SIST-TP CEN/TR 17842-1:2023
(Main)Playground equipment for children - Part 1: Replies to requests for interpretation of EN 1176:2017 and its parts (2018-2019)
Playground equipment for children - Part 1: Replies to requests for interpretation of EN 1176:2017 and its parts (2018-2019)
The purpose of this document is to publish replies to requests for interpretations, to all parts of the EN 1176 series, which have been drafted by the interpretation panel and confirmed by CEN/TC136/SC1.
Kinderspielplatzgeräte - Teil 1: Antworten zu Interpretationsanfragen der Jahre 2018 und 2019 zur EN 1176:2017 und deren Teilen
Équipements d'aires de jeux pour enfants - Partie 1: Réponses aux demandes d'interprétation de l'EN 1176:2017 et de ses parties (2018-2019)
L’objectif du présent document est de publier les réponses aux demandes d’interprétation concernant toutes les parties de la série EN 1176, qui ont été formulées par le panel d’interprétation et validées par le CEN/TC 136/SC 1.
Oprema otroških igrišč - 1. del: Odgovori na zahteve za razlago EN 1176:2017 in njegovih delov (2018-2019)
Namen tega dokumenta je objaviti odgovore na zahteve za razlago vseh delov standarda EN 1176, ki jih je pripravila komisija za interpretacijo in potrdil tehnični odbor CEN/TC136/SC1.
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-marec-2023
Oprema otroških igrišč - 1. del: Odgovori na zahteve za razlago EN 1176:2017 in
njegovih delov (2018-2019)
Playground equipment for children - Part 1: Replies to requests for interpretation of EN
1176:2017 and its parts (2018-2019)
Kinderspielplatzgeräte - Teil 1: Antworten zu Interpretationsanfragen der Jahre 2018 und
2019 zur EN 1176:2017 und deren Teilen
Équipements d'aires de jeux pour enfants - Partie 1: Réponses aux demandes
d'interprétation de l'EN 1176:2017 et de ses parties (2018-2019)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 17842-1:2022
ICS:
97.200.40 Igrišča Playgrounds
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
CEN/TR 17842-1
TECHNICAL REPORT
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
November 2022
TECHNISCHER REPORT
ICS 97.200.40
English Version
Playground equipment for children - Part 1: Replies to
requests for interpretation of EN 1176:2017 and its parts
(2018-2019)
Équipements d'aires de jeux pour enfants - Partie 1: Kinderspielplatzgeräte - Teil 1: Antworten zu
Réponses aux demandes d'interprétation de l'EN Interpretationsanfragen der Jahre 2018 und 2019 zur
1176:2017 et de ses parties (2018-2019) EN 1176:2017 und deren Teilen
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 9 October 2022. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 136.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2022 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 17842-1:2022 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
Contents Page
European foreword . 3
Introduction . 4
1 Scope . 6
2 Normative references . 6
3 Terms and definitions . 6
4 EN 1176-1:2017, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 1: General safety
requirements and test methods . 6
5 EN 1176-2:2017+AC:2019, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 2: Additional
specific safety requirements and test methods for swings . 30
6 EN 1176-3:2017, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 3: Additional specific
safety requirements and test methods for slides . 34
7 EN 1176-5:2019, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 5: Additional specific
safety requirements and test methods for carousels . 36
8 EN 1176-6:2017+AC:2019, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 6: Additional
specific safety requirements and test methods for rocking equipment . 37
9 EN 1176-11:2014, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 11: Additional
specific safety requirements and test methods for spatial network . 41
European foreword
This document (CEN/TR 17842-1:2022) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 136
“Sports, playground and other recreational facilities and equipment”, the secretariat of which is held by
DIN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any feedback and questions on this document should be directed to the users’ national standards body.
A complete listing of these bodies can be found on the CEN website.
Introduction
Interpretations and no-action decisions
This document contains all interpretations since CEN/TR 16396 to the end of 2019. It should bring a
close to all interpretations made to the 2020 version of the EN 1176 series and all of its specific parts
that were also revised in 2020. It contains replies to requests for interpretations concerning the
understanding of clauses in the parts of the EN 1176 series. The replies concern those requests that
have resulted in an interpretation or a decision that no action is required as the standard is sufficiently
clear.
An interpretation does not have the same status as the text of the standard. However, following an
interpretation gives assurance that the relevant clause of the standard has been correctly applied.
An interpretation is a clarification of the meaning of the standard. This document covers requests from
2018 to the end of 2019.
