An interesting question. I can see this leading to problems for sections with properties tabulated in AISC steel design manual. In the past I have heard of people not being able to verify the tabulated values "precisely".
To specify a corrosion allowance for these types of sections (AISC) would require that COMPRESS have an algorithm to calculate the section properties. People would try to verify the calculation by entering a minuscule corrosion allowance and comparing to the AISC published values (well, I would try to do so myself). Problems and complaints would result when they were not able to do so.
Mathematically it should be relatively easy to determine the section properties of a wide flange beam, etc., only the bookkeeping is tedious (but computers are good at repetitive, tedious tasks). It's an almost trivial problem except for the small spandrels where the web meets the flanges.
However, it may not be possible to exactly duplicate the AISC tabulated values based on the assumed mathematical model of flange, web, and spandrel geometry.
In my free time I may write a spreadsheet to perform this calculation and see how close I can get to the AISC values once the spandrels are accounted for.
For support lugs, support rings, saddles, base rings, anchor bolt chairs, etc., I suggest adding the corrosion allowance to the detailed part. In most cases there will be little difference in weight (weight changes can affect the part design). Of course, the larger surface areas of saddles and support rings will result in larger weight change. But I can't see this materially affecting the design of the components. My opinion only.
Tom Barsh
Codeware Technical Support