Licensed Copy: Mr.

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled

PD 6688-1-7:2009

PUBLISHED DOCUMENT

Recommendations for the

Copy, (c) BSI

design of structures to
BS EN 1991-1-7

This publication is not to be regarded as a British Standard.

Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
PD 6688-1-7:2009 Published document

Publishing and copyright information

The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the
document was last issued.

© BSI 2008

ISBN 978 0 580 53003 6

ICS 91.010.30

The following BSI references relate to the work on this

Published Document:
Committee reference B/525/1

Publication history
First published December 2008

Amendments issued since publication

Date Text affected

Copy, (c) BSI
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Published document PD 6688-1-7:2009

Contents
Foreword  ii
Introduction  1
1 Scope  1
2 Non‑contradictory complementary information  1
Bibliography  9
List of tables
Table 1 – Equivalent static design forces due to vehicular impact on
members supporting foot and cycle track bridges over or adjacent
to roads  3
Table 2 – Consequence factor for foot and cycle track bridges  3
Table 3 – Vertical sag curve compensation  7
Copy, (c) BSI

Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i to ii, pages 1 to 10, an inside back cover and a back cover.

© BSI 2008  •  i
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
PD 6688-1-7:2009 Published document

Foreword
Publishing information
This Published Document is published by BSI and came into effect on
31 December 2008. It was prepared by Subcommittee B/525/1, Actions
(loadings) and basis of design, under the authority of Technical
Committee B/525, Building and civil engineering structures. A list of
organizations represented on this committee can be obtained on
request to its secretary.

Relationship with other publications

This Published Document gives non-contradictory complimentary
information for use in the UK with BS EN 1991-1-7:2006 and its UK
National Annex.

Use of this document

This publication is not to be regarded as a British Standard.
As a guide, this Published Document takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification
and particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of
compliance are not misleading.
Any user claiming compliance with this Published Document is
expected to be able to justify any course of action that deviates from
Copy, (c) BSI

its recommendations.

Presentational conventions
The provisions in this Published Document are presented in roman
(i.e. upright) type. Its recommendations are expressed in sentences in
which the principal auxiliary verb is “should”.
Commentary, explanation and general informative material is presented
in smaller italic type, and does not constitute a normative element.
The word “should” is used to express recommendations of this
Published Document. The word “may” is used in the text to express
permissibility, e.g. as an alternative to the primary recommendation
of the clause. The word “can” is used to express possibility, e.g. a
consequence of an action or an event.
Notes and commentaries are provided throughout the text of this
Published Document. Notes give references and additional information
that are important but do not form part of the recommendations.
Commentaries give background information.

Contractual and legal considerations

This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions
of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
Compliance with a Published Document cannot confer immunity from
legal obligations.

ii  •  © BSI 2008

Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Published document PD 6688-1-7:2009

Introduction
When there is a need for guidance on a subject that is not covered
by the Eurocode, a country can choose to publish documents that
contain non‑contradictory complementary information that supports
the Eurocode. This Published Document provides just such information
and has been cited as a reference in the UK National Annex to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006.
NOTE  This Published Document refers to design values for accidental
actions. In the UK National Annexes to BS EN 1990:2002 Annex A1
and Annex A2, the safety factors for accidental actions are equal to 1.
Therefore the nominal value and the design value for accidental actions
are numerically the same. The nominal values and design values of an
action are defined in BS EN 1990:2002 1.5.2.2 and 1.5.3.21 respectively.

1 Scope
This Published Document gives non‑contradictory complementary
information for use with BS EN 1991-1-7:2006 and its UK National
Annex.