Disclaimer
The interpretations have been prepared by the interpretation panel of CEN/TC 136/SC1 committee
according to an agreed process and finally confirmed by the whole SC1 committee prior to responding
back to the enquiring National Standard Body. The information contained herein should always be
considered in association with the original EN 1176 series published in 2017.
Requests for interpretations may be submitted by a CEN member body through its national committee
or by a CEN/TC 136 liaison (but not directly by an individual or a company) – in accordance with the
interpretation protocols agreed by CEN/TC 136/SC 1. The requests are then channelled to the CEN/TC
136/SC 1 interpretation panel, which will then deal with the request.
A request for an interpretation may lead to:
a) an interpretation of the standard with no action to the standard (no revision and no amendment)
This should reflect a reasonable interpretation of how the standard should be used, taking into
account:
1) the wording of the standard;
2) the rationale of the standard;
3) the history of the standard.
This is also applicable when it is agreed that the standard appropriately specifies how playground
equipment is assessed.
b) a proposal for an amendment of the standard
This is applicable when it is agreed that the standard is deficient in some way.
NOTE Interpretation and no-action decisions are published in CEN/TR 16396 which will be updated on a
regular basis. Proposals for amendments will be progressed as new work item proposals in accordance with
CEN rules.
c) a future revision
It is not within the interpretation protocol to carry out new work that was not previously covered
within the published EN 1176 series parts and clauses. Future work requests should always be
raised by National Standard Bodies using the “Future work request template” to ensure full
consideration is given to the necessity and possible consequences, before starting any new work on
the EN 1176 series.
Answers to requests for interpretations
Since requests for interpretations are submitted through a CEN member body, it is assumed that the
member body will keep itself informed about decisions concerning the request and its progress and will
itself inform the originator of the request, as appropriate.
The following information requests have been included in this document:
2018-01 NO — Part 1 — 3.5, 3.20, 3.34-3, 4.2.8.2.3 General, 4.2.16.1 2nd Paragraph after Figure 26
2018-02 NO — Part 1— 4.2
2018-03 NO — Part 1 — 4.2.7.2
2018-04 NO — Part 1 — 4.2.7.2 part b and D.2.2
2018-05 DK — Part 2 — 3.13 and 4.6.3 in part 2:2017
2018-06 DS — Part 1 — 4.7 Hand support
2018-07 DS — Part 1 — 4.2.4.4 and Figure 10
2018-08 NO — Part 2 — Figure 6
2018-09 DE — Part 3 — 4.4.1 and Annex B
2018-10 NEN Part 1 — Figure D.7
2018-11 NEN—Part 1 — Figure D.13
2018-13 NO — Part 1 —4.2.7.3 Entrapment of clothing/hair
2018-15 NEN—Part 1 —4.2.16.1 General
2018-16 NEN—Part 1 —4.2.16
2019-01 UNI Part 3 — 4.5, 4.7, 4.9.2
2019-09 LTL — Part 1 — 4.9 Entrapment
2019-10 LTL— Part 1 — 4.2.4.4 Barriers
2019-11 SIS — Part 1 — 6.2.16 Bouncing facilities
2019-12 HUN—Part 1 — 4.2.8.1
2019-13 DIN —Part 1 — 4.2.13 Chains
2019-14 UK — Part 2 — 3.13
2019-15 DIN— Part 1 — 4.2.16.1
2019-16 SIS — Part 2 — 3.13, 4.6.3 and 4.9
2019-17 SFS — Part 1 — 4.2.7.2
2019-18 SFS —Part 5 — 5.2.3
NOTE ASI — Austria, DS — Denmark, SFS — Finland, AFNOR — France, DIN — Germany, HUN – Hungary, SII
— Israel, — LVS — Latvia, LTL – Lithuania, NBN— Belgium, NEN — Netherlands, SN — Norway, SIS — Sweden,
SIST — Slovakia, SN — Switzerland, TSI — Türkiye, GB — United Kingdom.
1 Scope
The purpose of this document is to publish replies to requests for interpretations, to all parts of the
EN 1176 series, which have been drafted by the interpretation panel and confirmed by
CEN/TC136/SC1.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
No terms and definitions are listed in this document.
ISO and IEC maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://www.iso.org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at https://www.electropedia.org/
4 EN 1176-1:2017, Playground equipment and surfacing — Part 1: General safety
requirements and test methods
4.1 General (interpretation request 2018-01 — Norway)
Question
1) The standard allows placing several small bouncing facilities – each approximately between 1 m to
1,44 m as for single users – together in a cluster, or in a row as part of a jump/stepping-trail thus
letting each bouncing equipment's free space of 1 500 mm overlap each other's free space, or other
equipment's falling space.
