|
Click on the appropriate link below to view the area you choose.
- PDF Document Links -
Installation & Maintenance Guidelines, ASTM F1292 Test Reports, ADA Certification, MSDS Sheets & Product Warranty
- Why Can't I Just Rely on CPSC Pub. 325? -
Why it may not be a good idea to rely on outdated documents as the basis for determining playground safety, and what the CPSC has to say about it
- ASTM F1292 Test Changes -
What the ASTM has to say about F1292 testing revisions
- ASTM F1292 Test Data -
Same data as in PDF Test Data documents above, for easier access and online viewing
PDF Document Links
Provided below are links to various documents in Adobe Acrobat PDF file format, including
installation & maintenance guidelines, ASTM test reports and product warranty for
PermaLife SoftStuff™, as well as the MSDS data for recycled tires and the proprietaty PermaLife coating.
Click on the applicable link to download the PDF file, for which you'll need Acrobat Reader.
We have provided a link at the bottom of this page if
you don't have Adobe Reader already installed on your system.
ASTM F1292 Fall Height & Head Injury Criterion (HIC) Reports
The complete test reports published on July 16, 2010, proving that NOTHING
is better for playground safety than PermaLife SoftStuff™ from Assiniboia Rubber Recycling (ARR)! Please scroll down for some very valuable
and important information regarding currently applicable playground safety surfacing standards, which are NOT addressed within
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Handbook on Public Playground Safety (Pub. 325), previously revised in 2008, the year prior to the
current and more accurate ASTM F1292-09 testing standards.
Flammability Testing ASTM D2859
ADA Certification
Material Safety Data Sheets
Product Warranty
BACK TO TOP
Why Shouldn't I Rely on What the U.S. CPSC Handbook on Public Playground Safety (Pub. 325) Says?
This is a VERY important question for anyone concerned with playground safety for children.
Especially if anyone is specifying playground safety surfacing based on the older revision, and not the most recent November 2010 revision.
While it was recognized by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that problems existed with the older methods of testing and rating
playground safety surfaces under the older ASTM F1292-04 standard, changes to testing established in ASTM F1292-09 didn't occur until the
year AFTER the CPSC revised its Pub. 325. Therefore, the data utilized in the old handbook was based on outdated standards, now known to no longer
provide the best known proven methods of testing established in December of 2009 for Head Injury Criterion, as are currently employing now.
In essence, we didn't know then what we know now.
While there was a Memorandum issued by the CPSC on July 7, 2009, entitled FY 2009 Voluntary Standards Activities Midyear Report, very few
people within certain organizations responsible for making decisions related to playground safety are aware of it. As a consequence, they
base many of their determinations on the outdated information contained within CPSC Pub. 325 regarding ASTM F1292-04 playground safety
surfacing testing in use at that time.
While this July 7, 2009 CPSC Report states there were voluntary changes made, and that the CPSC assisted in the creation of testing standards
established in 2009, this data is not within the typically referenced CPSC Pub. 325.
The ultimate goal remains the establishment
of the best playground safety for children through the continual creation and enforcement of better testing and standards.
Unfortunately, anyone not considering ASTM F1292-09 testing as part of their selection criteria, may very well discover that by relying
on outdated data could result in selection, specification and installation of less than desirable playground safety surfacing which
may provide a 2% probability of fatal injury. In such instances, it may be far better to look into all available data, so that a truly
educated decision might be made, providing for the safest protection available for reducing head injuries -- a subject not addressed
within the 2008 revision of CPSC Pub. 325, prior to the implementation of ASTM F1292-09 testing standards.
In essence, CPSC Publication 325 really is asking people to make more educated decisions, based on the applicable test data for ASTM
tests such as F1292-09. However, as is most often the case, companies won't and don't post their product(s) complete test data for
everyone to see. They simply either state their material has been tested as safe, or "white out" areas that are less than flattering
within the test data, so that there really cannot be a true comparison of relative safety between products. This is why we choose
to post the complete test data, and we're the only company to do so. We wish more companies would post their full test data,
although it's not likely, because they wouldn't end up looking as good as they want people to believe, and perception tends to dictate reality
in most cases. Regardless if it's true or not.
NOTE: More information on this is available in the PDF file provided online
directly from CPSC's website at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA09/brief/volstd2009.pdf
BACK TO TOP
Here's What the ASTM States Regarding F1292 Testing Revisions
Abstract
This specification specifies impact attenuation performance requirements for playground surfaces and surfacing materials and provides a
means of determining impact attenuation performance using a test method that simulates the impact of a child's head with the surface.
