Compatibility Study for Plastic, Elastomeric, and Metallic Fueling Infrastructure Materials Exposed to Aggressive Formulations of Isobutanol-blended Gasoline

Kass, Michael D.; Janke, Christopher J.; Pawel, S.J.; Thomson, J. A. K.; Meyer, III; Theiss, Timothy

doi:10.2172/1092302

Cited by 11 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This included an E10 aggressive formulation (CE10A), a 55% butanol with aggressive formulations (CB55A), and a 10% ethanol blend without an aggressive formulation (E10). The CE10A was selected to provide a baseline comparison point to previous studies, while the E10 blend was selected to better understand how the results would be impacted if the aggressive formulation was not used, as this has not been evaluated in previous studies [12][13][14]. The CB55A blend was selected because it is about the highest level of butanol that can realistically be blended into gasoline while maintaining an acceptable drivability index, and it represents a much higher blend of butanol than has been used in previous studies.…”

Section: Test Fuelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The base ethanol for this fuel was a standard fuel grade ethanol. The aggressive ethanol composition was used as the basis for the construction of an analogous aggressive isobutanol formulation [12][13][14]. The aggressive butanol formulation contained 99% butanol, 1% water, 5 ppm sodium chloride, 25 ppm sulfuric acid, but with 109 ppm of isobutyric acid instead of the 75 ppm acetic acid.…”

Section: Test Fuelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kass et al [9][10][11][12][13] found some of the largest gains for SBR, followed by NBR and N (60-80% increases for lower level ethanol/butanol exposures), and PU (approximately 40% for the different aggressive alcohol blends), with the fluorocarbons swelling from 15% to 22% for A401C and B601 for alcohol fuel exposures. They also found trends where the volume swell tailed off as a function of increasing ethanol/alcohol level for several materials, including SBR, NBR, and N, with a slight trend for the fluorocarbons.…”

Section: Elastomersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also found trends where the volume swell tailed off as a function of increasing ethanol/alcohol level for several materials, including SBR, NBR, and N, with a slight trend for the fluorocarbons. After drying, they found volume reductions on the order of 15-18% for SBR, 10-18% for NBR, 17-20 for N, from 1% to 12% for PU, and a more consistent retention of about 7% for the fluorocarbons [9][10][11][12][13]. Jones et al [16] evaluated elastomers for volume changes for CE10A and CE20A fuels, including nitrile rubber with a medium and high CAN content and fluoroelastomers.…”

Section: Elastomersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This effort was then expanded to include plastics, which are found in fueling infrastructure systems, including piping and underground storage tanks [11]. More recently, Kass and coworkers have expanded their research to include butanol blends [12][13][14]. The same group of authors has conducted studies of the compatibility of off-highway diesel fuel and a 20% pyrolysis bio-oil blend with infrastructure plastics and elastomers [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Material compatibility evaluation for elastomers, plastics, and metals exposed to ethanol and butanol blends

Durbin

Karavalakis

Norbeck

et al. 2016

Fuel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t sMaterials were exposed to ethanol and butanol fuels, and aggressive blends. Materials examined included elastomers, plastics, and metals. Volume and mass changes were measured plus some tensile strength. Significant changes in the materials observed for the elastomers. Smaller changes were seen for the plastics and the metals. a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tAs the use of alternative fuels increases in the marketplace, it is important to understand how these new fuels might impact the network of transportation, storage, and distribution systems used for transportation fuels. This study examined materials compatibility issues for components that would be found in the existing petroleum fueling infrastructure. E10 blends with both aggressive and non-aggressive formulations, a 55% butanol blend with an aggressive formulation were employed on metal, plastic, and elastomer samples. The material specimens were evaluated before and after exposure for volume and mass change, and elastomers and plastics were tested for tensile strength. The elastomers and plastics generally increased in volume and mass immediately following the exposures, indicating the adsorption of the liquid fuels into the elastomer and plastic material. Following drying, the most elastomers shrank to volume/mass values below that of the original sample, indicating that the liquid fuel and some of the associated elastomer components were removed from the sample, while plastics retained some of this volume swell/mass gain after drying, indicating that the liquid fuel was retained in the plastic structure. Metal samples were the least affected by the liquid fuel exposures, with all samples showing a minimal increase or decrease in volume of 6% or less and negligible change in mass. Most elastomers and plastics showed a reduction in tensile strength and elongation after the fuel exposures.

show abstract

Section: Test Fuelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Test Fuelsmentioning

confidence: 99%