See Figure 1 below for example.
NB – We do appreciate that bouncing facilities demand free space/have forced movement as described
in 3.6 and, therefore, our opinion is that this is not allowed. Due to several installations that we do see
are in conflict with this, as others understand the standard differently, we therefore would like it to be
clarified.
We also appreciate that equipment in a cluster – 3.20 – is allowed for equipment not involving free
space/forced movement. A central and relevant question is therefore if one can deviate from the
demands related to free space if one places several equipment’s with or without forced movement in a
cluster?
Figure 1
MB Proposal:
To exclude any misunderstanding or “use” of the cluster clause, this definition could be more precise:
That 3.20 includes information if a cluster is allowed or not for equipment with forced movement and in
need of free space.
Reply
No action/interpretation
Regarding Free Space:
From EN 1176-1:2017:
clause 3.6 free space; Space in, on or around the equipment that can be occupied by a user undergoing
a movement forced by the equipment.
NOTE 1 Examples for this is sliding, swinging, rocking, jumping in bouncing facility for several users…
clause 4.2.16.1 Bouncing facilities, general.
For a bouncing facility the extent of the free space shall be 1 500 mm measured horizontally from any
point at the perimeter and 3 500 mm above the suspension bed.
All bouncing facilities do have Free Space, however ‘Small’ bouncing facilities are allowed to have
overlapping Free Spaces in clusters.
Regarding Clusters:
From EN 1176-1:2017:
clause 3.20 cluster;
two or more separate pieces of equipment designed to be installed in close proximity to each other
to provide continuity in a sequence that is needed for the play activity
NOTE An example for a cluster is a trail of stepping stones.
clause 4.2.8.3 Protection against injuries in the free space for users undergoing a movement that is
forced by the equipment
Unless stated otherwise, there shall be no overlapping of adjacent free spaces, or of free space and
falling space of two different pieces of equipment.
NOTE 1 This requirement does not apply to the common space between pieces of equipment in a cluster.
For information:
The current EN 1176 series definition of a cluster requires ‘continuity in a sequence that is needed for
the play activity’. This allows the user to focus on the cluster activities in a way that will allow them to
judge the risks of transferring from one part to the next. In the case of clusters, it is also highlighted in
4.2.8.3, NOTE 1 of EN 1176-1:2017, that overlapping of Free/Falling Space is permitted.
The example shown above, with ‘small’ bouncing suspension beds, is a typical equipment cluster,
therefore the free spaces may overlap, however the standard does not currently include any additional
specific requirements for clusters. This is purposely the case, to allow for flexibility in design. In the
case of bouncing facilities, as with other equipment clusters, a risk assessment should always be carried
out by the supplier to confirm any risks are suitably controlled, in providing this ‘continuity in a
sequence that is needed for the play activity’.
We would recommend that a future work request is made by the NSB if they feel there is a strong safety
case to start future work on products of the type shown, following the procedure agreed by SC1 (see
template in document SC1 N9002). This is to encourage the use of the template / matrix, and to avoid
duplication of work.
4.2 Scope (interpretation request 2018-02 Norway)
Clause 4.2
Question
This is regarding double tyre swing seats. These seats consist of one big car-tyre that has a smaller tyre
(often called security tyre) hanging under it – see Figure 2 below.
The new standard does not include information on ground clearance for tyre seats as in the previous
edition. Instead there is a description for single user seat with ground clearance 35 and group swing
seat with clearance demand 40.
What seat type does the standard define, a single tyre seat or a double tyre seat as shown in Figure 2
below; single user seat or group swing seat?
In the case of double tyre seat – see Figure 2 below, is the ground clearance demand applicable only for
the main top tyre or for the lower tyre as well?
NB – we often observe children standing on the lower tyre having the upper tyre supporting their body.
This has the effect that the lower tyre will not easily deflect if it hits or squeezes another child under it
against the impact attenuating surface (IAS) under the swing as many seem to argue so that they can
justify that the ground clearance should only be measured from the top tyre.
Sentence 2 in the clause does not define where this measure is to be taken, and one presumes that this
is where the seat is closest to the IAS. Is this correct?
Sentence 3 deviates from sentence 2 for the part of swings being flexible. Is this to be seen in
conjunction with sentence 2 so that IF a part of a seat is flexible this part shall not be included for
measurement of ground clearance? (This would be easier to understand and see if both sentences were
included in the same sentence or paragraph.)
