Samuel Tucker Browne, Hubert Wong, and Cameron Branch Hinderer 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Jennifer Klettlinger

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Enhancement of Aviation Fuel Thermal Stability 

Characterization Through Application

of Ellipsometry

NASA/TM—2012-217404

March 2012
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Samuel Tucker Browne, Hubert Wong, and Cameron Branch Hinderer 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Jennifer Klettlinger

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Enhancement of Aviation Fuel Thermal Stability 

Characterization Through Application

of Ellipsometry

NASA/TM—2012-217404

March 2012

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Acknowledgments

The Fuels Testing team would like to express their gratitude to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at NASA 

Headquarters for funding the NASA Aeronautics Academy at Glenn and the University Programs at Glenn for initiating 

the effort that made the NASA Aeronautics Academy possible. We appreciate the support from Dr. Rubén Del Rosario and 

the Subsonic Fixed Wing project of the Fundamental Aeronautics Program. In addition, many thanks are extended to those 

who provided insight, expertise, and services that supplanted and facilitated the completion of this study; these include 

Chia Yen, Angela Surgenor, Leah Nakley, Chi Lee, Dennis L. Huff, Dr. Michael Nathal, Ralph Pawlik, Dr. Stephen Pepper,

Joy Buehler, David Hull, and Janis L. Dick. Without the aid and support of those acknowledged above, the research performed 

would not have been possible.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 1 

Enhancement of Aviation Fuel Thermal Stability Characterization 

Through Application of Ellipsometry 

Samuel Tucker Browne,1 Hubert Wong,2 and Cameron Branch Hinderer3

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Jennifer Klettlinger 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

ASTM D3241/Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidation Tester (JFTOT) procedure, the standard method for testing 

thermal stability of conventional aviation turbine fuels is inherently limited due to the subjectivity in the 

color standard for tube deposit rating. Quantitative assessment of the physical characteristics of oxidative 

fuel deposits provides a more powerful method for comparing the thermal oxidation stability 

characteristics of fuels, especially in a research setting. We propose employing a Spectroscopic 

Ellipsometer to determine the film thickness and profile of oxidative fuel deposits on JFTOT heater tubes. 

Using JP-8 aviation fuel and following a modified ASTM D3241 testing procedure, the capabilities of the 

Ellipsometer will be demonstrated by measuring oxidative fuel deposit profiles for a range of different 

deposit characteristics. The testing completed in this report was supported by the NASA Fundamental 

Aeronautics Subsonics Fixed Wing Project.

1.0 Introduction 

Since the 1950’s, many people and organizations have relied on ASTM D3241 for thermal stability 

rating of conventional aviation fuels. Although this method has been universally utilized since its 

inception, there have been numerous examples of people, academic discussions, and research that 

highlight issues regarding subjectivity and accuracy of the current method, namely the visual rating 

system. Despite a number of attempts to identify correlations between the color code and quantitative 

measurements, there has been little progress in this area overall. However, with an increasing emphasis on 

the development of more economical and ecological technologies, it is increasingly evident that there is a 

need for a more encompassing and advanced testing metric for quantifying the thermal stability 

characteristics of jet fuels. Improvements to the JFTOT visual rating system by way of a quantitative fuel 

testing metric may provide an improved tool for researchers and industry alike to facilitate advancements 

in fuel system design and explore the potential benefits of future fuels. 

2.0 Background 

2.1 Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidation Tester (JFTOT) Procedure 

The Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidation Tester, as designated by ASTM D3241, is a standardized test procedure 

used to assess the thermal stability of conventional aviation fuels. JFTOT rates jet fuels utilizing two 

metrics: first, differential pressure (dP) caused by particulate formation in the fluid must lie within a certain 

 

1

NASA Glenn Research Center, summer intern from Cornell University. 2

NASA Glenn Research Center, summer intern from University of California Berkeley. 3

NASA Glenn Research Center, summer intern from Villanova University. 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 2 

Figure 1.—ADJD3241 standard color code for JFTOT. 

[Visual ratings ranging from 0 to >4 are given. Only 

rate darkest spot of minimum size of 2.5 mm2.] 

range; second, tube discoloration due to hydrocarbon deposits must not exceed a certain color on the visual 

rating scale. This paper concerns itself primarily with the tube discoloration. The highest temperature at 

which the fuel passes in both respects defines the respective break point. JFTOT involves aerated fuel 

flowing over a resistively heated tube at 260 °C for 150 min to simulate jet fuel flow under engine operating 

conditions (Ref. 1). Once the test is complete, the operator utilizes a standardized Visual Tube Rater (VTR) 

to determine the color rating. The VTR is an internally lit black box with three 30 W incandescent bulbs and 

a color chart that allows the operator to rate tube deposits on a scale of 0 to 4, which can be seen in Figure 1. 

