Chapter 6

API 572 Inspection of Pressure

Vessels
6.1 API 572 introduction
This chapter is about learning to become familiar with the
layout and contents of API 572: Inspection of Pressure
Vessels (Towers, Drums, Reactors, Heat Exchangers and
Condensers). API 572 is a well-established document (it is
still on its 2001 edition) with its roots in earlier documents
published by the American Refining Industry (IRE). It is
more a technical guide document rather than a code, as such,
but it does perform a useful function in supporting the
content of API 510.
Note the following five points about API 572:
Point 1. It has a very wide scope as evidenced by its title,
which specifically mentions the types of vessels that it
covers: Towers, Drums, Reactors, Heat Exchangers and
Condensers. This wide scope is evident once you start to
read the content; it refers to all these types of equipment
and the materials, design features and corrosion mechan-
isms that go with them.
Point 2. API 572 introduces various corrosion and degrada-
tion mechanisms. As you would expect, these are heavily
biased towards the refining industry, with continued
emphasis on sulphur/H2S-related corrosion mechanisms
and cracking. In general, although it provides description
and discussions on corrosion, API 572 acts only as an
introduction to these corrosion mechanisms, leaving most
of the detail to be covered in API 571.
Point 3. It is downstream oil industry orientated (not
surprising as it is an API document). Its main reference
is to the downstream oil sector. Downstream is a term
commonly used to refer to the part of the industry involved

75
 Quick Guide to API 510

in the selling and distribution of products derived from

crude oil (gas, petrol, diesel, etc.). The types of equipment
covered by the code can therefore include oil refineries,
petrochemical plants, petroleum products distributors,
retail outlets and natural gas distribution companies.
These can involve thousands of products such as gasoline,
diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, asphalt, lubricants, synthetic
rubber, plastics, fertilizers, antifreeze, pesticides, pharma-
ceuticals, natural gas and propane, etc.
Note that the upstream oil sector (i.e. exploration and
production (E&P) equipment) is not overtly covered in
API 572. E&P vessels are specifically covered in API 510
section 9 but are excluded from the API 510 exam syllabus.
Point 4. This refers to quite a few related codes that are not in
the API 510 exam syllabus (API 660/661 for heat
exchangers, API RP 938/939/941, etc., and others; see
API 572 section 2 on page 1 of the code). These provide
technical details on specific subjects and problems but
don’t worry about them. You need to know that they exist
but you do not need to study them for the API 510
examination.
And finally, the most important point. API 572 is all text
and technical descriptions, accompanied by explanatory
photographs of a fairly general nature. It contains no
calculations. This means that most examination questions
about API 572 in the API 510 certification exam will
inevitably be closed book. The downside to this is that API
572 contains several thousands of separate technical facts,
giving a large scope for the choice of exam questions.
All this means that you need to develop a working
familiarity with the technical content of API 572, treating it
as essential background knowledge for the API 510 syllabus,
rather than as a separate ‘stand-alone’ code in itself. We will
look at some of the more important areas as we work
through the code.

76
 API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

6.2 API 572 section 4: types of pressure vessels

API 572 section 4 is little more than four pages of general
engineering knowledge. It provides basic information about
types of pressure vessels and their methods of construction.
Note the points below.
Section 4.1: types of pressure vessels
A pressure vessel is defined as a container designed to
withstand internal or external pressure and is designed to
ASME VIII or other recognized code (section 4.1). Note the
‘cut-off point’ at 15 psi gauge pressure. This fits in with the
15 psi minimum pressure limit we saw previously in API 510
appendix A.
A vessel is most commonly a cylinder with heads of
various shapes, such as:
. Flat
. Conical
. Toriconical
. Torispherical
. Semi-ellipsoidal
. Hemispherical
We will look at the calculations associated with some of these
shapes later in this book.
Cylindrical vessels can be both vertical and horizontal and
may be supported by:
. Columns (legs)
. Cylindrical skirts
. Plate lugs attached to the shell
Spherical vessels may be similarly supported by:
. Columns (legs)
. A skirt
. Resting on the ground (either partially or completely)

