DLMs FOR PEDESTRIAN VIBRATION CONTROL ON BRIDGES

J. Drobac1, I. Štimac Grandić1, A. Bjelanović1

1
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Rijeka, Croatia.

e-mail: jug.drobac@gradri.uniri.hr; istimac@gradri.uniri.hr; adriana@gradri.uniri.hr

SUMMARY
The development of new materials and construction techniques enables engineers to build innovative
structures, which become more and more slender and lighter. Light and slender footbridges are prone to vibrate
when subjected to dynamic loads, especially to pedestrian dynamic loads. To build the structural model for
checking the vibration serviceability of a footbridge, beside the footbridge properties, the designer need to
know the loading models (dynamic load models - DLMs). This paper presents the review of DLMs for
assessment of acceleration due to pedestrian loading that designers can use to their advantage in bridge design.
Keywords: pedestrian bridge, vibration serviceability, dynamic load model.

1. INTRODUCTION
Although there is a large number of dynamic load models (DLMs) for the serviceability state verification in
relation with vibration defined through the past few decades, none of them were implemented in the European
code EN 1991-2 for traffic loads on bridges [1]. The DLMs for pedestrian loads according to EN 1991-2 may
be defined in the National Annex or for the individual project. Unfortunately, many European countries did
not define DLMs in their National Annexes (e.g. Croatia [2], Romania [3], Germany [4], Austria [5], Bulgaria
[6] and Italy [7]). Besides, parts of Eurocodes relating to the design of bridges [8-10] also do not define the
DLMs, although EN 1995-2 [10] defines simplified procedures for acceleration determination on simply
supported or truss bridge structures.
Shortcomings listed above put designers to challenge the selection of appropriate dynamic load model(s) to
evaluate the maximum acceleration of the bridge structure due to pedestrian traffic.

2. DYNAMIC LOAD MODELS

In general, a bridge may be loaded by a single pedestrian, different pedestrian groups and continuous pedestrian
stream in his service life.
Dynamic load models (DLMs) are deterministically obtained models that attempt to describe, as accurately as
possible, the effects of human walking over the footbridges. Time domain models are the most common models
used and they are based on the assumption that both human feet produce exactly the same force. DLMs for
pedestrian groups or stream of pedestrians are based on the single pedestrian DLM.
The dynamic forces induced by one pedestrian are generated by the movement of the body mass which is
caused by three different movements: put-down, rolling and push-off of the feet. These forces are called human
ground reaction forces and can be expressed through the three-dimensional force components: vertical,
horizontal (lateral) and longitudinal component. The magnitudes of the vertical and longitudinal forces mainly
depend on the person’s step frequency and body weight. Their periodicity is related to the step frequency. The
horizontal component is caused by the movement of the centre of gravity from one foot to the other. The
oscillating motion of the centre of gravity introduces a horizontal dynamic force with half less walking
frequency than the vertical and longitudinal forces. The resulting forces are periodic in all three directions and
can be represented by Fourier series [11]:

1
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

𝐹𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝐺 + ∑ 𝐺𝛼𝑖 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑖 ∙ 𝑓𝑝 ∙ 𝑡 − 𝜑𝑖 ) [N] (1)

𝑖=1

Where: G is the person’s weight [N], αi is the Fourier’s coefficient of the ith harmonic, i.e. dynamic load factor
(DLF), fp is the activity rate [Hz], φi is phase angle of the ith harmonic, i is the order number of harmonic, n is
the total number of contributing harmonics.
The Equation (1) represents the basic DLM for single pedestrian or small group of pedestrians crossing the
bridge and holds equally for the vibrations in vertical, horizontal (lateral) and longitudinal directions. For
practical calculations, it is usual to decompose the basic DLM into these three components.
Many researchers (such as Blanchard et al., Bachmann and Ammann, Rainer et al., Kerr, Young etc. [11]) have
tried to determine DLFs which are the basis for basic DLM.
After the opening of the Millennium Bridge in London and appearance of unpleasant lateral vibrations caused
by crowd crossing the bridge, also the DLMs for continuous pedestrian stream have been developed based on
the basic DLM.

