API API-571 Dumps

API RP 571 under Ammonium Chloride Corrosion details:

“The corrosion results from the deposition of ammonium chloride salts from high-temperature process streams as they cool.”

“This typically occurs in crude unit overheads or other systems where salts condense out as the stream temperature drops below their dew point.”

“Corrosion becomes especially aggressive when the salts are wetted by condensation.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.3.1 – Ammonium Chloride Corrosion)

Therefore, option A is technically accurate and supported.

From API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.1 and RP 941:

“High strength low alloy steels (HSLA) are more susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement, especially during cold work, forming, or welding. These materials, due to their higher tensile strengths, are more prone to cracking when exposed to hydrogen, particularly during fabrication or post-weld heat treatment operations.”

Therefore, Option A (High Strength Low Alloys) is the correct answer due to their known susceptibility during manufacturing and processing.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

According to API RP 571, creep damage is a time-dependent, high-temperature damage mechanism that occurs when materials are exposed to stress at temperatures typically above about 700 °F (370 °C) for extended periods. Creep damage results in void formation, microcracking, grain boundary separation, and eventual rupture.

Once creep damage has occurred, it is considered irreversible metallurgical degradation. API RP 571 clearly states that heat treatments cannot restore creep life because the material’s microstructure has already been permanently damaged.

Option A (PWHT at 1150 °F) may relieve residual stresses but does not heal creep voids or microcracks.

Option B (Solution annealing) is applicable to certain stainless steels but is not effective for reversing creep damage, particularly in low-alloy and Cr-Mo steels.

Option D (Preheating during welding) helps prevent hydrogen-related cracking but has no effect on existing creep damage.

API RP 571 emphasizes that the only effective mitigation for creep damage is to remove the affected material and replace it with sound material, or to retire the component if damage is widespread. Fitness-for-service assessments (API 579-1/ASME FFS-1) may be used to evaluate remaining life, but mitigation requires material removal.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Creep and Stress Rupture Damage

API Corrosion and Materials Study Guide

======================

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

According to API RP 571, carbon steel exhibits a minimum corrosion rate in sulfuric acid at concentrations around 65–70 wt% due to formation of a protective iron sulfate film.

When sulfuric acid concentration drops below approximately 65%, this protective film becomes unstable and corrosion rates increase dramatically.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Sulfuric Acid Corrosion

======================

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

In HF Alkylation units, API RP 571 identifies certain residual alloying elements in carbon steel that can significantly increase corrosion rates in HF acid service.

The most detrimental residual elements are:

Chromium (Cr)

Copper (Cu)

Nickel (Ni)

These elements:

Disrupt formation of protective iron fluoride films

Increase general and localized corrosion rates

Are tightly controlled in carbon steel specifications for HF service

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Hydrofluoric Acid Corrosion

======================

API RP 571 discusses Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (HIC) and Blistering:

“Postweld heat treatment (PWHT) does not significantly reduce susceptibility to HIC, as the mechanism is primarily driven by hydrogen charging in wet H₂S environments and steel cleanliness, not residual stresses.”

“PWHT is more effective for SSC, SOHIC, and other stress-driven mechanisms.”

Thus, HIC will not benefit much from PWHT, making option C correct.

According to API RP 571 Section 5.2.1 (Fatigue – High Cycle and Low Cycle):

“Unsupported small-bore attachments like vents and drains are prone to high-cycle mechanical fatigue due to vibration. These attachments experience cyclic stress, especially near welds or bends.”

Thermal overload is unlikely without over-temperature data.

SSC (Option C) requires a wet H2S environment, which is not indicated.

Weld defects may contribute but are less likely the root cause without other signs.

Hence, mechanical fatigue (Option A) is most probable in this configuration.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

According to API RP 571, ammonium bisulfide (NH₄HS) corrosion typically occurs in high-velocity, wet sour service, such as hydroprocessing reactor effluent systems. The damage is characterized by localized wall thinning, often with highly irregular corrosion profiles that vary with flow regime.

API RP 571 emphasizes that the most effective inspection techniques for NH₄HS corrosion are those capable of:

Detecting localized thinning

Identifying corrosion patterns related to flow velocity

Covering large areas efficiently

Ultrasonic scanning (C-scan) and profile radiography are specifically recommended because they:

Reveal localized and preferential metal loss

Allow comparison between high- and low-velocity zones

Are far superior to spot UT, which may miss localized attack

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Ammonium Bisulfide Corrosion

======================

API RP 571 explains under Condensate Corrosion (CO₂ Corrosion):

“In condensate systems, carbon dioxide dissolves in the water forming carbonic acid, which leads to localized corrosion, including grooving and under-deposit attack, especially at low points like the bottom of horizontal piping.”

