Wp-1 reference cases of laminar and turbulent interactions

In order to be able to judge the effectiveness of transition induction in WP-2, reference flow cases were planned in WP-1. There are two obvious reference cases—a fully laminar interaction and a fully turbulent interaction. Here it should be explained that the terms “laminar” and “turbulent” interaction refer to the boundary layer state at the beginning of interaction only. There are two basic configurations of shock wave boundary layer interaction and these are a part of the TFAST project. One is the normal shock wave, which typically appears at the transonic wing and on the turbine cascade. The characteristic incipient separation Mach number range is about M = 1.2 in the case of a laminar boundary layer and about M = 1.32 in the case of turbulent boundary layer. The second typical flow case is the oblique shock wave reflection. The most characteristic case in European research is connected to the 6th FP IP HISAC project concerning a supersonic business jet. The design speed of this airplane is M = 1.6. Therefore the TFAST consortium decided to use this Mach number as the basic case. Pressure disturbance at this Mach number is not very high and can be compared to the disturbance of the normal shock at the incipient separation Mach number mentioned earlier. As mentioned earlier, shock reflection at M = 1.6 may be related to incipient separation. Therefore two additional test cases were planned with different Mach numbers. ITAM conducted an M = 1.5 test case, and TUD an M = 1.7 test case. These partners have also previously made very specialized and successful contributions to the UFAST project

Wp-5 external flows—wing

Study of transition location effect (from natural transition to fully turbulent) on separation size, shock structure and unsteadiness was the focus of this WP. Boundary layer tripping (by wire or roughness) and flow control devices (VG) were used for boundary layer transition induction. Although this type of flow field had been studied widely in the past, there remains considerable uncertainty on the effects of transition on transonic aerofoil performance. In particular it is not known how close to the shock location transition has to occur to avoid detrimental effects associated with laminar shock-induced separation. Furthermore, it was unclear how best to provoke transition on an airfoil featuring significant laminar flow and how close to the shock this needs to be performed. Finally, current CFD methods are particularly challenged by such transitional flows. In this work package some of the findings from the basic research performed in other WPs was applied. Specialized large-scale transonic wind tunnels running cost is very high therefore using such facilities is not appropriate for upstream research programs such as TFAST. Therefore we have used existing wind tunnels within our consortium. One of these is a transonic test section at UCAM where laminar and transitional profiles were studied previously at Reynolds numbers up to 2 million (based on chord length). This wind tunnel allowed basic investigations of the transition location effects on a shock induced separation and unsteadiness for a relatively large number of parameters. A larger wind tunnel at Institute of Aviation in Warsaw was used, which enabled the investigation of a much larger aspect ratio profile. In this facility it was possible to measure a whole force polar up to and including the buffet boundary. The research was carried out for the natural b/l transition location as well as different methods of tripping