Current Trends In Roof Truss Hardware

Mangelsdorf, C. P.

Organization: International Conference on Ground Control in Mining

Pages: 5

Publication Date: Jan 1, 1982

Abstract

The success of the Birmingham roof truss (Figure 1) in supporting some difficult roof conditions, particularly in the Illinois coal basin, has given impetus to the development of a number of alternate schemes. These schemes attempt to alleviate two major problems with the Birming-ham truss, namely, the time required for installation and the cost of material. Because of the difficulty of drilling angled holes and the number of different pieces of hardware which must be handled manually, most operators have been unable to install Birmingham trusses in the cycle and have had to schedule truss crews during the maintenance shift or whenever they would not impede production. Due to this delay the truss has traditionally been viewed as a supplemental form of roof support. In fact, the truss might qualify as primary support and replace at least two bolts if it could he installed in the cycle (and MSHA would accept it as an alternate in the roof plan.) [ ] Figure 1. The Birmingham truss. Two attempts to deal with the first difficulty have sought to streamline the truss hardware while preserving the essential character of the Birmingham truss. One of these, by Peabody Coal, is reported elsewhere in these proceedings by C. Bollier. Another is a contract issued by the Bureau of Mines to Bendix Corporation for the development of a machine, particularly suited for use in low coal, which will automate many of the operations currently executed manually. This machine is expected to be ready for field testing by fall of 1982. Once in place, a truss installed by either of these schemes will interact with the roof in the same way as a conventional Birmingham truss. An alternate approach has been proposed by several different manufacturers independently. Although the hardware details differ. the essential idea consists of two angle bolts, the heads of which are connected by a horizontal chord tightened to some pre-determined tension. Figure 2 shows the generalized concept and does not depict any one of the four systems proposed. The advantage of this scheme is that the angle bolts can be installed and tightened in the cycle, and as bolts, immediately satisfy the roof control plan. The horizontal chord can be added later to achieve almost any initial desired roof loading, the limits of which are defined below this scheme is referred to here as the angle-bolt truss. Because of a fundamental difference in the way in which load is transferred between chords, this design does not interact with the roof under subsequent loading in the same manner as a Birmingham truss. The purpose of this paper is to examine this fundamental difference and its consequences. [ ]

Full Article Download: