Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Crane Design; SE v. ME

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
If I am reading this post correctly, it sounds like you are calling the crane
bridge and rail a structure.  Therefor you want SE stamp since it is a

I do not know the correct answer, however, it does appear that this scenario
approaches a boundary between the 2 fields. (SE,ME).  All equipment supplied
on a job is in a sense "a structure".  In this case, a predominant amount of
the mass (not the $$$) is a structure.  It would seem to me that when an ME
stamps something for their trade, it has to be capable of supporting the
loads, especially loads it is intended to "lift".  Pressure vessels and other
ME designed items must be able to withstand the pressures etc that are
inherent in their use. 

It would seem that this may be more of a "legal issue" than a design issue as
to how your state interprets this as being whose responsibility.   I think you
have found a very gray area, but one that appears to be a valid concern.

I "think" that  1) this is a piece of equipment   2) it is the equipment
manufacturers responsibility to ensure it is stable for earthquake loads and
should define the parameters that it can function under safetly.  3) ME should
define the imposed loads  4) you apply these loads to the structure and ensure
the structure responds within the parameters defined by ME (max lateral drift

If these parameters would cause an increase in building cost....or engineering
fee..I suggest everyone wear best their 3-piece lawsuit.

Ron Martin 
Tuscaloosa, AL