The traditional model is convenient, but it describes the material as continuous, without taking into account its actual structure. For each new material, empirical coefficients must be selected and a series of tests must be conducted to bring the calculations closer to practice. MSM, on the other hand, reveals the mechanism of stress-strain state formation, taking into account the internal discrete structure. This allows not only to describe real processes, but also to predict the behavior of structures in advance, without numerous corrections. This opens up the possibility of creating products with specified properties and designing fundamentally new technological solutions.

This reflects the actual physics of the binding material. Each structural particle is surrounded by a layer of binding material, which bears the load. When compressed, the particles move toward each other, and resistance is provided by a system of transverse bonds that stretch in a perpendicular direction. When stretched, longitudinal bonds are activated. Thus, in all cases, the work is only done in tension, as in a system of microscopic ropes. The nonlinear behavior of concrete outside the linear region is explained not by “plasticity” or “creep,” but by the gradual destruction of the most loaded bonds and the redistribution of the load to those that have not yet been destroyed.

A comparison of analytical calculations using the MSM with numerous experimental data shows their high accuracy and reproducibility. While the finite element method (FEM) requires a multitude of correction factors and often deviates from reality, the analytical formulas of the MSM provide clear and physically sound results. They are simple but based on a fundamental principle—the behavior of discrete tensile connections. For complex shapes and loads, these methods are supplemented by numerical modeling, which is integrated into modern engineering programs.

The criterion of bond degradation rate is directly related to the actual process of structural material destruction. The loss of stability of a structure always precedes the sequential destruction of concrete. Taking this physical picture into account allows us to predict the moment of destruction in advance. This criterion does not replace the usual macro indicators (stability, ultimate deflection), but complements them, making the standardization system more reliable and reflective of real processes. Experiments have confirmed that optimizing reinforcement according to Structural Materials Mechanics significantly increases the resistance of reinforced concrete elements to seismic aggression.

Pre-stressing technology has indeed played a huge role, but its limitations have long been known. Part of the strength potential is lost to creating tension in the reinforcement, the design requires special equipment, and accounting for stress relaxation during operation is extremely difficult. FlexiCore does not have these disadvantages: it redistributes stresses in such a way that the concrete works mainly in compression rather than tension, which prevents cracking. Tests have shown a multiple increase in load-bearing capacity at lower cost, making FlexiCore the next step in the development of reinforced concrete technology.

No. MSM is not opposed to Discrete Solid Mechanics, but rather builds on its fundamental foundation, develops it, and greatly increases its applied potential.

Historically, the DSM has accumulated a colossal body of observations on the behavior of structural materials (SMs) under loads and consolidated them in computational models, where the material is often represented as a hypothetical continuous medium with averaged properties.

In such models, strength is treated as the final stage of resistance, and deformation is treated as a fixed stage of the body's position at the time of observation.

The MSM retains and develops the experience of the DSM, but emphasizes real physical processes in the discrete structure of the SM. Here, strength and deformation are considered as a continuous process of sequential degradation and restructuring of the bonds between structural particles.

In other words, the MSM is an evolution of the approach: from abstractions to physically meaningful models of discrete solids, suitable for direct engineering application and the design of new technologies.

The material is considered as a system of structural particles (grains) and a binder. Under load, grain displacements cause deformation of the binder, which is equivalently described by hypothetical bonds operating exclusively in tension.

Two components:

Structural particles are conventionally absolutely rigid elements that define the geometry/direction of the force action.

Binder is a deformable medium that provides adhesion, represented in the calculation model as a system of hypothetical bonds.

Bond orientation in the stress-strain state:

Under compression, the bonds are oriented transverse to the load direction;

Under tension, the bonds are oriented along the load.

The key principle of the MSM is that all bonds between particles operate only in tension; there is no compressive/shear resistance in the bonds—compression effects are realized through an increase in the transverse tensile strains of the bonds.

The limit state criterion is formulated through the achievement of critical stresses or strains in the bonds (the first and second classical theories of strength, correctly interpreted for discrete bodies).

The behavior of a beam under load is described by five basic relationships, providing an engineering-accurate forecast at all stages of the process.

Five key quantities:

Reinforcement influence coefficient – ​​the degree to which the content and elastic strength properties of reinforcement influence the stress-strain state of concrete (including dynamic changes due to cracking).

Compressive and tensile stresses in concrete due to deflection under load.

Tensile stresses in reinforcement.

Compressive stresses in concrete due to the reaction force of reinforcement.

Total compressive stress in concrete = (compression due to deflection) + (compression due to reinforcement reaction).

Practical value: the method is simple in form, robust to parametric variations, and provides accuracy confirmed by series of experiments; it is suitable for the rapid optimization of sections and reinforcement.

Reconfiguring the physical structure of the stress-strain state allows for the creation of frames and sections that shift the material to a predominantly compressive mode and suppress crack growth.

Example, Flexicore:

This new technology transforms beam deflection under load into longitudinal displacement of the frame.

Arched bars, connected by clamps, attempt to straighten, pulling the concrete along the span; this is counteracted by tie rods.

Result: the concrete acts predominantly in compression along the entire height of the section, suppressing vertical crack formation, and increasing the load-bearing capacity.

A note on prestressing: classical prestressing effectively delays crack formation, but in ultimate limit states, its effect often disappears. FCM allows for the design of alternative frames without the inherent technological disadvantages of prestressing.

Provides a transparent physical picture of stress-strain state and failure.

Enables analytical evaluation of key conditions and rapid adaptation of solutions to specific conditions.

Paving the way for new frameworks (such as Flexicore) that increase crack resistance and load-bearing capacity without the need for prestressing.

Adds a seismic criterion at the material level and provides tools for its improvement.