2.1. Dynamic load model according to ISO 10137:2007

The DLMs for single pedestrian due to walking and running are represented as the dynamic force F(t) [12]:

𝐹𝑣 (𝑡) = 𝐺 [1 + ∑ 𝛼𝑖,𝑣 ∙ sin (2𝜋 ∙ 𝑖 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡 + 𝑖,𝑣 )] [N] (2)

𝑖=1
𝑛

𝐹ℎ (𝑡) = 𝐺 ∑ 𝛼𝑖,ℎ ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝜋 ∙ 𝑖 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡 + 𝑖,ℎ ) [N] (3)

𝑖=1

Where: Fv(t) and Fh(t) are vertical and horizontal component of total dynamic force F(t), αi,v is a DLF
corresponding to the ith harmonic in vertical direction, αi,h is a DLF corresponding to the ith harmonic in
horizontal direction, fs is step frequency [Hz], i,v is the phase angle of the ith harmonic in vertical direction
(Tab. 1). i,h is the phase angle of the ith harmonic in horizontal direction (phase angle of 90 for the harmonic
contributions below resonance).

Table 1. DLMs for moving force due to one pedestrian

Activity Harmonic Range of forcing DLF for vertical DLF for
number frequency direction horizontal
i fs αi,v direction
1 1,2 – 2,4 Hz 0,37(fv-1) 0,1
2 2,4 – 4,8 Hz 0,1
walking 3 3,6 – 7,2 Hz 0,06
4 4,8 – 6,9 Hz 0,06
5 6 – 12 Hz 0,06
1 2 – 4 Hz 1,4 0,2
running 2 4 – 8 Hz 0,4
3 6 – 12 Hz 0,1

In view of the fact that, in a pedestrian group that is representative of the general population, some variability
exists in both the frequency, the phase angle and the DLFs, the dynamic response of the structure will be
reduced compared to a group with perfect coordination. This reduced response for uncoordinated group of
people, F(t)N, can be accounted for in an approximate manner by applying a coordination factor C(N) to the
forcing function due to single pedestrian, where N is actual number of pedestrians crossing the bridge [12]:

2
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

𝐹(𝑡)𝑁 = 𝐹(𝑡) ∙ 𝐶(𝑁) = 𝐹(𝑡) ∙ √𝑁/𝑁 [N] (4)

2.2. Dynamic load models according to JRC Scientific and Technical Report / HIVOSS
The DLMs according to JRC Scientific and Technical Report [13] and according to HIVOSS [14] are the same
and will therefore be presented in a common chapter.
The DLMs for single pedestrian due to walking and running and for pedestrian stream of different densities
are defined. Beside vertical and horizontal direction, the DLMs are also given for longitudinal direction.
Vertical and horizontal components for single pedestrian load model are the same as in ISO10137 (Equations
(2) and (3)). The longitudinal dynamic force is defined as:

𝐹𝑙 (𝑡) = 𝐺 ∑ 𝛼𝑖,𝑙 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑖 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡 − 𝜑𝑖 ) [N] (5)

𝑖=1

Where: G is given in range from 700 to 800 N. The DLFs αi are not determined strictly, but are referred from
different authors in literature [14].
The periodic pedestrian force is not stationary. It moves with a constant speed vs along the bridge. Within the
SYNPEX project [14], the relationship between step frequency and walking speed is found by measurements
for a step frequency range of 1.3 to 1.8 Hz:

𝑣𝑠 = 1.271𝑓𝑠 − 1 [m/s] (6)

In Appendix [14], the DLM for pedestrians group is given only for joggers/runners in vertical direction. The
proposed load model is a single force P(t) which is moving across the bridge by a certain velocity v of the
joggers. Neither horizontal nor longitudinal forces are given.
In the recommended design procedure, harmonic load models are provided for different pedestrian stream
densities (for each traffic class TC1 to TC5) shown in Tab. 1.

Table 1. Pedestrian traffic classes and densities

Traffic Class Density d (P = pedestrian) Description Characteristics
group of 15 P; (B=width of deck;
TC 1 * Very weak traffic
d=15 P / (B L) L=length of deck)
TC 2 d = 0.2 P/m² Weak traffic free walking
TC 3 d = 0.5 P/m² Dense traffic Unrestricted walking
TC 4 d = 1.0 P/m² Very dense traffic Restricted walking
TC 5 d = 1.5 P/m² Exceptionally dense traffic Unpleasant walking
* An equivalent pedestrian stream for traffic class TC1 is calculated by dividing the number of
pedestrians by the length L and width B of the bridge deck.

