为研究人致振动与环境噪声共同作用下对行人实感舒适度的影响，首先，提出了两种双向随机行走模型，推导了任意时刻行人位置的计算公式，建议了行人实感联合烦恼率的舒适度分析方法。其次，基于双向随机行走模型，对比分析了行人实感联合烦恼率、出现时刻及出现区间的变化规律。最后，建立了联合烦恼率期望的计算式，以荆州市某人行天桥开展实桥试验，进行了行人实感联合烦恼率的舒适度评价。结果表明：在BOAM中实感联合烦恼率整体小于跨中联合烦恼率，正向行走人群与反向行走人群各区间占比具有一定对称性；行人最大实感区间并非在跨中位置处占比最大，出现最大联合烦恼率的位置主要集中行程的后半段；在BSDM中实感联合烦恼率的比例略高于跨中联合烦恼率的比例，正向与反向行走人群的最大联合烦恼率出现区间分别在区间5与区间3达到最大，分别占总比例的37.92%、27.95%，基于两种模型，绝大部分行人最大实感联合烦恼率出现时刻并非在最大跨中联合烦恼率出现时刻；考虑行人实感加速度的联合烦恼率与实测值更为接近，其期望值与实测期望值的误差为4.21%。

To investigate the impact of human-induced vibration and environmental noise on the perceived comfort of pedestrians on footbridges, firstly, a bidirectional ordered arrangement model (BOAM) and a bidirectional stochastic distribution model (BSDM) were proposed. The calculation formula for pedestrian positions at any time was given, and a comfort analysis method for the joint annoyance rate of pedestrians was suggested. Secondly, based on these models, the changes in the joint annoyance rate, occurrence time, and occurrence interval of pedestrians were comparatively analyzed. Finally, a calculation formula for the expected joint annoyance rate was established, and a field test was conducted on a footbridge in Jingzhou City to evaluate the comfort of pedestrians' perceived joint annoyance rate. The results show that: in the BOAM, the rate of real joint annoyance is smaller than the rate of joint annoyance in the middle of the span, and there is some symmetry in the proportion of the intervals between the forward walkers and the reverse walkers; the maximum real interval for pedestrians is not the largest in the middle of the span, and the location where the maximum joint annoyance rate occurs is mainly concentrated in the second half of the trip. In the BSDM, the proportion of the perceived joint annoyance rate is slightly higher than that of the mid-span joint annoyance rate. The maximum joint annoyance rate intervals for pedestrians walking in the same and opposite directions reach their maximum in intervals 5 and 3, accounting for 37.92% and 27.95% of the total, respectively. Based on both models, the vast majority of pedestrians' maximum real-sense joint annoyance rate emergence moments are not at the moment of maximum cross-center joint annoyance rate emergence. The joint annoyance rate considering the pedestrians' perceived acceleration is closer to the measured value, with an error of 4.21% between its expected value and the measured expected value.