Free API-571 Exam Dumps Preview

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."

References:
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 per API RP 571 Section 5.3.2.3 (Spheroidization): "Spheroidization is the transformation of the microstructure of steels into spherical carbides, leading to reduced strength and hardness, especially after extended high-temperature exposure. It's commonly seen in carbon and low alloy steels in refining heaters and reactors." It reduces strength and sometimes hardness. It increases ductility, not reduces. SCC potential is not directly tied to this change. Therefore, Option
D (Loss of strength) is 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 H#S)."

References:
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.

Same as above. Sigma phase formation is a microstructural phenomenon and not typically detected by NDE methods like magnetic particle or surface hardness testing.
Therefore, metallographic testing remains the definitive detection method, confirming option D again as the correct answer.

API RP 571 states under the section Phosphoric Acid Corrosion: "Corrosion usually occurs when the acid dries out and forms concentrated phosphoric acid deposits, which are very aggressive to carbon steel." "Drying or concentration occurs due to poor flow distribution or operational upsets. Localized areas may experience acid concentration due to vaporization."

References:
API RP 571, Section 4.3.3.8 - Phosphoric Acid Corrosion)
Therefore, the most aggressive corrosion occurs when the acid dries out, making option D 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 From Exact Extract: According to, austenitic (300 series) stainless API RP 571 chloride stress corrosion cracking (Cl-SCC) of steels becomes a credible concern when: Chlorides are present Tensile stress exists Metal temperatures exceed approximately 140 (60 ) Below this temperature, Cl-SCC is far less likely, while susceptibility increases rapidly above this threshold.
Referenced Documents (Study Basis): API RP 571 - Section on Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking

Per API RP 571, susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement is strongly influenced by: Material strength level Microstructure Heat treatment condition Heat treatment determines: Dislocation density Trap sites for hydrogen Residual stress state
The modulus of elasticity does not significantly affect hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility, making Option A incorrect.
Referenced Documents (Study Basis): API RP 571 - Section on Hydrogen Embrittlement

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).

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.

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.

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."

References:
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.

API RP 571 explains under Condensate Corrosion (CO# 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 CO#-induced corrosion. Hence, option A is correct.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed From Exact Extract: Per, often operate in environments where concentrated caustic solutions can form API RP 571 deaerators locally due to oxygen scavengers and water chemistry control additives.
When postweld heat treatment (PWHT) is not performed: High residual welding stresses remain Conditions are ideal for caustic stress corrosion cracking (Caustic SCC) API RP 571 identifies deaerators as classic examples of equipment that has experienced caustic SCC when PWHT was omitted.
Referenced Documents (Study Basis):
API RP 571 - Section on Caustic Stress Corrosion Cracking

From API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.7 (Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking) and API RP 945 (Avoiding Environmental Cracking in Amine Units): MEA (Monoethanolamine) systems are most aggressive due to: "Their high reactivity and degradation potential producing corrosive by-products that promote cracking."

API RP 945:
"SCC in carbon steel is most frequently reported in MEA units, especially where localized concentrations of
heat-stable salts exist."
Thus, Option C (MEA) is the correct answer due to its high SCC risk.

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 or 93)... 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 (230 ) 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 Section 5.3.2.1 (Creep): "Creep damage is exponentially dependent on temperature. A small increase in temperature (e.g., 25 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 25/15) is the correct answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed From Exact Extract: According to, environmentally API RP 571 amine stress corrosion cracking (Amine SCC) is a form of assisted cracking that occurs in alkanolamine systems (e.g., MEA, DEA, DGA) used for acid gas treating. The cracking mechanism requires the simultaneous presence of tensile stress, susceptible microstructure, and an amine environment. API RP 571 clearly states that Amine SCC occurs primarily in the weld heat affected zone (HAZ) of carbon and low-alloy steels. The reasons include: The HAZ contains high residual stresses from welding. The microstructure in the HAZ is metallurgically altered, making it more susceptible than base metal. Cracks often initiate adjacent to welds, not in the weld metal itself. Why the other options are incorrect:
Option A (Weld fusion line) is not the primary cracking location.
Option C (Weld metal) generally has different chemistry and lower susceptibility.
Option D (Base metal) typically has lower residual stress and is less prone. API RP 571 specifically identifies the weld HAZ as the dominant cracking location for Amine SCC.
Referenced Documents (Study Basis): API RP 571 - Section on Amine Stress Corrosion Cracking API Corrosion and Materials Study Guide

API RP 571 describes temper embrittlement as a subtle metallurgical change that reduces impact toughness without obvious macrostructural change: "Temper embrittlement is not readily apparent by visual or standard tensile testing. It is confirmed by Charpy impact testing which measures toughness at low temperatures." "It typically affects Cr-Mo steels exposed to intermediate temperatures (650 to 1100) for extended times."

References:
API RP 571, Section 4.2.1.4 - Temper Embrittlement)
Thus, the condition is not visually or physically apparent, but is confirmed through impact testing, making option D correct.

API RP 571 states in the section on Creep Damage: "Creep damage in carbon steels generally becomes a concern above 700 (371), 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 (371), making option B correct.