Serviceability Criteria for Footbridges based on International Standards and

Published Research

By Omer F. Tigli, PhD

British Standard BS 5400

British Standard BS 5400 [1] applies to the design and construction of footbridges. Each part of
BS 5400 is implemented by a BD standard. Design criteria for foot bridges are given in BD
29/04 and loads for footbridges are given in BD 37/01.

BS 5400 requires a vibration analysis for footbridges with a natural vertical frequency up to 5 Hz
and/or with a fundamental lateral frequency lower than 1.5 Hz. Maximum vertical accelerations
of any part of the bridge is limited to

a max = 0.5 f 0 (m/s2)

where f0 is the fundamental natural frequency of the bridge. For convenience, the limits for a
range of frequencies are provided in terms of per cent of g in Table 1.

Table 1 Maximum allowable peak accelerations in BS 5400

f0 amax
(Hz) (% of g)
1.00 5.10
1.50 6.24
2.00 7.21
2.50 8.06
3.00 8.83
3.50 9.54
4.00 10.19
4.50 10.81
5.00 11.40

Eurocode EN1990

EN1990 – Basis of Structural Design [2] defines the pedestrian comfort criteria for serviceability
in terms of maximum acceptable accelerations of any part of the deck. Recommended values are
given in terms of per cent of g in Table 2. Eurocode 5, part 2 [3] requires the verification of the
comfort criteria for bridges with natural frequencies lower than 5 Hz in the vertical and below
2.5 Hz in the horizontal direction.
 Table 2 Maximum allowable peak accelerations in Eurocode EN1990

amax
Condition
(% of g)
Vertical Vibrations 7.14
Horizontal Vibrations, normal use 2.04
Horizontal Vibrations, crowd condition 4.08

ISO 10137

ISO 10137 guidelines [4] are developed by the International Standardization Organization with
the objective of presenting the principles for predicting vibrations at the design stage. It suggests
to use base curves (see Figure 1) for vibrations in both vertical and horizontal directions given in
ISO 2631-2 [5] multiplied by a factor of 60, except where one or more people are standing still
on the bridge in which case a factor of 30 should be applicable. However, this recommendation
has been criticized as not based on published research pertinent to footbridge vibrations [6].

Figure 1 Vibration base curve based on ISO 2631-2

Note that allowable rms vertical acceleration in the range of 4-8 Hz becomes 60*0.005 = 0.3
m/s2. When the rms acceleration is converted to peak acceleration by multiplying by square root
of 2, we obtain 0.424 m/s2 or 4.32 % of g.
AISC – DG 11

AISC – Design Guide 11 [7] recommends peak acceleration limits by adjusting the base line
curve given in ISO 2631-2 [5] for different occupancies. Footbridges are separated into two
categories as indoor and outdoor footbridges. Peak acceleration limits for indoor footbridges are
obtained by multiplying the ISO baseline curve (rms acceleration) by 30 and for outdoor
footbridges by 100. It is also stated that for design purposes, the limits can be assumed to range
between 0.8 and 1.5 times the recommended values depending on the duration of vibration and
the frequency of vibration events (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Recommended peak accelerations (AISC – DG 11)

In summary, for indoor footbridges with a frequency in the range of 4 – 8 Hz, the peak
acceleration limit is 30*0.05 = 1.50 % of g and can range between 1.20 – 2.25 % of g.

For outdoor footbridges with a frequency in the range of 4 -8 Hz, the peak acceleration limit is
100*0.05 = 5.0 % of g and can range between 4.0 – 7.5 % of g.

Bro 2004

Bro 2004 is a general technical standard for the design and construction of bridges in Sweden.
All footbridges with a vertical natural frequency of less than 3.5 Hz are required to be checked
for vibration serviceability. The maximum acceleration limit is given in terms of rms as 0.5 m/s2
which can be converted to peak acceleration as 7.2 % of g. [8]
ONT 1983

Vibration serviceability check is required for bridges with a fundamental vertical frequency of
less than 4 Hz [9]. In that case, the maximum permissible acceleration is calculated by
a max = 0.25 f o0.78 (m/s2). This recommendation is provided for a range of frequencies in Table 3.

Table 3 Allowable peak accelerations based on Ontario Code (ONT 83)

f0 amax
(Hz) (% of g)
1.00 2.55
1.50 3.50
2.00 4.38
2.50 5.21
3.00 6.00
3.50 6.77
4.00 7.51

HIVOSS 2008

Human induced vibration of steel structures (HIVOSS) is composed of design guidelines for
floors and footbridges [10]. The part related with the footbridges is the product of the research
project “Advanced Load Models for Synchronous Pedestrian Excitation and Optimized Design
Guidelines for Steel Footbridges” supported by the Research Fund for Coal and Steel.

HIVOSS requires checking the vibration levels of footbridges with a fundamental frequency of
less than 4.6 Hz (a frequency range including the second harmonics) by noting “… until now
there is no hint in the literature that onerous vibrations of footbridges due to the second
harmonic of pedestrians have occurred”.

HIVOSS suggests defining several design situations composed of a possible traffic classes and
associated comfort classes. Comfort classes are defined by limiting peak accelerations as shown
in Table 4.

