Published Document Recommendations For The Design of Structures To BS EN 1991-1-7

PD 6688-1-7:2009+A1:2014
BSI Standards Publication

Licensed copy:TONY GEE AND PARTNERS, 24/11/2016, Uncontrolled Copy, © BSI
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
Recommendations for the

design of structures to
BS EN 1991-1-7
This publication is not to be regarded as a British Standard.

PD 6688-1-7:2009+A1:2014 PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
Publishing and copyright information

The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the
document was last issued.
© The British Standards Institution 2014

Published by BSI Standards Limited 2014
ISBN 978 0 580 86733 0
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
August 2014 A1. See Foreword

PUBLISHED DOCUMENT PD 6688-1-7:2009+A1:2014
Contents
Foreword iii
Introduction 1
1 Scope 1
2 Non-contradictory complementary information 1
Bibliography 12
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
Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i to iv, pages 1 to 12, an inside back cover and a back cover.
© The British Standards Institution 2014 • i

ii • © The British Standards Institution 2014 This page deliberately left blank
Foreword
Publishing information
This Published Document is published by BSI Standards Limited, under
licence from The British Standards Institution 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.
Supersession
PD 6688-1-7:2009+A1:2014 supersedes PD 6688-1-7:2009, which is
withdrawn.
Relationship with other publications

This Published Document gives non-contradictory complimentary
information for use in the UK with BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014 and

its UK National Annex.
Information about this document

Text introduced or altered by Amendment No. 1 is indicated in the
text by tags . Minor editorial changes are not tagged.
Amendment No. 1 introduces the following principal changes:
a) addition of new subclause 2.12 Principles for design (for
accidental actions caused by explosions)
b) addition of new subclause 2.13 Internal explosions
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
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.
© The British Standards Institution 2014 • iii

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.
iv • © The British Standards Institution 2014

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+A1:2014.
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+A1:2014 and its UK

National Annex.
2 Non-contradictory complementary
information
2.1 Strategies and rules [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

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
© The British Standards Institution 2014 • 1

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+A1:2014,

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+A1:2014, 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.
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+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, NA.2.11.2.3).
2.4 Consequences Classes [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

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+A1:2014.
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+A1:2014, 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+A1:2014, 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
2 • © The British Standards Institution 2014

NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, NA.2.14. The

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 NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,
NA.2.11.2.4. The selection of the adjustment factor
is based on the risk assessment procedure given in
NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 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

in the direction of perpendicular to the bridge support

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+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014)
applied to plinth
Residual load 165 165 At the most severe point
component between 1 m and 3 m
above carriageway level
Footbridges: minimum forces for robustness
Main load component 165 165 At the most severe point
between 0,75 m and 1,5 m
Residual load 85 85 At the most severe point
component between 1 m and 3 m
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+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,
NA.2.11.2.3, except that the consequence factor F8 given in
NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 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 populated areas 0,1
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 facilities or access to major public 5
assembly facilities such as schools, sports stadiums, public transportation facilities, etc.

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.
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).

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 structures

on or over roads
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+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014.
2.6 Transmission of impact forces to foundations

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 4.1(1) Note 3] – For
bridges over roads
a) The designer should determine a likely and reasonable 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+A1:2014, 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,

may be provided to protect the support. The support should

be designed for the residual load component specified for
road bridges in NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,
Table NA.1.
For cases a) to c) above, the support should be designed for the
minimum robustness requirement specified for road bridges in
NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 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

c) For road bridges, other than accommodation bridges, a higher
containment level barrier with full working width may be
d) For road bridges, other than accommodation bridges, a higher
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
Table NA.1.
For cases a) to d) above, the support should be designed for the
minimum robustness requirement specified for road bridges in
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
b) For road bridges, including accommodation bridges, a higher
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
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

2.8 Impact on superstructures

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 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
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+A1:2014,

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

2.10 Use of Fdy [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 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+A1:2014, 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+A1:2014, 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+A1:2014, 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+A1:2014. For
intermediate values of ship mass, the following formula may
be used:
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.
2.12 Principles for design (for accidental actions caused by

explosions) [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 5.3]
In the case of some of the explosions given in this section,
acceptability of damage should be limited to that which does not
lead to disproportionate consequences or failure (as defined in
BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1) in addition to or instead of disproportionate
collapse.
Sensitivity studies on the load-time functions are to be performed by
using a load duration of 0.2 seconds.

2.13 Internal explosions [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

Annex D]
2.13.1 General
This annex is not recommended for use in the UK. However, if this
annex is to be used, the recommendations given in 2.13.2 to 2.13.15
should be followed.
In the annex, the units of the deflagration index KSt are given as both
kN/m2 (m/s) and kN/ms. These units are equivalent. The latter should
be given preference to reduce misunderstandings.
2.13.2 Natural gas explosions

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.1(2)]
The clause is valid when the full vent area is used to determine the pd
value. Where there is a larger proportion of lower strength vents, pd
can be calculated also using the particular lower pstat value and the
corresponding vent area.

