API-571 API Corrosion and Materials Professional Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

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.

According to API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.1 (Hydrogen-Induced Cracking) and Publ 939-A, blistering in carbon and low alloy steels exposed to wet H2S environments can be exacerbated by the presence of cyanides. These accelerate hydrogen entry into steel, increasing the chance of hydrogen blistering.

API RP 571 states:

“HIC and blistering are forms of hydrogen damage that occur in wet H2S environments. The presence of cyanides can significantly increase hydrogen entry and the risk of blistering.”

Publ 939-A (Research on Cracking in Wet H2S Service) also notes:

“Cyanides act as catalytic agents in hydrogen charging, which promotes internal pressure build-up and increases blistering.”

Thus, cyanides (Option B) are the most critical in enhancing blistering in H2S environments.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking (Cl-SCC) is a serious form of corrosion primarily affecting austenitic stainless steels and some duplex stainless steels, particularly when exposed to chloride-containing environments at elevated temperatures.

According to API RP 571 Section 5.1.2.3 (Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking – Cl-SCC):

“Austenitic stainless steels (e.g., 300 series such as Types 304 and 316) are the most susceptible to Cl-SCC... Duplex stainless steels have greater resistance but are not immune, especially at temperatures >150°F (65°C)... Ferritic stainless steels (400 series) are generally not susceptible.”

Thus, Option A (400 Series Stainless Steel) is not susceptible to chloride SCC, making it the correct answer.

API RP 751 (referenced in RP 571) lists materials appropriate for HF acid alkylation service. It specifies:

“Chrome-moly steels such as ASTM A-193 B5 (5% Cr) bolts are preferred for their resistance to HF acid-induced cracking.”

“Standard low alloy steels (e.g., B7) are not considered adequately resistant.”

(Reference: API RP 571 summary & API RP 751, Section 5.6.3 – Bolting Materials)

Therefore, the correct and industry-approved answer is option A.

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.

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.

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 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.

According to API RP 571, under the section "4.2.1.2 Brittle Fracture", the following conditions are explicitly identified as most critical for brittle fracture risk:

"Most processes run at elevated temperature, so the main concern is for brittle fracture during startup, shutdown, hydrotest, or other situations where equipment may be exposed to low temperatures."

"Equipment fabricated from materials susceptible to brittle fracture (e.g., carbon steel) is most vulnerable when exposed to low temperatures combined with high stress or pressure."

"A brittle fracture is characterized by a sudden and rapid crack propagation with little or no plastic deformation."

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

Thus, while other options represent stress events, the main concern specifically noted by the standard is during start-up and shutdown—especially due to cooling and repressurization at low temperatures—making option A the most accurate choice.

As per API RP 571 on Sigma Phase Embrittlement:

“Sigma phase embrittlement occurs in stainless steels and nickel-based alloys due to the formation of a brittle intermetallic phase in the temperature range of 1050°F to 1650°F (565°C to 900°C).”

“This damage mechanism is not easily detected through surface or hardness testing and typically requires metallographic examination to confirm the presence of sigma phase in the microstructure.”

Metallographic testing allows clear identification of sigma phase particles and is thus the most reliable method, 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.

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.