Design of Footbridges against Pedestrian-Induced Vibrations

F. Ricciardelli, Ph.D., P.Eng., M.ASCE1; and C. Demartino, Ph.D., P.Eng.2

Abstract: In 1999 and 2000, the two vibration incidents at the Paris Passerelle Solferino Bridge and the London Millennium Bridge triggered
a major revision of existing knowledge concerning footbridge response to pedestrian-induced actions. In the last 15 years, an incredibly large
amount of research has emerged on the topic. Although researchers have provided many valuable scientific contributions regarding the under-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

standing and modeling of pedestrian-induced vibrations of footbridges, there is still a need to determine what real improvements have been
achieved in design procedures. This article provides a critical overview of the methodologies proposed over the last four decades, as well as
their code implementations, and summarizes the actual advances available that consultants can use to their advantage in bridge design.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000825. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Footbridges; Walking-induced vibrations; Crowd–structure interaction; Walking loading models; Response models.

Introduction compared (Ingólfsson et al. 2012; Venuti and Bruno 2009;

Researchers have known of the problem of the evaluation of the
dynamic response of footbridges to pedestrian loading at least
since the work of Tilden (1913), more than a century ago.
Nevertheless, for decades, most of the design procedures and code
specifications have been based on the simplifying assumption that
walkers apply only a static vertical load to the footbridge. In fact,
pedestrian movement produces a complex system of forces, acting
in three directions and varying in time and space; these depend on
the characteristics of the pedestrian, but are also modified by the
interaction with other pedestrians and by the perception of the
structural motion.
The approach to the analysis of footbridge response to pedes-
trian loading dramatically changed at the turn of the millennium.
The Passerelle Solferino Bridge (now Passerelle L
eopold-S
edar-
Senghor Bridge) in Paris on December 15, 1999, and the
Millennium Bridge in London on July 10, 2000, both on their
opening days, experienced large lateral vibrations, the causes of
which are clearly found in the interaction between the dynamics of
the structures and that of the walkers. Researchers recognized that
the action exerted by a walker on a footbridge is modified by the
footbridge vibration. The main effect of pedestrian-induced vibra-
tions is to cause discomfort, thus impairing serviceability. In recent
years, dozens of papers have appeared that deal with the phenom-
enon of crowd–structure interaction, with application to foot-
bridges; these also contain a number of loading and response eval-
uation models able to account for such interaction. Also, review
papers have appeared, in which these models are summarized and
1
Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Second
Univ. of Naples, Via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa (CE), Italy; formerly, Dept.
of Informatics, Infrastructures and Sustainable Energy, Univ. of Reggio
Calabria, Via Graziella, Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria, Italy. E-mail:
friccia@unina2.it
2
Dept. of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, Univ. of Naples
Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy (corresponding author).
E-mail: cristoforo.demartino@unina.it
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 29, 2014; approved
on June 24, 2015; published online on January 20, 2016. Discussion period
open until June 20, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, ©
ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
Živanovi
c et al. 2005; Racic et al. 2009). Many of these models
have also become part of design procedures for footbridges.
Design of footbridges against pedestrian-induced vibrations
requires (a) knowledge of the characteristics of the pedestrian action
(b) a method of analysis for pedestrian-induced vibration, and (c) a
comfort criterion (Wheeler 1982).
Fig. 1 shows the classification of the methods of analysis for pe-
destrian-induced vibrations adopted in this article. A two-way con-
nection exists between pedestrian action and pedestrian-induced
vibration, due to the feedback of the footbridge vibration resulting
from the pedestrian behavior. The characteristics of the pedestrian
force can be studied using experimental data or analytical models
and can be described in terms of deterministic or stochastic models.
Furthermore, the forcing function can be expressed in the time or fre-
quency domain. The methods of analysis for pedestrian-induced
vibrations have been classified into linear models, further subdivided
into stability criteria and response evaluation methods, and nonlinear
models, further subdivided into parametric excitation models,
inverted pendulum models, nonlinear damping models, and response
feedback models (Ingólfsson et al. 2012). Moreover, models can
consider or neglect interpedestrian and pedestrian–structure inter-
action. The output of the models is either the magnitude of the struc-
tural response (usually in terms of maximum acceleration) or the
critical number of pedestrians causing diverging vibration ampli-
tudes (Ingólfsson et al. 2012).
Finally, tools are needed to establish human tolerance to vibra-
tion. Tredgold (1825) first gave a commonsense tolerance criterion
for vibrations, suggesting that “girders over long spans should be
made deep to avoid the inconvenience of not being able to move on
the floor without shaking everything in the room.” Vibration toler-
ance depends on the activity carried out during vibration and on the
vibration frequency. Usually, reference is made to the acceleration
limits contained in ISO 10137 (ISO 2007), adjusted to the intended
occupancy. This article does not discuss vibration tolerance.
What instead seems to be missing is a comparison among the
recent proposals and a discussion of the differences they bring with
respect to traditional approaches, not accounting for interaction.
Because a full comparison is not achievable, as the models differ in
terms of background hypotheses, fields of applicability, and data
used for calibration, this article’s view is that it would be of interest
for the consultant to have some guidance on the choice of the most
appropriate approach to use in different situations.

© ASCE C4015003-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Classification of the methods of analysis for pedestrian-induced vibrations

This article attempts to compare background hypotheses, field of

applicability, and results obtained through a number of different load-
ing and response evaluation models, with the analysis limited to walk-
ing action. Only models having immediate implications for design
practice are considered. More advanced approaches that don’t seem to
already have practical applicability are not presented or discussed. The
different approaches are compared without any application to a specific
case study, with the aim of obtaining general conclusions, not related
to a specific situation. In fact, other articles that compare the results of
the application of design procedures already exist, yet these do not dis-
cuss or compare the different approaches adopted. Thus, this article
provides a synthesis of the results available and a description of how
these can be used in the design of footbridges.

Walking Force Modeling

Ground reaction forces (GRFs) are the forces exerted by a walker
on the walking surface. For example, the vertical GRF exerted by a
walker on a footbridge is shown in Fig. 2. GRFs are characterized
by a rather large level of randomness, which is the result of intersub-
ject variability (i.e., the differences existing between different
walkers) and intrasubject variability (i.e., the nonperiodic behavior
of each walker) (Eriksson 1994; Ohlsson 1982). In addition, GRFs
are modified by the interaction among walkers and of the walkers
with the structure (as discussed later in the article).
Although it is not fully periodic, walking is a rather repetitive ac-
tivity, and so are the GRFs. Natural (or undisturbed) walking fre-
quency is reasonably described by a Gaussian distribution with a
Fig. 2. GRFs exerted by a walker to a footbridge and discrete Fourier
series representation of the vertical component
mean of 2 Hz and a standard deviation of approximately 0:20 Hz
(Matsumoto et al. 1972; Ricciardelli and Pansera 2010). One possi-
ble approach to the modeling of GRFs is to neglect intrasubject vari-
ability, and assume that the force is periodic in time and moving in
space at a constant speed; in so doing, the vertical and lateral com-
ponents can be written as

" #   
X1
L
FV ðx; tÞ ¼ W 1 þ DLFV; j ðsin ð j  2  p  fw  t  t Þ  f V; j Þ d ðx  vðt  t ÞÞ Hðt  t Þ  H t  t 
j¼1
v
" #   
X1
L
FL ðx; tÞ ¼ W DLFL;j ðsin ðj  p  fw  t  t Þ  f L; j Þ d ðx  vðt  t ÞÞ Hðt  t Þ  H t  t 
j¼1
v (1)

where W is the weight of the walker; DLFV;j and DLFL;j are the jth x is the position of the pedestrian on the bridge and v ¼ fw l is the pe-
dynamic load factors (DLFs); fw is the walking frequency; f j is the destrian speed, with l being the stride length; HðÞ is the Heaviside
phase lag of the jth harmonic; d ðÞ indicates the Dirac delta function; function; t is arrival time; and L is the span length. The equations in

