Railway track is a linearly inhomogeneous object that consists of geometrical and elastic discontinuities such as bridges, transition zones, rail joints and crossings. The zones are subjected to the development of local instabilities due to quicker deterioration than the other tracks. Until now, there have been no efficient approaches that could fully exclude the problem of accelerated differential settlements in the problem zones. Many structural countermeasures are directed at controlling the sleeper/ballast loading with the help of fastenings/under-sleeper pad elasticities, sleeper forms and additional bending stiffness reinforcements. However, the efficiency of the methods is difficult to compare. The current paper presents a systematic approach in which the loading distribution effect in the rail support by application of two bending reinforcement methods is compared: auxiliary rail and under-sleeper beam. The study considers only the static effects to reach a clear understanding the influence of the main factors. The track equivalent bending stiffness criterion is proposed for comparing reinforcement solutions. The analysis shows that the activation of the bending stiffness of the reinforcement beams depends on the relative ratio of the rail fastenings stiffness and track support stiffness under sleepers (or under the under-sleeper beam). The comparison demonstrates that conventional auxiliary rail reinforcement solutions are ineffective due to their weak bending because of the high elasticity of fastening clips and the main rail fastenings. The share of an auxiliary rail is maximally 20% in the track bending stiffness and cannot be significantly improved by additional rails. The under-sleeper beam-based reinforcement solutions show noticeably higher efficiency. The highest effect can be achieved by the activation of the horizontal shear interaction between the under-sleeper beam and the rail. The additional track bending stiffness of the under-sleeper-based solutions is about 3.5 times more of the rail one and could be potentially increased to 6–10 times.

铁路轨道是一种线性非均匀物体，由几何和弹性不连续点组成，例如桥梁、过渡区、铁路接头和交叉口。由于比其他轨道恶化更快，这些区域会出现局部不稳定的情况。到目前为止，还没有有效的方法可以完全排除问题区域加速差异沉降的问题。许多结构对策旨在借助紧固件/枕木下垫弹性、枕木形式和额外的抗弯刚度增强来控制枕木/道碴载荷。然而，这些方法的效率很难比较。本论文提出了一种系统的方法，通过应用两种弯曲加固方法比较了轨道支撑中的载荷分布效果：辅助轨道和枕木下梁。该研究仅考虑静态影响，以清楚地了解主要因素的影响。轨道等效弯曲刚度准则被提出用于比较加固方案。分析表明，加固梁抗弯刚度的激活取决于轨枕下（或下枕梁下）钢轨扣件刚度与轨道支撑刚度的相对比值。比较表明，传统的辅助轨道加固解决方案由于紧固夹和主轨道紧固件的高弹性而导致其弯曲较弱，因此效果不佳。辅助轨道在轨道弯曲刚度中的份额最大为 20%，并且不能通过额外的轨道显着改善。基于枕木下梁的加固解决方案显示出明显更高的效率。通过激活下枕梁和钢轨之间的水平剪切相互作用，可以实现最高的效果。基于枕木的解决方案的额外轨道弯曲刚度大约是轨道解决方案的 3.5 倍，并有可能增加到 6-10 倍。辅助轨道在轨道弯曲刚度中的份额最大为 20%，并且不能通过额外的轨道显着改善。基于枕木下梁的加固解决方案显示出明显更高的效率。通过激活下枕梁和钢轨之间的水平剪切相互作用，可以实现最高的效果。基于枕木的解决方案的额外轨道弯曲刚度大约是轨道解决方案的 3.5 倍，并有可能增加到 6-10 倍。辅助轨道在轨道弯曲刚度中的份额最大为 20%，并且不能通过额外的轨道显着改善。基于枕木下梁的加固解决方案显示出明显更高的效率。通过激活下枕梁和钢轨之间的水平剪切相互作用，可以实现最高的效果。基于枕木的解决方案的额外轨道弯曲刚度大约是轨道解决方案的 3.5 倍，并有可能增加到 6-10 倍。