77
 Quick Guide to API 510

Section 4.2: methods of construction

Most vessels are of fully welded construction. There may be
some old riveted vessels remaining but they are not very
common.
The cylindrical shell courses (or rings) are made by rolling
plate material and then welding the longitudinal joint. The
courses are then assembled by circumferentially welding
them together to give the required length of vessel. Hot
forging of cylinders can be used, as this produces a seamless
ring. Multilayer methods in which a cylinder is made up of a
number of concentric rings can be used for heavy-wall vessels
and items subject to high pressure. This is a very expensive
method of fabrication.
Heads are made by forging or pressing, either hot or cold,
from a single piece of material or built up of separate ‘petal’
plates.
6.3 API 572 Section 4.3: materials of
construction
Section 4.3 summarizes the types of materials commonly
used for pressure vessels. Treat this as general information
only; materials are described in much more detail in ASME
VIII and API 577 covered in other chapters of this book. The
material categories are:
1. Carbon and low alloy steels
2. Stainless steels
. Ferritic (13% Cr)
. Austentic (18% Cr 8% Ni)
. Duplex (25% Cr 5% Ni)
3. Non ferrous
. Nickel alloys
. Titanium
. Aluminium
. Copper
4. Lined vessels (a low-cost carbon steel base material with
corrosion-resistant lining)

78
 API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

. Roll bonded
. Explosion bonded
. Welded sheets (API 572 Fig. 4)
. Weld overlay
5. Non-metallic liners (used for corrosion resistance or
insulation)
. Brick
. Concrete
. Rubber
. Glass
. Plastic
Section 4.4: internal equipment
Some vessels have no internal parts while others can have the
following:
. Baffles
. Distribution trays
. Mesh grids
. Packed beds
. Internal support beams
. Cyclones
. Pipes
. Spray nozzles
Section 4.5: uses of pressure vessels
These are the uses indicated in API 572 section 4.5:
. To contain the process stream
. Reactors (thermal or catalytic)
. Fractionators (to separate gases or chemicals)
. Surge drums
. Chemical treatment vessels
. Separator vessels
. Regenerators
This is well short of being an exhaustive list, so treat it as
‘general knowledge’ information only.

79
 Quick Guide to API 510

6.4 API 572 sections 5, 6 and 7

Taken together, these comprise less than one full page of text.
Read through them and note the following:
. The cross-references to the vessel construction code
ASME VIII divisions 1 and 2 (make sure you understand
what each division covers, although the API 510 syllabus
is concerned with division 1 vessels only).
. The cross-references to TEMA (Tubular Exchangers
Manufacturers Association) and API 660/661, the con-
struction codes used for heat exchangers and condensers.
. The references to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration) and NB-23 (The National Board vessel
inspection code, in some states of the USA used as an
alternative to API 510). You don’t need to study these
documents, just recognize that they exist.
Note the sentence hidden away in API 572 section 7.3
saying that periods of repair/replacement (and inspection)
are based on corrosion rates and remaining corrosion
allowances. This statement summarizes the entire philosophy
of the API inspection codes and appears in various guises in
all the codes included in the API 510 exam syllabus.
6.5 API 572 section 8: corrosion mechanisms
This is one of the most significant sections of API 572 but in
reality there is very little in API 572 section 8 that is not
covered in as much, or more, detail in API 571. Section 8
provides a few more photographs and adds explanations of a
few additional degradation mechanisms (DMs) but there is
little that is fundamentally new.
Three new DMs that are introduced are given in section
8.3.3: dealloying. They are:
. Dezincification (affects brass, which is a Cu/Zn alloy)
. Dealuminization (affects aluminium brasses or bronzes)
. Denickelification (affects cupronickel heat exchanger
tubes or Monel metals)

80
 API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

These affect copper alloys and are all related to the leaching
out of alloy constituents (the alloys are obvious as they
appear in the DM title).
API 572 section 8.3.7 introduces another new DM:
hydriding of titanium alloys. This is a type of embrittlement
caused by absorption of hydrogen. Embrittlement is an
important theme of API 571/572 and is evidence of the
emphasis placed on refinery-type DMs.
Apart from these, all the other DMs in API 572 appear in
API 571.They also appear in some other API codes (e.g. API
570: Inspection of Pipework).
The final ‘new’ part of Section 8 is 8.5: faulty fabrication.
This is an unusual subject to cover in a chapter entitled
‘Corrosion Mechanisms’, but it only covers half a page and
contains some useful points on vessel problems that have
their root in the manufacturing stages. The causes are divided
into (see section 8.5 on page 16 of API 572):
. Poor welding
. Incorrect heat treatment
. Wrong dimensions
. Incorrect installation
. Incorrect fit (assembly)
. Incorrect materials
Note the last one, incorrect materials (API 572 section 8.5.7).
This short section mentions the advantages of positive
material identification (PMI), carried out using a
‘Metascope’ or X-ray hand-held analyser. There is actually
a dedicated API code for PMI techniques (API 578) but this
is not part of the API 510 syllabus. It is, incidentally, part of
the API 570 in-service inspection of pipework syllabus,
presumably because someone has decided that the use of
incorrect materials is more common in pipework components
than in vessels.