NB! – Here also we do see that flexible lower parts of seats, often with many children inside will not
necessarily deflect or prevent a child falling off the seat in the possibility to be squeezed under the seat
against the IAS.
Figure 2
Reply
No action/interpretation
This type of swing seat is not specifically covered in the EN 1176 series.
We would recommend that a future work request is made by the NSB if they feel there is a strong
requirement to start future work on products of the type shown following the procedure agreed by SC1
(see template in document SC1 N9002). This is to encourage the use of the template / matrix, and to
avoid duplication of work.
For information we can confirm that:
This type of seat is special as it has a top section that provides a general sitting position and also has a
lower flexible part that would only provide a sitting position to very young children, who had their body
positioned within the top section. Prior to publication of the EN 1176 series, swing seat ground
clearances were referenced in DIN 7926-2. This publication required a ground clearance of 250 mm for
seats less than 1 000 g in weight. Although this old standard is no longer valid, the information could be
used as part of a risk assessment on the lower seat part.
In addition to the specific requirements of the EN 1176 series, it is always recommended that a risk
assessment is carried out should unusual situations be identified.
4.3 Clause 3.5 (interpretation request 2018-03 Norway)
EN 1176-1:2017, clause 4.2.7.2
MB Question:
This is regarding openings between 8,9 and 23 or within angles defined for v-shaped openings, all with
lowest part being above 60 over standing position and all with what we see as obvious possibility for
entrapment of head/neck that we cannot see described in the standard that we do think the standard
should address.
Or do these cases possibly lie within the descriptions that exist in any way?
We want to draw the committee’s attention to:
1) Partially bound rigid openings that consist of parallel or close to parallel sides that are
between 8,9 to 23 apart – see Figure 3 and Figure 4.
2) Flexible V-shaped openings with a lower edge above 60 between two flexible sides or one
flexible side and one rigid side – see Figure 5.
3) Partially bound rigid Horizontal opening – in what we here call “arm-walk”.
See Figures 3 to 5 and texts that should explain this.
If we – for the case of further easing our argument - may be so bold as to assume that the committee
agrees with our examples in that they do in fact represent obvious hazards the standard should
include / address we would like the following to be clarified for each situation:
1) Is there any clause in the existing standard that covers this situation?
2) If no in question 1; if the committee agrees with our view that this is a hazard that should be
abolished – how do we go about it?
3) If the committee does NOT agree with our view that this is a hazard we would very much
appreciate an explanation / reason for this.
1) Opening with parallel sides - between ledge and back side of ladder. A child wanting to pass through
the ladder or out the play house can get caught between the step in the ladder - the one just above the
blue opposite edge - and the blue edge of the play house. The ledges being paralleled for more than
50 cm gives the child little but no possibility to escape. This is per definition NOT a completely bound
opening and not a partially bound opening that deviates from D.2.2 test.
Figure 3
Figure 4
1) Opening with parallel sides / ledges - here between climbing ladder and platform. A child falling or
wanting to climb down getting their head caught in the opening is not necessarily “lucky” enough to get
freed from entrapment to one of the sides. We do see that this has a lower risk than a rigid closed
opening and also at the same time see the possible hazard. The ledges are parallel for approximately
30 cm. This is per definition NOT a completely bound opening and not a partially bound opening that
deviates from D.2.2 test.
a) b)
Figure 5
MB Proposal
Include these situations in the standards descriptions using the same templates that are used for other
openings.
PROPOSED TRACK: No action
Comments/proposal for an answer:
1) With reference to EN 1176-1:2017, 4.2.7.2 a) the situations shown are not ‘completely bound’ and
therefore do not require a test to comply with the EN 1176 series.
2) & 3) In addition to the specific requirements of the EN 1176 series, it is always recommended that a
risk assessment is carried out should unusual situations, not covered by the EN 1176 series, be
identified. (For example, situations that are not completely bound but where entrapment risk
could occur). It is not within the terms of the interpretation panel to make judgements about
risks relating to specific pieces of equipment. It can very problematic to make judgements from
photographs alone.
The IP recommends that a proposal for amendment or future work is made by the NSB if they want to
present a “safety case”, following the procedure agreed by SC1 (see template in document SC1 N9002).
4.4 Clause 4.2.7.2 Part b and D.2.2 (interpretation request 2018-04 Norway)
MB Question
This is regarding:
1) Clarification of test method for range 2 and D.2.2; and
2) Clarification of need of template apex to contact base of the opening” in regards to angles.