“This is most commonly observed in steam condensate return lines, and the damage is localized due to stratification.”

This matches the scenario described, where internal grooving at the bottom of steam condensate piping is characteristic of CO₂-induced corrosion. Hence, option A is correct.

From API RP 571 on Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC):

“MIC depends on the presence of water, nutrients, and specific microbial species such as SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria).”

“While flow velocity may influence deposition and oxygen content, MIC can occur in both stagnant and flowing systems. Hence, it's not strongly dependent on velocity.”

Thus, option D is correct — MIC is largely independent of flow velocity.

API RP 571 explains that both Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) and SOHIC are:

“Strongly influenced by material hardness. Carbon and low alloy steels with hardness exceeding 22 HRC (248 Brinell) are most susceptible.”

“They occur in hardened steels under tensile stress, in the presence of wet H₂S environments.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.7 – SSC and SOHIC)

Therefore, hardened steels are the common factor for both mechanisms, making option C the correct choice.

API RP 571 and RP 939-C define sulfidation conditions as:

“Sulfidation of iron-based alloys generally becomes significant at temperatures above 500°F (260°C) in hydrocarbon streams with sulfur but without hydrogen.”

“For hydrogen-containing environments, this threshold may be reduced to 450°F (230°C).”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.1 – Sulfidation; API RP 939-C, Section 3.1)

Therefore, the correct answer is D.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

According to API RP 571, corrosion fatigue results from the combined action of a cyclic stress and a corrosive environment. One of the most important distinguishing features between corrosion fatigue and SCC is crack morphology.

Corrosion fatigue cracks are typically transgranular and show little or no branching

Stress corrosion cracking is characterized by extensive crack branching

Therefore, the absence of significant branching is a key diagnostic feature of corrosion fatigue.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Corrosion Fatigue

======================

API RP 571 on Organic Acid Corrosion in Overheads explains:

“Corrosion caused by organic acids (e.g., formic, acetic) in overhead systems is best mitigated by neutralization, usually via injection of alkaline neutralizing amines that raise pH and reduce acidity.”

“Water wash can be helpful but is often insufficient by itself.”

Therefore, the most effective approach is option C – injection of neutralizer.

According to API RP 571, under the section "Corrosion in Aqueous Environments – Cooling Water Corrosion", one of the key contributors to corrosion in carbon steel and other materials used in heat exchangers is the presence of dissolved oxygen. API RP 571 states:

"Oxygen is a primary contributor to corrosion in cooling water systems. Systems open to the atmosphere are typically more corrosive than closed systems due to the continual replenishment of oxygen."

"Corrosion rates are highest where oxygen concentration is the greatest, especially in systems using untreated or poorly treated water."

"Carbon steel corrodes in the presence of oxygen and water, forming corrosion products that may or may not adhere to the surface."

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.1.1 – Cooling Water Corrosion)

Therefore, increasing oxygen content directly increases corrosion activity in exchanger tubes, making option C the correct and documented answer.

From API RP 571 and RP 932-B:

“In hydroprocessing reactor effluent systems, the most common corrosion mechanism is ammonium bisulfide (NH₄HS) corrosion, which forms in the presence of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.”

“NH₄HS attacks carbon steel aggressively under turbulent flow and at low pH.”

Correct answer is B – ammonium bisulfide corrosion.

API RP 571 on Brittle Fracture notes:

“The primary factor influencing brittle fracture is material toughness, especially at low temperatures.”

“Materials with low fracture toughness are susceptible to catastrophic failure when stressed below their ductile-to-brittle transition temperature.”

Hence, option A is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

According to API RP 571, graphitization is a high-temperature degradation mechanism that occurs in carbon and carbon-molybdenum steels exposed for long periods at temperatures typically above 800 °F (425 °C).

In this process:

Iron carbides decompose into free graphite nodules

The steel loses strength, ductility, and pressure-retaining capability

Failures can occur without significant wall loss

Graphitization does not occur in aluminum, stainless steels, or nickel-copper alloys such as Monel.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Graphitization

======================

From API RP 571 Section 4.2.3 (Galvanic Corrosion):

“Galvanic corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals are in electrical contact in the presence of an electrolyte. The more anodic metal corrodes preferentially.”

Contact without insulation and in presence of an electrolyte (like water or brine) is key to galvanic action.

