Only longitudinal rebars right? Recheck that the name selection "NM_LongRebars" contains all the longitudinal rebars element as shown in the video.

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannel how about Stirrups, should i name it with the Longitudinal rebars

I just realize that your question might actually be related to the Link/Cable meshing in ANSYS 2020 or later. In case you are using ANSYS 2020 or later, you need to set the meshing behavior to "Hard" as shown in the picture below. drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1zHCei62sqDMXBvOk-13pX04l0Px3RlLe This way the rebar will be meshed and properly boned to concrete.

Step 1: Suppress any APDL commands and also suppress rebars geometry. Perform linear elastic analysis. Fix the model until the linear elastic analysis is successful. Then compare the analysis results with your hand calculation check. Step 2: Continue from step 1 and enable rebar geometry and also enable the CEINTF APDL command while still suppress the SOLID65 APDL command. Perform linear elastic analysis. Fix the model until the linear elastic analysis is successful. Then compare the analysis results with your hand calculation check for both concrete and rebar results. Step 3: Continue from step 2 and enable the SOLID65 APDL command. Now you should be able to perform a successful nonlinear analysis. However, if your problem still persists, try to success with the nonlinear analysis as shown in this video before going back to fix your model again.

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannel if I have the 150x150x450 column? Is it necessary to edit those given apdl commands ?

Nonlinear analysis. There are several concrete models you could do in ANSYS, in this video, it is SOLID65 which is only accessible via APDL command. There is a reason why I choose SOLID65 over anything else, which is explained in my other video (the one with FRP).

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannel Thank you sir for your fast resposne. Is there any way we could contact via email? Im trying to simulate crushing test of geopolymer for my very important project, and I can't find any information about modeling such material in Ansys or Abaqus. I have result's from laboratory test's but somehow in my analysis stress and strain is much much higher than in the test lab, even though I used the same matieral properties as were conducted during test. Is there any way sir I could write you an email with couple of questions?

This workflow is intended for practical purposes and aimed to be used to solve real-life structures such as building and bridge structures. There are no tutorials of mine that intended for experimental laboratory purposes.

Regarding your question about tolerance. If the default setting doesn't cause you any numerical problems then it should be fine. In general, the more stringent the tolerance, the better the accuracy of the result. However, the default setting is unnecessary to warrant the most suitable results. Also, sometimes the analysis setting that allows the most accurate results is not always the most suitable approach in practice. I prefer the comfortable-to-handle model with acceptable results to the highly complicated one with slightly better accuracy.

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannel I'm doing a non-linear static analysis on the rc column. When tolerance is used as the default value, the analysis is not progressing, so I'm setting it to 5% for the analysis. Is this the right approach to solve?

Unlike the linear analysis, the results from nonlinear analysis are not unique. It varies via the load path, load step, convergence tolerance, iteration procedure, ... etc. The one you called "the analysis is not progressing" is generally referred to non-convergence solution. This means adjustment of parameters setting is required to obtain a convergence solution according to the specified tolerance, tweaking the finite element model might included. There is no single best setup that suits all nonlinear finite element models. The "right" approach lies in the understanding of the nonlinear analysis process itself which could be observed by comparison with various experimental results.

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannel Thanks a lot. Is there any reason about making a plate on top&bottom of column? (although we can give a boundary condition in Mechanical)

The purpose of this tutorial is to compare the nonlinear analysis results with experimental results. The steel plate was presented in the specimen, hence steel plate was included in the finite element model. For other applications where the steel plate is not there, then the finite element model does not require any steel plate. However, for the particular problem where the solution is difficult to converge, the artificial boundary condition (similar to steel plate but softer) could be applied to improve the convergence success rate.

That part is there to indicate the available parameters for smeared rebar (x,y,z axis) for SOLID65. The current workflow no longer requires inputting anything regarding smeared rebars because all rebars are explicitly modeled. In conclusion, there is nothing to do with smeared rebar according to the workflow presented in this video. However, it does not mean smeared rebar is always useless. For example, for very difficult geometry and difficult to put the proper discrete rebars, some amount of smeared rebar could help overcome numerical instability.

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannelThank you for the answer, that's clarify my doubts

The "matid" could be any number that high enough to not redundant with the "matid" that previously automatically generated by Workbench. When you put "matid" equal to 1 in the APDL command, but Workbench already generates "matid" that equal to 1, that is why the APDL command doesn't work.

I am a practical engineer, not a researcher but I will try to give my opinion as best as I can. I did try Drucker Prager concrete, Menetrey Willam, and Micro-Plane model including CPT215 before. There are mainly three groups of how to model concrete in ANSYS: 1. Drucker Prager concrete, Menetrey Willam 2. Micro-Plane model including CPT215 3. SOLID65 The Microplane model and CPT215 are superior to any other concrete model in terms of the compressive degradation and tension softening which by far superior to the SOLID65 concrete model. It is also compatible with the ANSYS's reinforcement feature that would allow the user to handle complicated rebars with ease. Not to mention the potential to capture reverse loading (cyclic) behavior if parameters are properly tunned. Menetrey Willam and Drucker Prager concrete can also get along with the new ANSYS reinforcement feature. Unfortunately, Menetrey Willam is not as good for general purpose as what ANSYS's developer trying to promote, also Drucker Prager concrete model. In order to properly utilize the superiority of the Microplane model and CPT215, there is a price to pay, its parameters. For example, there are 12 parameters involved with the Coupled Damage-Plasticity Microplane Model. After parameters tunning, the model could be used for a specific behavior those parameters tuned for. Applying the parameters that tuned for a specific behavior to another could easily lead to wrong predictions. For laboratory purposes, the Microplane model and CPT215 can be really useful. But not much for practical use. At the moment, there is no way to generalize the Microplane parameters to serve a general purpose for structural concrete. Or even such a thing exists, it is not yet generally well established or well published. Hence, Microplane models and CPT215 are not good options (yet) for general concrete structures. It needs some more time for the model to be fully explored. Once those parameters technology is well established, I will also switch to the Microplane model, but not for now. Since the content in my channel is intended for practical purposes and aimed to be used to solve real-life structures such as building and bridge structures. For now, SOLID65 is the most reliable concrete model for general purposes. And the SOLID65 weakness such as incapable of degradation or incapable of reverse loading is not the problem in practice because there is already a well-established method to handle that in real life. RemarK: It looks like SOLID65 is no longer maintained by ANSYS's developer and it already lost a few features that it had before. It seems SOLID65 is on the way to obsoleteness.

@@ThanaponBuamongkolChannel Thanks in advance for your explanation sir. I've never seen any good explanation about modeling RC in ansys compared to this comment. It seems you are well known about modeling RC in this software. I'm looking forward for your content sir! Especialy about the micro-plane model. Could it possible to model those 3 concrete model on ansys apdl?

Please send me your email I will send you pictures of error

In case you are not using ANSYS Workbench 2019, I would presume you might face the single line meshing problem. Please try to set the meshing behavior for all rebars to "Hard" as shown in the example picture below. drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1zHCei62sqDMXBvOk-13pX04l0Px3RlLe If the above is not yet solve your problem. I would suggest you try to succeed with the following tutorial below first. From the pinned comment, please use method 1 to solve the meshing problem for ANSYS workbench 2020. Once you got the success run, you should now be able to solve the issue you have with the RC column. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pbWBZ8KbrtCsm3k.html

Sir can I have ur email

By using APDL command, see [25:44]

Unfortunately, this workflow does not support crushing or cracking plots.