There are two different load models to calculate the response of the footbridge due to pedestrian stream
depending on their density:
a) Load model 1 for TC1 to TC3 (density d < 1.0 pedestrians/m2)
b) Load model 2 for TC4 and TC5 (density d ≥ 1.0 pedestrians/m2)
Both load models share a uniformly distributed harmonic load p(t) [N/m2] that represents the equivalent
pedestrian stream for further calculations:

𝑝(𝑡) = 𝑃 ∙ cos(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡) ∙ 𝑛′ ∙ 𝜓 [N/m2] (7)

3
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

Where: P*cos(2πfst) is the harmonic load due to a single pedestrian, P is the component of the force due to a
single pedestrian with a walking step frequency fs, which is assumed equal to the footbridge natural frequency
under consideration, n' is the equivalent number of pedestrians on the loaded surface S, ψ is the reduction
coefficient taking into account the probability that the footfall frequency approaches the critical range of
natural frequencies under consideration. The values of the specified parameters are defined for vertical,
horizontal and longitudinal direction [14]. In addition, ψ is given for second harmonics in vertical and
longitudinal direction. Here, for reasons of brevity, only the values of P and n' are shown: P takes the values
of 280, 140 and 35 N for vertical, longitudinal and horizontal direction, respectively, n’=10.8*(ζ*n)1/2/S for
TC1 to TC3 and n’=1.85*n1/2/S for TC4 and TC5.

2.3. Dynamic load models according to SETRA

Pedestrian loading, whether walking or running, has been studied rather thoroughly and is translated as a point
force exerted on the support, as a function of time and pedestrian position [15].
Single pedestrian load model for walking is based on basic DLM defined in Equation (1). By resolving the
force into three components, the following values of such components may be selected for dimensioning due
to walking (in practice limited to the first harmonic; i=1):

𝐹𝑣 (𝑡) = 𝐺 + 0.4 ∙ 𝐺 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡) [N] (8)

𝑓𝑠
𝐹ℎ (𝑡) = 0.05 ∙ 𝐺 ∙ sin (2𝜋 ∙ 2
∙ 𝑡) [N] (9)

𝐹𝑙 (𝑡) = 0.2 ∙ 𝐺 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡) [N] (10)

Where: fs is step frequency [Hz]. The mean value of 700 N may be taken for G.
In Appendix 2 [15], the model for force due to running is given. Running is characterised by a discontinuous
contact with the ground and the vertical component of the load is expressed by a sequence of semi sinusoids.
Neither horizontal nor longitudinal forces are given.
Depending on footbridge class and on the ranges within which its natural frequencies are situated, it is
necessary to carry out dynamic structure calculations for all or part of a set of three load cases due to pedestrian
stream from Tab. 2.

Table 2. Selection of load cases for acceleration checks

Footbridge Natural frequency range*
Traffic
Class* 1 2 3
Sparse III Load case 1 DLM not required DLM not required
Dense II Load case 1 Load case 1 Load case 3
Very dense I Load case 2 Load case 2 Load case 3
* determined in [15]
Load case 1: Sparse and dense crowd Load case 2: Very dense crowd
Load case 3: Crowd complement (2nd harmonic effect taken into account)

Crowd load case 1: Sparse and dense crowds is only to be considered for Class III (sparse crowd) and Class II
(dense crowd) footbridges.
Crowd load case 2: Very dense crowd is only to be taken into account for Class I footbridges.
Crowd load case 3: Crowd complement is similar to Load cases 1 and 2, but considers the second harmonic
(the component of the stresses caused by pedestrians walking, located, on average, at double the frequency of
the first harmonic).

4
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

Each of this crowd cases is considered to be uniformly distributed over the total area of the footbridge. The
loads are to be applied to the whole of footbridge and the sign of the vibration amplitude must, at any point,
be selected to produce the maximum effect: the direction of application of the load must therefore be the same
as the direction of the mode shape, and must be inverted each time the mode shape changes direction.
For all of three crowd load cases, the similar equations can be written:

𝑝𝑣 (𝑡) = 𝑑 ∙ 𝑃𝑣 ∙ cos(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡) ∙ 𝑛 ∙ 𝜓𝑣 [N/m2] (11)

𝑝ℎ (𝑡) = 𝑑 ∙ 𝑃ℎ ∙ cos(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡) ∙ 𝑛 ∙ 𝜓ℎ [N/m2] (12)