NOTE This addition is because the use of the largest value of pstat can
become too conservative if the area of lower strength vents is much
greater than that of the highest strength vent.
2.13.3 Dust explosions in rooms, vessels and bunkers

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.2(3)]
L1 and L2 are the other two dimensions of an elongated room.
2.13.4 Dust explosions in rooms, vessels and bunkers

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.2(5)]
The main clause should be disregarded. The information provided in
the note should be considered.
2.13.5 Explosions in road and rail tunnels

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.3(1)]
In the definitions given |x| should be the distance between the
pressure sampling point and the centre of the explosion.
2.13.6 Dust, gas and vapour/air explosions in energy ducts

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.4]
The formulae presented in D.4 should be used only for pipes and ducts
operating at or near atmospheric pressure.
2.13.7 Vent area [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.4.2]

The vents should be designed such that they open at a pressure less
than or equal to half of the (desired) design overpressure pd.

2.13.8 Critical distances [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.4.3]

The graphs in this section are based on those in NFPA 68 [2].
NOTE By providing sufficient vent areas at a distance less than the critical
distance (length) L, deflagration can be prevented from transitioning into
a detonation.
2.13.9 Critical distances [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.4.3(1)]

In Figure D.2, the upper curve should be used for dusts with a lower
deflagration index, i.e. KSt f 20 000 kN/ms. The lower curve should
be used for propane and dusts with deflagration indices higher than
20 000 kN/ms.
D.4.3(2) and D.4.3(3) should be considered independently of D.4.3(1).

In addition to propane explosions, the information given should also

be considered valid for dust explosions with KSt < 30 000 kN/ms.
The graph in Figure D.3 should be considered valid only for situations
where the initial flow velocity is between 2 m/s and 20 m/s.

NOTE Su,P and Su,X in the formula are not defined in this clause. However,
they are defined in D.4.4(3).
2.13.12 Design pressure [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.4.4]

The symbol pd used in D.4.4(1), D.4.4(2) and D.4.4(3) should be
considered as referring to the same physical quantity, although each
instance is described differently, as follows:
• D.4.4(1): The design pressure.
• D.4.4(2): The design overpressure.
• D.4.4(3): The maximum pressure and maximum explosion
overpressure.
NOTE Of the three descriptions, use of “the design overpressure” is
recommended.
The units of pressure in the graphs should be taken as kN/m2.
2.13.13 Design pressure [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, D.4.4(1)]

The caption for Figure D.4 should be read as: Figure D.4 — Design
pressure pd for vented pipe containing dust.
The symbol Pred in Figure D.4 should be interpreted as the design
overpressure pd.


D.4.4(2) and Figure D.5 should be used only for propane with an initial
flow velocity less than 2 m/s.
For other gases with burning velocities less than 1.3 times that of
propane, i.e. 0,60 m/s, formula D.11 from D.4.4(3) should be used.
The caption for Figure D.5 should be read as: Figure D.5 — Design
overpressure pd for propane with an initial flow velocity less than 2 m/s.
The symbol Pred in Figure D.5 should be interpreted as the design
overpressure pd.

Formula D.11, which gives a means of calculating the design
overpressure for a selected distance between vents, should be used
only for gases with a burning velocity less than 0,60 m/s and an initial
flow velocity less than 2 m/s.
The design overpressure for propane for use in the formula should be
obtained from Figure D.5.

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+A1:2014, 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+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 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.
[2] NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. NFPA 68, Standard
on explosion protection by deflagration venting. 2013.
Massachusetts: NFPA.

This page deliberately left blank

NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW
British Standards Institution (BSI)