2 Non‑contradictory complementary
information
Copy, (c) BSI

2.1 Strategies and rules [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 3.1(2)

Note 1]

2.1.1 For road bridges and foot and cycle track bridges
2.1.1.1  The following provisions should be considered in the design
of road bridges and foot and cycle track bridges in order to reduce
the risk of a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) impact on a support causing
bridge collapse:
a) Preventing direct impacts on the supports, for example by
protecting supports with very high containment level barriers
as defined in BS EN 1317-2. This provision has the added benefit
that it will reduce the risk to HGV drivers and the drivers of other
vehicles on the same carriageway, by re-directing vehicles safely
onto the carriageway after impact. This provision should be seen
as part of the design of the bridge.
b) Designing the supports in the form of multiple columns so that
a support can withstand impact damage to a struck column, and
even its loss, without the deck above becoming unstable.
c) Designing the deck structure of road bridges in a form so that
even the loss of part of a support would not result in the collapse
of the bridge. For foot and cycle track bridges, adequate restraint
to the deck should be provided to prevent the deck from being
removed from the support due to an HGV impact on the deck.
d) Designing the individual column supports so that they can
withstand an HGV impact without losing their ability to support
the bridge.
2.1.1.2  Provisions 2.1.1.1b) and 2.1.1.1c) should be part of general
design practice. However they do not ensure that collapse cannot

© BSI 2008  •  1
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
PD 6688-1-7:2009 Published document

occur, although they do minimize the risk in most cases. In some

situations, however, where both the risk of collapse and the
consequences are high, further provisions, such as 2.1.1.1a) and
2.1.1.1d) may be justified. However, the use of very high containment
level barriers 2.1.1.1a) is more cost effective and if practicable should
be the method of choice.

2.2 Complete collapse [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 3.1(2)

Note 5] – For road structures
Collapse of lighting columns, close circuit television (CCTV) poles,
cantilevered traffic signal mast arms, cantilevered and portal sign/signal
gantries may be acceptable where the consequences for safety are not
significant. Consideration should be given to passive safety as defined
in BS EN 12767, and/or the provision of safety barriers.

2.3 Level of acceptable risk [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 3.2(1)

Note 3] – For road bridges and foot and cycle track
bridges
2.3.1  The design of bridge support structures should ensure that
the risks of an HGV striking a bridge support and causing structural
collapse are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) taking account
of site conditions.
Copy, (c) BSI

2.3.2  The ALARP objective is achieved by selecting an appropriate

design impact criterion for each support according to the risks
at that support on the basis of its risk ranking factor (see NA to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, NA.2.11.2.3).

2.4 Consequences Classes [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006,

3.4 (2) Note]
For the design of buildings the categorization (Consequences Classes 1,
2a, 2b and 3) should be as given in Table A.1 of BS EN 1991-1-7:2006.
For bridges, the consequence class should be established on a project
specific basis.

2.5 Accidental actions on lightweight structures

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 4.1(1) Note 1]

2.5.1 Impact on supporting substructures – For foot and cycle

track bridges
a) The static design forces due to vehicular impact on members
supporting structures over or adjacent to roadways should be in
accordance with BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 4.3.1.
b) Impact loads for foot and cycle track bridges
1) The Nominal Collision Loads are given in Table 1, together
with their direction and height of application, and should be
considered to act horizontally on bridge supports. Supports
should be capable of resisting the main and residual load
components acting simultaneously. The rules for Fdx and Fdy,
are contained in NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, NA.2.14. The

2  •  © BSI 2008
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Published document PD 6688-1-7:2009

controlling class of road is the road under the bridge, i.e.

the road that is carrying the HGV that might impact on the
support.
2) The static design forces given in Table 1 should be
multiplied by an adjustment factor Fa in accordance with the
NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, NA.2.11.2.4. The selection of the
adjustment factor is based on the risk assessment procedure
given in NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, NA.2.11.2.3.
3) In all cases the main and residual design loads should not be
less than the minimum robustness requirements specified in
Table 1.

