API-571 Questions and Answers

As per API RP 571 and further clarified in API RP 939-C:

“An arbitrary threshold of 50 ppmw H₂S in the aqueous phase is often used to define when carbon and low alloy steels become susceptible to cracking damage in wet H₂S environments.”

“Below this level, the risk of SSC, HIC, and SOHIC is considered lower, although damage has still occurred at lower concentrations depending on stress and metallurgical conditions.”

Therefore, the correct answer is option D (50 ppmw).

API RP 571 explains the typical location of dissimilar metal weld (DMW) cracks as follows:

“DMW cracking usually occurs in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) on the ferritic side of the weld.”

“The difference in thermal expansion coefficients, grain structures, and creep rates between the ferritic and austenitic materials contributes to the development of high stress and strain concentrations in the HAZ of the ferritic material.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.6 – Dissimilar Metal Weld Cracking)

Thus, these cracks do not occur in the center of the weld or on the austenitic side, but rather at the ferritic HAZ, making option A correct.

In TR 942-B and API RP 582, it is emphasized:

“Nickel-based buttering is often used as an intermediate layer to reduce thermal stress mismatch during welding of ferritic and austenitic materials.”

“Nickel alloys have a coefficient of thermal expansion closer to that of both stainless steels and carbon steels, reducing stress concentrations and mitigating dissimilar weld cracking.”

“This technique also assists in achieving metallurgical compatibility and mitigating solidification cracking.”

Hence, option C is correct as it directly relates to minimizing thermal expansion mismatches.

According to API RP 571, in the section on "Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking (Cl-SCC)", several critical factors are outlined that contribute to the initiation and propagation of this mechanism. The document states:

“Critical factors include the presence of chlorides (even at ppm levels), oxygen, elevated temperatures, tensile stress, and susceptible materials such as austenitic stainless steels and some nickel alloys.”

“Oxygen is an accelerant and promotes pitting that can lead to SCC initiation.”

(Reference: API RP 571, 3rd Edition, Section 4.2.2.2)

Therefore, the presence of oxygen is a well-documented critical factor in Cl-SCC. It acts in conjunction with chlorides to initiate localized pitting, which then progresses into cracking. Hence, option B is the correct choice.

According to API RP 941 and API RP 571, High Temperature Hydrogen Attack (HTHA) is highly influenced by hydrogen partial pressure at elevated temperatures:

“The likelihood and rate of HTHA increase with both temperature and hydrogen partial pressure. Operating beyond established material limits on the Nelson Curves can lead to internal decarburization and methane formation in the steel.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.3 – High Temperature Hydrogen Attack)

Therefore, among all listed damage types, HTHA is the most directly affected by high hydrogen partial pressures, making option D correct.

Hydrogen Stress Cracking (HSC) is a subclass of environmental cracking that occurs in certain materials when hydrogen is present. According to API RP 571, HSC typically affects high-strength low alloy steels and carbon steels, particularly under tensile stress in a hydrogen-containing environment. This includes areas like weld-affected zones and hard spots in steels.

From API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.1 (Hydrogen-Induced Cracking):

"Hydrogen stress cracking (HSC) can occur in carbon steel and low alloy steels in environments containing hydrogen at ambient to moderately elevated temperatures (up to 200°F or 93°C)... Hardness is a critical factor for HSC. High hardness in welds and heat affected zones (HAZ) are most susceptible."

Additionally, API RP 939-C does not directly define HSC but reinforces the relationship between hydrogen exposure and metal integrity, particularly under conditions not exceeding 450 °F (230 °C) for hydrogen services.

Thus, option A is correct, as it directly reflects the metal types most susceptible to HSC in operational environments defined by API RP 571.

According to API RP 571, under Caustic Stress Corrosion Cracking (Caustic Embrittlement):

“Cracking occurs in stressed components exposed to caustic (e.g., sodium hydroxide).”

“The most effective mitigation strategy is postweld heat treatment (PWHT), which relieves residual stress that promotes cracking.”

“Upgrading materials or controlling concentration may help, but do not replace stress relief.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.2.3 – Caustic SCC)

Thus, PWHT is the most effective prevention technique, making option A correct.

API RP 751, which governs HF alkylation units, specifies:

“The total residuals of chromium, nickel, and copper in carbon steel used in HF service should be less than 0.15 wt.% to minimize corrosion risk.”

“Higher residuals increase the reactivity and corrosion rate of carbon steel in the presence of HF acid.”

(Reference: API RP 751, Section 5.3 – Materials Specification for HF Units)

Therefore, option A is the correct choice.

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 on HTHA states:

“Acoustic emission testing is not currently a proven or reliable method for identifying HTHA in refinery components.”

“HTHA typically occurs internally, not as surface blisters, and is not limited to welds. Austenitic (300 series) stainless steels are generally resistant at normal refinery conditions.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.3 – High Temperature Hydrogen Attack)

Thus, option A is the most accurate statement.

Galvanic corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals are electrically connected in the presence of an electrolyte such as brackish water or seawater. The rate and severity of galvanic corrosion depend on:

The relative position of the metals on the galvanic series (potential difference)

Area ratio between anode and cathode

Conductivity of the electrolyte

API RP 571 explains:

“The more active (anodic) metal in the galvanic couple corrodes preferentially. The more noble (cathodic) metal is protected.”