BSI is the national body responsible for preparing British Standards and other
standards-related publications, information and services.
BSI is incorporated by Royal Charter. British Standards and other standardization
products are published by BSI Standards Limited.
About us Revisions
We bring together business, industry, government, consumers, innovators Our British Standards and other publications are updated by amendment or revision.
and others to shape their combined experience and expertise into standards We continually improve the quality of our products and services to benefit your
-based solutions. business. If you find an inaccuracy or ambiguity within a British Standard or other
The knowledge embodied in our standards has been carefully assembled in BSI publication please inform the Knowledge Centre.
a dependable format and refined through our open consultation process.
Organizations of all sizes and across all sectors choose standards to help Copyright
them achieve their goals. All the data, software and documentation set out in all British Standards and
other BSI publications are the property of and copyrighted by BSI, or some person
Information on standards or entity that owns copyright in the information used (such as the international
We can provide you with the knowledge that your organization needs standardization bodies) and has formally licensed such information to BSI for
to succeed. Find out more about British Standards by visiting our website at commercial publication and use. Except as permitted under the Copyright, Designs
bsigroup.com/standards or contacting our Customer Services team or and Patents Act 1988 no extract may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
Knowledge Centre. or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, photocopying, recording
or otherwise – without prior written permission from BSI. Details and advice can
Buying standards be obtained from the Copyright & Licensing Department.
You can buy and download PDF versions of BSI publications, including British
and adopted European and international standards, through our website at Useful Contacts:
bsigroup.com/shop, where hard copies can also be purchased. Customer Services
If you need international and foreign standards from other Standards Development Tel: +44 845 086 9001
Organizations, hard copies can be ordered from our Customer Services team. Email (orders): orders@bsigroup.com
Email (enquiries): cservices@bsigroup.com
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Our range of subscription services are designed to make using standards
Tel: +44 845 086 9001
easier for you. For further information on our subscription products go to
Email: subscriptions@bsigroup.com
bsigroup.com/subscriptions.
With British Standards Online (BSOL) you’ll have instant access to over 55,000 Knowledge Centre
British and adopted European and international standards from your desktop. Tel: +44 20 8996 7004
It’s available 24/7 and is refreshed daily so you’ll always be up to date. Email: knowledgecentre@bsigroup.com
You can keep in touch with standards developments and receive substantial
Copyright & Licensing
discounts on the purchase price of standards, both in single copy and subscription
format, by becoming a BSI Subscribing Member. Tel: +44 20 8996 7070
Email: copyright@bsigroup.com
PLUS is an updating service exclusive to BSI Subscribing Members. You will
automatically receive the latest hard copy of your standards when they’re
revised or replaced.
To find out more about becoming a BSI Subscribing Member and the benefits
of membership, please visit bsigroup.com/shop.
With a Multi-User Network Licence (MUNL) you are able to host standards
publications on your intranet. Licences can cover as few or as many users as you
wish. With updates supplied as soon as they’re available, you can be sure your
documentation is current. For further information, email bsmusales@bsigroup.com.
BSI Group Headquarters

389 Chiswick High Road London W4 4AL UK

Published Document Recommendations For The Design of Structures To BS EN 1991-1-7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published Document Recommendations For The Design of Structures To BS EN 1991-1-7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published Document Recommendations For The Design of Structures To BS EN 1991-1-7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6688-1-7:2009+A1:2014

BSI Standards Publication

Recommendations for the

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

Publishing and copyright information

© The British Standards Institution 2014

ISBN 978 0 580 86733 0

The following BSI references relate to the work on this

Amendments issued since publication

Date Text affected

August 2014 A1. See Foreword

© The British Standards Institution 2014 • i

Relationship with other publications

information for use in the UK with BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014 and

Information about this document

Use of this document

© The British Standards Institution 2014 • iii

Notes and commentaries are provided throughout the text of this

Contractual and legal considerations

iv • © The British Standards Institution 2014

information for use with BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014 and its UK

2.1 Strategies and rules [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

© The British Standards Institution 2014 • 1

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

2.2 Complete collapse [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

2.3 Level of acceptable risk

[BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 3.2(1) Note 3] – For

2.4 Consequences Classes [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

2.5 Accidental actions on lightweight structures

2.5.1 Impact on supporting substructures – For foot and cycle

2 • © The British Standards Institution 2014

NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, NA.2.14. The

Force Fdx Force Fdy Point of application on

in the direction of perpendicular to the bridge support

Table 2 Consequence factor for foot and cycle track bridges

© The British Standards Institution 2014 • 3

d) Adjustment factor Fa for Table 1

foot and cycleway bridge is less than or equal to Tc, the

4 • © The British Standards Institution 2014

ii) A higher containment level concrete rigid barrier

2.5.2 Impact on superstructures – For lightweight structures

2.6 Transmission of impact forces to foundations

2.7 Values of vehicle impact forces

© The British Standards Institution 2014 • 5

may be provided to protect the support. The support should

of the residual load component speciﬁed for road bridges in

6 • © The British Standards Institution 2014

2.8 Impact on superstructures

2.8.1 Limit states

2.8.2 Temporary structures

• an incomplete permanent structure.

2.9 Values of rF h0 and h1 [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014,

Table 3 Vertical sag curve compensation

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

© The British Standards Institution 2014 • 7

2.10 Use of Fdy [BS EN 1991-1-7:2006+A1:2014, 4.3.2(2)

2.11 Accidental actions caused by ship trafﬁc

2.11.1 For road bridges and foot/cycle track bridges –

considered in the combination of actions for accidental design situation.