An important goal of the TFAST project was to study the effect of the location of transition in relation to the shock wave on the separation size, shock structure and unsteadiness of the interaction area. Boundary layer tripping (by wire or roughness) and flow control devices (Vortex Generators and cold plasma) were used for boundary layer transition induction. As flow control devices were used here in the laminar boundary layer for the first time, their effectiveness in transition induction was an important outcome. It was intended to determine in what way the application of these techniques induces transition. These methods should have a significantly different effect on boundary layer receptivity, i.e. the transition location. Apart from an improved understanding of operation control methods, the main objective was to localize the transition as far downstream as possible while ensuring a turbulent character of interaction. The final objective, involving all the partners, was to build a physical model of transition control devices. Establishing of such model would simplify the numerical approach to flow cases using such devices. This undertaking has strong support from the industry, which wants to include these control devices in the design process. Unfortunately only one method of streamwise vortices was developed and investigated in the presented study.

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.