API API-571 Corrosion and Materials Professional Exam Practice Test

From API RP 571, brittle fracture prevention measures include:

“Postweld Heat Treatment (PWHT) reduces residual stresses in the heat affected zone and base metal, thus lowering susceptibility to brittle fracture.”

“PWHT is particularly effective when applied to pressure-containing components fabricated from carbon steel or low-alloy steel that will experience low-temperature service.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.2 – Brittle Fracture)

Therefore, while other measures may reduce stress or detect flaws, PWHT directly targets one of the root causes: residual stress. Thus, option D is the best prevention method.

API RP 571 notes that for detecting existing cracks or flaws that may lead to brittle fracture, especially those that initiate at welds or surface stress points:

“Wet fluorescent magnetic-particle inspection is highly effective for detecting surface-breaking flaws in ferromagnetic materials that are susceptible to brittle fracture.”

“It is sensitive to tight cracks and surface discontinuities that may serve as initiation sites for brittle fracture.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.2 – Brittle Fracture)

Therefore, option A is correct as it is the most effective NDE technique for detecting early signs of brittle cracking.

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.

API RP 571 provides detailed insights:

“Brittle fracture generally occurs at low temperatures, specifically below the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature as defined by the Charpy impact test.”

“Most carbon and low-alloy steels are ductile above their Charpy transition temperature but may fracture suddenly without ductility below it.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.2 – Brittle Fracture)

Hence, option C is correct and technically accurate based on the material behavior curve.

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.

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

“Nickel contents above approximately 35% provide significant resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking. Alloys such as Alloy 625 and Alloy 825 exhibit excellent resistance.”

“Austenitic stainless steels with lower nickel contents, such as 304 and 316, are more susceptible to Cl-SCC.”

Hence, option C (35%) 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 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.

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 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 discusses Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (HIC) and Blistering under the section:

“HIC and blistering are most strongly influenced by non-metallic inclusions, particularly elongated manganese sulfide (MnS) inclusions, which serve as trap sites for hydrogen atoms.”

“These inclusions create local planes of weakness where atomic hydrogen recombines into molecular hydrogen (H₂), causing high pressure and cracking.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.2.2.7 – Hydrogen Blistering and HIC)

Thus, inclusions are the critical material factor, making option A correct.

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.

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.

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.

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 Sulfuric Acid Corrosion:

“The most aggressive corrosion typically occurs below 65% H₂SO₄, particularly between 20% to 50% concentration range.”

“Above 95% concentration, sulfuric acid becomes less corrosive to carbon steel due to its dehydrating nature.”

“Dilute sulfuric acid is highly ionized and conducts electricity well, increasing corrosion rates.”

(Reference: API RP 571, Section 4.3.3.2 – Sulfuric Acid Corrosion)

Hence, the most severe corrosion occurs below 65% concentration, making option B the accurate answer.

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.

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, 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, 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.

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 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.

API RP 571, Naphthenic Acid Corrosion:

“Molybdenum significantly improves resistance to naphthenic acid attack. Alloys such as 317, 316Mo, and Alloy 20 are used in severe NAC environments due to higher Mo content.”

“Chromium and nickel play secondary roles; molybdenum is the key element.”

Answer is A – Molybdenum.

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 – 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 under Cooling Water Corrosion and Scaling:

“Cooling water scaling tends to occur more rapidly as water temperature increases. To minimize scaling, inlet temperatures to exchangers should be kept below 140°F (60°C) where possible.”

“Above this temperature, calcium carbonate and other salts tend to precipitate more readily.”

Thus, option A is correct.

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.