© ASCE C4015003-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003

 Eq. (1) lend themselves to the evaluation of the transient response due
to single or multiple walkers. In the case of multiple walkers, intersub-
ject variability can be accounted for during superposition. It is worth
nothing that the data concerning these parameters mainly come from
biomechanics and only recently from structural engineering (Butz et
al. 2007; Venuti and Bruno 2009; Racic et al. 2009); independently
from the source, these data show large scatter in the results due to the
complex and variable (inter- and intrasubject) walking biomechanics.
On the other hand, the GRFs can be described in the frequency
domain through their power spectral density functions (PSDFs),
which are suitable for the evaluation of the stationary response to a
stream of walkers, including intra- and intersubject variability.
Such an approach was introduced by Brownjohn et al. (2004b) for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the vertical GRF and by Pizzimenti and Ricciardelli (2005) and
Ricciardelli and Pizzimenti (2007) for the lateral GRF.
Brownjohn et al. (2004b) obtained the PSDFs of the first six ver-
tical DLFs from the Fourier spectra of measured forces; converted
to GRF, this becomes
h 
j f =ð jfw Þ1jCV; j
AV; j þ BV; j exp DV; j
SFV; j ð f Þ ¼ 32  W 2
fw
where AV;j , BV;j , CV;j , and DV;j are curve-fitting parameters. For
each harmonic, f is in the range of ðj  0:25Þ  fw –ðj þ 0:25Þ  fw .
Živanovi
c et al. (2007) extended the results of Brownjohn et al.
(2004b) by considering also the DLFs of the first five subharmonics
of the walking force.
Pizzimenti and Ricciardelli (2005) and Ricciardelli and Pizzimenti
(2007) obtained the PSDFs of the lateral GRFs around the first five har-
monics of the walking frequency as
2 !2 3
F~ L; j 2AL;j
2
f =ð j  fw Þ  1 5
SFL; j ð f Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp 42 (3)
f 2p  BL;j BL; j
where F~ L;j is the characteristic value of the area of the PSDF around
2 a stationarity index, and has been found to depend on the parameter
the jth harmonic, AL; j is a parameter used to normalize the PSDF,
and BL;j is a bandwidth parameter. For each harmonic, f is in the
range of 0:9  j  fw –1:1  j  fw .
Transient Response to a Single Crossing
The simplest approach to the analysis of walking-induced foot-
bridge vibrations is that of evaluating the transient response to the
crossing of a walker in resonance with one of the bridge vibration
frequencies. This condition is likely to occur for footbridges hav-
ing vertical vibration frequencies lower than approximately 5 Hz
or horizontal vibration frequencies lower than approximately
2:5 Hz, and may prove to be the worst load scenario. No feedback
of the footbridge vibration to the walking parameters is consid-
ered, as discussed later in the article.
The first study that recognized the crossing of a resonant walker
as a critical condition is that of Blanchard et al. (1977). The action
of the walker was modeled as a vertical sinusoidal force acting at
the footbridge fundamental frequency, moving at a speed corre-
sponding to a stride length l ¼ 1:8 m:
 
l ation occurs when the walker crosses midspan, but this is not the
FV ðtÞ ¼ DLFV;1  W  sinð2p f1 tÞ  f f1 t (4)
2 only source of inaccuracy. The solution of Fryba (1973) does not
where W ¼ 700 N, f1 is the footbridge fundamental frequency,
DLFV;1 ¼ 0:257, and f ðxÞ is the normalized fundamental mode
© ASCE
shape. For a simple supported beam, the maximum acceleration in
the first mode was given as
€y max ¼ ð2p f1 Þ2  ys  w ð j 1 ; LÞ (5)
where ys ¼ WL3 =48EI is the static deflection due to the weight of
the walker located at midspan, j 1 is the damping ratio in the first
mode, and w ð j 1 ; LÞ [the symbol c was originally used by
Blanchard et al. (1977), which has been modified here to make it
consistent with the remaining equations] is a factor accounting for
the transient dynamic behavior; this was evaluated for a simply sup-
ported beam through numerical integration of the equation of
motion, and is given in the form of a graph for four different values
of j 1 , and for L in the range of 10–50 m. The model of Blanchard et
al. (1977) is a simple correction to a static load, and was easily
incorporated into codes of practice (discussed later in this article).
From a mathematical point of view, the same approach can be
applied, and indeed was applied, also to the lateral response; in that
i2 case, however, the idea of the correction of a static deflection loses
its physical meaning. What the authors failed to recognize is that
(2) the maximum transient response does not depend on L and j 1 sepa-
rately, but rather on their product (Ricciardelli and Briatico 2011).
Nevertheless, the graphs they produced are quite accurate and con-
sistent with the fact that different pairs of L and j j having the same
product must produce the same value of w .
Generally speaking, the maximum acceleration in the ith mode
in resonant conditions (i.e. jfw ¼ fi ) can be written as
DLFj  W
€y max;i;j ¼  w ðɛi Þ ¼ €y stat;i;j  w ðɛi Þ (6)
2 j i mi
where ystat;i;j ¼ ðDLFj  WÞ=ð2 j i mi Þ is the stationary acceleration
amplitude in the ith mode due to the jth resonant harmonic, mi is the
ith modal mass, and w ðɛi Þ is a transient resonant response
Coefficient (TRRC) that accounts for the load motion. The TRRC is
(Ricciardelli and Briatico 2011), as follows:
1 2L 1
ɛi ¼   ji ¼  n  ji (7)
i l i
where n is the number of effective load cycles. In particular, large
values of ɛi are associated with long-span footbridges, a short stride
length, a low vibration mode, and high damping, in which case the
TRRC approaches 1. On the other hand, small values of ɛi are asso-
ciated with short footbridges, a long stride length, a high vibration
mode, and low damping, in which case the TRRC is close to 0 and
the response highly nonstationary. Nonetheless, few researchers
recognized ɛi as the governing parameter for the TRRC; instead,
many used the variables n and j i separately when studying the
transient response. In the following discussion, the maximum
acceleration derived by different authors will be written in the
form of Eq. (6).
Blanchard et al. (1977) did not mention, and therefore seem not
to have been aware of, the work of Fryba (1973) published four
years earlier, in which a closed-form solution of w was given as a
function of j i and v; this solution proves rather inaccurate. In partic-
ular, it is based on the wrong assumption that the maximum acceler-
acknowledge the fact that the TRRC depends on ɛi , as it expresses it
as function of L and j separately; in fact, it can be manipulated to
take the form
C4015003-3 J. Bridge Eng.
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
    