A rating of 3 or less constitutes a passing score for the color test (Ref. 2). 

Numerous sources have found the standard visual rating method to be highly vulnerable to operator 

subjectivity (Refs. 3 and 4). Some studies have shown that reproducibility of results differed between 

operators on the order of 6.5 °C and up to a maximum of 15 °C, which is considered unacceptable by many 

in the research and fuel quality testing industries. The visual rating method fails to provide any information 

regarding thickness or volume of the deposits. The bulk and depth of deposits can disturb fluid flow and 

even cause blockages resulting in decreased engine performance. While the color of the engine components 

does not necessarily affect performance, fuel flow deposition and particulate formation plays an integral 

role. Thus, integrating such a metric into JFTOT will strengthen the test rating’s value. 

It is also known that thicknesses in relation to the JFTOT color scale vary with heater tube material, 

fuel, and temperature. This implies that a comparison, for example, between the colors of depositions 

created by a conventional jet fuel and an alternative fuel would not be directly comparable. For these 

reasons, it would be expected that different depositional patterns would manifest for each condition. This 

implies that it may be more useful to know absolute magnitude of deposits, not just discoloration. 

In previously completed research, the thermal stability of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuel was compared to 

conventional Jet-A and various blends of Jet A and FT (Ref. 5). Fischer-Tropsch fuel was found to have a 

significantly higher break point temperature than conventional Jet A, though limitations in the JFTOT 

procedure inhibit the determination of the exact Fischer-Tropsch fuel break point temperature. It was 

reasonable to assume that the break point temperature is higher than 380 °C. It was also found that there 

was no added thermal stability benefit of 50:50 blends in comparison to pure Jet A. Researchers found 

Fischer-Tropsch fuel to fail based on the color test well before the differential pressure metric, potentially 

due to the use of stainless steel in place of aluminum. This leaves questions in the researchers’ minds 

specifically on how accurately the JFTOT visual rating system depicts fuel fouling and its applicability 

across metal compositions. The limitations in temperature range for aluminum tubes lead to the need for a 

wider range of tube materials. It is important to recognize that other metals will have different 

mechanisms in which they interact and discolor in the presence of jet fuel. Implementing a more 

encompassing quantitative metric such as deposit thickness for thermal stability characterization will 

provide a means to expand the gamut of fuels, temperature ranges, and metal compositions that JFTOT 

can analyze. As non-petroleum based fuels progress in promise, both ecologically and economically, the 

ability to rate such fuel is of utmost importance. Through improvements in JFTOT, such capabilities can 

become feasible. 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 3 

2.2 Ellipsometry 

It was determined that ellipsometry may be a viable method of determining fuel deposit thicknesses. 

This was due to many factors, including the fact that the method is not dependent on knowing exact 

physical properties of the film being examined. In fixed angle ellipsometry, light of known polarization is 

impinged upon the surface and analyzed at a specified angle. At each interface between different 

materials (i.e.: different layers on the JFTOT tubes), light is both reflected and transmitted, creating 

multiple reflected light waves. Electric field components parallel and perpendicular to the plane of 

incidence are transmitted and reflected differently at each of these interfaces depending on the refractive 

index (n) of each material. Transmitted light diminishes in intensity within each layer depending on the 

extinction coefficient (k) of the material. The resulting reflected light waves differ from the impinging 

light in both intensity and polarization and interference of these waves create elliptically polarized light. 

With spectroscopic ellipsometry, the intensity and phase change of the reflected light is measured over a 

broad spectrum of wavelengths. Mathematical models describing the depth and optical properties of the 

layer as a function of wavelength are assumed and through an iterative process, unknown constants are 

varied until calculated curves correlate well with measured curves. To obtain an accurate match, a 

quantitative estimate of the correlation between calculated and measured curves is generated using a type 

of error function. The large number of data points provided by the broad spectrum of the spectroscopic 

ellipsometer allows for highly accurate film thickness measurements with resolutions on the order of an 

angstrom (Ref. 6). 