Clause D.2.2.2 first paragraph describes the first step in testing and refers to Figure D.3. Figure D.3 only
shows examples where the opening is in range 1 thus making it possible to (mis)understand that this
first procedure only is to be done for openings in this range 1. We ask for a clarification on this.
Question 1) Does the first paragraph in D.2.2.2 apply and is to be executed as a first step of testing in
both range 1 and range 2?
(See examples in Figure 6 a) and b).)
Question 2) 4.2.7.2 part b) “Partially bound and V-shaped openings” does in its description under list
item 2) use the term(s) “When the templates apex contacts the base of the opening…” and by this laying
down that this has to be met when testing if the opening shall be able to pass the test.
(NB – “apex” is here understood as the 4,5 cm wide part in the tip of the template’s part A.)
This is very seldom the case – that the apex gets in contact with the base of the angle/opening - because
angles most often have “angle sides” that continue further “in” and meet in a sharp “tip” thus will not
allow this to be the case - see Figure 7 a) and b) where the angle is narrower than 60° and Figure 8
where the angle is over 60° – all where the apex of the template does not come in contact with the base
of the opening.
As many angles do not comply with the mentioned descriptions in 4.2.7.2 part b), this makes it possible
to (mis)understand this text so that if an angle or opening does not allow the apex to contact the base,
because there is no base – it is a fail, even though the angle is within what the standard demands in
D.2.2.2 – being above 60°. This resulting in that angles that do comply with D.2.2.2 but does not allow
the template apex to contact the base can be interpreted as failing to comply with the standards
description in 4.2.7.2 part b) – see Figure 8.
A very strict understanding could be that angles that are accessible and do comply with D.2.2.2 when
tested, still will fail if the apex does not contact the base – because there is no base! And it just might be
that the standard intends it to be so. We think this needs to be clarified.
NB - We have been informed from a manufacturer that in fact one should use two D2 apparatuses – first
introducing one as in Question 1 – placing the neck part in the tip of the angle – and then testing the
above angle with the second apparatus on top/outside of this one. But we can find nothing to support
this.
And we do appreciate that 4.2.7.2 part b) is for describing how an angle should be in order to comply
with the standard, and that D.2.2.2, and specifically paragraph 4 under this clause, takes care of the test
procedure which is normally the case. This does still not solve the case.
We ask for a clarification that undoubtedly addresses the terms that apply for testing. If one by the
term “apex contacts the base of the opening” rather means that it is “the tips/corners of the apex on the
template where the apex “line” meets the angle sides - in the templates corners” we think this should be
clarified.
a) b)
Figure 6
a) b)
Figure 7
Figure 8
PROPOSED TRACK: No action
Comments/proposal for an answer:
1) Yes.
2) “Apex” includes front edges of the template. If the leading face or edges meet the opening’s edges,
the test passes.
For additional information we can confirm that:
The test requirements for partially bound openings are given in EN 1176-1:2017, 4.2.7.2 b) and are
dependent on the template insertion angle range. The closer the probe is to the horizontal (or below)
the lower the risk. As it can often be difficult to orientate the probe to be ‘in line with the opening’ the
angle of the lower edge can also be used as a reference point to determine what range should be
considered.
It is not within the terms of the interpretation panel to make judgements about compliance or
noncompliance of specific pieces of equipment. It can very problematic to make test interpretations
from photographs alone.
4.5 Clause 4.7 of EN 1176-6:2017+AC:2019, Hand support (interpretation request 2018-
06 Denmark)
MB Question:
The text in 4.7 of EN 1176-6:2017+AC:2019 regarding hand support, has been added with the word
“cross section”.
This could indicate an acceptance that the possibility to get “hand support” by a grip on the edge of the
equipment, could be sufficient support.
See Figure 9 a) and b). This product is TüV certified to Part 6 See-saw.
a) b)
Figure 9
MB Proposal
IP to provide an indication of the intent of the addition “/cross section” in 4.7 of
EN 1176-6:2017+AC:2019.
PROPOSED TRACK: No Action
Comments/proposal for an answer:
I think it’s obvious that we have equipment for balancing, but where the user would choose to start
sitting and thus “see-sawing” while gaining courage to stand up.
I consider a grip on the edge as sufficient, and I think that the heading “Hand Support” is open enough,
but realize that if the added “cross section” is not intended to indicate this, a future revision may be
necessary.
4.6 Clause 4.2.4.4 and Figure 10 (interpretation request 2018-07 Denmark)
MB Question:
The text for Figure 10 c) of EN 1176-1:2017 has a reference to: ‘steep play elements wider than the
opening’.