ɛi p light-gray area shows the typical range of ɛ1 for common foot-
w ðɛi Þ ¼ exp  ɛi þ ɛi (8)
1 þ ɛ2i 2 bridges. The numerical solution of Blanchard et al. (1977) is in quite
Eleven years later, still not realizing the dependency of w on ɛi ,
Rainer et al. (1988) gave a graph containing values of w as a function
of n for different values of j 1 ; they did not explain how the values
were derived, but a later article of Pimentel and Fernandes (2002)
giving the same results reveals that they must have used the approxi-
mated equation of the displacement of a simple supported beam
crossed by a moving sinusoidal load given by Fryba (1973). The val-
ues found differ from those of Blanchard et al. (1977), but differ also
from Eq. (8), as the assumption that the maximum acceleration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
occurs when the walker is at midspan was removed, and the exact
time when this occurs was evaluated numerically. Nevertheless,
the solution of Rainer et al. (1988) also proves inaccurate, prob-
ably due to the inaccuracy of the response equation it is based on.
Based on the measurements carried out on two footbridges,
Allen and Murray (1993) suggested that the constant value w ¼ 0:7
can be used, regardless of the bridge characteristics.
Grundmann et al. (1993) suggested the approximated value
w ðn; j 1 Þ ¼ 0:6½1  exp ð2p n j 1 Þ (9)
derived from interpolation of the solution of the modal equation of
motion (in square brackets), which was then reduced to 60%. This
model was the first to acknowledge the dependency of w on
ɛ1 ¼ n j 1 , but the reason for the reduction was not explained.
For floors, Young (2001) proposed an equation for the TRRC
similar to that of Grundmann et al. (1993), as follows:
w ðn; j 1 Þ ¼ 1  exp ð2p  0:275n j 1 Þ (10)
Finally, Ricciardelli and Briatico (2011) found an approximated
closed-form for the TRRC, as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi    
footbridge is crossed by a stream of walkers having equal frequency
ɛi 2 þ exp ɛ  p þ arctan 1
w ðɛi Þ ¼ 1 þ ɛ i
1 þ ɛ2i i
2 ɛi
(11)
which proves quite accurate, with an error with respect to the nu-
merical solution never exceeding 6  103 for ɛi in the broad range
of 104 –10.
In Fig. 3 the values of w ðɛ1 Þ proposed by different authors are
compared, indicating a clear disagreement among one another. The
Fig. 3. Comparison of the TRRC from different authors; the light-gray area shows the typical range of ɛ1 for common footbridges
© ASCE C4015003-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
good agreement with the closed-form solution of Ricciardelli and
Briatico (2011). The solution of Fryba (1973) is less accurate and
on the unsafe side for all values of ɛ1 . The solutions of Rainer et al.
(1988) and of Young (2001) are also less accurate, but on the safe
side for all values of ɛ1 . The solutions of Allen and Murray (1993)
and of Grundmann et al. (1993) are on the safe side for small values
of ɛ1 and on the unsafe side for large values of ɛ1 , and have an
unjustified limitation for large values of ɛ1 . Finally, the response of
a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system loaded by a transient
harmonic load stationary at midspan and acting for a duration equal
to the crossing time T ¼ L=v gives a solution largely on the safe
side for all values of ɛ1 . This model was adopted by some codes of
practice (discussed later in this article).
For footbridges having more than one span, numerically
obtained correction factors exist. In particular, Blanchard et al.
(1977) proposed a correction coefficient for up to three spans;
Pimentel and Fernandes (2002) proposed a correction coefficient
for the case of two spans, to be used in the model of Rainer et al.
(1988). The coefficients proposed are in agreement with each other
and are for reducing factors: For the case of two spans, they are in
the range of 0:7–0:96 for ratio between the lengths of the spans in
the range of 1–0:2.
Response to Multiple Walkers
An alternative situation is that of a footbridge crossed by more than
one walker. In that case, the characteristics of the walkers have to
be described on a probabilistic basis, and the response can be eval-
uated either in the frequency domain through random vibration
theory, or in the time domain through Monte Carlo simulations.
The first attempt to evaluate the load exerted by a number N of
walkers is that of Matsumoto et al. (1978), who noted that when the
and phases uniformly distributed between 0 and 2p (uncorrelated
walkers), the RMS response varies with the square root of N (or with
the square root of the walker density d ¼ N=BL, B being the breadth
of the deck). An opposite situation is that of fully correlated walkers
(i.e., walkers stepping in phase), for which the RMS response varies
with N.
From experiments on a 10-m footbridge, Eriksson and Ohlsson
(1988) found that when the walkers step in phase the total vertical
response is obtained multiplying the RMS response to a single
J. Bridge Eng.
 pffiffiffiffi
walker by N 0:9 for the first harmonic, and by N for higher harmon-
ics; when the walkers are free to choose their walking rate, they tend
to be fully correlated for N < 5 and tend to lose correlation for a
larger number; it is suggested that for N > 5 the effective number of
pedestrians is 4:5 þ ðN=10Þ. This result is rather different from that
of Matsumoto et al. (1978), and is possibly the effect of the very short
span of the footbridge and of the experimental approximations.
Combining Eq. (2) and a Gaussian probability-density function
(PDF) of the walking frequency, Brownjohn et al. (2004b) derived
an approximated equation for the PSDFs of the first six harmonics
of the vertical force exerted by a group of N uncorrelated walkers,
which can be put in the form
"  2 #
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2  f them. It is now widely accepted that some kind of inter-walker and
f  SFVej ðf Þ ¼ N  W  DLFVj  f  exp 12:5  2
2
(12)
j walker–structure interaction almost inevitably occurs.
where f ¼ f =1 Hz.
Similarly, through convolution of Eq. (3) and a Gaussian PDF of
the walking frequency, Ricciardelli (2005) derived an approximated
equation for the PSDFs of the first five harmonics of the horizontal
force exerted by a group of N uncorrelated walkers, bringing
" apply if they were alone. The occurrence of such interaction is
 2 #
f related to the perception that each walker has of the surrounding
f  SFLej ðf Þ ¼ N  W  kj  exp 62  1
2
(13)
j
where k1 ¼ 6:6  103 , k2 ¼ 3:2  104 , k3 ¼ 2:2  103 , k4 ¼ 2:3
104 , and k5 ¼ 4:78  104 .
Eqs. (12) and (13) can be used to calculate the peak acceleration
in the ith mode. In the worst-case scenario, in which the ith vibra-
tion frequency coincides with the jth load harmonic, and under the
assumption that the mode shape is approximated as a sinusoid, then
!0:5
p fi  SFej ðfi Þ
^a i ¼ ga  (14)
8 j i m2i
where ^a i is the peak acceleration in the ith mode (either vertical or
horizontal), fi  SFej ðfi Þ is the spectrum of the jth harmonic
pffiffiffi of the ith
modal force (either vertical or horizontal), and ga ¼ 2 is the peak
factor.
A different approach is that of Butz (2006), who carried out
Monte Carlo simulations for different values of the walker density
and for different bridge geometries, to derive the 95th-percentile
peak modal acceleration. Step frequency, pedestrian mass, force
magnitude, and pedestrian arrival time were selected on a probabil-
istic basis. This model was incorporated in human-induced vibra-
tion of steel structures (HIVOSS) guidelines (Heinemeyer et al.
2009), and is described later in the article.
Ingólfsson et al. (2008) proposed a response spectrum method
inspired by earthquake engineering. Through Monte Carlo simula-
tions, they evaluated a reference vertical acceleration and then cor-
rected it through empirical factors. The reference case is a bridge
with modal mass m1;o ¼ 100 ; 000 kg, j 1;o ¼ 0:005, Lo ¼ 50 m,
loaded by two reference populations with step frequencies equal to
either 1:8 or 2:0 Hz, with a standard deviation of 0:1 Hz and
Poisson-distributed arrivals with a mean arrival rate of 1 walker=s.
The peak modal acceleration is
m1;o pffiffiffi
^aVi ðTR ; rÞ ¼ ^
aRi ðTR ; rÞ λb j b L b U (15)
m1
where ^aRi ðTR ; rÞ is the reference acceleration found using extreme
value analysis of the simulated response; r ¼ f1 =fw is the frequency
© ASCE C4015003-5
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
ratio; TR is the return period; m1 is the actual first modal mass of the
bridge; λ is the actual pedestrian flow rate; and b j , b L , and b U are
corrective parameters that depend on the actual damping, bridge
length, and mode shape, respectively.
Interaction
Two types of interaction are of interest when dealing with the load-
ing of structures by humans; the first is that taking place among the
different individuals and the second is that taking place between an
individual and the structure. Often, these interactions can be
neglected, but it is becoming more and more common to include
Inter-Walker Interaction
Inter-walker interaction can be defined as the violation of the
superposition principle: Two or more walkers who interact with
each other apply a load that is not the sum of those they would
walkers, and to the influence that this has on the walker’s
behavior.
It is a quite complicated topic, to be investigated with the help
of knowledge and tools from social and medical sciences. The
main parameter governing such interaction is the walker density d,
which characterizes a uniform crowd. Indeed, that of a uniform
crowd is just one case, and other cases of interest are that of single
individuals interacting when their distance reduces below a thresh-
old value, and that of pairs and groups of individuals walking to-
gether. Although very interesting research has been and is pres-
ently being carried out, mainly aiming to model the different types
of interactions, it does not seem that any significant and definitive
result has been reached that can be used to advantage in engineer-
ing practice.
For a stationary and homogeneous walker, the flow equation
holds (Venuti and Bruno 2009)
q¼d v (16)
In this context, a critical density d c , a capacity density d ca , and a
jam density d m can be defined. For d < d c , walking is undisturbed;
for d c < d < d ca , the walking speed decreases with increasing
density; for d ca < d < d m , congestion occurs; and for d ¼ d m , the
maximum admissible density is reached and the walkers stop. For
d c , values are available in the literature—for example, d c ¼
0:2 walkers=m2 (Nakamura 2004), d c ¼ 0:2–0:5 walkers=m2
(Butz et al. 2007; Oeding 1963), d c ¼ 0:3–0:6 walkers=m2
(Piccardo and Tubino 2012).
A more sophisticated approach is that of Butz et al. (2007), who
carried out tests on a platform 30 m long and found a relationship
between the mean and standard deviation of the walking frequency
and the walker density (Fig. 4), as follows:
m fw ¼ 0:79  ½0:13  d 2  0:82  d þ 1:80 þ 0:79
s fw ¼ 0:08  ½0:13  d 2  0:82  d þ 1:80  0:03 (17)
These results were derived using the relationship between the
average walking velocity and density given by Oeding (1963), and
apply for 0:2  d  1:5.
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Variation of the mean and standard deviation of the walking frequency with the walker density, d (data from Butz et al. 2007)

