The intent here is to evaluate and analyse the statement that why modelling columns at the end of shear wall in an incorrect approach. This approach is used widely in Pakistan by design consultants that are too lazy to model a proper boundary element where boundary elements are thicker than the wall and in some cases in all situations just to pass the models. One way to prove that this approach is incorrect is to show that modelling columns is not as same as having boundary elements. To prove that, you can check the stiffness in both cases to establish that both modelling approaches are not apples to apples and in fact by modelling columns at ends of walls you are doing stuff to pass the model that doesn't make sense.
The numbers answer your original question asked in the first post that "Can I model a wall with columns on it's ends and is it the same as the wall with boundary elements defined in section designer????". The answer as you can see yourself is no. Modelling columns is not same as having boundary elements defined in section designer. For the case where you have columns at the end of shear walls, your stiffness is 140.5 kip/inch. For the case where you don't, your stiffness is its 110.3 kip/inch. Adding columns results in an increase of 27% stiffness.
The increase in stiffness due to modelling columns is not justified. Stiffness comes out of E and I and what you should be getting is same as modelling a single wall where end regions are assigned as boundary in section designer. Generally FEA software work from node to node so I doubt if the software would consider visual overlaps.
Well that should be the expected results. If you move columns farther out, the are not connected to wall.
To summarize, use section designer to define boundary elements. I hope this exercise provided you with some insight about the issue.
Thanks.