Does this mean openings for steep play elements cannot be wider than the activity?
Compared with the 2008 version, the text for 4.2.4.4 is not modified and does not specify such a
requirement.
MB proposal
As texts for pictures are intended to be explanatory only and support the requirements in the text – not
specify additional requirements.
The below sketch (Figure 10) of a product with a net access with an angle α >60° and a width, w, less
than the total width of the opening is regarded as compliant.
Figure 10
PROPOSED TRACK: No action
Comments/proposal for an answer:
EN 1176-1:2017, 4.2.4.4 has not changed from the 2008 version.
For steep play elements, there is no specific requirement for the width of the exit opening to be
restricted to be no greater than the width of the activity.
(This is only the case for stairs, ramps, bridges, etc. that have additional barriers as part of their
structure.)
4.7 Figure D.7 (Interpretation request 2018-10 — NEN)
MB Question:
a) b)
Figure 11 — Figure D.7 a) and b) of EN 1176-1:2017
During the inspection of indoor playgrounds, the test device as depicted in Figure D.7 a) of
EN 1176-1:2017 (see above Figure 11 a)) is required in order to inspect slides according to the
standard. However, it is unclear what the size, or to be more precise the height of the foot of this test
device should be. The standard refers to "20, 10" (see above, zoomed in). What should the exact height
of the foot be?
MB Proposal
The required height could be perceived as 15 mm ± 5 mm. In other words, a height between 10 mm and
20 mm is acceptable. It must be noted that the height of the foot does not hold any remarkable influence
on the test results. The height of the ring, as indicated by item 4 in Figure D.7 a), has not been specified
in the standard. In theory, this missing specification (item 4) could be of much greater influence.
PROPOSED TRACK: Future revision
Comments/proposal for an answer:
The current height is stated as 20 and 10 on top of each other, which is the same as 15+/-5. (There are
two ways to give the same tolerance.)
We agree that item 4, the collar, is not currently defined by dimensions.
However, we are also aware that this whole test procedure can be subject to some variability for a
number of different reasons, in particular the way the inspector will ‘randomly place the toggle and
chain under the action of its own weight….’. We would recommend this whole test is reviewed as part of
the next revision.
4.8 Figure D.13 (interpretation request 2018-11 NEN)
MB Question
In § 4.2.13 it is clearly described that the size of rods may range between 8,6 mm – 12 mm:
“4.2.13 Chains
Chains for playground equipment shall conform to the dimensional requirements in
EN 818-2:1996+A1:2008, Table 2 or EN 818-3:1999+A1:2008, Table 2 as a minimum and, when
tested in accordance with D.5, shall conform to one of the following requirements:
a) the 8,6 mm rod (see Figure D.13) shall not pass through the minimum cross-section of the chain
opening.
NOTE When “8-mm-short-link-chains” wear, the openings can increase. If the opening on a worn chain is
greater than 8,6 mm, a risk assessment can be carried out to confirm whether replacement is necessary.
or where a connection is made
b) if the 8,6 mm finger rod passes through the opening, the 12 mm rod (see Figure D.13) shall also
pass through the opening.”
However, there is a tolerance of 100 +/- 1 mm. Some users of the standard believe it to be more
practical if the frontside of the chain testing rods is rounded up, just as in the case of the finger rods as
depicted in Figure D.10 in the same document.
MB PROPOSAL:
The length of the finger does not have to be provided with a tolerance as this length does not differ from
the general tolerances in this particular standard. The top indeed has not been rounded up in the
picture in the document. Test fingers have been used for chain tests for years. These chain test have
always been provided with a sphere radius equal to the radius of the cylinder. We believe that this
should also be the case for these test fingers. On the other hand, it should not matter too much as these
devices are only used in chains - which are normally already rounded up. This should make it easier to
easily and quickly test the opening.
PROPOSED TRACK: No action x
Comments/proposal for an answer:
EN 1176-1:2017, D.13; gives no requirements for the tip as the test is just recording whether the rods
pass through the chain opening. Therefore, it does not matter whether the tip is rounded or not.
4.9 Clause 4.2.7.3 Entrapment of clothing/hair (interpretation request 2018-13 Norway)
MB QUESTION:
The standard has the following requirement: “Special consideration should be given when using
elements of circular cross-section, e.g. round tubes or poles, to avoid clothing entanglement within the
falling space.”
Can this requirement be used to qualify the solution shown in Figure 12 below as unacceptable?
Can the bolt shown in Figure 12 below cause danger of entrapment?
