Performance of vehicle fuel system elastomers and plastics with test fuels representing gasoline blended with 10% ethanol (E10) and 16% isobutanol (IBU16)

Michael Kass, Christopher Janke, Raynella M. Connatser, Samuel Lewis, James Baustian, Les Wolf, Wolf Koch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

The compatibilities of fuel system elastomers and plastics were evaluated for test fuels containing 16 vol.% isobutanol (iBu16) and 10 vol.% ethanol (E10). Elastomers included two fluorocarbons, four acrylonitrile butadiene rubbers (NBRs), and one type of fluorosilicone, neoprene, and epichlorohydrin/ethylene oxide. Plastic materials included four nylon grades, three polyamides, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyoxymethylene (POM), flexible polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyetherimide (PEI), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), and a phenol formaldehyde reinforced with glass fiber (GFPF). For each polymer material, the volume, mass, and hardness were measured before and after drying. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) measurements were also performed on the dried specimens. For the elastomer materials the measured properties were similar for both fuels. The fluorocarbons and fluorosilicone swelled the least (~20%), while more moderate (20-45%) expansion occurred for the two NBR hose grades and (ECO). HNBR, neoprene, and silicone exhibited high swelling and softening, which likely precludes their use in many fuel systems. For the plastic materials, the observed swell was low; Nylon 11 swelled around 15%, but otherwise, their measured swell was <10%. Many of the plastics also showed sensitivity to alcohol type, as the E10 test fuel often imparted appreciably higher swell than iBu16. In general, the plastic materials showed good compatibility with the iBu16 and E10 test fuels. The sole exception was the PVC material, which was structurally degraded from exposure to either fuel type. Compositional analysis showed high fuel retention in Nylon 12 and PVC. PVC also experienced a significant reduction in plasticizer compounds following exposure, which resulted in embrittlement and an increase in the glass-to-rubber transition temperature.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)137-150
Number of pages14
JournalSAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2020

Funding

This effort was partially sponsored by Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC. A portion of this material was also based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office. The authors are grateful for encouragement and support by Tim Theiss and Brian West (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and guidance by Steve Abbott (Hansen Solubility Parameters Team). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a multiprogram laboratory operated by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC0500OR22725.

FundersFunder number
Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office
U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
UT-BattelleDE-AC05-00OR22725

    Keywords

    • Compatibility
    • Elastomer
    • Ethanol
    • Hardness
    • Isobutanol
    • Plastic
    • Volume

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Performance of vehicle fuel system elastomers and plastics with test fuels representing gasoline blended with 10% ethanol (E10) and 16% isobutanol (IBU16)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this