Insulating or coating prevents electrical connection or electrolyte contact, reducing corrosion risk.

Hence, Option D correctly describes the condition that increases galvanic corrosion potential.

Dissimilar Metal Cracking (DMC) is a form of high-temperature cracking that frequently occurs in weld joints between carbon steel and austenitic stainless steel (such as Type 316 SS) due to differences in thermal expansion coefficients and mechanical properties.

From API RP 571 Section 5.2.3.1 (Dissimilar Metal Weld Cracking):

“Cracking frequently occurs in weld joints between ferritic and austenitic materials such as carbon steel to 300 series stainless steels due to thermal expansion mismatch during high temperature operation.”

Therefore, Option D (Carbon steel to 316 stainless steel) is the most susceptible combination and the correct answer.

API RP 571 states under Galvanic Corrosion:

“Because galvanic corrosion usually manifests as thinning of the more anodic metal, ultrasonic thickness measurements taken near dissimilar metal joints are an effective way to detect this type of internal corrosion.”

“Surface NDE techniques like liquid penetrant or magnetic particle testing are not effective for detecting wall loss.”

Thus, option D (ultrasonic thickness testing) is correct.

API RP 571 describes under Caustic Corrosion:

“One of the significant contributing factors is caustic accumulation in low-flow or stagnant areas, especially in heat-traced lines or around steam injection points.”

“Localized heating can concentrate caustic solutions, promoting corrosion even in carbon or stainless steels.”

Thus, option C (heat-traced equipment) is the correct and technically accurate choice.

According to API RP 571, under the section on High Temperature Hydrogen Attack (HTHA) and Decarburization:

“Decarburization is typically confirmed by metallographic examination. This method reveals carbon loss and microstructural changes such as spheroidization or softening of pearlite.”

“Tensile or impact testing may not reveal early-stage decarburization, especially in partial layers.”

Therefore, metallographic testing is the standard and most direct method to confirm decarburization damage, making option D correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Wet H₂S damage mechanisms include hydrogen blistering, hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), stepwise cracking (SWC), and stress-oriented hydrogen-induced cracking (SOHIC). These mechanisms are primarily internal and subsurface, as described in API RP 571.

Shear Wave Ultrasonic Testing (SWUT) is specifically highlighted in API RP 571 as a preferred screening and detection method for wet H₂S damage because it can detect subsurface planar defects with minimal surface preparation. Typically, only basic coupling and access are required.

Why the other options are incorrect:

Option A (ACFM) is a surface crack detection technique and requires relatively clean surfaces; it is not suitable for subsurface hydrogen damage.

Option C (WFMT – Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Testing) requires extensive surface preparation, coating removal, and direct access to the surface, and only detects surface-breaking flaws.

Option D (LPT – Liquid Penetrant Testing) also requires clean, bare metal surfaces and cannot detect subsurface damage.

API RP 571 explicitly notes that ultrasonic techniques, particularly shear wave UT, are widely used for detecting internal hydrogen-related cracking with minimal disruption and surface preparation, making it the most effective choice for wet H₂S damage screening.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Wet H₂S Damage (HIC, SOHIC, Blistering)

API Corrosion and Materials Inspection Study Guide

API RP 571 discusses this under Wet H₂S Damage – Hydrogen Blistering, HIC, SOHIC:

“Hydrogen generation is reduced as pH increases. At pH 9 and above, the corrosion potential is less favorable for hydrogen charging and thus permeation into the steel is minimal.”

“Most wet H₂S cracking damage mechanisms are accelerated under acidic conditions (pH < 7).”

Hence, high pH (around 9) environments offer the most protection against hydrogen damage, making option D the correct choice.

API RP 571 on Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking (Cl-SCC) clearly states:

“Austenitic stainless steels such as 304 and 316 are highly susceptible to Cl-SCC when subjected to tensile stress and exposed to chloride-bearing environments.”

“Susceptibility is greatest in non-stress-relieved weldments or cold-worked areas.”

Brass and carbon steels are not typical Cl-SCC candidates; low alloy steels such as 1.25Cr-0.5Mo are also not commonly affected.

Thus, option C is the correct answer.

API RP 571 details that:

“Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) susceptibility increases significantly with increased hardness of the steel.”

“NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 provides hardness limits for carbon and low-alloy steels to avoid SSC in sour environments. These are typically limited to 22 HRC or 248 Brinell.”

