Machinery supports vs. structural steel

[dgeesaman]

I work for a machinery supplier. We are sometimes asked to include a custom mounting adapter plate or frame structure to cover an opening in the steelwork that is larger than our machine. This may include some live load requirements since mechanics will need to walk on it to inspect and service the machine. Our bolt designs are handled using mechanical design methods: torqued fasteners, shimming to avoid distortion, etc. Our customers however will blanket specify AISC for "all metal".

For these larger mounting adapters and their bolted connections, what is the technically justifiable line to draw between the structural steel (to AISC codes/practices) and machinery (no AISC codes/practices).

And if the bolted joint between the large adapter plate and steelwork is designed using both systems, is one generally accepted to be more robust?

Thanks, David

 

[human909]

I would adopt the 'Duck Principle' Aka if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Then it probably is a duck.

But some things sometimes do look like a Platypus.


If it looks like a structure and acts like a structure then you should probably treat it as a structure. Though I can't comment on how it relates to your code requires as I'm unfamiliar with them.

I deal with this aspect all the time. I am often designing items such as silos, bins, hoppers receivers and other material handling items. The line becomes very blurry at times especially when more and more moving parts, changing pressures are added to the system. Many of these items might look and act like a structure but you buy it from a supplier as a machine or piece of equipment.