Table 1 Equivalent static design forces due to vehicular impact on members supporting foot and cycle
track bridges over or adjacent to roads

Force Fdx Force Fdy Point of application on

bridge support
in the direction of perpendicular to the
normal travel direction of normal travel
kN kN
Footbridges
Main and Residual As road bridge, depending on road class below bridge (see Table NA.1 of
load components NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006)
applied to plinth
Copy, (c) BSI

Residual load 150 150 At the most severe point

component between 1 m and 3 m
above carriageway level
Footbridges: minimum forces for robustness
Main load component 150 150 At the most severe point
between 0,75 m and 1,5 m
above carriageway level
Residual load   75   75 At the most severe point
component between 1 m and 3 m
above carriageway level

c) Risk Ranking Procedure for foot and cycle track bridge supports
1) The risk ranking procedure should be the same as that set out
in NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, NA.2.11.2.3, except that the
consequence factor F8 given in NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006,
NA.2.11.2.3.11, is to be replaced by Table 2.

Table 2 Consequence factor for foot and cycle track bridges

Bridge usage F8
i) Rarely used – e.g. in rural locations and sparsely 0,1
populated areas
ii) Lightly used – e.g. in sub-urban locations 0,5
iii) Generally used – e.g. in urban areas 1
iv) Heavily used – e.g. at motorway services with shared 5
facilities or access to major public assembly facilities
such as schools, sports stadiums, public transportation
facilities, etc.

© BSI 2008  •  3
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
PD 6688-1-7:2009 Published document

d) Adjustment factor Fa for Table 1

1) The adjustment factor Fa should be applied to Table 1
but should not be applied to the minimum robustness
requirement. The threshold value, used to determine
whether the risk to the piers is high or normal, Tc as described
below is defined for the individual project. Unless otherwise
specified for the individual project, the value of Tc may be
taken as 2,4.
2) If the Risk Ranking Factor Rde for the design of a support of
a foot or cycleway bridge is greater than Tc, the adjustment
factor Fa should be taken as 1. A robust plinth of 1,5 m
height should be provided to carry the support and to resist
the main and residual load components given in Table 1.
The support and the connection from the support to the
plinth should be designed for the residual load component
specified for footbridges in Table 1.
3) If the Risk Ranking Factor Rde for the design of support of
foot and cycleway bridge is less than or equal to Tc, the
adjustment factor Fa should be taken as 0,5. A robust plinth
of 1,5 m height should be provided to carry the support and
to resist 50% of the main and residual load components
given in Table 1. The support and the connection from the
support to the plinth should be designed for 50% of the
residual load component specified for footbridges in Table 1.
Copy, (c) BSI

e) Ramps and stairs of footbridges, whose removal would not affect

the overall integrity of the structure, need not be designed for
collision loading. However they should be designed to meet the
minimum robustness requirements given in Table 1.
f) Impact provisions where safety barriers in compliance with
BS EN 1317 are provided, as set out below.
1) If the risk ranking factor Rde for the design of a support of a
foot or cycleway bridge is greater than Tc, possible options
are as follows.
i) A very high containment level barrier with full working
width may be provided to protect the support (without
a 1,5 m robust plinth).
ii) A very high containment level concrete rigid barrier
without full working width may be provided to protect
the support (without a 1.5 m robust plinth). A minimum
lateral clearance of 400 mm should be provided between
the back face of the barrier and the front face of the
support. The support and the connection from the
support to the plinth should be designed for the residual
load component specified for footbridges in Table 1.
iii) For cases i) to ii) above, the support should be designed
for the minimum robustness requirement specified for
foot and cycle track bridges in Table 1.
2) If the risk ranking factor Rde for the design of a support of a
foot or cycleway bridge is less than or equal to Tc, possible
options are as follows.
i) A higher containment level barrier with full working
width may be provided to protect the support (without
a 1,5 m robust plinth).

4  •  © BSI 2008
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Published document PD 6688-1-7:2009

ii) A higher containment level concrete rigid barrier

without full working width may be provided (without
a 1,5 m robust plinth). A minimum lateral clearance
of 400 mm should be provided between the back face
of the barrier and the front face of the support. The
support should be designed for 50% of the residual load
component specified for footbridges in Table 1.