3.0 Experiment 

3.1 Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidation Tester 

JFTOT testing for this study was performed using a Hot Liquid Process Simulator (HLPS) model 

HLPS-400 manufactured by Alcor. The HLPS machine, shown in Figure 2, is designed to simulate testing 

conditions as outlined in ASTM D3241 (Ref. 7). All operating conditions (i.e., fuel flow rate, test time, 

fuel system pressure etc.) are set in accordance with ASTM D3241 except experimental temperature 

which is operator defined. JP-8 was chosen as the fuel for this study. Procedural details can be found in 

Klettlinger 2010 (Ref. 5). JFTOT testing was conducted at temperatures ranging between 255 and 275 °C 

to obtain a wide range of color ratings. As JFTOT designates testing at a temperature of 260 °C for 

Figure 2.—Alcor HLPS-400 hot liquid. [Process 

simulator graphic. Fuel flows form a reservoir 

pumped at a constant rate to flow fuel over the tube 

at 3 mL/min. Three thermocouples provide point 

temperatures to roughly depict thermal profile.] 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 4 

conventional aviation fuels, additional tests were conducted at this condition. However, to obtain data that 

would express probable correlation between temperature and deposit thickness, a range of temperatures 

was implemented into the test matrix. Following HLPS procedure, the heater tube specimen was visually 

rated in an Alcor Visual Tuberator, which corresponds to the rating method described in JFTOT protocol. 

3.2 Ellipsometry Measurement 

Once samples have been created through the JFTOT procedure, physical characteristics, specifically 

film thickness, can be attained using an ellipsometer. The sample can be mounted into a stand designed by 

HORIBA engineers to hold the JFTOT heater tube stationary. Ellipsometry was created on the pretense of 

determining film thicknesses of a flat surface, so due to the curved surface of a cylindrical heater tube, there 

were originally concerns that this would cause inaccuracies in readings. After testing these concerns were 

alleviated by finding variations to be insignificant in regards to either positioning or shape. 

After the sample tube was mounted inside the ellipsometer, the motorized stage which holds the tube in 

position was manipulated so that the JFTOT tube was positioned correctly under the optical sensors. The 

spot size was then set to the minimum size necessary to obtain optical measurements using the ellipsometer. 

To be consistent, a spot of 250 by 250 μm was selected and ensured to be evenly centered over the curvature 

of the top of the tube. Once positioned here, the ellipsometer was used to obtain optical data on the full 

length of the tube—at 1 mm intervals. From this, raw information regarding the film’s optical properties 

was gathered and was ready to be fit to a dispersion model to determine the actual film thickness. 

The software supporting HORIBA’s ellipsometer allows for numerous different dispersion models 

and algorithms for fitting to be performed. First, under the assumption that the aluminum alloy JFTOT 

tube was nearly uniform throughout, a profile of non-uniformity in thickness and chemical composition in 

the hydrocarbon deposits implied that a classical Lorentzian oscillator would not easily describe such a 

surface. After numerous iterations of absorbing disposition models, a “new amorphous” model derived by 

Horiba Jobin Yvon based on a Fourohi-Bloomer formulation was chosen. The fitting equation used to 

describe this model can be seen below, and more information can be found in references (Ref. 8). The 

equations below display the models for the coefficient of extinction, k, and refractive index, n. 

   

 

g

g

j j

j g f k

  

  















    

   

 

;for

;for

0

2 2

2

 (1) 

   

  2 2

j j

B j C

n n

    

    

    (2)

Along with these equations, it is important to have general ranges and estimates for values of the 

unknowns that are being fit in the equations above. Table 1 list the approximate values for the unknown 

parameters contained in Equations (1) and (2). These unknowns describe different properties of the 

extinction coefficient; according to Horiba, ωg is the energy band gap, fj is related to the strength of the 

extinction coefficient peak, ωj is approximately the energy where the extinction coefficient is at a 

maximum, and Γj is the broadening term of the peak of absorption. 

TABLE 1.—OPTICAL PROPERTIES HYDROCARBONS. 

[Listing of approximate optical properties of general hydrocarbons.] 

Material n∞ ωg fj ωj Γj

Hydrocarbons ~1.650 ~0.488 ~0.084 ~3.443 ~1.839 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 5 

Figure 3.—Deposition model. [Aluminum substrate with 

two film deposit layers. Layer 1: hydrocarbon film. 

Layer 2: “roughness model”- air and hydrocarbon.] 

To assess the performance of the models, the difference between the theoretical and experimental 

results was calculated, squared, and averaged across the range of the model, resulting in a statistical 

metric called chi-squared (Χ2

) that described the quality of fit. At first iterations, it was attempted to 

model the system as a simple aluminum substrate with a uniform layer of hydrocarbon deposits on top. 