Walker–Structure Interaction synchronize to the lateral vibration if the walking frequency is

no more than 0:1 Hz away from the vibration frequency, and
Walker–structure interaction is the feedback of the structural vibra-
confirmed that the DLFL;1 increases with increasing amplitude
tion to the walker dynamics. The straightforward way to model it
of vibration. They did not find any stable synchronization with
would be that of describing the walking action as a function of the
vertical vibrations, even at large amplitudes of approximately
footbridge displacement and velocity; nevertheless, following a
10 mm; limited synchronization was found at larger ampli-
common approach in aeroelasticity, it is more convenient to model
tudes, although these are outside of the serviceability limits of
it as a modification of the structural properties of inertia and
footbridges.
damping.
Similar results were found by Nakamura et al. (2008), who
Walker–structure interaction manifests itself in a totally differ-
observed an increase of the lateral GRF with increasing amplitude
ent way depending on whether vibration occurs in the vertical or lat-
of vibration: At 1:0 Hz, the lateral force can be 10% of the weight
eral direction. For lateral vibrations, some researchers claim that
at an amplitude of 10 mm, and 16% at an amplitude of 70 mm.
synchronization is the cause of instability (e.g., Okamoto et al.
They also found a probability of synchronization of 20% at a fre-
1992; Fujino et al. 1993), whereas others claim that it is not neces-
sary (e.g., Macdonald 2008; Brownjohn et al. 2004a). In the quency of 0:87 Hz and of 50% at a frequency of 1 Hz, for the
authors’ opinion, what everybody agrees on and what is relevant to amplitudes in the range of 10–70 mm. Sun and Yuan (2008)
structural design is that the walking forces are modified by the foot- found that DLFV;1 is not affected by the lateral motion in the range
bridge vibration. of 0–30 mm, whereas DLFL;1 depends on the lateral amplitude
Rönnquist (2005) found that the DLFL;1 has two different trends, ys ½m as
at resonance and away from resonance. In the first case, synchroni- DLFL;1 ¼ 1:1811  ys þ 0:0517 ys  0:05 m (20)
zation was observed, and DLFL;1 increases with increasing vibra-
tion amplitude until the maximum level of synchronization is
On the other hand, knowledge of the effects of vibration on the
reached. In the latter case, no synchronization was observed, and
DLFs is not sufficient for calculation of the response, as the phase
DLFL;1 linearly increases with vibration amplitude. The first lateral
of the excitation is also needed. Alternatively, one would need to
DLF was given for the resonant and nonresonant cases as
know the in-phase (inertia) and in-quadrature (damping) compo-
DLFL;1 ðf Þ ¼ 0:145 nents of the GRF. To the authors’ knowledge, no data are available
" " for vertical vibrations.
 2 # ! #
For lateral vibrations, Ingólfsson et al. (2011) and Ricciardelli et
1 f  f1
0:1 exp  0:45 þ 1:5 exp  €y max
1:35
(18) al. (2014) provided some experimental results; the additional damp-
2 0:07
ing and mass coefficients were given as

where €y max is expressed in m=s2 . Comparing full-scale observations D  3  2  3

F fs fs fs
and laboratory results, Rönnquist (2005) evaluated the effective jp ¼  ¼ aj þ b j þ c j þ dj
2ð2p fs Þ2 mo xo fw fw fw
number of walkers, that is, the number of fully synchronized    
walkers giving rise to the measured response, as follows: FI br fs
rp ¼ ¼ a r  sin  exp c r þ dr
"   # ð2p fs Þ2 mo xo fs =fw fw
1:6
N (21)
Ne ðNÞ ¼ 35  34  exp  (19)
60
 D and F
where F  I are the in-quadrature and in-phase (with displace-
Butz et al. (2007) measured GRF forces on a laterally or ment) phase components of the motion-induced forces, mo is the
vertically driven platform. They found that walkers potentially mass of the walker, and fs is the floor oscillation frequency, and in

© ASCE C4015003-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003

 which the coefficients depend on the amplitude of oscillation in
millimeters, as follows:
aj ðxs Þ ¼ 1  104  y3s þ 5:3  103  y2s  5:69  102  ys  1:77
bj ðxs Þ ¼ 2  104  y3s  4:8  103  y2s  0:12  ys þ 7:78
cj ðxs Þ ¼ 5  105  y3s  3:9  103  y2s þ 0:35  ys  9:56
dj ðxs Þ ¼ 4  106  y3s þ 2:6  103  y2s  0:15  ys þ 3:19
a r ðxs Þ ¼ 2:5  102  y2s þ 0:66  ys  9:17
b r ðxs Þ ¼ 1  104  y2s  5:9  103  ys þ 1:11
c r ðxs Þ ¼ 4:9  103  y2s  2:29  102  ys þ 2:89
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
d r ðxs Þ ¼ 3  104  y2s  2:28  102  ys þ 0:56 (22)
Eq. (21) can be used to calculate the footbridge response
accounting for walker–structure interaction.
Stability
When the footbridge vibrates laterally, walker–structure interaction
can bring dynamic instability.
The full-scale measurements carried out by Arup in the after-
math of the Millennium Bridge failure showed that the amplitude of
the in-quadrature component of the lateral force was proportional to
the bridge velocity (Dallard et al. 2001), thus having the characteris-
tics of a viscous damping force. This led to the now well-known
Arup formula, as follows:
m1 f1 j 1
Nc ¼ 8p (23)
k Ingólfsson et al. (2012), based on the criteria of the Service
Eq. (23) allows calculation of the number Nc of pedestrians that,
when uniformly distributed on a footbridge having a sinusoidal first
mode shape, produces an in-quadrature component of the lateral
force that balances the structural damping force, thus producing
instability. The coefficient k in Eq. (23) was found experimentally
to be equal to 300 Ns=m, in a range of vibration frequencies of
0:5–1:0 Hz.
In the following discussion, other stability criteria that appeared
after that of Eq. (23) will be discussed, and for purpose of compari-
son, these have all been translated in terms of critical number of
pedestrians and put in a form similar to that of Eq. (23) and with the
same symbols. They all refer to vibrations occurring in the first
mode.
Newland (2003) wrote the modal equilibrium equation of the
footbridge subjected to the inertia force produced by resonant
walkers, assuming that these are all in quadrature with the bridge
motion, and obtained an expression of the critical number of
walkers, as follows:
m1 j 1
Nc ¼ 4 (24)
ab mo
where mo is the mass of each walker, a is the ratio of the amplitude
of oscillation of the walker’s center of mass to the amplitude of os-
cillation of the footbridge, and b is the probability of a pedestrian
being synchronized with the footbridge motion. In a range of vibra-
tion frequencies of 0:75–0:95 Hz, a value of a ¼ 2=3 is suggested.
As to b , reference is made to the experiments carried out by Arup
(Dallard et al. 2001), which show a strong variability, between 0:28
and 0:87, when the amplitude of oscillation is in the range of
© ASCE C4015003-7
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
5–30 mm; for an amplitude of 10 mm, it is suggested that a value of
0:4 be used, which is a compromise between the values of 0:28 and
0:46 measured at 0:96 Hz and 0:75 Hz, respectively. Opposed to
this, a value of 0:2 is reported in Fujino et al. (1993).
Strogatz et al. (2005) calculated the critical number of walkers
by considering these as oscillators weakly coupled with the foot-
bridge. Assuming a Gaussian PDF of the walking frequency, they
found
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi m1 f12 j 1 s fw
Nc ¼ 2p  32p 2 (25)
DLFL1 mo gc
where g is the acceleration of gravity and c ¼ 16 m1 s1 is a coeffi-
cient calibrated based on Millennium Bridge data. The model is ap-
plicable for vibration frequencies in the range 0:75–1:25 Hz, and it
is suggested that a value of DLFL1 ¼ 0:044 be used in combination
with an average body mass of 70 kg and a standard deviation of the
walking frequency of 0:1 Hz.
Roberts (2005) solved the walker–footbridge coupled equations
of motion, setting the displacement of the walker equal to that of the
footbridge. With uniform distribution of fw =f1 between 0:8 and 1:2,
the critical number of pedestrians turns out to be
c1 m1 j 1
Nc ¼ 4 (26)
mo
where c1 is a coefficient taking into account the averaging of the fre-
quency ratio; it depends on the footbridge damping, and for practi-
cal values of this in the range of 0:01–0:02, it varies between 7:27
and 9:06; other values are given in Roberts (2005) in the form of a
table.
d’Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes (SETRA 2006),
Danbon and Grillaud (2005), and Charles and Bui (2005), consid-
ered as critical the condition that the acceleration amplitude reaches
a limit value a1 . Assuming that the walkers are uncorrelated, at reso-
nance they obtained
p2 m21 j 1 a21
Nc ¼ (27)
10:82 DLFL1
2 m2 g2
o
It is suggested that the limit acceleration be set equal to
0:10 m=s2 , and that for sparse and moderately dense crowds the
value DLFL1 ¼ 0:05 be used.
Finally, Piccardo and Tubino (2008) investigated parametric res-
onance as the cause of instability, and from solution of the Mathieu
equation they found
m1 f12 j 1
Nc ¼ 32p 2 (28)
b a1 mo g
in which a1 is the slope of the variation of the DLF with the ampli-
tude of the oscillation of the footbridge. Results of experiments pre-
sented in Dallard et al. (2001) suggest a value of a1 ¼ 2 m1 .
Eqs. (23)–(28) contain some similarities, and some differences,
that have been widely discussed in Ricciardelli (2014).
Eqs. (23)–(28) can all be written in the form
m1 j 1
Nc ¼ a  (29)
mo
with a depending on the criterion adopted; these are summarized in
Table 1, together with the values it takes when the basic parameters
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 1. Comparison of Stability Criteria (Data from Ricciardelli 2014)