2.5.2 Impact on superstructures – For lightweight road structures

The vehicle collision loads on superstructures are not applicable
to the superstructure of foot/cycle track bridges, gantries, and
lighting columns, as these structures are required to have headroom
exceeding the applicable limit to reduce the likelihood of impact
owing to their lightweight nature. However adequate restraint on
the deck of foot/cycle track bridges should be provided to prevent
the deck being removed from the support under the action of the
vehicle collision forces given in Table NA.9 and Table NA.10 of NA to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006.

2.6 Transmission of impact forces to foundations

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 4.1(1) Note 3] – For bridges
over roads
a) The designer should determine a likely and reasonable
Copy, (c) BSI

load‑path to transfer the impact loads to the bearings, supports

and foundations (in the case of superstructure strikes) or
to foundations, bearings or other supports (in the case of
support strikes). Each structural element in the load-path is to
be considered, starting with the element which sustains the
immediate impact.
b) The designer should make a judgement about the need to extend
the load path to the foundations, because in most circumstances
inertial effects, arising from the dynamic nature of the applied
force, will result in greatly reduced or negligible impact forces
applying to foundations.

2.7 Values of vehicle impact forces [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006,

4.3.1(1) Note 1]
2.7.1  The impact provisions where safety barriers in compliance with
BS EN 1317 are provided are given in 2.7.2.
2.7.2  Impact provisions where safety barriers are provided
2.7.2.1 If the risk-ranking factor Rde is greater than Ta, (i.e. high risk)
possible options are as follows.
a) For accommodation bridges, a higher containment level barrier
with full working width may be provided to protect the support.
b) For road bridges, other than accommodation bridges, a very
high containment level barrier with full working width may be
provided to protect the support.
c) For road bridges, other than accommodation bridges, a very high
containment level concrete rigid barrier without full working
width, but with a minimum lateral clearance of 400 mm between
the back face of the barrier and the front face of the support,

© BSI 2008  •  5
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
PD 6688-1-7:2009 Published document

may be provided to protect the support. The support should be

designed for the residual load component specified for road
bridges in NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.
For cases a) to c) above, the support should be designed for the
minimum robustness requirement specified for road bridges in the NA
to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.
2.7.2.2 If the risk-ranking factor Rde is less than or equal to Ta and
more than or equal to Tb (i.e. normal risk), possible options are as
follows.
a) For accommodation bridges, a higher containment level barrier
with full working width may be provided to protect the support.
b) For accommodation bridges, a higher containment level
barrier without full working width, but with a minimum lateral
clearance of 400 mm between the back face of the barrier
and the front face of the support, may be provided to protect
the support. The support should be designed for 50% of the
residual load component specified for road bridges in the NA to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.
c) For road bridges, other than accommodation bridges, a higher
containment level barrier with full working width may be
provided to protect the support.
d) For road bridges, other than accommodation bridges, a higher
Copy, (c) BSI

containment level concrete rigid barrier without full working

width, but with a minimum lateral clearance of 400 mm between
the back face of the barrier and the front face of the support,
may be provided to protect the support. The support should be
designed for the residual load component specified for road
bridges in the NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.
For cases a) to d) above, the support should be designed for the
minimum robustness requirement specified for road bridges in NA to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.
2.7.2.3 If the risk-ranking factor Rde is less than Tb (i.e. low risk),
possible options are:
a) For road bridges, including accommodation bridges, a higher
containment level barrier with full working width may be
provided to protect the support.
b) For road bridges, including accommodation bridges, a higher
containment level concrete rigid barrier without full working
width but with a minimum lateral clearance of 400 mm between
the back face of the barrier and the front face of the support
may be provided to protect the support. The support should be
designed for 50% of the residual load component specified for
road bridges in NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.
For either case a) or b) above, the support should be designed for the
minimum robustness requirement specified for road bridges in NA to
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Table NA.1.