This model resulted in Χ2

 values on the order of 50 to 500+, which was deemed unacceptably high. In 

seeking a Χ2 value on the order of 0.01 to 1.00, the model was modified to better represent the realistic 

deposition patterns. After realizing the non-uniformity of the deposit thicknesses, it was desired to find a 

way of adding a layer that could model this surface roughness. This was achieved by incorporating a layer 

that represented a mixture of air and hydrocarbon material above a uniform hydrocarbon layer, see Figure 

3. This would allow measurements of not only deposit height of the second layer, but also the respective 

percentage of hydrocarbons present. From this, one could determine an average thickness of the second 

layer which could be added to the first layer to determine total hydrocarbon deposit thickness. 

Using this model, it was possible to achieve fits with chi squared values on the order of 0.05 to 0.20, 

which resulted in variations in coating thickness measurements on the order of 1 to 3 percent. An 

amorphous dispersion model was used, allowing highly accurate determinations of thicknesses with chisquared values on the order of less than 1. From this, a relatively detailed profile for deposits could be 

created. To determine more precise heights, readings were taken every 1.00 mm around the maximum 

recorded heights from the first readings. Once one side was completed, the sample was rotated 90° and 

then retested. This process was repeated until there was a profile and maximum height for every 90°. The 

maximum height was then matched to the color rating taken from JFTOT testing. From this point, 

correlations between physical characteristics of the deposit thickness and colors could be observed. 

4.0 Results/Discussion 

4.1 Modified JFTOT 

The data collected from performing a number of runs in HLPS following the modified JFTOT 

procedure as described in Section 3.1 was organized in Table 2 (For the complete set of experimental data 

collected refer to Appendix A, Table 4). Note a minor software system error systematically displayed 

temperature readouts 6 °C actual experimental temperature; this is applicable across the entire range. 

Unless otherwise stated, temperatures have been altered to reflect true temperature. 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 6 

TABLE 2.—EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 

[Test matrix showing different variables of successful JFTOT testing. 

Note temperatures have yet to be corrected for system error.]

Run 

ID 

Date Fuel index Test file Tube 

type 

Recorded 

temperature, 

C 

dP, 

mmHg 

dP 

P/F 

Color 

rating 

Color

P/F 

1115 2011-07-25 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-275C-500 AL 275 191 f >4 f 

1113 2011-07-21 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-270C-500 AL 270 196 f >4 f 

1112 2011-07-20 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-265C-500 AL 265 196 f 3,4 f 

1106 2011-07-12 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-262C-500 AL 262 189 f 3 p 

1105 2011-07-11 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-260C-500 AL 260 7 p 2 p 

1104 2011-07-11 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-257C-500 AL 257 1 p 2 p 

1103 2011-07-05 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-255C-500 AL 255 1 p 2 p 

1102 2011-07-05 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-260C-500 AL 260 192 f 2 p 

1100 2011-06-30 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-260C-500 AL 260 181 f 2 p 

1097 2011-6-28 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-260C-500 AL 260 7 P 2 P 

1096 2011-6-27 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 AL-260C-500 AL 260 2 p 1 p 

Figure 4.—JFTOT heater tube and deposition pattern. [A JFTOT tube run at 

291 C that yielded a “3” on the color scale can be seen above. An expected 

general deposition pattern that may be seen through thickness measurement is 

superimposed.] 

Runs executed at 266 °C exhibited inconsistencies in differential pressure results. However, such 

inconsistencies are taken into consideration by JFTOT procedure. As JFTOT dictates, runs are to be 

performed at five degree intervals to definitively ascertain breakpoint. This accounts for potential 

fluctuations in fuel performance as temperatures approach the actual breakpoint. In addition some runs 

were deemed invalid and not included in data analysis. Regardless of failure with respect to differential 

pressure and visual rating, tests were considered invalid only when instrumentation/control system 

malfunctioned or the operator terminated the run prior to completion. 

4.2 Angular Variation of Ellipsometer Profiles 

Using the ellipsometric procedure outlined in Section 3.3, a profile for a JFTOT tube was attained. 

This graph showed the heights of the deposits measured at positions. To better understand what is 

represented, a picture of a JFTOT tube is contained below. It is important to see the maximum thickness 

of the color deposits, most importantly the dark areas on the tube. An example tube with depositions 

which were rated a “3” on the JFTOT color rating scale can be seen in Figure 4. Also included is a 

prediction of the expected thickness profile, showing the relatively low deposit height in the clean section 

of the tube, followed by the bumpy rounded deposition profile. 

Clean Tube Section Deposits 

Expected Thickness 

Profile: Deposit 

Height 

Position: -30 mm 0 mm +30 mm 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 7 

Figure 5.—Multi-angle film deposit profile of single aluminum heater tube. 

[This figure shows the relative profile of deposition along a JFTOT tube run 

at 291 C that yielded a “4” on the color test. The fuel type used for this 

case was JP8.] 