The test method quantifies impact in terms of g-max and Head Injury Criterion (HIC) scores. G-max is the measure of the maximum
acceleration (shock) produced by an impact. The Head Injury Criterion or HIC score is an empirical measure of impact severity based on
published research describing the relationship between the magnitude and duration of impact accelerations and the risk of head trauma.
Two test methods shall be used to determine the impact attenuation of a playground surface or surfacing materials: critical fall height
test, and installed surface performance test. The following apparatus shall be required for implementation of the two test methods:
temperature measuring device, impact test system, acceleration measurement system, drop height measurement system, and battery-operated
equipment.
Significance and Use
The purpose of this specification is to establish minimum impact attenuation requirements for playground surfaces in order to reduce
the risk of severe head injury from falls.
This specification provides a uniform means of quantifying the impact attenuation performance of playground surfaces and is
appropriately used to compare the relative performance of different playground surfacing materials.
This specification is to be used as a reference for specifying the impact attenuation performance of playground surfaces.
This specification provides a uniform means of comparing the impact attenuation performance of installed playground surfaces with the
performance requirements of this specification and with other performance requirements expressed in terms of drop height. Consequently,
the specification is appropriately used to determine the actual impact attenuation performance of installed playground surfaces under
ambient conditions of use.
In combination with data relating impact test scores to head injury, the information generated by application of this specification is
suitable to estimate the relative risk of a severe head injury due to a fall.
NOTE: More information on this is available directly from ASTM's
website at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F1292.htm
BACK TO TOP
ASTM F1292-09 Product Testing Data
Below is the same data from the July 16, 2010 test reports accessible in PDF format above, as conducted by TÜV SÜD America, Inc.
of Plymouth, Michigan. We recommend using a min. of 4" compacted application depth for fall heights of up to 8 feet,
and 6" compacted depth for fall heights of up to 17 feet. Try finding any other safety surfacing supplier with test data this good!
| ASTM F1292-09 Testing at 6" compacted depth (July 14-15, 2010) |
|
|
| Drop |
Maximum Test Parameters (Ft.) |
Reference Temp. -6oC (21.2oF) |
Reference Temp. 23oC (73.4oF) |
Reference Temp. 49oC (120.2oF) |
| G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
| 1 |
17 |
93 |
584 |
33.2 |
98 |
626 |
33.1 |
95 |
578 |
33.2 |
| 2 |
17 |
117 |
773 |
33.2 |
127 |
889 |
33.2 |
102 |
633 |
33.2 |
| 3 |
17 |
99 |
590 |
33.2 |
109 |
660 |
33.2 |
115 |
715 |
33.1 |
| Average |
108 |
681.5 |
|
118 |
774.5 |
|
108.5 |
674.0 |
|
| Measured Surface Temperature |
-6oC (21.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. +5oC (9oF) |
23oC (73.4oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. ±3oC (5.4oF) |
47oC (120.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. -3oC (5.4oF) |
| Sample Condition |
DRY |
DRY |
DRY |
|
|
| Drop |
One Foot Under (Ft.) |
Reference Temp. -6oC (21.2oF) |
Reference Temp. 23oC (73.4oF) |
Reference Temp. 49oC (120.2oF) |
| G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
| 1 |
16 |
91 |
529 |
32.2 |
82 |
457 |
32.2 |
90 |
515 |
32.2 |
| 2 |
16 |
85 |
480 |
32.2 |
76 |
393 |
32.1 |
89 |
494 |
32.1 |
| 3 |
16 |
106 |
665 |
32.2 |
96 |
582 |
32.2 |
104 |
608 |
32.1 |
| Average |
95.5 |
572.5 |
|
86 |
487.5 |
|
96.5 |
551 |
|
| Measured Surface Temperature |
-6oC (21.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp +5oC (9oF) |
23oC (73.4oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. ±3oC (5.4oF) |
47oC (120.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. -3oC (5.4oF) |
| Sample Condition |
DRY |
DRY |
DRY |
|
|
| Drop |
Two Feet Under (Ft.) |
Reference Temp. -6oC (21.2oF) |
Reference Temp. 23oC (73.4oF) |
Reference Temp. 49oC (120.2oF) |
| G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
| 1 |