Eye bolt with circular cross
section for fastening of the rope.
Same as above
Figure 12
The bolt holds a ladder of net straight on to this flat platform on a height of 150 cm and “has a circular
cross-section” which is shown in the picture.
PROPOSED TRACK: No action x
Comments/proposal for an answer:
The entrapment clauses in EN 1176-1 all include an introduction section at the beginning, which gives
some general indications on the focus of the ‘requirements’ that follow afterwards.
For Entrapment of clothing and hair, EN 1176-1:2017:
— Clause 4.2.7.3 a) restricts the test to areas where there is forced movement (the Free Space).
— Note 1, gives a message that practical experience shows that the test conditions may vary and
results are not necessarily repeatable - therefore use the test with caution.
— The sentence indicating ‘Special consideration should be given….’ also provides a recommendation
of which construction types could be most susceptible to introducing entrapments. The 'special
consideration' is restricted to circular cross sections such as tubes and poles, which generally
would indicate large sections of material (it doesn't mention bolts or fixings as shown in the
pictures). Also, there are no specific requirements on what ‘special consideration’ constitutes.
Therefore, this recommendation would best be used to help the product designer when
undertaking their design risk assessment.
The EN 1176 series ‘requirements’ that follow are limited to 3 specific parts of playground equipment
that are required to be tested in accordance with D.3 (Toggle test). These are:
— Slides;
— Fireman’s poles;
— Roofs.
There are no specific requirements or tests required in any other parts of the equipment.
It is not within the terms of the interpretation panel to make judgements about compliance or
noncompliance of specific pieces of equipment. It can very problematic to make test interpretations
from photographs alone.
4.10 Clause 4.2.16.1 General (interpretation request 2018-15 NEN)
MB QUESTION:
Clause 4.2.16.1 of EN 1176-1:2017 states:
“The extent of the falling space of a suspension bed of a small bouncing facility shall be 1 500 mm. The
extent of the falling space of a suspension bed of a large bouncing facility shall be 2 000 mm. When a
suspension bed gives a user a predetermined jumping direction to outside of the suspension bed, the
extent of the impact area to that direction shall be at least 3 000 mm.”
Clause 4.2.16.1 also states that:
“The maximum allowed height of any point of the suspension bed is 600 mm measured from the
surrounding ground or platform of the playground equipment 1 500 mm away from that specific point
(see Figure 26).
Dimensions in millimetres
pass
fail
Figure 26 — Acceptable and not acceptable solutions due to height of the suspension bed”
The paragraph about the maximum allowed height of any point of the suspension bed and Figure 26
both make no distinction between bouncing facilities that are either small or large or those that have a
predetermined jumping direction outside of the suspension bed.
Should the extent of the falling space of the bouncing facility be taken into account in the measurement
of the maximum allowed height of the suspension bed? In other words, should this point (when >
600 mm in height) be at least 2 000 mm away from the suspension bed for large bouncing facilities and
at least 3 000 mm away from the suspension bed for bouncing facilities with a predetermined jumping
direction?
MB PROPOSAL:
If the extent of the falling space of the bouncing facility should be taken into account in the maximum
allowed height of the suspension bed, our proposal is to change the paragraph and add a variable and
key to Figure 26:
“In the extent of the falling space of any point of the suspension bed the maximum allowed height of
that point of the suspension bed to the surrounding ground or platform of the playground equipment
shall not exceed 600 mm (see Figure 26).
Dimensions in millimetres
pass
fail
Key
x is the extent of the falling space of a suspension bed of the bouncing facility (1 500 mm, 2 000 mm,
or 3 000 mm)
Figure 26 — Acceptable and not acceptable solutions due to height of the suspension
bed”
PROPOSED TRACK Amendment
Comments:
The panel agree that the extent of the Falling Space of a bouncing facility shall be increased from
1 500 mm, depending on the type. (It could be 2 000 mm for large or 3 000 mm for long.)
Therefore, the Impact Area, measured from the suspension bed, is also increased in line with the Falling
Space. The panel would recommend that EN 1176-1 will be amended to say that the 600 mm height
shall be maintained across the whole Impact Area. (However, in the current text the requirement is only
for the first 1 500 mm measured from the edge of the suspension bed.)
th
We recommend that the 4 paragraph of EN 1176-1:2017, 4.2.16.1 and Figure 26 are amended;
“The maximum allowed height of any point of the suspension bed is 600mm measured from the
surrounding ground or platform of the playground equipment. This height must be maintained across
the equipment Impact Area (see Figure 26).