81
 Quick Guide to API 510

6.6 API 572 section 9: frequency and time of

inspection
This is a short section (less than two pages). It provides fairly
general explanations of the principles of inspection frequency
and reintroduces (once again) the half-life concept of API
510. Note the following two key points hidden away in the
text:
. Section 9.2 contains the general statement of principle that
‘on-stream inspections can be used to detect defects and
measure wall thickness’ (it is in 9.2 (d)). This is
reinforcement of the general principle of API 510 that
internal ‘shutdown’ examinations of vessels are not
absolutely essential and may be replaced, where applicable,
with a good-quality on-stream inspection using equipment
able to detect defects and measure the wall thickness.
. Section 9.4: alternative rules for exploration and produc-
tion (E&P) vessels is little more than an acknowledgement
that E&P vessels may need a more risk-based approach.
The text is much the same as that in API 510, and is not in
the exam syllabus.

6.7 API 572 section 10: inspection methods and

limitations
Here are some key points about API 572 section 10.
Section 10.2: safety precautions and preparatory work
While not particularly technically orientated, this short
subsection is a fertile source of closed-book exam questions.
Safety questions are always popular in examination papers so
it is worth looking at this section specifically in terms of
identifying content that could form the subject of an exam
question. Note how continued emphasis is placed on safety
aspects such as vessel isolations, draining, purging and gas
testing.

82
 API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

Section 10.3: external inspections

This is a long section containing a lot of good-quality
technical information on the external inspection of vessels. It
contains 13 subsections that work through the physical
features of vessels, providing guidance on what to inspect.
The section complements section 6 of API 510, but goes into
much more technical detail.
Remember that the emphasis of section 10.3 is on external
inspections; don’t confuse this with the more detailed on-
stream inspection that, as a principle of API 510, can be used,
where suitable, to replace an internal examination. In
practice, this will involve advanced NDT techniques (corro-
sion mapping, eddy current, profile radiography, etc.) or
similar. Strictly, this is not what section 10.3 is about; it
restricts itself to more straightforward visual inspections.
Section 10.4: internal inspections
Section 10.4 goes into much more detail than previous
sections of API 572. Spread over 7 to 8 pages, it provides a
comprehensive technical commentary on the techniques for
internal inspection of vessels. Once again, it is all qualitative
information (there are no calculations) restricting the content
to mainly closed-book examination questions.
From an API 510 examination viewpoint, the difficulty
with section 10.4 is its wide scope. It covers subjects relating
to general pressure vessels but intersperses these with
techniques and corrosion mechanisms relating to specific
refining industry applications (fractionating towers contain-
ing trays, low chromium alloy hydroprocessing units and
similar).
Before we look at some simple questions, note the overall
structure of section 10.4. It addresses things in the following
order:

83
 Quick Guide to API 510

10.4.1 General
10.4.2 Surface preparation 9
10.4.3 Preliminary visual inspection > This is the main
=
content
10.4.4 Detailed inspection (a long > ;
section) 9
10.4.5 Inspection of metallic linings > Specific require-
=
10.4.6 Inspection of non-metallic ments for various
linings >
; types of lined
vessels
There is a logic (of sorts) in the way this is set out. It attempts
to be a chronological checklist of the way that a vessel is
inspected. Don’t forget the overall context of API 572
however; it is a technical support document for API 510 and
so does not have to be absolutely complete in itself.
Overall, there is a lot of technical wisdom contained in API
572. The difficulty from an examination viewpoint is that it
contains thousands of technical facts (and many opinions
also) that can, theoretically, be chosen for exam questions.
On the positive side, many API 572-related questions can be
answered from general engineering inspection experience.
You can improve your chances, however, by working
through the code highlighting key points that may be you
would not have anticipated from your experience.
Now try these familiarization questions.
6.8 API 572 section 10 familiarization questions
Q1. API 572 section 10.2.1: isolations
What kind of arrangement should be used to isolate a vessel?
(a) A thick steel plate held on by G-clamps &
(b) The plug-in types used for hydro tests &
(c) A proper ASME blank with the correct pressure/
temperature rating &
(d) A ring-flange with a rubber gasket &

84
 API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

Q2. API 572 section 10.2.1: other API codes

Which referenced API code deals with special precautions for
entering vessels?
(a) API 579 &
(b) API 510 &
(c) API 2214 &
(d) API 2217A &