It was expected that for the profile of the tube that along the discolored parts there would be the 

maximum deposition and along the parts that appeared clear, there would be relatively little deposition. 

This was verified as can be seen in the data seen above in Figure 5. The lower relative distances from the 

center, between ~0 to 5 mm represent the clean tube portion. These had maximum depositions on the 

order of 20 to 30 nm. Positions between 5 to 20 mm represent the visibly discolored area on the tube. It 

was expected that there would be a gradually rising rounded profile. What was found, in reality, was a 

rising profile that was not well-rounded and appeared to have irregular dips and peaks. This implied a 

need to validate results through another method, which is described in Section 4.3. It was verified, 

though, that the peak deposit heights were located in the darkest areas on the tube. Another encouraging 

result was that the maximum heights of depositions at different angles around tubes were similar, on the 

order of 15 percent variations. This allows for one to take measurements on only one side and know with 

relative certainty that the maximum height is close to the maximum height along the whole tube. 

4.3 Validation Techniques for Ellipsometer Results 

It was determined that a secondary method for determining film thickness would be used in order to 

validate the ellipsometer’s results. Two readily accessible methods, interferometric microscopy and laser 

extensometry, were first explored. Interferometric microscopy only examines the surface profile of a 

small area on the surface of the sample, so the only way to obtain the thickness of the film is to create a 

step from the film to bare aluminum tube by removing some of the film and then measuring the height of 

the film layer. However, because of the surface irregularities of the tube it is hard to differentiate between 

the film and the bare aluminum at the step. This means thickness measurements made using this method 

are unreliable and inconclusive, and therefore interferometric microscopy would not be a viable method 

for determining film thickness. 

Laser extensometry measures the width of an object placed between a laser and sensor; in the case of 

the JFTOT heater tubes the width corresponds to the diameter of the tube. Thus, determining the thickness 

of the hydrocarbon deposits using laser extensometry involves measuring the heater tube before and after 

JFTOT testing and then calculating the difference. The accuracy of this calculation requires that 

measurements be made in the exact same angular positions on the tube to avoid inaccuracies caused by 

non-uniform circumferential deposition and/or heater tube surface irregularities. 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 8 

While the laser extensometer used has a claimed resolution of 50 nm (Ref. 9), initial results 

demonstrate relatively large variations in the overall heater tube profile as well as pronounced surface 

roughness. In Figure 6, a 200 nm thick line, representing a reasonable film thickness value, is 

superimposed upon a sample tube profile to exhibit the necessary resolution the instrument must be 

capable of achieving. While some of these surface features seemed to be reproducible, even small 

changes in angular position yielded much different profiles meaning differences calculated between pre 

and post test laser extensometer profiles may not represent actual film thickness. This demonstrates laser 

extensometry as an inadequate method for determining film thickness. 

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was considered as another option to validate ellipsometer film 

thickness measurements. SEM provides highly magnified images which in our case can be used to 

measure the film height directly. Originally, we had intended to use a small diamond scribe to scratch the 

surface of the tube, image the area at different angles with the SEM, and then calculate the depth 

accordingly using the known angular orientations. However, after viewing the film surface on the heater 

tube, bare areas were present along the tube providing reference surfaces by which to measure film 

thickness as illustrated in Figure 7. These measurements were then corrected for the angular orientation of 

the area imaged. Film thickness at several points along a heater tube was measured using this method and 

Figure 6.—Variations in JFTOT tube diameter. [A comparison between 

the tube diameter (red) and a 200 nm thick line (blue) demonstrates 

the considerable surface irregularities present on the tube.] 

Figure 7.—SEM image of hydrocarbon film on 

aluminum. [The lighter area in the bottom of the 

figure represents the aluminum substrate while the 

hydrocarbon deposits are visible in the upper 

portion. Using the SEM the thicknesses of the 

deposits could be measured.] 

‐6000

‐4000

‐2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0123456

Δ Diameter (nm)

Distance Along Tube (cm)
NASA/TM—2012-217404 9 

the results were compared to the ellipsometer measurements. Figure 8 illustrates the film thickness 

profiles measured using SEM compared to 3 film thickness profiles measured using the ellipsometer. 

From this plot we see that the maximum heights from all three profiles agree well with one another. SEM 

analysis yielded a maximum thickness value of 233.3 nm compared to 233.8, 202.4, and 218 nm for the 

0, 90, and –90° measurements respectively. These values correspond to percentage deviations from 

measured SEM maximum deposit thickness of 0.0, 13.2, and 6.6 percent respectively. The reasonable 

correlation between results from both methods suggests that the ellipsometer measurements are 

representative of actual deposit thicknesses. 

