Hansen solubility distance calculator for plastics and elastomers in gasoline/ethanol blends, cross-checked against ORNL's own experimental results (ORNL/TM-2012/88, DOE/EPA-OUST)
◉ ORNL/TM-2012/88 (DOE PUBLIC DOMAIN) STYLE CHECK · NOT A REGULATORY SUBMISSION TOOL
⚠ Indicative tool only, and a genuinely different kind of calculator. This applies Hansen solubility theory — a real predictive materials-science formula — using parameters published in a US DOE/Oak Ridge National Laboratory report (public domain, prepared for EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks). The formula predicts relative solubility risk; it does not replace testing. We verified the formula reproduces the report's own published solubility-distance table to within rounding across five independent material/fuel combinations before building this. The report's own foreword is explicit: its goal was not to define acceptable limits or rate individual materials, but to measure property changes to guide material selection.
Identification
Research entries stay private to you for practice/testing. Switch to Official once this is a real design your company should see.
Material & Fuel Blend
CEXXa = Fuel C (50% toluene / 50% isooctane) plus XX% aggressive ethanol (containing trace water, NaCl, acetic and sulfuric acid, per SAE J1681). Plastics were tested at Fuel C/25/50/85% ethanol only; elastomers additionally at 10% and 17%.
Hansen Solubility Distance
(Solubility Distance)² = 4(δDmaterial−δDfuel)² + (δPmaterial−δPfuel)² + (δHmaterial−δHfuel)². Lower distance relative to the material's interaction radius means higher predicted solubility (swell).
Result Not evaluated
Material interaction radius (IR)—
Calculated solubility distance (SD)—
IR − SD—
Predicted solubility classification—
Classification thresholds, exactly as defined in the source report: Insoluble — IR−SD range much less than 1, volume swell <2%. Moderate — IR−SD between 1 and 3, swell 2–12%. High — IR−SD greater than 3, swell >12%.
ORNL's Own Experimental Result (Cross-Check)
What ORNL actually measured for this material, for comparison against the theoretical prediction above.
Result
Predicted ethanol level for max swell (ORNL's model)—
Actual ethanol level for max swell (observed)—
Predicted vs. actual solubility classification—
Correlation quality (ORNL's own assessment)—
Metals Reference (§6.3, qualitative summary)
Bare metals (1020 carbon steel, 304 stainless steel, 1100 aluminum, cartridge brass, phosphor bronze, nickel 201): very little corrosion at any ethanol level, even CE85a. Annualized corrosion rates were under 10 µm/year for all metals except commercially pure nickel exposed to CE85a (~35 µm/year). Corrosion film composition/thickness did not depend on ethanol content.
Plated/galvanic combinations: zinc (from galvanized steel) was the most susceptible to dissolution and corrosion. Steel corrosion was accelerated when galvanically coupled to zinc or lead in CE50a/CE85a. Aluminum was susceptible to widespread pitting when galvanically coupled to nickel. Vapor-phase exposure caused only slight discoloration (notably brass/bronze) with no measurable mass loss for any metal.