15 |
87 |
498 |
31.2 |
92 |
561 |
31.2 |
80 |
435 |
31.2 |
| 2 |
15 |
79 |
414 |
31.2 |
101 |
607 |
31.1 |
94 |
517 |
31.2 |
| 3 |
15 |
116 |
734 |
31.4 |
107 |
640 |
31.2 |
99 |
543 |
31.2 |
| Average |
97.5 |
574.0 |
|
104.0 |
623.5 |
|
96.5 |
530.0 |
|
| Measured Surface Temperature |
-6oC (21.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. +5oC (9oF) |
23oC (73.4oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. ±3oC (5.4oF) |
47oC (120.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. -3oC (5.4oF) |
| Sample Condition |
DRY |
DRY |
DRY |
| ASTM F1292-09 Testing at 4" compacted depth (July 14-15, 2010) |
|
|
| Drop |
Maximum Test Parameters (Ft.) |
Reference Temp. -6oC (21.2oF) |
Reference Temp. 23oC (73.4oF) |
Reference Temp. 49oC (120.2oF) |
| G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
| 1 |
10 |
84 |
409 |
25.2 |
93 |
495 |
25.2 |
93 |
475 |
25.2 |
| 2 |
10 |
89 |
443 |
25.4 |
117 |
619 |
25.2 |
82 |
353 |
25.2 |
| 3 |
10 |
91 |
454 |
25.3 |
118 |
601 |
25.3 |
108 |
525 |
25.3 |
| Average |
90.0 |
448.5 |
|
117.5 |
610.0 |
|
95.0 |
439.0 |
|
| Measured Surface Temperature |
-6oC (21.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. +5oC (9oF) |
23oC (73.4oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. ±3oC (5.4oF) |
47oC (120.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. -3oC (5.4oF) |
| Sample Condition |
DRY |
DRY |
DRY |
|
|
| Drop |
One Foot Over (Ft.) |
Reference Temp. -6oC (21.2oF) |
Reference Temp. 23oC (73.4oF) |
Reference Temp. 49oC (120.2oF) |
| G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
| 1 |
11 |
84 |
433 |
26.4 |
109 |
637 |
26.4 |
113 |
642 |
26.4 |
| 2 |
11 |
85 |
428 |
26.5 |
103 |
533 |
26.4 |
110 |
541 |
26.4 |
| 3 |
11 |
118 |
654 |
26.5 |
148 |
888 |
26.6 |
230* |
1710* |
26.6 |
| Average |
101.5 |
541.0 |
|
125.5 |
710.5 |
|
170.0 |
1125.5 |
|
| Measured Surface Temperature |
-6oC (21.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp +5oC (9oF) |
23oC (73.4oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. ±3oC (5.4oF) |
47oC (120.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. -3oC (5.4oF) |
| Sample Condition |
DRY |
DRY |
DRY |
|
|
| Drop |
One Foot Under (Ft.) |
Reference Temp. -6oC (21.2oF) |
Reference Temp. 23oC (73.4oF) |
Reference Temp. 49oC (120.2oF) |
| G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
G-max. |
HIC |
Velocity (ft/s) |
| 1 |
9 |
75 |
326 |
24.0 |
82 |
392 |
24.1 |
79 |
375 |
24.1 |
| 2 |
9 |
73 |
296 |
24.1 |
131 |
707 |
24.2 |
77 |
336 |
24.1 |
| 3 |
9 |
102 |
529 |
24.2 |
82 |
343 |
24.0 |
89 |
406 |
24.1 |
| Average |
87.5 |
412.5 |
|
106.5 |
525.0 |
|
83.0 |
371.0 |
|
| Measured Surface Temperature |
-6oC (21.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. +5oC (9oF) |
23oC (73.4oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. ±3oC (5.4oF) |
47oC (120.2oF) |
Max. Change from Ref. Temp. -3oC (5.4oF) |
| Sample Condition |
DRY |
DRY |
DRY |
*obvious equipment failure &/or lab calculation error, when compared to other relative drop data
NOTE:
Having spent nearly 9 years previously working with highly sophisticated triple-axis, multi-stage accelerometers while developing
advanced technology for the automotive industry, the data for drop #3 for 4" depth at 11-feet is a perfect example of demonstrated equipment
failure and/or related calculation errors based on data obtained from same. Equipment failures can be common as defined in standard &
device-specific errata applicable to both advanced & more basic dual-axis accelerometers, as specified and employed for the ASTM F1292-09 drop tests.
Therefore, while the data stands as tested, it is obvious that the skewed data collected for this specific drop is completely outside standard
acceptable ranges of deviation & inconsistent with the balance of drop data. This illustrates the need for further research and
understanding of applicable equipment standards, errata and MTBF, to finely-tune testing procedures, so as to eliminate equipment
failure data on suspect drops, with the objective of deriving and reporting more accurate test data results indicative of actual
product safety (as is the true intention of such testing).
₪ Michael Baldwin, co-founder of EcoGreen Environmental, LLC
BACK TO TOP
You will need Adobe's Acrobat Viewer installed to open, view and print PDF files.
|
|
|