Figure 9 shows the chemical characterization of tube deposits using scanning electron microscopy 

energy-dispersive x-ray (SEM-EDX) spectroscopy. These two images show the results at two different 

locations along the tube surface. On the left, position 0, the film shows very little carbon deposition and a 

high quantity of aluminum from the tube surface. This indicates that position 0 is expected to be a very 

thin film. On the right, position B, the film is analyzed to have a high quantity of carbon as well as an 

increased deposition of oxygen. Visual observation is consistent with the SEM analysis as point 1 is 

darker in color. 

Figure 8.—SEM versus spectroscopic ellipsometer. [Deposit thickness 

measurements from SEM are superimposed onto previous ellipsometry 

measurements. These profiles are similar, providing evidence that 

ellipsometry is representative of actual deposit thickness.] 

Figure 9.—Scanning electron microscopy energy-dispersive x-ray (SEM-EDX) spectroscopy results. 

[This figure shows the chemical characterization of the tube deposits at two different points along a 

tube surface: “position 0”is on the left and “position B” is on the right.]
NASA/TM—2012-217404 10 

4.4 Ellipsometry Results 

After finding the relative profile along the tube to be relatively accurate and independent of 

measurement angle, it was desired to show that the maximum height of deposits was reproducible 

between specific tests at specific temperatures. For this reason, 11 data points were taken, ranging from 

255 to 275 °C. This can be seen below in Table 3. In taking this data, it was desired to both obtain a range 

of temperatures and color ratings, and also it was deemed beneficial to obtain measurements at one 

temperature to assess precision. The resulting maximum thicknesses found can be seen in the Table 3 and 

ranged from 52 nm for a “2” on the color scale to 250.1 nm for a “>4” on the color scale. The general 

correlation between thickness and temperature can be seen in Figure 10. 

TABLE 3.—EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 

[Temperature Range HLPS was run and the respective metrics measured post JFTOT.]

Run ID Temperature, 

C 

Max height, 

nm 

Color rating Differential 

pressure, 

mmHg 

1103 261 52 2 1 

1104 263 70 2 1 

1100 266 96.6 2 183 

1102 266 110 2 192 

1105 266 72.3 2 7 

1097 266 64 2 7 

1096 266 63.7 1 2 

1106 268 94.5 <3 189 

1112 271 219.7 <4 195 

1113 276 230.9 >4 196 

1115 281 250.1 >4 190 

Figure 10.—Temperature versus deposit thickness. [This figure shows 

some degree of thickness reproducibility around lower temperatures and 

a positive correlation between temperature and thickness.] 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

260 265 270 275 280 285

Thickness of Deposit, nm

Temperature, °C
NASA/TM—2012-217404 11 

Figure 11.—Temperature versus color rating. [This figure shows the correlation 

between color rating and temperature.] 

From these results, it was seen that there was a positive trend between temperature and thickness of 

deposits. As temperature increased, so did the relative maximum thickness of deposits. This was 

expected, as higher temperatures typically correlate with darker color scale results, and in Section 4.1 it 

was found that darker areas of deposition yield greater thicknesses. These two relationships imply that 

higher temperatures should correlate with a greater maximum deposit thickness. It was also seen that 

results were relatively tightly grouped for similar temperatures. Using the ellipsometer yielded relatively 

similar results for the same temperature, as can be seen by the tightly grouped points in the bottom 

temperature range of the data. Both of these trends were necessary in validation of ellipsometry results, 

and it was promising to see both reproducibility around singular temperatures and an upward trend over 

the range. 

4.5 Color Test Results 

To obtain a comparison of this new method as compared to the current color metric, the results for the 

tests run were also given color ratings. These are contained in Table 1 and can be seen graphically in 

Figure 11 (In these graphs, ratings were graphically represented by taking the numbers they were 

between and averaging them; e.g., 3 would be between 2 and 3, so it would be graphically represented as 

a 2.5; “>4” is a 4.5). 

From these results, one can see that there is an upward trend with temperature, but there are many 

differences from those of ellipsometry measurements. First, the maximum color rating was achieved at 

275 °C, as the color scale does not specify specific steps above a “>4” on the scale. This may be one way 

in which the ellipsometry measurements outperform the color rating metric. Also, the points around 

specific temperatures do not fall neatly into a specific grouping, implying that the precision of this metric 

may be less than that of ellipsometry. 

