Core Diagrams Part 2 and some general wall facts

[gporrasm]

Hello, I just sent an idea related to colors and presentation of core diagrams. I have another ideas that could be useful in terms of obtaining data for design purposes.

1. It would be highly valuable to have a Core definition that could include border elements such as columns. 

Let me explain this. Sometimes are beams or slabs supported on this elements. Wall alone is too flexible to receive a beam or stress distribution in the column zone of the slab can vary. So that is why include the columns. But when designing the wall, designer lets me introduce border elements that don't plenty satisfy the real situation that  I want to model. But it would be useful to have a Core Definition that can combine the results of walls and columns. So this way I can get the results table and check the complete member, including foundations apart, using standard excel spreadsheets.  When this happens foundations design gives weird numbers, and wall design I am not sure is done properly. Of course it would be great that Robot could include this at least for rectangular walls (model the border element as if it were a single element called WALL) but it could be difficult, so at least the results info could be useful.

2. When I decide to increase the wall foundation length, it does just in one of the sides, not symmetrically or user defined.

This situation if it is congruent with calculations is creating an eccentricity along the foundation undesirable for the purposes of the design.

3. I am not completely sure if I add a pinned base support and a fixed support for the column what can happen. I think that all the foundation would be determined by the results of the extreme nodes. And that is not the idea. This because spread footing design chooses the most critical node to define the complete foudation. Of course itf in the example showed in the picture, there is a point that can uplift, this won't be possible, even if less than 1/3 of the foundation has negative values  (they should be zero, and redistribute pressures until equilibrium is met, and at that moment check stability and soil pressure). This is a general problem when using this resource for structural walls. That is why, again, the global result that combine both wall and columns is necessary at his moment.

4. As a note: I can eliminate columns and use a little segment of wall with the same thickness that the column should have) Of course I can create a Core Wall in this way...but, this would be the provisional solution, because I hope the other solution would be available soon hehe.!! If I do that border elements for the interior segment of wall will become nonsense. I am not totally sure of this....but well...

Thank you very much 

[gporrasm]

In addition to the last comment, as it seems that every node is analyzed separately from the others, if node has negative load or tension upwards, all the dimension of the plate is defined by this. In the case of seismic designs this is common, but not wrong, so I think strip foundations, are limited just to gravitational loads, or very low eccentricities. The idea is that is to define each wall as Core wall first, and to do global analysis.

Related to point 4...I tried that, but strip foundation designer separates the walls in three parts, and extremes are affected for the issue that I described before. As they are extremes, Robot is not contemplating that this is a unique element where all the nodes are related to each other as a single unit.

Thank you