“The greater the difference in potential between the two metals, the more aggressive the galvanic reaction.”

“Aluminum is highly anodic compared to steel. In seawater or brackish conditions, aluminum will corrode rapidly when electrically coupled to steel, especially if the aluminum surface area is small relative to the steel.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.5.1 – Galvanic Corrosion)

Referring to the galvanic series presented in your table:

Aluminum is much higher (more anodic) than steel.

This makes aluminum the sacrificial metal in such a pair.

This is not the case for brass-to-nickel or cast iron-to-Ni-Resist, which are much closer together on the galvanic scale.

Therefore, among all the listed pairs, Aluminum coupled to Steel creates the most significant galvanic potential difference and is most likely to result in galvanic corrosion in brackish or seawater service.

Correct Answer: B

From API RP 571 Section 5.3.3.2 (Caustic Corrosion):

“Caustic corrosion, also known as caustic gouging, occurs in boiler systems when caustic concentrates in under-deposit areas or due to improper steam drum and boiler water design. Good design and water treatment practices are key preventive measures.”

Temperature control or acid injection are not practical or effective mitigation techniques. Design considerations—such as proper water flow, material selection, and minimizing deposits—are essential.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C.

Under Thermal Fatigue and Shock, API RP 571 explains:

“Thermal shock damage often initiates at locations with sudden temperature changes, such as quench zones, cold/hot injection points, and areas subjected to rapid cycling.”

“These are critical inspection points for detecting cracking from thermal shock.”

Thus, option B best matches the described mechanism.

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.

API RP 571 provides the following guidance regarding temper embrittlement:

“For materials that contain impurity levels which make them susceptible to temper embrittlement, the most effective preventive measure is to specify low FATT or Charpy impact energy requirements.”

“These requirements ensure the material retains adequate toughness even if embrittlement occurs.”

“While temper embrittlement itself cannot always be fully prevented during long-term exposure to temperatures between 650°F and 1070°F (343°C–577°C), its effects can be identified and mitigated through impact testing criteria.”

Therefore, option C is correct. Specification of Charpy V-notch testing ensures material selection accounts for embrittlement susceptibility and maintains service integrity.

In API RP 571, Carbonate SCC and Alkaline SCC are both discussed under mechanisms that occur in basic (high pH) environments, often with similar contributing conditions and prevention methods. The document highlights:

“Carbonate SCC is considered a subcategory of alkaline stress corrosion cracking. It results from the concentration of alkaline carbonates under thermal insulation or deposits.”

“Both mechanisms involve the same key parameters: elevated temperatures, tensile stress, and high pH solutions.”

(Reference: API RP 571, 3rd Edition, Section 4.2.2.4 and 4.2.2.3)

Because these mechanisms share similar material susceptibility and operating conditions, they are indeed closely related—option B is therefore the accurate and supported answer.

API RP 571 states in the section on Creep Damage:

“Creep damage in carbon steels generally becomes a concern above 700°F (371°C), especially for steels with higher tensile strength (greater than 60 ksi).”

“For prolonged exposure above this temperature, time-dependent deformation can lead to material degradation and cracking, especially at weldments and stress concentrations.”

Thus, the lowest threshold for creep in high-strength carbon steels is 700°F (371°C), making option B correct.

API RP 571 notes under Sour Water Corrosion:

“Localized thinning or under-deposit corrosion in sour water services is best detected by profile radiography, which provides a visual comparison of wall thickness over a length of pipe.”

“This technique is especially useful for assessing localized metal loss due to under-deposit attack or flow regime effects.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.2.3 – Sour Water Corrosion)

Hence, profile radiographic testing is most effective, making option B correct.

According to API RP 571 and API RP 751:

“In HF alkylation units, carbon steel can be used if weld hardness is controlled to ≤ 200 Brinell (BHN). Exceeding this can significantly increase the corrosion rate and susceptibility to cracking.”

“Hard welds act as preferential corrosion sites due to microstructural inhomogeneity and stress concentration.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.3.4 – Hydrofluoric Acid Corrosion; API RP 751, Section 5.3 – Materials of Construction)

Thus, option D is correct.

API RP 571 on Naphthenic Acid Corrosion (NAC):

“NAC results in thinning, especially in areas of high velocity and turbulence. Standard UT or radiographic inspection followed by UT thickness monitoring is typically used to detect wall loss.”

“Advanced techniques like angle-beam or eddy current are not typically required.”

So, option A correctly reflects the most effective and widely used method.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

API RP 571 – Polythionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking:

“Polythionic acid SCC may be mistaken for wet H₂S damage because both involve cracking in austenitic stainless steels under certain conditions.”

Thus, option D is correct.

From API RP 571 Section 5.1.1.3 (Amine Corrosion):

“Amine corrosion is a form of general or localized corrosion caused by the presence of amine solutions used to remove acid gases (H₂S and CO₂)... Corrosion is most severe in areas where acid gas loading is high.”

While temperature and concentration are contributing factors, the primary driver is dissolved acid gases such as CO₂ and H₂S.

Thus, the correct answer is Option C.