<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: column cross-sections in Robot Structural Analysis Forum</title>
    <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14089980#M86358</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Structural analysis is always an approximation — never exact. When you work with beam elements you are only concerned with the centreline and the cross section is extruded around that. You can apply offsets using rigid links, but that also has its own centreline. Often researchers will resort to modelling framed structures with solid elements. It is not practical for commercial design, but useful in an academic environment.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:33:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JohanDuPlessis</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-04-14T13:33:51Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>column cross-sections</title>
      <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14089808#M86356</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good evening, I am a student at the Department of Civil Engineering and I am doing my thesis on Revit in combination with Robot. So I wanted to ask if anyone knows how to help me with a problem I have in Robot. My building has C-section and double C-section columns as well as square and rectangular columns. So when I go to build the beams, they are connected to the centers of gravity of the columns and not to the side of the column, resulting in the beams being crooked and the building being different from reality. (Obviously it is a reinforced concrete construction). Is there a solution? What is recommended for me? Should I continue as is? Should I change the program?&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you very much in advance!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:51:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14089808#M86356</guid>
      <dc:creator>elevpetr6U4BJ4</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-04-14T11:51:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: column cross-sections</title>
      <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14089980#M86358</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Structural analysis is always an approximation — never exact. When you work with beam elements you are only concerned with the centreline and the cross section is extruded around that. You can apply offsets using rigid links, but that also has its own centreline. Often researchers will resort to modelling framed structures with solid elements. It is not practical for commercial design, but useful in an academic environment.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:33:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14089980#M86358</guid>
      <dc:creator>JohanDuPlessis</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-04-14T13:33:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: column cross-sections</title>
      <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14090712#M86360</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Try to do rigid link . I suggest to do two models.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;First one the beam pass through the center of column. Second by doing rigid link and compare the results for both models.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:02:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/robot-structural-analysis-forum/column-cross-sections/m-p/14090712#M86360</guid>
      <dc:creator>structural.engineer79</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-04-14T22:02:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

