Working Outside Your Specialty 4

[phamENG]

My background is structural, and I have my PE (took the Civil-Structural exam). I recently took a job as a full time employee at an industrial facility. 98% of my work is structural - maintenance platforms, slab repairs, building additions, condition inspections, etc. But occasionally, I get requests that are a bit more mechanical in nature. For example, I've been asked to help solve a problem of rotating a large piece of machinery to ease a maintenance task. It's essentially a hydraulic piston connected to a cam driving a really large diameter ratchet.

In this or similar cases (basic applications of simple machines), what are everyone's thoughts on performing this work so long as I make it clear to management that it is not within my wheelhouse nor "covered" under my license? The relative motion isn't difficult to work out, and the stress calculations are essentially the same as those used in structural engineering (if slightly more thorough). Bear in mind, I'm not offering this as a service from a consultant; I'm an employee of the owner/end user. If this does rub somebody the wrong way, where would you draw the line? Moving parts = no go?

Thanks.

 

[JStephen]

CWB1, yes, I took statics, dynamics, vibrations, mechanisms, machine design, etc., which cover rotating items extensively, but "rotating a large piece of machinery to ease a maintenance task" is not a specific part of that study, it obviously builds on some of those, but I don't recall ever coming to a chapter in the Dynamics textbook about "Rotating Large Objects In Your Plant", either.
"Lifting equipment design is probably half of most every ME course". Strangely enough, that didn't seem to crop up in the heat transfer, fluids, boundary layer theory, thermodynamics, vibrations, etc.

 

[phamENG]

drawoh - thanks for you insight. That's about where we (management and I) landed on the issue.

 

[Rabbit12]

phamENG, I think I'd make a decision based on the level of risk if it fails and the complexity. If it's a relatively simple analysis with a low level of risk at failure I'd be inclined to take on the task if I felt comfortable with the analysis part.

In engineering school the biggest thing we are taught is how to learn. It's subtle but that's really the end goal of most programs. Sure we are taught the basics for concrete, steel, timber analysis etc. but our schooling doesn't even come close to touching on everything. We use the principles and apply them to real world problems. I've stepped out of my comfort zone several times in my career. It's made me a better engineer.

On several occasions I've used BTH-1 to design lifting systems. I've never been formally trained in "design of lifting beams" but I can learn the requirements and follow a design standard.

 

[CWB1]

I took statics, dynamics, vibrations, mechanisms, machine design, etc., which cover rotating items extensively, but "rotating a large piece of machinery to ease a maintenance task" is not a specific part of that study, it obviously builds on some of those, but I don't recall ever coming to a chapter in the Dynamics textbook about "Rotating Large Objects In Your Plant", either.
"Lifting equipment design is probably half of most every ME course". Strangely enough, that didn't seem to crop up in the heat transfer, fluids, boundary layer theory, thermodynamics, vibrations, etc.

My point was that textbook theory is only 1/3, maybe 1/2 of a decent ME program. Building and testing various mechanisms in the lab is the program's backbone and arguably where the real education is. I wouldn't expect a fresh grad to have rotated/moved a 20 ton press in college, but I'd expect them to have designed lifting devices and worked with enough rigging, hydraulics, and other basic machinery albeit on a smaller scale to be able to plan such work safely and independently.

 

[SandCounter]

JStephen, CWB1,

I noticed years ago that there are at least two different types of a university approaches. One teaches the physics and the theory and lets the students apply them as applicable when they venture into the real world. The other teaches existing, proven solutions.

I had a similar university experience to JStephen. The curriculum was a physics-based, theory-driven, bottom-up approach. It's served me very well in solving unsolved problems.

 

[CWB1]

I noticed years ago that there are at least two different types of a university approaches. One teaches the physics and the theory and lets the students apply them as applicable when they venture into the real world. The other teaches existing, proven solutions.

That's a new viewpoint to me. IME there's ABET at public and most older private programs and "regional"/other accreditations at the newer online diploma mills. ABET essentially subdivides programs into purely theoretical coursework, labs, and design/process courses, requiring minimum amounts of each and requiring course content that basically pushes schools to use one of 2-3 common texts for each course. In recent decades that means unless you're attending a diploma mill, education at the Ivies is very similar to that from the local state school. Granted, pricier schools do tend to have lab assistants/tradesmen building projects per student designs whereas cheaper schools require students to do the fabrication themselves, but ultimately the result is the same - student designs get tested throughout the program and grads leave with some basic mechanical competency. If someone told me in an interview that their education consisted solely of the content in engineering textbooks, I'd say they're a few years short on education to effectively work in an engineering office.

 

[IRstuff]

I noticed years ago that there are at least two different types of a university approaches.

I would say it's probably more like a spectrum. My school was putatively balanced between theoretical and practical, while my other choices were supposedly skewed toward one end or the other. All said and done, I'm not necessarily certain that it wasn't at least slightly skewed toward the theoretical, as well. Nevertheless, that's not necessarily a bad thing, since the end result was that I wound up doing something totally different, but the theory remains intact and allowed me to branch out into a different discipline

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[MacGyverS2000]

My BS from University of Florida was a mixture, whereas my MS from Purdue was almost pure theory. I taught the first semester I was there, and the difference in type of student questions between the two schools was interesting.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com