𝑝𝑙 (𝑡) = 𝑑 ∙ 𝑃𝑙 ∙ cos(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑠 ∙ 𝑡) ∙ 𝑛 ∙ 𝜓𝑙 [N/m2] (13)

Where: d is density of the pedestrian crowd, which is to be considered according to the class of the footbridge:
0.5 pedestrians per m2 for Class III, 0.8 for Class II and 1.0 for Class I, fs is walking step frequency which is
assumed equal to the footbridge natural frequency under consideration. The number of equivalent pedestrians,
in other words the number of pedestrians being all at the same frequency and in phase, which would produce
the same effects as random pedestrians in frequency and in phase is set at: n = 10.8*(ξ*N)1/2 for Load case 1,
n =1.85*N1/2 in Load case 2. For Load case 3 the number of equivalent pedestrians applies for Class II as for
Load case 1, and for Class I as for Load case II. Pv=280 N, Ph=35 and Pl=140 N in Load cases 1 and 2, while
Pv=70 N, Ph=7 and Pl=35 N in Load case 3. The values of ψv, ψh, and ψl are defined in [15].

2.4. Dynamic load models according to UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 (NA to BS EN

1991-2:2003)
The design maximum vertical accelerations that result from single pedestrian or pedestrian group due to
walking or running should be calculated by assuming that these are represented by the application of a vertical
pulsating force F, moving across the span of the bridge at a constant speed of vt of 1.7 m/s for walking and 3
m/s for running as follows [16]:

𝐹 = 𝐹0 ∙ 𝑘(𝑓𝑣 ) ∙ √1 + 𝛾(𝑁 − 1) ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑣 ∙ 𝑡) [N] (14)

Where: N is the number of pedestrians in the group (depending on bridge class), F0 is the reference amplitude
of the applied fluctuating force given for walking (280 N) and running (910 N) and represents the maximum
amplitude of the applied pedestrian force at the most likely pace frequency, fv is the natural frequency [Hz] of
the vertical mode under consideration, k(fv) is a combined factor to deal with the effects of a more realistic
pedestrian population, harmonic responses and relative weighting of pedestrian sensitivity to response, t is
elapsed time in seconds, γ is a reduction factor to allow for the unsynchronized combination of actions in a
pedestrian group. The values mentioned above are defined in [16].
The design maximum vertical accelerations that result from pedestrians in crowded conditions (in walking)
[16] may be calculated by assuming that these are represented by a vertical pulsating distributed load w applied
to the deck for a sufficient time so that steady state conditions are achieved as follows:

𝐹
𝑤 = 1.8 ∙ ( 0 ) ∙ 𝑘(𝑓𝑣 ) ∙ √𝛾 ∙ 𝑁/𝜆 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑣 ∙ 𝑡) [N/m2] (15)
𝐴

Where: N is the total number of pedestrians disturbed over the span (depends on crowd density  obtained
according to bridge class, but with a maximum value of 1.0 pedestrians/m2), γ is a factor to allow for the
unsynchronized combination of actions in a crowd, λ is a factor that reduces the effective number of pedestrians
when loading from only part of the span contributes to the mode of interest. The values of , γ and λ are defined
in [16].

5
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

The DLMs for horizontal and lateral directions are not defined, only the method for avoidance of unstable
lateral response due to crowd loading is given [16].

2.5. Dynamic load models according to fib Bulletin 32

The DLMs for single pedestrian due to walking (Eq. 16 and 17) according to fib Bulletin 32 [17] consist of a
pulsating stationary force with two components (vertical and horizontal) applied at the most unfavourable
position of the bridge. Forces should be considered separately.

𝐹𝑣 (𝑡) = 180 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑣 ∙ 𝑡) [N] (16)

𝐹ℎ (𝑡) = 70 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓ℎ ∙ 𝑡) [N] (17)

Where: fv is vertical natural frequency of the bridge close to 2 Hz and fh is horizontal natural frequency of the
bridge close to 1 Hz. Walking velocity is assumed as constant value of 0.9 times the step frequency fs, which
is close to the vertical frequency of the bridge and approximately twice the horizontal frequency (fs ≈ fv ≈ 2fh).
The DLMs for a group of 8-15 pedestrians (Eq. 18 and 19) are similar as for singe pedestrian’s DLMs [17].
The synchronisation of step frequencies and phases between different pedestrians in group is taken into account
only for first harmonic by synchronization factors kv and kh, which are defined in [17].