Eq. a Suggested by authors Min Max

a,b a,b a
(23) f1 2:9–5:8 2.9 5:8a
8 p mo
k
(24) 4 15 6:9 30c
ab
(25) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi f1 s fw 6:45–17:9d 3:1 19:5c
2p  31p 2
DLFL1 gc
(26) 4c1 29:1–36:2 29:1 57:2
(27) p2 m1 a21 7:8  105 ms a —e —e
2 DLF2 m g2
10:8 L1 o
(28) 2 36:2–40:2 15:0 80:5
f
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
32p 2
b a1 g
a
mo ¼ 70 kg.
b
f1 ¼ 0:5–1 Hz.
c
Phase lag ¼ p =2; a different phase lag increases this value.
d
fs ¼ 0:75–1:25 Hz.
e
This depends on the structure, as an example, for the Millennium Bridge
south span a ¼ 8:5, and for the Millennium Bridge center span a ¼ 11:3.

suggested by the authors are used, and with the minimum and maxi-
mum values coming from the broader combination of the values of
the basic parameters available in the literature.
First, it is observed that there is no consistency in the depend-
ency of a on the oscillation frequency. In Eqs. (24), (26), and (27), a
is independent of f1 ; in Eq. (23), it is proportional to f1 ; and in Eqs. Fig. 5. Variation of the motion-induced added mass, j p , and damping,
(25) and (28) it is proportional to the square of f1 . Then, it is noticed r p : (a) with the range of variation of the phase lag of the motion-
that there is a quite large scatter in the values of a. Some differences induced force; (b) as a function of the ratio of the oscillation frequency
can be explained based on the hypotheses used to derive the stability to the undisturbed walking frequency over a fixed floor (data from
criterion. As an example, the larger values of a in Eq. (26) with Ricciardelli et al. 2014)
respect to those in Eqs. (24) and (25) can be ascribed to the fact that
Eq. (26) was derived under the assumption of uniformly distributed
phases of the walkers, whereas Eqs. (24) and (25) were derived Assuming that unstable vibrations start from rest, the values of
under the assumption that the walkers are all in quadrature with the r p ðfc Þ and j p ðfc Þ appearing in Eqs. (30) and (32) can be obtained
footbridge motion. Some other differences are more difficult to from extrapolation of Eq. (21) to a zero amplitude of vibration, as
explain. follows:
An alternative criterion was presented in Ricciardelli (2014). This  3  2  3
leads to the finding that under the same hypotheses made earlier of si- f f f
j p ðf Þ ¼ 1:77 þ 7:77  9:55 þ 3:19
nusoidal vibration mode and uniformly distributed walkers, the fw fw fw
vibration frequency of the combined walker–footbridge system is    
1:11 f
r p ðf Þ ¼ 9:17  sin  exp 2:89 þ 0:56 (33)
fs f =fw fw
fc ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (30)
1 þ m  r p ðfc Þ
which are plotted in Fig. 5(a).
The results coming from Eq. (32) can then be checked with those
with m ¼ ðd BLmo Þ=ð2m1 Þ being the ratio of the total walker mass of other stability criteria given in Table 1. When the minimum value
to the footbridge mass. Eq. (30) must be solved iteratively, as the of the pedestrian-induced damping j p ¼ 0:4 in Fig. 5(a) is used,
added mass coefficient at the right-hand side of the equation needs then a ¼ 5. This result compares very well with Eq. (23), which
to be evaluated at the vibration frequency. A similar equation had confirms the quite good agreement of the results coming from the
already been used in Bocian et al. (2012). full-scale measurements on the Millennium Bridge (Dallard et al.
Then, the stability condition is 2001) and those coming from laboratory tests using a treadmill
(Ricciardelli et al. 2014), also in consideration of the totally differ-
j s þ m  j p ðfc Þ > 0 (31) ent experimental approach used for the two studies. If the average
mass of 74:4 kg and the average walking frequency of 0:857 Hz of
where j p is the damping coefficient associated with the walker the walkers participating in the tests is used, then the maximum neg-
action, referred to the walker mass (Ricciardelli et al. 2014). The ative j p of 0:40 is translated into cp ¼ 281 Ns=m, whereas the
critical number of walkers can be calculated as value of j p of 0:36 occurring for fs =fw ¼ 1 is translated into
cp ¼ 288 Ns=m. These differ only very little from the value of
m1  j 1 300 Ns=m derived from full-scale tests. Comparison can also be
Nc ¼ 2 (32)
 j p ðfc Þ  mo made with the value cp ¼ 140 Ns=m found numerically in
Macdonald (2008), from a model excluding the possibility of syn-
which can be put in the form of Eq. (29), with a ¼ 2= j p ðfc Þ. chronization. The ratio of the cp value found in Macdonald (2008)

