Discussion: Quantitative Research Evaluation Peers Review 2

Provide a classmate review on their discussion topic :

present a synopsis of one of the research articles that you found in your assignment this module week. Be sure that your summary includes:

• the problem
• hypothesis
• the quantitative strategy of inquiry
• data collection and analysis plan
• results
• conclusions
• recommendations.

Finally, discuss any issues that you found in the logic of the research article (e.g., inconsistent or unclear narrative, disconnect in methodology, and data collection plan). Under your video post, include an APA-formatted reference of the article.

 

 

Classmate post that you need to post comment/ review on:

Hello All!

 

This weeks quantitative research study is “Comment on ‘A new approach for the design of hypersonic scramjet inlets’ [Phys. Fluids 24, 086103 (2012)]” by Shuvayan Brahmachary, Ganesh Natarajan, Vinayak Kukarni, and Niranjan Sahoo.

 

The problem of the study was effectively the reevaluation of the findings of Om Prakash Raj and Venkatasubbaiah. The authors of this study were working to prove that the findings of R&V, as they were referred to in the study, was incorrect by effectively redoing the work.

 

The hypothesis was effectively a null hypothesis, though not outrightly stated. It was basically ‘the research accomplished by R&V was incorrect, and that the authors would then demonstrate how they were incorrect and then determine what the correct analysis was.

 

The quantitative strategy of inquiry was an observational descriptive study with reporting, making this a case study (deakin.libguides.com).

 

The Data collection and analysis plan was entirely derived from the original study, and the authors then state that:

“1- For a given configuration (the fixed number of external and internal shocks), the approach of R&V does not have a consistently higher TPR than that from Smart’s approach. In fat, for a lower range of Mach numbers, the latter shows a higher TPR, while only for the higher range of Mach numbers, does the proposed new approach show a superior TPR.

 

2- As the total number of shocks m+n increases, the difference in TPR between the two approaches diminishes” (Brahmachary, Natarajan, Kukarni, et al., 2020).

 

The results of the study were:

“1- The configurations obtained by R&V’s approach show no significant superiority over those obtained using Smart’s optimum TPR method.

 

2- Euler simulations from our studies demonstrate that two-dimensionality effects solely do not lead to a violation of the shock-on-lip condition” (Brahmachary, Natarajan, Kukarni, et al., 2020).

 

The conclusion of the study state that “Despite these observations, we concur with R&V that the design configuration will not satisfy the shock-on-lip condition when realistic viscous flows are considered and a viscous correction similar to that proposed by R&V would then be necessary” (Brahmachary, Natarajan, Kukarni, et al., 2020). They continue on to recommend that, based on the updates, R&V should revise their study (Brahmachary, Natarajan, Kukarni, et al., 2020).

 

The logic of this research article makes sense, and I think that going back over simulated work when actively working towards high risk developments, such as supersonics, provides an additional and necessary level of safety.