𝐹𝑣 (𝑡) = 180 ∙ 𝑘𝑣 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑣 ∙ 𝑡) [N] (18)

𝐹ℎ (𝑡) = 70 ∙ 𝑘ℎ ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓ℎ ∙ 𝑡) [N] (19)

To allow for the influence of the pedestrians on the dynamic properties of the bridge (natural frequencies), a
mass of 800 kg should be applied at the same position as the force.
The DLMs for pedestrian stream [17] stand for the excitation forces due to a continuous pedestrian stream
with a density of 0.6 persons/m². The continuous pedestrian stream is applied as a uniformly distributed
pulsating area load acting by vertical and horizontal component.

𝑞𝑣 (𝑡) = 12,6 ∙ 𝑘𝑣 ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓𝑣 ∙ 𝑡) [N/m2] (20)

𝑞ℎ (𝑡) = 3,2 ∙ 𝑘ℎ ∙ sin(2𝜋 ∙ 𝑓ℎ ∙ 𝑡) [N/m2] (21)

To produce the most unfavourable loading case the load should be applied to the relevant areas of the bridge.
Depending on the mode shape, the total span or as well half of the span should be loaded. An additional evenly
distributed mass of 40 kg/m² should be applied on the same area if unfavourable.

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

According to Eurocode EN 1990 [18] the verification of comfort criteria for serviceability should be performed
if some of the bridge frequencies are less than 5 Hz in vertical direction or 2,5 Hz in horizontal (lateral) and
torsional direction. Critical range for longitudinal vibration is from 1.25 to 4.6 Hz [14], but, in practice, the
longitudinal component of pedestrian walking force has little influence on most footbridges (exceptions are
bridges bears on overhanging and flexible piers) [15].
The general traffic assumptions for serviceability verification in relation to vibration caused by pedestrians are
given in EN 1990 [18]: a group of about 8 to 15 persons normally walking should be taken into account as
persistent design situations. The presence of continuous pedestrians stream (significantly more than 15
persons), occasional festive or choreographic events should be specified when relevant, as persistent, transient

6
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

or accidental design situation. In cases of short span bridges, the most unfavourable action may be produced
by single pedestrian [19].
It leads to conclusion that designers, depending on the bridge design, have to choose appropriate DLM(s) to
conduct verification of serviceability in relation to vibration.
The summary of DLMs that designers can use to their advantage are given below as well as in Tab.3.
 ISO 10137 [12] defines DLMs for single pedestrian and group of pedestrians due to walking and
running. DLMs are defined in two directions: vertical and horizontal (lateral). Fourier’s coefficients
are given for 5 harmonics in vertical and horizontal direction due to walking and for 3 harmonics due
to running, as well as a corresponding phase angles for the harmonics bellow resonance, although
higher harmonics are rarely significant where human perception is of concern. The model for
pedestrian group does not take into account the probability that the footfall frequency approaches the
critical range of natural frequencies under consideration. ISO 10137 does not define velocity of forces
due to single pedestrian moving along the bridge as well as pedestrian weight.
 The DLMs according to JRC Scientific and Technical Report [13] and HIVOSS [14] are defined for
continuous pedestrian stream (walking) of different densities in vertical, horizontal and longitudinal
direction. In addition, the general DLMs for single pedestrian due to walking and running are defined
for three general directions, but the DLFs are not determined strictly. The model for running group of
pedestrians is also defined. Value of pedestrian weight is given, as well as velocity of pedestrian/runner
force which moves along the bridge by constant speed.
 In SETRA [15], the simplified DLMs for single pedestrian due to walking (taking into account only
first harmonic) are given in vertical, horizontal and longitudinal directions as well as the DLFs for
continuous pedestrian stream of different densities. In addition, the DLFs for single pedestrian model
due to walking for second and third harmonic are also given, as well as for model due to running in
vertical direction. Pedestrian’s weight is given, but there is no velocity values for walking or running.
 BS NA EN 1991-2 [16]: the DLM for single pedestrian or pedestrian group due to walking or running
is defined only in vertical direction (moving force). The DLM for pedestrian stream is also given only
for vertical direction. The main advantage of the DLM for single pedestrian in relation to other DLMs
presented in this paper is introduction of the combined factor, which deals with relative weighting of
pedestrian sensitivity to response. The velocity is given for walking and running. Although the DLMs
for horizontal (lateral) and longitudinal directions are not defined, the method for avoidance of
unstable lateral response due to crowd loading is given.
 fib Bulletin 32 [17]: DLMs for single pedestrian and group of pedestrians consist of a pulsating
stationary force with two components (vertical and horizontal) applied at the most unfavourable
position of the bridge. The DLMs for continuous pedestrian stream have to be applied as a uniformly
distributed pulsating area load acting as a vertical and a horizontal component.