Q3. API 572 section 10.2.1: other API codes

Which referenced API code deals with sparking of hand tools?
(a) API 579 &
(b) API 2214 &
(c) API 2217A &
(d) API 660 &
Q4. API 572 section 10.2.1: gas tests
When should a gas test be done on a vessel?
(a) Only before the issue of the entry permit &
(b) Before the issue of the permit and after DP testing &
(c) Before the issue of the permit and periodically as
required &
(d) Before the issue of the permit and before DP testing &
Q5. API 572 section 10.2.1: safety man
(commonsense)
If an inspector feels faint when inside a vessel, what should the
safety man do?
(a) Get further assistance &
(b) Do a gas test &
(c) Enter the vessel to help the inspector &
(d) All of the above &

Q6. API 572 section 10.3.2: ladders and walkways

What is wrong with doing a hammer test on bolts securing
walkway plates?
(a) It can cause the bolt to fail by fatigue &
(b) It can cause the bolt to fail by brittle fracture &
(c) It can make the bolt come loose &
(d) Nothing &

85
 Quick Guide to API 510

Q7. API 572 section 10.3.3: foundations and supports

What is the situation with settlement of concrete vessel
foundations?
(a) Any settlement at all is unacceptable &
(b) Settlement < 10 mm is acceptable &
(c) Settlement < 20 mm is acceptable &
(d) A nominal amount of even settlement is acceptable &

Q8. API 572 section 10.3.6: steel supports

What kind of distortion is most likely on vertical columns
supporting a vessel?
(a) Stretching due to tensile stress &
(b) Shear due to compressive stress &
(c) Buckling &
(d) Torsion (twisting) &

Q9. API 572 section 10.3.6: steel supports

What causes corrosion on the inside of vessel skirts?
(a) High temperatures > 100 8C &
(b) Condensation &
(c) Galvanic cells &
(d) Increased stress owing to the vessel weight acting on the
skirt &
Q10. API 572 section 10.3.8: nozzles
Which parts of a vessel nozzle assembly are at most risk of
failure due to stresses imposed from misaligned pipework?
(a) The welds &
(b) The flange itself &
(c) The flange bolts &
(d) The nozzle parent material (due to hoop stress) &
SIMILAR SERVICE: FALLACY OR REASON?
To the dedicated follower of order and an easy life, the concept
of similar service methodology provides rich pickings. The
idea that identical vessels in similar service, experiencing
similar process conditions will corrode in much the same way
and at the same rate is all good news. There are fewer
calculations to do and certainty feels more comfortable than
doubt. Sadly there are critics of this approach citing, as they
do, that on their site vessels under seemingly similar conditions

86
 API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

corrode at vastly different rates, and some not at all. To

reinforce the argument, they point to other similar things that
differ in the world, such as pens that last for years, compared
to others that dry up almost as soon as you have bought them.
Fortunately help is at hand, in the logical argument that
proves once and for all that all vessels, anywhere, have
precisely the same corrosion rate, whatever service conditions
they see, how old they are or what they are made of.
Here’s how. Suppose that we have a set of five vessels. We
want to prove that they all have the same corrosion rate. Step
back for a minute and suppose that we had a proof that all
sets of four vessels has the same corrosion rate . . . if that
were true, we could prove that all five vessels have identical
corrosion rates by removing a vessel to leave a group of four
vessels. Do this in two ways and we have two different groups
of four vessels. By our supposed existing proof, since these
are groups of four, all vessels in them must have the same
corrosion rate. For example, the first, second, third and
fourth vessels constitute a group of four and thus must all
have the same corrosion rate; and the second, third, fourth
and fifth vessels also constitute a group of four and thus must
also all have identical corrosion rates. For this to occur, all
five vessels in the group of five must have the same corrosion
rate (which is what we want to prove). Success beckons.
However, how do we know (as we assumed at the
beginning) that all sets of four vessels have the same corrosion
rate? Easy; just apply the same logic again. By the same
process, a group of four vessels could be broken down into
groups of three, and then a group of three vessels could be
broken down into groups of two, and so on. Eventually you
will reach a group size of one, and it is blindingly obvious,
even to inspectors, that all vessels in a group of one must
corrode identically, as there’s only one of them.
Now the good news for larger sites . . . by the same logic,
the group size under consideration can also be increased. A
group of five vessels can be increased to a group of six, and so
on upwards, proving to corrosion engineers, one and all, that

87
 Quick Guide to API 510

all finite-sized groups of vessels must have precisely the same

corrosion rate; hence their services are no longer required.
So there you have it – proof, were it to be remotely
required, of the subtle errors that can occur in attempts to
conclude absolutely anything by induction.

88