API-571 Corrosion and Materials Professional Questions and Answers

According to API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.6 (Carbonate Stress Corrosion Cracking - CSCC):

“The cracking is usually intergranular and is most commonly detected using wet fluorescent magnetic-particle testing (WFMT) after surface cleaning. PT may not be sensitive enough to detect fine cracks formed by this mechanism.”

Because CSCC cracks are typically surface-connected and very fine, WFMT offers the best visibility, especially after proper surface prep.

Therefore, Option D is 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, Section 4.2.1.1 – Sulfidation, and also echoed in API RP 939-C, the presence of certain compounds significantly increases sulfidic corrosion:

“Chlorides are known to accelerate sulfidation and other high-temperature corrosion mechanisms by forming low-melting eutectics and breaking down protective scales on alloy surfaces.”

“Chlorine-containing species also interfere with the formation of stable sulfide or oxide scales, leading to more aggressive metal loss.”

Therefore, chlorides are the most critical accelerant among the listed substances in high-temperature sulfur compound environments, making option C correct.

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.

According to API RP 571 Section 5.3.2.3 (Spheroidization):

“Spheroidization is the transformation of the microstructure of carbon and low alloy steels when exposed to elevated temperatures for long durations. The rate of spheroidization depends on temperature, prior microstructure, and exposure time... The microstructure becomes less effective at carrying loads, and strength is reduced.”

Key influencing factors for the rate of spheroidization are:

Temperature (higher accelerates the process),

Microstructure (initial phase distribution and morphology).

Pressure and hydrogen partial pressure are not relevant for this transformation, nor is stress a primary driver.

Therefore, Option D (temperature and microstructure) is correct.

API RP 571 – Sulfidation:

“Sulfidation generally results in uniform thinning of iron-based alloys at temperatures above 500°F (260°C).”

“It is classified as a form of general corrosion, although it can be accelerated in turbulent flow areas.”

So, option A is correct.

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).

According to API RP 571, in the section on Boiler Water Condensate Corrosion:

“The major contributors to condensate corrosion are dissolved CO₂ and O₂. Carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in the presence of water, lowering pH and causing generalized corrosion.”

“Oxygen causes pitting and localized corrosion unless chemically treated.”

Thus, option B (Carbon dioxide and oxygen) is the primary root cause and the correct answer.

As per API RP 571 Section 5.3.2.2 (Sigma Phase Embrittlement):

“Sigma phase embrittlement occurs in austenitic stainless steels (like 300 series) and duplex stainless steels exposed to 1000°F to 1800°F (540°C to 980°C)... This embrittlement results in a significant loss of toughness and ductility.”

Sigma phase is not a concern in Monel (nickel-copper alloy) or 5Cr steels.

400 series are ferritic and not typically affected by sigma phase.

Hence, Option A (300 series stainless steel) is correct.

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.

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.

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

“Erosion can occur downstream of flow disturbances such as control valves, orifice plates, elbows... It is characterized by localized metal loss with a directional pattern such as grooves or sharp-edged pits in areas of high velocity or turbulence.”

Cavitation and flashing cause damage with different signatures like pitting and spongy surface texture, while sharp-edged pitting strongly indicates erosion, especially downstream of flow restriction devices.

Thus, the correct answer is Option C (Erosion).

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 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.

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 on Oxidation indicates:

“Oxidation is a surface loss phenomenon that generally results in uniform thinning. Ultrasonic thickness measurements are typically used to monitor metal loss in oxidizing environments.”

“Metallography may be used to confirm oxide scale structure but is not necessary for routine evaluation.”

Hence, option B is the most appropriate standard method.

API RP 571 under Polythionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking (PTA SCC) specifies:

“Cracking is usually intergranular, and often localized, especially in sensitized austenitic stainless steels exposed to sulfur-containing environments during shutdown or cleaning.”

“It is not always visible on inspection and may only become evident when a leak occurs.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.2.5 – PTA SCC)

Hence, option C is correct as it best describes the detection difficulty and behavior of PTA SCC.

As defined in API RP 571, under Hydrogen Blistering and HIC/SOHIC:

“SOHIC typically manifests as subsurface stepwise cracking, generally oriented perpendicular to the direction of stress.”

“This mechanism initiates below the surface, typically in weld heat-affected zones, and requires metallographic or advanced ultrasonic methods to detect.”

By contrast, SSC, caustic cracking, and amine SCC are primarily surface-initiated, stress-related cracking mechanisms.

Thus, SOHIC is the subsurface mechanism in this list, making option D correct.

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 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.

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 notes in the context of Hydrochloric Acid Corrosion in overhead condensers:

“Titanium is highly resistant to low pH acidic aqueous phases, including hydrochloric acid formed during condensation in overhead systems.”

“Stainless steels like 316 and 410 are not suitable in the presence of free chlorides at low pH and elevated temperatures.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.3.3 – Hydrochloric Acid Corrosion)

Thus, Titanium is the preferred alloy under the described acidic and high-temperature conditions, making option B correct.

As per API RP 571 Section 5.1.4.2 (Metal Dusting):

“Metal dusting is a type of carburization attack that typically occurs in high carbon activity environments, with temperatures generally between 900°F and 1200°F (480°C to 650°C), although damage has been reported as low as 600°F (315°C).”

Therefore, the commonly accepted operational range is best described by Option A: 600°F–1200°F (315°C–650°C).

According to API RP 571 Section 5.3.2.1 (Creep):

“Creep damage is exponentially dependent on temperature. A small increase in temperature (e.g., 25°F or 15°C) can reduce remaining life by more than half. This is because the creep rate increases rapidly with temperature, especially above design limits.”

Stress is a contributing factor, but the dominant and most sensitive variable is temperature.

Thus, Option C (increase in temperature of 25°F/15°C) is the correct answer.

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 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.

API RP 571, in its discussion on Wet H₂S Damage, including HIC, SOHIC, and SSC, consistently identifies a shared mechanism:

“All wet H₂S-related damage mechanisms involve the absorption of atomic hydrogen, formed at the steel surface by the corrosion reaction in the presence of H₂S.”

“The absorbed hydrogen may diffuse into the steel, accumulate at trap sites, and cause cracking or blistering.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.2.7 – Wet H₂S Damage Mechanisms)

Thus, hydrogen absorption and permeation is a unifying mechanism across all these damage modes. Therefore, option D 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.

In API RP 571, under the section Polythionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking, it is stated:

“Sensitization of austenitic stainless steels occurs when the material is exposed to temperatures in the range of 800°F to 1500°F (427°C to 816°C), which causes chromium carbide precipitation at grain boundaries, depleting the adjacent areas of chromium.”

“Once sensitized, the steel becomes susceptible to attack in the presence of polythionic acids, particularly in environments containing sulfides and oxygen.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.2.5 – PTA SCC)

This makes option B (750°F to 1500°F / 400°C to 815°C) the most accurate and standard-aligned answer.

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.