© ASCE C4015003-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003

 and those found in Dallard et al. (2001) and in Ricciardelli et al.
(2014) is in the order of 0.47–0.50, and this can be seen as a measure
of the percentage of walkers synchronizing with the footbridge and
with the treadmill motion during the full-scale and laboratory tests,
respectively.
Fig. 5(b) shows the range of variation, with varying amplitude of
oscillation between 4:5 and 38 mm, of the phase lag of the motion-
induced force (data are derived from Ricciardelli et al. 2014). It is
observed that this is roughly between p =4 and 3=8p for fs =fw ¼
0:8 and between p =8 and p =4 for fs =fw ¼ 0:8 to 1:1; this is the
range of frequency ratios of interest for synchronization. This result
can be used with the stability criteria brought to Eqs. (24) and (25);
when the value f ¼ p =8 is considered, the values of a in the third
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
column of Table 1 increase to 39:1 for Eq. (24), and to the range
16:9–46:8 for Eq. (25); when the value f ¼ p =4 is considered, the
values of a in the third column of Table 1 increase to 21:2 for Eq.
(24), and to the range 9:1–25:3 for Eq. (25).
Design Procedures
Guidelines and codes of practice consider three aspects related to
the design of footbridges against pedestrian loading: (a) the range of
natural frequencies to be avoided for footbridges; (b) the maximum
acceleration response due to the crossing of one, a group, or a
stream of walkers; and (c) the critical number of walkers bringing
lateral instability; additional specifications are in some cases pro-
vided for the loading deriving from other human activities, such has
jogging, jumping, or vandalism; these are beyond the scope of this
article and are not discussed.
Frequency Limitations
Pioneering standards prescribe that natural frequencies close to the
first and second walking harmonics, and to the jogging frequency,
should be avoided. BS5400 of the British Standards Institution (BSI
1978) prescribes that dynamic analyses should be carried out if the
lateral fundamental frequency is less than 1:5 Hz. SIA160 of the
Societe suisse des Ingenieurs et des Architectes (SIA 1989) and
the Model Code for Concrete Structures of the F
ed
eration
Internationale du B
eton (FIB 2010) require avoiding vertical natural
frequencies in the range of 1:6–2:4 Hz (first walking harmonic), in
the range of 3:5–4:5 Hz (second walking harmonic), and in the
range of 2:4–3:5 Hz (running/jogging). If these requirements are
not fulfilled, the acceleration response of the structure is to be
checked.
SETRA (2006) defined levels of risk of vibration in both vertical
and horizontal directions, depending on frequency. The maximum
level of vibration risk is associated with vertical vibration frequen-
cies in the range of 1:7–2:1 Hz and lateral vibration frequencies in
the range of 0:5–1:1 Hz; a medium level of vibration risk is associ-
ated with vertical vibration frequencies in the range of 1:0–1:7 Hz
and 2:1–2:6 Hz and lateral vibration frequencies in the range of
0:3–0:5 Hz and 1:1–1:3 Hz; a low level of vibration risk is associ-
ated with vertical vibration frequencies in the range of 2:5–5:0 Hz
and lateral vibration frequencies in the range of 1:3–2:5 Hz. Other
vibration frequencies should not be considered a concern.
HIVOSS (Heinemeyer et al. 2009) defined the critical ranges of
natural frequencies for footbridges excited by the first harmonic of
the walking load as 1:25–2:3 Hz for the vertical direction and
0:5–1:2 Hz for the lateral direction, and by the second harmonic as
2:5–4:6 Hz for the vertical direction.
© ASCE C4015003-9
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
Maximum Acceleration
The maximum acceleration due to a single, a group, or a stream of
walkers, either in the vertical or in the lateral direction, is usually
given as
€y max ¼ Ne  €y max ð1Þ  Wðf1 Þ (34)
where Ne is the equivalent number of walkers on the bridge and
accounts for the level of synchronization, €y max ð1Þ is the maxi-
mum transient acceleration due to one walker resonant with the
lowest harmonic that can be matched by the walking frequency,
and Wðf1 Þ is a coefficient that reduces the response when the
fundamental frequency of the bridge f1 is away from the walk-
ing frequency. Table 2 contains Ne and €y max ð1Þ, as shown in
Eq. (5), for a number of codes and guidelines; for purpose of
comparison, all of the equations are written in the same form as
that of Eq. (34).
BS5400 (BSO 1978) and the Ontario Highway Bridge Design
Code (OHBDC 1983) are based on the model of Blanchard et al.
(1977) and consider only the case of one walker. For the single
walker, the design manual of the Highways Department of the gov-
ernment of Hong Kong (Highways Dept. 2002) uses the same
approach as the BS5400 and OHBDC and additionally considers
the case of a stream of walkers; €y max ð1Þ in Highways Dept. (2002)
is the maximum deflection of a simply supported beam with a uni-
form load corresponding to the weight of one walker distributed
over the footbridge span, multiplied by a function of the walker ve-
locity and of the footbridge span.
AASHTO (1997, 2009) and AISC (Murray et al. 1997) consider
only the case of a single walker and use the response model of Allen
and Murray (1993).
The European prestandard version, designated ENV, of Eurocode
5 (EC5; CEN 1995) considers both the case of a group of three
synchronized walkers and that of a stream of walkers, but the for-
mer becomes relevant only for very small footbridges, with a deck
smaller than 37 m2 . Subsequently, the European Standard version,
designated EN, of EC5 (CEN 2005) modifies the equations, but
the case of a group of walkers remains dominant for very small
footbridges, with a deck area in this case smaller than 22 m2 .
For vertical and horizontal vibrations, ENV EC5 (CEN 1995),
EN EC5 (CEN 2005), and FIB (2005) consider the case of a
small group of three synchronized walkers and that of a stream of
walkers. Here again the case of a group of walkers becomes rele-
vant for small footbridges, in particular when the number of
walkers is lower than 13; this corresponds to the same condition
given in ENV EC5 when a density of 0:36 walkers=m2 is consid-
ered. Moreover, for vertical vibrations, the case of stream of
walkers is considered.
SETRA (2006) guidelines use a stationary harmonic load
model for the evaluation of the maximum acceleration induced by
one pedestrian; the equivalent number of pedestrians is given as a
function of d .
HIVOSS (Heinemeyer et al. 2009) adopts two approaches for
the evaluation of the maximum acceleration: the stationary har-
monic load model and the response spectral model. In the harmonic
load model, Ne and €y max ð1Þ coincide with those given by SETRA
(2006), but Wðf1 Þ differs. The response spectral model was derived
from Monte Carlo simulations based on numerical time-step simu-
lations of various pedestrian streams on various bridges geometries
(Butz 2006). In the equations in Table 2, kp is an empirical peak fac-
tor that converts the RMS into a 95th-percentile peak acceleration,
C describes the maximum of the load spectrum, k1 ðfj Þ and k2 ðfj Þ are
two polynomial functions depending on the frequency of the jth
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 2. Maximum Acceleration from Different Codes

Standard Dir Ne €y max ð1Þ

BS5400 Vert 1 Blanchard et al. (1977)
OHBDC Vert 1 Blanchard et al. (1977)
Highway Dept. Vert 1 Blanchard et al. (1977)
Highway Dept. Vert N 5  q1  L4 p 2 v2 a
384EI 2L2
AASHTO Vert 1 Allen and Murray (1993)
AISC Vert 1 Allen and Murray (1993)
ENV EC5 Vert 3  0:027  L  B 165
½1  exp ð2p n j Þb
Mj
ENV EC5 Lat 3  0:027  L  B 40
½1  exp ð2p n j Þb
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mj
EN EC5 Vert 0:23  0:6  L  B 200
Mj
EN EC5 Lat 0:18  0:6  L  B 50
Mj
FIB Lat/Vert 3 Rainer et al. (1988) or Grundmann et al. (1993)
FIB Vert 0:225  N Rainer et al. (1988) or Grundmann et al. (1993)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SETRA and HIVOSS Vert jffiN
10:8pffiffiffi d < 1 w=m2 2 280 1
 
1:85 N d  1 w=m2 p m1 2 j
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
SETRA and HIVOSS Lat jffiN
10:8pffiffiffi d < 1 w=m2 2 35 1
 
1:85 N d  1 w=m2 p m1 2 j
pffiffiffiffi c rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
HIVOSS Lat/Vert N k ðf Þ
kp  mC2 k1 ðfj Þ j j 2 j kf
j

Note: Ne ¼ 1 refers to the single walker, Ne ¼ 3 refers to the group of walkers, Ne 6¼ 1; 3 refers to a stream of walkers, Dir = the direction of vibration,
Vert = vertical, Lat = lateral).
a
v ¼ 3 m=s.
b
M is the total mass of the footbridge; n ¼ L=0:9 m.
c
In the HIVOSS model, the parameters contained in €y max ð1Þ are function of d , that is, N.

Fig. 6. Comparison of Wðf1 Þ for the vertical component; the gray and light-gray areas show the typical range of frequency for the first and second har-
monics for a typical walker

mode, and kf represents the variance of the loading of a single pe-
destrian; these values are given in table form for the vertical and lat-
eral components for crowd densities equal to: d < 0:5 walkers=m2 ,
d ¼ 1 walkers=m2 and d ¼ 1:5 walkers=m2 . In this model it is not
possible to isolate the function Wðf1 Þ, because it is incorporated into
k1 ðfj Þ and k2 ðfj Þ.
In Figs. 6 and 7, the values of Wðf1 Þ for the vertical and lateral
components proposed by the different codes and guidelines are
compared. The gray and light-gray areas show the typical range of
frequency for the first and second harmonics for a typical walker.
The frequencies at which Wðf1 Þ take large values qualify the ranges
where resonance may occur, and Wðf1 Þ ¼ 1 means perfect resonant

© ASCE C4015003-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Comparison of Wðf1 Þ for the lateral component; the gray and light-gray areas show the typical range of frequency for the first and second har-
monics for a typical walker