Dimensions in millimetres
pass
fail
Key
x is the extent of the Impact Area, from the suspension bed, of the bouncing facility (e.g. 1 500 mm,
2 000 mm, or 3 000 mm)
Figure 26 — Acceptable and not acceptable solutions due to height of the suspension bed”
4.11 Clause 4.2.16 (interpretation request 2018-16 NEN)
MB QUESTION:
There is no description in the EN 1176-1 limiting the height of the jump on a bouncing facility other
than the rebound effect measurement cf. 4.2.16.1 and D.6.
Q1: Is the measurement of the rebound effect meant to separate trampolines (that provide the
possibility of performing high jumps, encourage acrobatic jumps, and are unsafe to use without proper
training or supervision) from bouncing equipment (that typically do not allow for a jump height above
the suspension bed much higher than 900 mm according to Table 2)?
If the answer to this question is yes:
Q2: Is the allowed maximum of the rebound effect of 700 mm chosen correctly? See for input the tests
in annex of this interpretation request.
MB PROPOSAL:
A1: Yes. As written in Note 2 to entry of 3.35, bouncing facilities do not allow for high jumps.
A2: Considering the tests in annex of this interpretation request, it is concluded that the allowed
maximum for the rebound effect is too high. A lower limit is proposed. Therefore, a change to the
sentence in 4.2.16.1 between Note 1 and Note 2 must be made as follows:
During a dynamic physical test according to D.6 the rebound effect of the bouncing facility shall
not be more than 300 mm above the suspension bed.
Please note that NEN encourages a discussion over the value (300 mm), somewhere in the range of
300 mm – 350 mm.)
We wish to emphasize that, in order to prevent a flooding of the market with all types of trampolines
(unsafe to be used without supervision) and certification according to the EN 1176 series, a swift
approach towards a corrigendum is needed.
PROPOSED TRACK: Future Revision
Comments/proposal for an answer:
The intention of the requirements in EN 1176-1 was to restrict ‘bouncing facilities’ to those which did
not encourage acrobatic use. ‘Trampolines’ intended for gymnastics should not be placed in public
playgrounds, unless the required supervision is also provided.
From the new information presented the panel agree that future work should be done on this. The
panel will raise this point at the next SC1 meeting.
4.12 Clause 4.2.2.2 Barriers (interpretation request 2019-10 Lithuania)
MB QUESTION:
Please look at “little house” in Figure 13:
Figure 13
Please look at yellow bench inside the house in Figure 14:
Figure 14
Please look at height of the barrier.
1 QUESTION:
4.2.4.4 Barriers. “There shall be no intermediate horizontal or near horizontal rails or bars that can be
used as steps by children attempting to climb”.
Please explain if a bench can be used as steps by children attempting to climb?
In our opinion, the bench is a small additional platform. In our opinion, if the bench is placed on a
platform with barriers, the height to the top of the barrier shall be at least 700 mm measured from the
surface of the bench.
Please confirm, is it correct?
Please look at round opening in barriers (blue frame) in Figure 15 below.
The diameter of the ring is 70 cm.
a) b)
Figure 15
2 QUESTION:
4.2.4.4 Barriers. “The width of entrance and exit openings in barriers shall have a clear opening of
500 mm maximum, when measured horizontally at any point (see Figure 10 a)), unless a guardrail is
provided across the opening (see Figure 10 b) and Figure 10 c)).”
“Openings in the barrier of easily accessible equipment/parts of equipment that give access to steep
play elements shall conform to the requirements of 4.2.9.4.”
In our opinion, if the equipment is easily accessible, the horizontal dimension (horizontal diameter) of
ring shall be 500 mm maximum.
If the equipment is not easily accessible, the horizontal dimension (horizontal diameter) of ring shall be
1 200 mm maximum.
Please confirm, is it correct?
PROPOSED TRACK: No action x
Comments/proposal for an answer:
EN 1176-1:2017, 4.2.4.4;
Question 1;
Where a barrier is required, there shall be no intermediate horizontal or near horizontal rails or bars
that can be used as steps by children attempting to climb. In Figure 14, the shelf would provide a
climbing/standing opportunity. In this case, the height of the barrier should be measured from this foot
support position.
Question 2;
Where a barrier is provided, the width of the entrance and exit openings shall have a clear opening of
500 mm maximum, when measured at any point, unless a guardrail is provided across the opening.
Therefore, in this general case, the yellow panel in Figure 15 can act as a guardrail, provided it is at the
required height.
Also, EN 1176-1:2017, 4.2.9.2: F
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.
Loading comments...