Table 4 Defined comfort classes with common acceleration ranges

Comfort Vertical alimit Lateral alimit

Degree of Comfort
Class (% of g) (% of g)

CL 1 Maximum <5 <1

CL 2 Medium 5 - 10 1-3
 CL 3 Minimum 10 - 25 3-8
CL 4 Unacceptable discomfort >25 >8
SETRA/AFGC Guidelines (2006)

SETRA/AFGC includes design guidelines prepared within the framework of the Setra/AFGC
working group on “Dynamic behavior of footbridges”[11]. SETRA guidelines, similar to
HIVOSS, follow a classification approach to reach serviceability criteria.

1. Footbridges are classified into one of four classes.

Class I: Urban footbridge linking up high pedestrian density areas, subjected to very heavy traffic
Class II: Urban footbridge linking up populated areas, subjected to heavy traffic
Class II: Footbridge for standard use, subjected to large groups but never loaded throughout the bearing area
Class IV: Seldom used footbridge to link sparsely populated areas

2. Comfort levels are defined. In selection of the comfort levels, it can be possible to be more
demanding for sensitive users such as schoolchildren, elderly or disabled persons and more
tolerant in case of short footbridges (short transit times). Maximum allowable accelerations
for each class is given in Table 5.

Maximum comfort: Accelerations are practically imperceptible to users

Average comfort: Accelerations are merely perceptible to users
Minimum comfort: Accelerations are perceived by the users but do not become intolerable

Table 5 Acceleration ranges for vertical vibrations

Vertical alimit Lateral alimit

Degree of Comfort
(% of g) (% of g)
Maximum <5 <1
Average 5 - 10 1-3
Minimum 10 - 25 3-8
Unacceptable discomfort >25 >8

3. Footbridges are also classified based on their frequencies to determine whether a dynamic
analysis is required or not. Frequencies associated with each range are given in Tables 6 & 7.

Range I: Maximum risk of resonance

Range II: Medium risk of resonance
Range III: Low risk of resonance
Range IV: Negligible risk of resonance

Table 6 Frequency (Hz) ranges of the vertical and longitudinal vibrations

 Table 7 Frequency (Hz) ranges of the transverse and horizontal vibrations

Case Study by Brownjohn and Middleton [12]

The footbridge (Figure 3) connecting a large car park and leisure complex to the town shopping
centre in Plymouth, UK has been investigated. Structural system resembles a variety of Warren
truss with vertical supports, constructed from hollow steel sections, supporting a concrete slab
deck and carrying an inverted U-shaped. The 27.6 m span is simply supported on concrete piers
and isolated from the short side spans.

Figure 3 Western Approach Footbridge Plymouth, UK

Bridge has been tested on two separate days and the lowest four frequencies and associated
damping ratios have been estimated as shown in Table 8. It has been reported that the peak
acceleration recorded when the bridge was loaded by multiple passengers was 0.32 m/s2 or 3.26
% of g. On the other hand, numerical simulations involving a single pedestrian passage
according to the British standard (BD37/01) yielded a peak acceleration of 0.279 m/s2. The
conservatism in the code specified single pedestrian loading has been interpreted as an
unquantifiable reserve to deal with response to multiple pedestrians. It has been concluded that
the bridge performs very well under pedestrian loads with no reported complaints from
passengers.

Table 8 Measurement results

References:

[1] Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges Part 2: Specification for Loads; Appendix C:
Vibration Serviceability Requirements for Foot and Cycle Tack Bridges, BS 5400. UK: British
Standards Association, London, 1978

[2] Eurocode, Basis of Structural Design – prAnnex A2. EN 1990: 2002, European Committee
for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 2002

[3] Eurocode 5, Design of Timber Structures Part 2: Bridges, EN 1995-2: 2004, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 2004

[4] ISO, Bases for Design of Structures, Serviceability of Buildings and Pedestrian Walkways
against vibration, ISO/CD 10137, International Standardization Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2005

[5] ISO, Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibrations – Part 2: Continuous and
Shock-Induced Vibrations in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz), ISO 2631-2, International Standardization
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1989

[6] Zivanovic S., Pavic A. and Reynolds P., (2005), Vibration Serviceability of Footbridges
under Human-Induced Excitation: A Literature Review, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 279,
pp:1-74

[7] AISC-Steel Design Guide Series - 11, Floor Vibrations due to Human Activity, AISC,
Second Printing, October 2003
[8] Hauksson F., 2005, Dynamic Behavior of Footbridges Subjected to Pedestrian-Induced
Vibrations, MS Thesis, Structural Mechanics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

[9] Ont83, Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Highway Engineering Division, Ministry of
Transportation and Communications, Toronto, Canada, 1983

[10] Design of Footbridges – Guideline, Human Induced Vibrations of Steel Structures

(HIVOSS), RFS2-CT-2007-00033, Research Fund for Coal & Steel

[11] SETRA/AFGC, Footbridges – Assessment of Vibrational Behavior of Footbridges under

Pedestrian Loading, Setra, March 2006

[12] Brownjohn J.M.W and Middleton C., (2005), Efficient dynamic performance assessment of
a footbridge, Bridge Engineering, 158, pp. 185-192