4.6 Performance Comparison 

Within this temperature range and testing conditions, the relationship between temperature and both 

thickness of deposits and color rating has comparable shape, accuracy, and usefulness. In the color 

method, there are observed increases in darkness of deposits with an increase in temperature. With 

ellipsometry measurements, there are obvious increases in thickness as temperature is increased. The 

results demonstrate that with both methods there are increases in either deposit thickness or color rating 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

260 265 270 275 280 285

Color Rating

Temperature, °C
NASA/TM—2012-217404 12 

with an increase in testing temperature. These trends seem to be reasonably consistent throughout the 

testing temperature range for both methods, lending credibility to the validity of each. 

Another important comparison is the relative precision and repeatability of each method. For these 

tests, because they were performed in the same circumstances with the same fuel, it would be expected 

that when temperature is held constant, similar results would present themselves. For ellipsometry, there 

were mixed results. Looking at the numerous data points taken at 266 °C, the reproducibility is marginal, 

showing a range from 63.7 to 110 nm. This shows that for one temperature there can be a range of 

>50 nm, which implies potential issues with resolution. However, when the data is separated into two sets 

representing passing and failing differential pressure (dP), the precision of the ellipsometry measurements 

improves considerably. Differential pressure passes at 266 °C ranged from 63.7 to 72.3 nm which 

represents a variation of only ~14 percent. At the same temperature, dP failures ranged from 96.6 to 

110 nm, exhibiting an equal percentage of deviation. As dP pass/failure characterization is important in 

describing a fuel’s thermal stability performance, these results may actually further support the usefulness 

of ellipsometry. It is possible that the measurements are capturing a phenomenon that is not well 

understood or found through simple color measurements, and this general ability to capture the 

thicknesses of films without alluding to color may show promise in research settings. For the color test, 

there was some precision and reproducibility, but the small scale of the test was shown to be limiting. 

Finding results within the 261 to 268 °C range resulting in “1” to “2.5” in a scale that only measures from 

0 to 4 represents an excessively wide range of results and highlights the difficulty in using the color test 

as a performance or comparison metric. Without precise measurement, one must rely on statistical 

methods; ellipsometry may improve research and data acquisition by decreasing the necessary trials to 

find accurate, widely applicable results. 

Overall, ellipsometry performs comparably to the color test in many ways, at least within the 

temperature range tested. Accuracy and precision have both been demonstrated by each method, with 

ellipsometry measurements showing potential to improve each. One other potential unexplored benefit is 

the extension to the range of the color test. Within the framework of this research, no sample is rated 

lower than a color rating of “2,” and only 2 samples achieved “>4” rating, leaving the data within the 

range that the color test performs well. In reality, the color test has nearly reached the limits of its 

usefulness in these tests, while ellipsometry should still allow for a quantitative analysis of the fouling 

characteristics of the tested fuel at temperatures much higher than the point where the fuel would be rated 

“>4.” Also, at lower level tests achieving around a “1” on the color rating scale, ellipsometry may be able 

to provide more precise information on the performance for specific tests. It is within the framework of 

these broad ranges that are not captured by the color test that ellipsometry will truly be useful. 

5.0 Conclusion 

Film thickness determination through ellipsometry has been demonstrated to be accurate, precise, and 

quantitative, potentially providing many benefits over the conventional color test in characterizing or 

comparing the thermal stability of fuels. As exhibited by the non-reproducibility of results in color 

testing, the visual rating method utilized in ASTM D3241 possesses inaccuracies. The inherent 

subjectivity in rating conventional jet fuel through the qualitative color measure diminishes the credibility 

of the visual standard. In addition, the color code is limited to a rating of “>4,” forcing a wide range of 

different results into one specific level. Meanwhile as expected, there exists a positive correlation between 

temperature and deposit thickness. This, in conjunction with the repeatability of thickness measurements, 

displays the validity of using film thicknesses as a supplement to the discoloration to rate fuels. As 

JFTOT is utilized mainly for a small gamut of conventional jet fuels, other potential fuels may exhibit 

discoloration in a manner not understood or represented by the ASTM Color Standard. In these cases 

where comparability of color ratings is absent, the film thickness measurements can proffer information 

relating to thermal stability. Thus this metric can be used in a research setting and provide more 

meaningful fuel characterization methods for the implementation of future generations of fuels. 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 13 

Appendix—Hot Liquid Process Simulator Raw Data 

TABLE 4.—HLPS DATA SET 

[Data collected with HLPS for each run including JFTOT metrics ΔP and visual rating. 

Note * indicates test is invalid due to equipment malfunctions and early run termination. 

Temperatures are not yet corrected.] 

