a eee <== b&b seen Ae Pee ‘ F See RE *~ Ontario Lees Lara Memorandum Date: April 29, 2013, eee ee ae Manager, Bridge Office Re: Bridge Office Design Bulletin: Capacity of Stee! H-plles To inform bridge designers about changes to the Canadian Highvray Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) CSA $8.06 Clause 10.22 Stoo! Pilos, that suporsade the requiremonts of the Structural Office Policy Memo-98-01, “Axial Resistance of H-ples”. Background In the aforementioned policy memo, the structural Factored Axial Resistance at the Utimate Limit State was not to exceed the following: HP 310x110 2000 kN HP 310 x79 41450 KN At that time, stee! piles were primarily subjected to axial compression alone. The use of, Integral abutment bridges with a single row of ples carrying abutment loads, results in piles having to resist combined ax’al compression and bending. Consequently, Clause 10.22 of the CHBDC has been completely updated and better addresses the structural capacity of piles in axial compression alone and in combined axial compression and bending. Recommendations 1. Designers shall follow the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code to cesiablish the structural capacity ofthe pile. 2. The Foundation Design Consultant shall establish the geotechnical capacity of the pile, whether derived from skin friction, bearing cr combination of the {wo and provide recommendations in the Foundation Cesian Report.“These recommendations shall be effective immediately. im VU, log Woke Tony Mero cD. Bagnariol . Hutton B Lane Distribution List: ‘Managers of Engineering . Godin, Northeastem Region M. Favell, West Region P. Makula, Easter Region P. Verok, Central Region |. Galloway, Northwestern Region Heads, Regional Structural Sections D. Miron, Eastem Region S. Ismail, Central Region S. Sidky, Northeastem Region R_ Krisciunas, Northwestern Region W. Young, West Region Heads, Bridge Office R. Mihaljevic, Bridge Standards W. Kenedi, Bridge Management D. Lai, Bridge Rehabilitation 'N. Theodor, Bridge Design W. Roy, Design and Contract Standards Office