Fig. 8. Comparison of Ne ðNÞ ( j a ¼ 0:01,

pffiffiffijffi b ¼ 0:02, j c ¼ 0:03); the light-gray area shows the range of Ne between the cases of full correlation
(Ne ¼ N) and of full uncorrelation (Ne ¼ N )

response. ENV EC5 (CEN 1995), EN EC5 (CEN 2005), and FIB
(2005) give only one plot for Wðf1 Þ, which applies to the first and
second harmonics; therefore, the lower values appearing in Figs. 6
and 7 in the second harmonic range are the effect of the ratio
between the DLFs, that is, DLF2 =DLF1 , being the resonant acceler-
ation, and €y max ð1Þ, computed using DLF1 in both cases. As a matter
of fact, the differences between the different curves in Figs. 6 and 7
are minor.
Fig. 8 compares the values of Ne ðNÞ proposed by different guide-
lines and codes of practice, indicating a clear disagreement among
the various proposals. The light-gray area shows the range of Ne
ffiffiffiffi of full correlation (Ne ¼ N) and of full uncorrela-
between thepcases
tion (Ne ¼ N ). FIB (2005) suggests to use Ne ¼ 3 for N  10,
Ne ¼ 0:225  N for a low-density stream, and Ne ¼ 0:27  0:46  N to
account for synchronization in higher-density streams; in the latter
pffiffiffiffi
two cases the values of Ne lie below the lower limit given by N , up
to N ¼ 70 and N ¼ 20, respectively. SETRA (2006) and HIVOSS
(Heinemeyer et al. 2009) give two equations, depending on d (see
Table 2); the first applies to low densities and depends on damping:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ne ¼ 10:8  j  N ; the second appliesptoffiffiffiffilarge densities and is inde-
pendent of damping: Ne ðNÞ ¼ 1:85  N . The two equations pro-
vide the same results for j ¼ 0:03. The scatter among the results pro-
vided by the different equations is quite large; for example, for
N ¼ 20, Ne is in the range of 2–8, and for N ¼ 100, Ne is in the range
of 10–19.
Lateral Stability
The problem of lateral stability is also considered by some codes
and guidelines. In particular, FIB (2005), SETRA (2006), HIVOSS
(Heinemeyer et al. 2009), and AASHTO (1997, 2009) give a value
for the critical number of walkers as defined in Dallard et al. (2001)
(described earlier in this article).
The U.K. National Annex to Eurocode 1 (BSI 2008) pre-
scribes that all the modes with lateral natural frequencies below
1:5 Hz have to compare their pedestrian mass damping parameter,
as follows:

© ASCE C4015003-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003

 j1  M
D¼ (35)
N  mo
with the stability boundary expressed in terms of D given in the
form of graph as a function of the frequency of the lateral mode.
Considering the first sinusoidal mode shape and a linear interpolat-
ing function of D in the range of 0:65 Hz  f1  1:70 Hz, Eq. (35)
leads to a critical number of walkers of
m1 j 1 2 m j
Nc ¼ a  ¼h i 1 1 (36)
mo 0:52  1:05 ðf1  0:65Þ
0:52 mo
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
This article provided a critical review of the available methods for
assessing footbridge serviceability against walking action. In partic-
ular, single-walker models, multiple-walker models, interaction
models (inter-walker and walker-structure), and instability models
were addressed, together with current design procedures incorpo-
rated into codes of practice and guidelines. Models originally pre-
sented in different forms were made homogeneous for purpose of
comparison. The investigation was limited to the models allowing
practical use, although they are also of great interest, the more
advanced approaches that are not yet ready for implementation into
design procedures were not dealt with. Some inconsistencies and
inaccuracies were pointed out.
Two general conclusions can be drawn, the first being that in
spite of the impressive amount of research developed in the last 15
years, very few changes have appeared in design procedures. The
second is that when similar procedures are compared with one
another, they often show a quite large and unjustified scatter in the
results.
Single-walker models were compared in terms of the TRRC,
and it was shown that the best-fitting numerical solutions is that of
Ricciardelli and Briatico (2011); this, however, is applicable only to
the case of a sinusoidal mode shape. Other approaches seem to be
rather inaccurate.
For multiple walkers, stochastic frequency domain response
models exist for both vertical and lateral vibrations. Although pro-
posed by different authors, these are in formal agreement with one
another. Time-domain models also exist, based on the results of nu-
merical simulations.
As to the possibility of accounting for interaction, it appears that
inter-walker interaction models seem to not yet be ready to describe
the variation of GRFs and to model synchronization; the only infor-
mation available for application seems to be the relationship
between the walker density and the mean and RMS walking fre-
quency (Fig. 4) proposed by Butz et al. (2007).Walker–structure
interaction is accounted for through the variation of the DLFs and
the in-phase and in-quadrature components (with displacement) of
the GRFs with the floor acceleration and velocity; however, it
appears that only the latter lend themselves to stability analyses.
Stability criteria available in the literature were manipulated so
as to express the critical number of walkers though one common
equation, and the values of the coefficient a appearing in such equa-
tions were compared, using the calibration parameters recom-
mended by the authors, as well as a wider range of these; a quite
large scatter of the results was found. Moreover, the data available
for the amplitude and phase of the motion-induced force caused by
a walker on a laterally vibrating floor allowed calibration on an orig-
inal criterion, in which stability is checked by looking at the sign of
the total damping of the combined footbridge–walker system; the
© ASCE C4015003-12
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
results are found to be in quite good agreement with the Arup
formula.
The design procedures were compared in terms of equivalent
number of walkers on the bridge Ne , maximum transient accelera-
tion due to one resonant walker €y max ð1Þ, and reduction coefficient
accounting for nonresonant conditions Wðf1 Þ. For Ne and €y max ð1Þ, a
quite large scatter was found, whereas only minor differences were
found for Wðf1 Þ from one procedure to another.
In summary, this article has shown the clear need for a critical re-
vision of design procedures that, although inspired by the same
principles and applying common rules, bring rather different
results. Additionally, the need for a validation of these procedures
through a systematic analysis of available full-scale data is evident.
References
Allen, D. E., and Murray, T. M. (1993). “Design criterion for vibrations due
to walking.” AISC Eng. J., 30(4), 117–129.
AASHTO. (1997). Guide specifications for design of pedestrian bridges,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2009). Guide specifications for design of pedestrian bridges,
Washington, DC.
Blanchard, J., Davies, B. L., and Smith, J. W. (1977). “Design criteria and
analysis for dynamic loading of footbridges.” Proc., Symposium on
Dynamic Behaviour of Bridges, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, Berkshire, England, 90–106.
Bocian, M., Macdonald, J. H. G., and Burn, J. F. (2012). “Biomechanically
inspired modelling of pedestrian-induced forces on laterally oscillating
structures.” J. Sound Vib., 331(16), 3914–3929.
Brownjohn, J. M. W., Fok, P., Roche, M., and Omenzetter, P. (2004a).
“Long span steel pedestrian bridge at Singapore Changi Airport—Part
2: Crowd loading tests and vibration mitigation measures.” Struct. Eng.,
82(16), 28–34.
Brownjohn, J. M. W., Pavic, A., and Omenzetter, P. (2004b). “A spectral
density approach for modelling continuous vertical forces on pedestrian
structures due to walking.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 31(1), 65–77.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (1978). “5400—Part 2: Steel, concrete
and composite bridges. Specification for loads.” BS5400, London.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2008). U.K. national annex to
Eurocode 1, London.
Butz, C. (2006). “Beitrag zur Berechnung fußgänger induzierte Brückensch-
wingungen.” Ph.D. thesis, Shaker Verlag Aachen, Aachen, Germany (in
German).
Butz, C., et al. (2007). “Advanced load models for synchronous pedestrian
excitation and optimised design guidelines for steel foot bridges
(SYNPEX).” Project RFS-CR-03019, Final Rep., Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (1995). Eurocode 5,
Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2005). Eurocode 5,
Brussels, Belgium.
Charles, P., and Bui, V. (2005). “Transversal dynamic actions of pedes-
trians. Synchronization.” Proc., Footbridge 2005, 2nd Int. Conf.,
Venice, Italy.
Dallard, P., et al. (2001). “The London Millennium Footbridge.” Struct.
Eng., 79(22), 17–21.
Danbon, F., and Grillaud, G. (2005). “Dynamic behaviour of a steel foot-
bridge. Characterization and modelling of the dynamic loading induced
by a moving crowd on the Solferino Footbridge in Paris.” Proc.,
Footbridge 2005, 2nd Int. Conf., Venice, Italy.
Eriksson, P. E. (1994). “Vibration of low-frequency floors: Dynamic forces
and response prediction.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Structural Engineering,
Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Eriksson, P. E., and Ohlsson, S. V. (1988). “Dynamic footfall loading
from groups of walking people.” Proc., Symposium Workshop on
Serviceability of Buildings, Vol. 1, National Research Council,
Ottawa, Canada, 497.
J. Bridge Eng.
 FIB (F
ed
eration Internationale du B
eton). (2005). Guidelines for the design
of footbridges, Lausanne, Switzerland.
FIB (F
ed
eration Internationale du B
eton). (2010). Model code for concrete
structures, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Fryba, L. (1973). Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads,
Noordhoff, Groningen, Netherlands.
Fujino, Y., Pacheco, B. M., Nakamura, S., and Warnitchai, P. (1993).
“Synchronization of human walking observed during lateral vibration of
a congested pedestrian bridge.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 10.1002
/eqe.4290220902, 741–758.
Grundmann, H., Kreuzinger, H., and Schneider, M. (1993). “Dynamic cal-
culations of footbridges.” Bauingenieur, 68(5), 215–225.
Heinemeyer, C., et al. (2009). “Design of lightweight footbridges for human
induced vibrations: Background document in support to the implemen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tation, harmonization and further development of the Eurocodes.” JRC-
ECCS Technical Rep., Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
Highways Dept. (2002). Structures design manual for highway and rail-
ways, Highways Dept., Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong.
Ingólfsson, E. T., Georgakis, C. T., and Svendsen, M. N. (2008). “Vertical
footbridge vibrations: Details regarding and experimental validation of
the response spectrum methodology.” Proc., Footbridge 2008, 3rd Int.
Conf., Porto, Portugal.
Ingólfsson, E. T., Georgakis, C. T., Ricciardelli, F., and Jönsson, J. (2011).
“Experimental identification of pedestrian-induced lateral forces on
footbridges.” J. Sound Vib., 330(6), 1265–1284.
Ingólfsson, E. T., Georgakis, C. T., and Jönsson, J. (2012). “Pedestrian-
induced lateral vibrations of footbridges: A literature review.” Eng.
Struct., 45, 21–52.
ISO. (2007). “Bases for design of structures—Serviceability of buildings
and walkways against vibration.” ISO 10137, Geneva.
Macdonald, J. H. G. (2008). “Lateral excitation of bridges by balancing
pedestrians.” Proc. R. Soc. A, 465(2104), 1055–1073.
Matsumoto, Y., Nishioka, T., Shiojiri, H., and Matsuzaki, K. (1978).
“Dynamic design of footbridges.” IABSE Proc., International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland,
1–15.
Matsumoto, Y., Sato, S., and Shiojiri, H. (1972). “Study on dynamic design
of pedestrian over-bridges in consideration of characteristics of pedes-
trians.” Proc. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng., 1972(205), 63–70.
Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., and Ungar, E. E. (1997). Floor vibrations due
to human activity: Steel design guide 11, AISC, Chicago.
Nakamura, S. (2004). “Model for lateral excitation of footbridges by syn-
chronous walking.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2004)130:1(32), 32–37.
Nakamura, S., Kawasaki, T., Katsuura, H., and Yokoyama, K. (2008).
“Experimental studies on lateral forces induced by pedestrians.” J.
Constr. Steel Res., 64(2), 247–252.
Newland, D. E. (2003). “Pedestrian excitation of bridges—Recent
results.” Proc., 10th Int. Congress on Sound and Vibration,
International Institute of Acoustics and Vibration, Stockholm,
Sweden, 533–547.
Oeding, D. (1963). “Verkehrsbelastung und Dimensionierung von
Gehwegen und anderen Anlagen des Fußgängerverkehrs.” Ph.D.
thesis, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Abt. Strassenbau, Bonn-Bad
Godesberg, Germany (in German).
OHBDC (Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code). (1983). Highway
Engineering Division, Ministry of Transportation and Communication,
Ontario, Canada.
Ohlsson, S. V. (1982). Floor vibrations and human discomfort, Chalmers
Univ. Technology, Division of Steel and Timber Structures, Göteborg,
Sweden.
Okamoto, S., Abe, M., Fujino, Y., and Nakano, Y. (1992). “Characteristics
of human walking on a laterally shaking floor.” Proc., Jpn. Soc. Civ.
Eng., 441(18), 177–184 (in Japanese).
Piccardo, G., and Tubino, F. (2008). “Parametric resonance of flexible
footbridges under crowd-induced lateral excitation.” J. Sound Vib.,
311(1–2), 353–371.
© ASCE C4015003-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2016, 21(8): C4015003
Piccardo, G., and Tubino, F. (2012). “Equivalent spectral model and maxi-
mum dynamic response for the serviceability analysis of footbridges.”
Eng. Struct., 40, 445–456.
Pimentel, R., and Fernandes, H. M. B. (2002). “A simplified formulation for
vibration serviceability of footbridges.” Proc., Int. Conf. on the Design
and Dynamic Behaviour of Footbridges, Paris, 20–22.
Pizzimenti, A. D., and Ricciardelli, F. (2005). “Experimental evaluation of
the dynamic lateral loading of footbridges by walking pedestrians.”
Proc., 6th European Conf. on Structural Dynamics—EURODYN 2005,
Vol. 1, Millpress Science Publishers, Netherlands, 435–440.
Racic, V., Pavic, A., and Brownjohn, J. M. W. (2009). “Experimental iden-
tification and analytical modelling of human walking forces: Literature
review.” J. Sound Vib., 326(1–2), 1–49.
Rainer, J. H., Pernica, G., and Allen, D. E. (1988). “Dynamic loading and
response of footbridges.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 51(1), 66–71.
Ricciardelli, F. (2005). “Lateral loading of footbridges by walkers.” Proc.,
Footbridge 2005, 2nd Int. Conf., Venice, Italy.
Ricciardelli, F. (2014). “Lateral stability of footbridges subjected to crowd
loading.” Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics—EURODYN
2014, A. Cunha, E. Caetano, P. Ribeiro, G. Müller, eds., Porto, Portugal.
Ricciardelli, F., and Briatico, C. (2011). “Transient response of supported
beams to moving forces with sinusoidal time variation.” J. Eng. Mech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000241, 422–430.
Ricciardelli, F., Mafrici, M., and Ingólfsson, E. T. (2014). “Lateral pedes-
trian-induced vibrations of footbridges: Characteristics of walking
forces.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000597,
04014035.
Ricciardelli, F., and Pansera, A. (2010). “An experimental investigation into
the interaction among walkers in groups and crowd.” Proc., 10th Int.
Conf., Recent Advances in Structural Dynamics 2010, M. J. Brennan, I.
Kovacic, V. Lopes, K. Murphy, B. Petersson, S. Rizzi, and T. Yang, eds.,
Southampton, U.K.
Ricciardelli, F., and Pizzimenti, A. D. (2007). “Lateral walking-induced
forces on footbridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2007)12:6(677), 677–688.
Roberts, T. M. (2005). “Lateral pedestrian excitation of footbridges.” J.
Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:1(107), 107–112.
Rönnquist, A. (2005). “Pedestrian induced lateral vibrations of slender foot-
bridges.” Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
SETRA (Service d’Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes). (2006).
Footbridges: Assessment of vibrational behaviour of footbridges under
pedestrian loading, Paris.
SIA (Societe suisse des Ingenieurs et des Architectes). (1989). SIA160
(Swiss Standard SIA160: Actions on structures), Zurich, Switzerland.
Strogatz, S. H., Abrams, D. M., McRobie, A., Eckhardt, B., and Ott, E.
(2005). “Theoretical mechanics: Crowd synchrony on the Millennium
Bridge.” Nature, 438(7064), 43–44.
Sun, L., and Yuan, X. (2008). “Study on pedestrian-induced vibration of foot-
bridge.” Proc., Footbridge 2008, 3rd Int. Conf., Porto, Portugal, 2–4.
Tilden, C. J. (1913). “Kinetic effects of crowds.” Proc., American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 76, ASCE, New York, 2107–2126.
Tredgold, T. (1825). A practical treatise on railroads and carriages,
Taylor, London.
Venuti, F., and Bruno, L. (2009). “Crowd-structure interaction in lively
footbridges under synchronous lateral excitation: A literature review.”
Phys. Life Rev., 6(3), 176–206.
Wheeler, J. E. (1982). “Prediction and control of pedestrian-induced vibra-
tion in footbridges.” J. Struct. Div., 108(9), 2045–2065.
Young, P. (2001). “Improved floor vibration prediction methodologies.”
Proc., Arup Vibration Seminar, Vol. 4, Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, London.
Živanovi
c, S., Pavic, A., and Reynolds, P. (2005). “Vibration serviceability
of footbridges under human-induced excitation: A literature review.” J.
Sound Vib., 279(1–2), 1–74.
Živanovi
c, S., Pavi
c, A., and Reynolds, P. (2007). “Probability-based pre-
diction of multi-mode vibration response to walking excitation.” Eng.
Struct., 29(6), 942–954.
J. Bridge Eng.