Run ID Fuel index Recorded 

temperature, 

C 

Tube 

type 

dP, 

mmHg 

dP, 

P/F 

Color 

rating 

Color, 

P/F 

1120 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 197 f <4 f 

1119* JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 270 AL 194 f 1 P 

1116 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 262 AL 0 p >4 f 

1115 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 275 AL 191 f >4 f 

1114 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 270 AL 177 f >4 f 

1113 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 270 AL 196 f >4 f 

1112 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 265 AL 196 f 3,<4 f 

1111 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 262 AL 171 f 3,<4 f 

1110 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 275 AL 171 f >4 f 

1109 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 270 AL 189 f >4 f 

1108 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 280 AL 199 f >4 f 

1107 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 265 AL 190 f 2 p 

1106 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 262 AL 189 f <3 p 

1105 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 7 p 2 p 

1104 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 257 AL 1 p 2 p 

1103 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 255 AL 1 p 2 p 

1102 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 192 f 2 p 

1101 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 39 f <3 p 

1100 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 181 f 2 p 

1099 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 194 F <3 p 

1098* JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 265 AL 45 f 2 p 

1097 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 7 P 2 P 

1096 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 260 AL 2 p 1 p 

1095* JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 270 AL 197 f 

1094* JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 282 AL 0 p 3 p 

1093 JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 282 AL 191 f >4 f 

1092* JP8-ASCR-2011-05-27 282 AL 194 f >4 f 

 
NASA/TM—2012-217404 14 

References 

1. ASTM Standard D3241, 2008, “Standard Test Method for Thermal Oxidation Stability of Aviation 

Turbine Fuels (JFTOT Procedure),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, DOI: 

10.1520/D3241-08, www.astm.org. 

2. ASTM Standard D1655, 2011, “Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels,” ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, DOI: 10.1520/D1655-11, www.astm.org. 

3. C. Baker, P. David, S.E. Taylor, and A.J. Woodward, “Thickness Measurement of JFTOT Tube 

Deposits by Ellipsometry,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Stability and 

Handling of Liquid Fuels, United States Department of Energy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 

Vol. 2, Oct. 1994, pp. 433–447. 

4. Stavinoha, L.L., Naegeli, D.W., and L. McInnis, “The Role of Surface Composition in Fuel 

Deposition,” Symposium on the Stability and Oxidation Chemistry of Middle Distillate Fuels, 

American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., Aug. 1990 pp. 1315–1323. 

5. NASA/TM—2010-216370, “Thermal Stability Testing of a Fischer-Tropsch Fuel and Various Blends 

With Jet A,” May 2010, Jennifer L. Suder Klettlinger, Angela Surgernor, and Chia Yen. 

6. Horiba AutoSE System User Manual, Part No. 31087139, France, March 2009. 

7. Alcor-PAC Hot Liquid Process Simulator (HLPS 400) User’s Manual Rev. B, Oct. 2003, Version 5. 

8. “New Amorphous Dispersion Formula,” TN 12, Horiba, Nov. 2006. 

9. Mitutoyo Laser Scan Micrometer (LSM-506S) User’s Manual, 2006, No. 99MBC094A, Series No. 

544. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-03-2012 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Enhancement of Aviation Fuel Thermal Stability Characterization Through Application of 

Ellipsometry 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Browne, Samuel, Tucker; Wong, Hubert; Hinderer, Cameron, Branch; Klettlinger, Jennifer 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 561581.02.08.03.11.01 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-18051 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2012-217404 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 01 and 07 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Samuel Tucker Browne, Cornell University; Hubert Wong, University of California Berkeley; and Cameron Branch Hinderer, Villanova 

University, summer interns. 

14. ABSTRACT

ASTM D3241/Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidation Tester (JFTOT) procedure, the standard method for testing thermal stability of conventional 

aviation turbine fuels is inherently limited due to the subjectivity in the color standard for tube deposit rating. Quantitative assessment of the 

physical characteristics of oxidative fuel deposits provides a more powerful method for comparing the thermal oxidation stability 

characteristics of fuels, especially in a research setting. We propose employing a Spectroscopic Ellipsometer to determine the film thickness 

and profile of oxidative fuel deposits on JFTOT heater tubes. Using JP-8 aviation fuel and following a modified ASTM D3241 testing 

procedure, the capabilities of the Ellipsometer will be demonstrated by measuring oxidative fuel deposit profiles for a range of different 

deposit characteristics. The testing completed in this report was supported by the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Subsonics Fixed Wing 

Project. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Fischer-Tropsch (FT); Breakpoint; Thermal stability; Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidation Tester (JFTOT); Alternative fuels; Ellipsometry 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

20 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18