“High hardness promotes crack initiation under tensile stress in sour environments (i.e., containing H₂S).”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.2.1 – Sulfide Stress Corrosion Cracking)

While hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC) and blistering are related to hydrogen charging, SSC is the only mechanism directly and critically impacted by hardness, making option B correct.

API RP 571, under "Caustic Corrosion" (also referred to as Caustic Stress Corrosion Cracking or Caustic Cracking), notes that this form of damage is:

“Most commonly associated with the injection points of caustic (e.g., NaOH) in crude units, particularly upstream of desalter vessels and heat exchanger circuits.”

“This damage occurs due to the combination of caustic environment and tensile stress, especially in carbon steel and low alloy steels.”

“Stress relief heat treatment of welds can mitigate susceptibility.”

(Reference: API RP 571, 3rd Edition, Section 4.2.2.3)

Thus, among the options, caustic injections in crude units are the most typical area of concern, making option C the correct answer.

According to API RP 571, under Naphthenic Acid Corrosion (NAC):

“The most severe corrosion is typically found in areas of high velocity and turbulence, such as at pump around nozzles, transfer lines, elbows, reducers, and orifices.”

“NAC is characterized by uniform thinning and can accelerate significantly where flow-induced erosion is present.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.4.1 – Naphthenic Acid Corrosion)

This clearly establishes that high velocity and turbulence increase NAC severity, making option D correct.

According to API RP 571:

“Oxidation is the reaction of metal and oxygen to form oxides. It generally occurs in high temperature environments with excess oxygen.”

“Sulfidation is a high temperature corrosion mechanism that occurs due to interaction between sulfur-containing compounds and metal surfaces, forming metal sulfides. Like oxidation, sulfidation occurs in environments above 500 °F (260 °C).”

“Both oxidation and sulfidation can occur concurrently, particularly in mixed environments of oxygen and sulfur.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.3 – Oxidation & Sulfidation)

These two mechanisms are thermally activated and occur in elevated temperature conditions found in heaters, furnaces, and piping systems. Hence, option B is correct.

From API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.5 (Polythionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking):

“PTASCC typically occurs on the surface of stainless steels that have been sensitized. Since cracks are open to the surface, liquid penetrant testing (PT) is the most effective detection method.”

Magnetic particle testing is ineffective for non-magnetic materials like austenitic stainless steels.

UT is less effective for fine surface-connected cracks.

Hardness testing is unrelated to detecting cracking.

Thus, Option C (Liquid penetrant testing) is the correct and preferred method for detecting PTASCC.

API RP 578 (Material Verification Program), referenced in API RP 571, specifically calls out sulfidation failures as a major driver for Positive Material Identification (PMI):

“PMI programs are particularly important in services prone to sulfidation where incorrect alloying elements (e.g., carbon steel used in place of low Cr alloy) have led to catastrophic failures.”

“Many failures have occurred when carbon steel was mistakenly installed in place of specified Cr-alloys in sulfidation-prone environments.”

(Reference: API RP 578 and API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.1 – Sulfidation)

Thus, option C is the most appropriate answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) is one of the most universally applicable corrosion mechanisms, affecting:

Carbon steel

Low-alloy steel

Stainless steels

Copper alloys

Aluminum alloys

According to API RP 571, MIC can occur in any aqueous system where microorganisms are present, regardless of metallurgy.

By contrast:

Sour water corrosion and amine corrosion mainly affect carbon steel

Polythionic acid corrosion is limited to austenitic stainless steels

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Microbiologically Induced Corrosion

API RP 571 on Thermal Fatigue:

“Mixing of hot and cold streams, particularly where hydrogen is present, can induce thermal cycling stresses, leading to thermal fatigue cracking, especially at fittings like tees.”

“Hydrogen embrittlement typically affects stressed zones, but this pattern strongly indicates thermal fatigue.”

So the correct answer is C – Thermal fatigue.

API RP 571 under Sulfidation (High Temperature Sulfidic Corrosion) recommends:

“Thickness monitoring using ultrasonic testing (UT) or radiographic testing (RT) is the most common method for detection of wall loss due to sulfidation.”

“Sulfidation results in uniform thinning, especially in low Cr steels in hydrogen/H₂S environments.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.1 – Sulfidation)

Thus, option A is the most appropriate and effective inspection method.

API RP 571, under Organic Acid Corrosion, highlights:

“Corrosive organic acids in overhead systems are those that condense at temperatures above the water dew point. These acids condense independently of water and can form highly concentrated corrosive films.”