Table 3. Defined DLMs and force velocity in codes and guidelines

DLM
Pedestrian
Force Single pedestrian Group of pedestrians
Reference stream
velocity
walking running walking running walking
v h l v h l v h l v h l v h l
ISO 10137 - + + - + + - + + - + + - - - -
HIVOSS + ± ± ± ± ± ± - - - + - - + + +
SETRA - + + + + - - - - - - - - + + +
BS NA EN
+ + - - + - - + - - + - - + - -
1991-2
Fib
+ + + - - - - + + - - - - + + -
BULLETIN
v – vertical direction; h – horizontal direction; v – longitudinal direction
+ defined; - not defined; ± partially defined

7
 IABSE Symposium
May 20-22, 2020
Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering – History and Challenges

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is a part of research supported by University of Rijeka through Grant No. uniri-tehnic-18-127. The
authors are grateful for this support.

5. REFERENCES
[1] HRN EN 1991-2:2012, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges (EN 1991-
2:2003+AC:2010), Croatian Standard Institute, Zagreb, 2012.
[2] HRN EN 1991-2:2012/NA, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges -
National Annex, Croatian Standard Institute, Zagreb, 2012.
[3] SR EN 1991-2/NB, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges - National
Annex, Romanian Standards Association (ASRO), Bucharest, 2006.
[4] DIN EN 1991-2/NA, Nationaler Anhang – National festgelegte Parameter – Eurocode 1: Einwirkungen
auf Tragwerke – Teil 2: Verkhrslasten auf Brucken, Deutches Insitiut fur Normung, Berlin, 2012.
[5] ÖNORM B 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges - National
specifications concerning ÖNORM EN 1991-2 and national supplements, Austrian Standards plus
GmbH, Wien, 2011. (in German)
[6] BDS EN 1991-2/NA Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges - National
annex to BDS EN 1991-2:2006, BIS Sofia, 2015 (in Bulgarian)
[7] Italian National Annex to UNI EN 1991-2:2005
spolstavprav.cz/sts_notlib_docs/text_cnot%202012_0496_I.docx, 15. April 2018.
[8] EN 1992-2:2005, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 2: Concrete bridges - Design and
detailing rules, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 2005.
[9] EN 1993-2:2006, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 2: Bridges, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 2006.
[10] EN 1995-2:2004, Eurocode 5, Design of Timber Structures - Part 2: Bridges, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 2004.
[11] ŽIVANOVIC S., PAVIC A., REYNOLDS P., Vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-
induced excitation, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 279, 2005, pp. 1–74.
[12] ISO 10137:2007, Bases for design of structures Serviceability of buildings and pedestrian walkways
against vibration, International Stadardization Organization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
[13] Design of Lightweight Footbridges for Human Induced Vibrations, JRC Scietific and Technical Reports,
2009.
[14] Design of Footbridges, Guideline, Human induced Vibrations of Steel Structures (HIVOSS), September
2008.
[15] Footbridges - Assessment of vibrational behaviour of footbridges under pedestrian loading, Service
d'Études Techniques des routes et autoroutes (SETRA), Paris, France, 2006.
[16] BS NA EN 1991 – (2003.): UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Traffic loads on
bridges, British Standards Institute, London, UK, 2008.
[17] FIB Bulletin 32: Guidelines for the design of footbridges, Stuttgart: CEB, 2005.
[18] EN 1990:2002, Eurocode - Basis of structural design, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium 2002.
[19] RICCIARDELLI, F., BRIATICO, C., INGÓLFSSON, E. T., & GEORGAKIS, C. Experimental
validation and calibration of pedestrian loading models for footbridges. In A. Cunha, & E. Caetano
(Eds.), Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures, 2006, pp. 189-199