Below is the culmination of all of the groups designs put together in a playground

Figure 13: Final Playground

5.0 References

Crow Island History. (2017). Retrieved February 25, 2018, from

https://www.winnetka36.org/crowisland/history
 21

O’Brien, C. W. (2009). Injuries and Investigated Deaths Associated with Playground Equipment,
2001-2008 (Vol. 280, p. 24). Bethesda, MD. doi:10.1111/febs.12425.

Reilly, K. (2017, October 23). Is Recess Important for Kids? Here's What the Research Says.
Retrieved February 07, 2018, from http://time.com/4982061/recess-benefits-research-debate/

SportsPlay Horizontal Ladder. (2018). Retrieved February 25, 2018, from www.wayfair.com

Stanton-Chapman, T., & Schmidt, E. L. (2016). Special education professionals' perceptions

toward accessible playgrounds. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
41(2), 90-100.

Wheelchair Scaling Ladder. (2018). Retrieved February 25, 2018, from

https://www.aaastateofplay.com/wheelchair-scaling-ladder/

2017 Disability Compendium. (2007). Retrieved February 07, 2018, from

https://disabilitycompendium.org/