This response is more to address the comments as to the make-up of the committees that maintain the Codes and Standards ASME and API... and not the knuckle head nozzle issue.
I am a member of both API (API-650, API-620, API-653 and to a lesser extent API-510 and API-579) and ASME (B96.1 and SBS)committees. Contrary to the many statements made herein, we are not lawyers, nor are we politicians. We are typically volunteer folks with a passion for our work. Most of us are engineers with careers in the tank and vessel disciplines, mostly from the oil and chemical industries.
I find it ironic that engineers are in charge of documents that require excellent wordsmithing skills. Most people would not think of selecting a technical geek-type for such activities. And yes, I have participated in revisions to the API tank and vessel Standards that required subsequent revisions due to poor wordsmithing. It never fails to amaze me that a group of adults can all look at the same proposal and agree that it looks okay... only to be shocked at how bad it looks when printed as an revision. But we fix it and move onward.
Thirty years ago I began employment with a tank and vessel fabricator. During my first week on the job I was given a copy of ASME VIII to review and update with all of the cut-and-paste colored pages. You older folks will remember that type of exercise. By the time I finished, I was totally confused by ASME VIII and convinced that I made a bad choice of careers.
I eventually came to understand that that there was some method to the ASME VIII format madness. For example, UG-28 deals with the design of cylinders for internal pressure. When originally written in 1923, cylinders were covered in UG-28. So, since 1923 one could always go to UG-28 to discover the Code rules for designing cylinders for internal pressure. That way one does not have to re-learn the Code organization every time a major revision is issued. During my career I have always had the benefit of being near a Code guru. If I was to ask where to find the Code rules for a particular topic, the guru would blurt out "go read UG-79". Gurus become gurus because the Code numbering system has been preserved.
Also, the Code inquiry system has benefitted from this approach. For example, if you have a Code question on UG-32, you can be assured that many other questions have arisen about the same paragraph. Hartford Steam Boiler maintained cross-refernce summaries of all past inquiries. It permitted the confused among us to read all of the inquiries ever written about UG-32. A great learning tool.
For those of you that are new to the ASME VIII world, hang in there, do you research and learn from the gurus that came before you. And, always remember that the Code is not a text book... never was and never will be. It was intended to be used by knowledgeable and experience hands.
Also, don't rely upon your AI as the sole backup for design adequacy. Most are not engineers and do not understand all of the critical non-pressure design issues raises by UG-22.
Ditto, regarding computer design program for vessel design. As a consultant, I have a lot of work come my way because someone relied upon the correctness of a canned computer program used outside its range of applicability.
Well, I guess I have waffled on long enough on this topic.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
Steve, I hate to admit I chuckled at the cut and paste comment. I'd just like to add this one thread directed to the younger engineers. Todays struggle with this beastly code is tomorrows job security. It takes a while, so be patient. The gray hairs come quickly.