“When acids condense first, they aggressively corrode carbon steel prior to any water wash mitigation.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.3.9 – Organic Acid Corrosion)

Hence, option D correctly identifies the most aggressive corrosion scenario.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Reheat cracking is explicitly defined in API RP 571 as cracking that occurs during postweld heat treatment or elevated temperature exposure due to stress relaxation in the heat affected zone of welded components.

Key characteristics per API RP 571 include:

Occurs during PWHT or high-temperature service

Associated with creep-strength-enhanced steels (e.g., Cr-Mo steels)

Driven by stress relaxation and grain boundary weakness

Most common in heavy wall sections

Why the other options are incorrect:

Option A (PWHT cracking) is a non-specific term; API classifies this mechanism as reheat cracking.

Option B (Thermal fatigue) requires cyclic temperature changes, not stress relaxation.

Option D (Temper embrittlement) does not cause cracking during PWHT.

API RP 571 uses reheat cracking as the correct classification.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Reheat Cracking

API Welding Metallurgy Study Guide

======================

Erosion and erosion-corrosion are mechanical degradation mechanisms enhanced by fluid motion, and typically result in directional or flow-oriented metal loss patterns.

According to API RP 571 Section 5.4.2 (Erosion and Erosion/Corrosion):

“Erosion typically results in localized thinning, often described as grooves, gullies, or horseshoe-shaped patterns... The metal loss is directional and may occur in elbows, tees, reducers, and pumps.”

Hence, Option C (grooves and gullies) most accurately describes erosion and erosion-corrosion characteristics.

As per API RP 945 (4th Edition, 2022):

“Post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) is the most effective method for reducing residual stresses that contribute to amine SCC. PWHT minimizes the stress intensity required for crack initiation and growth.”

Lowering temperature helps but is not always feasible.

Water content and amine concentration affect SCC but are not as impactful as PWHT.

Thus, Option A (Post-weld heat treatment) is the most effective mitigation.

According to API RP 571, high-cycle fatigue (HCF) is characterized by very tight, narrow cracks that can escape detection using typical NDE methods due to their minimal opening displacement and fine geometry.

From API RP 571 Section 5.2.1 (Fatigue - High Cycle):

"The cracks are usually tight and may be difficult to detect using conventional NDE techniques such as PT or MT. UT and RT may also have difficulty identifying these small, tight flaws, especially in early stages of propagation."

The primary issue in NDE is not the geometry (such as 90° corners) or ID location, but rather the tightness and early-stage subtlety of the cracks which results in reduced detectability. Therefore, option B is correct as it aligns most accurately with API RP 571's detailed characterization of HCF detection challenges.

In steam systems, the absence of a steam trap allows condensate to accumulate, which can lead to corrosion from oxygen and carbon dioxide dissolved in the water—a classic case of condensate corrosion.

From API RP 571 Section 5.3.3.1 (Condensate Corrosion):

“If steam lines or equipment like soot blowers do not have proper drainage or steam traps, condensate may accumulate... Corrosion results from the presence of dissolved oxygen and/or carbon dioxide in the condensate.”

Thus, the correct answer is Option D (condensate corrosion).

API RP 571 describes Temper Embrittlement as:

“A metallurgical degradation mechanism that leads to a reduction in fracture toughness due to long-term exposure in the temperature range of 650°F to 1070°F (345°C to 575°C).”

“It affects Cr-Mo steels and is not easily detected except by impact testing.”

Therefore, option C most accurately defines the condition based on the recognized API description.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Hydrochloric acid (HCl) corrosion, particularly in crude unit overhead systems, is aggressive toward carbon steel and stainless steels.

According to API RP 571, nickel-based alloys, such as Monel (Ni–Cu alloys), exhibit excellent resistance to hydrochloric acid corrosion and are commonly used for:

Overhead piping

Injection quills

High-risk corrosion zones

Why the other options are incorrect:

Duplex and 300 series stainless steels are highly susceptible to chloride corrosion and SCC.

Copper-based materials alone lack sufficient resistance and structural strength in refinery HCl environments.

Referenced Documents (Study Basis):

API RP 571 – Section on Hydrochloric Acid Corrosion

======================

API RP 571, under Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking, notes:

“Cracking often appears as highly branched or ‘crazed’ networks on the surface, especially in austenitic stainless steels exposed to chlorides under tensile stress.”

“These cracks often initiate in the heat-affected zones or cold-worked areas and are intergranular in nature.”

This signature ‘crazed’ appearance with branching is diagnostic of Cl-SCC, making option C the correct and most descriptive answer.