6  •  © BSI 2008
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Published document PD 6688-1-7:2009

2.8 Impact on superstructures [BS EN 1991‑1-7:2006,

4.3.2] – For road bridges

2.8.1 Limit states

For all elements except elastomeric bearings, the effects due to vehicle
collision loads on superstructures need only be considered at the
ultimate limit state (ULS). For elastomeric bearings, the effects due to
vehicle collision loads on superstructures need only be considered at
the serviceability limit state (SLS) and a reduction factor of 1/1,5 may
be applied.

2.8.2 Temporary structures

Temporary structures may be:
• free-standing;
• attached to other structures; or
• an incomplete permanent structure.
If the temporary structure has a headroom, including vertical sag
curve compensation and allowance for deflection of the structure in
accordance with TD 27 [1], the requirement for collision loading will
be satisfied. Otherwise a lane or road closure will be required unless
it is otherwise justified by risk assessment. This assessment may take
Copy, (c) BSI

account of such aspects as whether nearby structures up-stream of the

traffic flow already have headroom clearance less than the temporary
structure. Temporary structures are not generally capable of resisting
the required collision loading.

2.9 Values of rF h0 and h1 [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 4.3.2(1)

Note 3] – For bridges over roads
The vertical sag curve compensation S should be as calculated in Table 3.
The maximum deflection of the structure should be calculated at the
serviceability limit state using the frequent combination of actions.

Table 3 Vertical sag curve compensation

Vertical sag curve radius Value to be taken for S, vertical

measured along carriageway sag curve compensation
over a 25m chord
m mm
1 000 80
1 200 70
1 500 55
2 000 45
3 000 25
6 000 15
> 6 000  0

© BSI 2008  •  7
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
PD 6688-1-7:2009 Published document

2.10 Use of Fdy [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, 4.3.2(2) Note] – For

bridges over roads
Given that the plane of the soffit may follow a super-elevated or
non-planar (curved) form, the load perpendicular to the normal traffic
may have components parallel and perpendicular to the direction of
normal travel.

2.11 Accidental actions caused by ship traffic

[BS EN 1991‑1-7:2006, 4.6]

2.11.1 For road bridges and foot/cycle track bridges –

Combination of actions for ship impact
[BS EN 1991‑1-7:2006, Section 2 (1)P Table 2.1]
Ship impact is considered in the accidental combination. In accordance
with BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, A.2.2.5(1) wind action need not be
considered in the combination of actions for accidental design situation.

2.11.2 Ship impact for sea waterways [BS EN 1991‑1-7:2006, C.4.2]

a) The design ship impact frontal force Fdx for sea waterways may
be taken from Table C.4 of BS EN 1991-1-7:2006. For intermediate
values of ship mass, the following formula may be used:
Copy, (c) BSI

Fdx = v(mK)½
where:
v is the ship’s velocity;
K = 12 MN/m for 0 < m G 3 000 tonne;
K = 25.6 MN/m for 3000 < m G 10 000 tonne;
K = 57.6 MN/m for 10000 < m G 40 000 tonne.
b) The lateral force Fdy may be taken as half the values above for Fdx.

8  •  © BSI 2008
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Published document PD 6688-1-7:2009

Bibliography
Standard publications
For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including
any amendments) applies.
BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Eurocode – Basis of structural design
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-7:
General actions – Accidental actions
BS EN 12767, Passive safety of support structures for road equipment –
Requirements, classification and test methods
NA to BS EN 1990:2002, UK National Annex for Eurocode 1 – Basis of
structural design
NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures –
Part 1-7: General actions – Accidental actions

Other publications
[1] Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges,
Volume 6 Road Geometry, Section 1 Links Part 2 TD27 Cross
sections and headrooms.
Copy, (c) BSI

© BSI 2008  •  9
Licensed Copy: Mr. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia User, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 14/07/2009 17:13, Uncontrolled
Copy, (c) BSI

10  •  © BSI 2008

PD 6688-1-7:2009

This page deliberately left blank

Published document