Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Class H

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Hey, Gary!

Rough day at the office? Maybe you got back some BRRAGG scores (I
completely forgot to go to write the exam. My secretary/wife gave me
heck for not teling her so she could write it in the schedule).

Thor's contact suggests that in seismic applications there are ductility
benefits as a result of reducing the strain-hardening effects. I suspect
that is a 2 sided sword:
1) when compression controls (e.g. global buckling), Class H (stress
relieved) will permit a lighter section with (presumably) greater
ductility in the stress relieved regions.
2) a lighter section has less material and therefore more deflection and
less energy absorbing capacity than a similar heavier section.

Square/rect HSS only benefit from significant residual stress relief in
the corner regions and, if seam welded, along the seam. Maybe 10% of the
section area in a 10x10.

Circular HSS, if cold-formed and seam welded, are evenly stressed around
the perimeter and not to the same extent as the corners of sq/rect HSS.
So the benefits will be different.

It is my understanding that most common size HSS produced in NA these
days is produced through a die, hot and has only nominal "cold-forming"
to ensure tolerances. I'm sure that is not the universal practice and
definitely not for extreme sizes.

I'm certain that there is a web-site to describe this more completely.
Also, I'm certain that somebody can point us toward
documentation/testing/research on materials from current production

CISCs commentary to S16 is silent on the issue of Class C vs. H, even
for seismic. However, look at clause 27.5.3. The commentary discusses
the issue of post buckling fracture but ignores Class C vs. H.

I have this impression that there may be some corrosion resistance
benefits to using Class H but I would probably spec a corrosion
resisting steel before I would hang my hat on that.

All that said, I have never felt the need to spec Class H and it is
definitely not mandatory by S16-01.


> From: "Gary Hodgson & Associates" <ghodgson(--nospam--at)>

> Re my previous reply. Not the people who replied to your e-mail. The
> people who always specify Class H are idiots.
> Gary
> On 9 Jun 2005 at 19:56, dave lowen wrote:
> > Thank you to all who responded. I believe I thought it was mandated
> > since every project that crosses my desk requires class H for
> > compression members.
> > 
> > It is certainly not readily available in my neck of the woods.

> > From: Paul Ransom [mailto:ad026(--nospam--at)] 

> > > From: "dave lowen" <jatech(--nospam--at)>
> > 
> > > Can anyone point me to chapter and verse (in Canada) that states
> > > that HSS compression members must be class H?
> > 
> > There is no such requirement. Ummm... if you find one, let me know...

R. Paul Ransom, P. Eng.
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
<mailto:ado26(--nospam--at)> <>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********