No abstract

Experimental studies have been performed to investigate the pressure amplification experienced behind a textile when exposed to a shock wave. Three textiles with different masses and air permeabilities were studied. Mach numbers for tests varied between 1.23 and 1.55. The distance between the back wall and the textile was varied between 3 and 15 mm. It was found that in most cases the presence of the textile led to a pressure amplification at the back wall. This amplification was dependent on the textile, Mach number and distance from the back wall. The processes causing the pressure amplification were identified by analysing pressure traces and contact shadowgraphs. It was found that when the incident wave impinges on the textile, a part is reflected upstream and a part is transmitted through the textile. The transmitted portion reflects back and forth in the gap between the textile and the back wall leading to a back wall pressure trace with a stepped profile. In addition, the textile moves towards the back wall causing compression waves to propagate towards the back wall. The combination of the stepped profile and the compression waves cause the pressure amplification. The contribution of each mechanism depends on the textile properties. Approximate wave diagrams have been constructed. Tests involving multiple layers of textiles are also discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

In a Fall 2019 editorial, JEE editor Lisa Benson reflected on the "gladiatorial atmosphere" in academia that can be amplified by the peer review process (Benson, 2019, p. 311). Academia can feel like a constant uphill battle of rejections and criticisms from discerning gatekeepers. Peer review is no exception, especially in journals with high rejection rates, as toxic comments on both the work and the authors add insult to injury (Silbiger & Stubler, 2019). But it does not have to be this way. Benson argues that peer review "provides ample space for cheering each other on as well as tearing each other down" (p. 311). By emphasizing the role of peer review in supporting and mentoring authors, it can be leveraged to contribute to the scholarship of a field.Toward this goal, JEE launched the Mentored Reviewer Program (Mentored Reviewer Program, 2020) in 2019 to coach new or novice reviewers (such as graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and engineering faculty) through the review process with a mentor who has substantial experience in reviewing and writing engineering education research (EER) articles. In the program, mentees are assigned to a mentor after being matched based on common areas of expertise and research interests. During the program, which lasts approximately 6 months, mentors and mentees work together on three reviews, following a scaffolded approach. The program emphasizes mentorship both in how the mentees are coached through the peer review process and how constructive reviews serve as a form of mentorship to help authors develop their best work to strengthen the scholarship of the EER community.We wrote this guest editorial as a team and started by reflecting on what we learned as mentees in the first offering of the JEE Mentored Reviewer Program and how we have grown as reviewers and researchers. We shared our collective experiences and identified that the program has positively impacted our identities as engineering education researchers and our contributions to the EER community. To give structure to our reflections, we situate our experience in two complementary frameworks: the identity-trajectory framework (McAlpine et al., 2014) on an individual level and the community of practice framework (Jesiek et al., 2009) to conceptualize our changing role in the engineering education community. In this editorial, we first unpack the impact of peer review on identity development followed by community development. We argue that the program has had a positive impact on our identities as engineering education researchers and our role in the EER community; we observe a ripple effect from the specific context of working on reviews of JEE manuscripts to our broader approach to research and writing, engaging with colleagues, and reviewing for other journals and conferences. | PEER REVIEW AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENTAs an emergent field, EER embraces and reflects multiple disciplinary perspectives, each with particular norms, standards, and definitions of quality research (Beddoes, 2014). A consequence for ea...