93.160 - Hydraulic construction
ICS 93.160 Details
Hydraulic construction
Wasserbau
Construction hydraulique
Vodogradnja
General Information
Frequently Asked Questions
ICS 93.160 is a classification code in the International Classification for Standards (ICS) system. It covers "Hydraulic construction". The ICS is a hierarchical classification system used to organize international, regional, and national standards, facilitating the search and identification of standards across different fields.
There are 34 standards classified under ICS 93.160 (Hydraulic construction). These standards are published by international and regional standardization bodies including ISO, IEC, CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI.
The International Classification for Standards (ICS) is a hierarchical classification system maintained by ISO to organize standards and related documents. It uses a three-level structure with field (2 digits), group (3 digits), and sub-group (2 digits) codes. The ICS helps users find standards by subject area and enables statistical analysis of standards development activities.
This document is concerned with the assessment of fish survival in pumping stations and hydropower plants, defined as the fraction of fish that passes an installation without significant injury. It does not concern indirect consequences of such installations, usually included in the notions ‘fish safety’ or ‘fish-friendliness’, like avoidance of fish affecting migration, behavioural changes, injury during attempted upstream passage, temporary stunning of fish resulting in potential predation, or depleted oxygen levels.
This document applies to pumps and turbines in pumping stations and hydropower plants that operate in or between bodies of surface water, in rivers, in streams or estuaries containing resident and/or migratory fish stocks. Installations include centrifugal pumps (radial type, mixed-flow type, axial type), Archimedes screws, and water turbines (Francis type, Kaplan type, Bulb type, Straflo type, etc.).
The following methods to assess fish survival are described:
— Survival tests involving the paired release of live fish, introduced in batches of test and control fish upstream and downstream of an installation, and the subsequent recapture in full-flow collection nets. The method is applicable to survival tests in the field and in a laboratory environment. (Clause 6);
— A validated model-based computational method consisting of a blade encounter model and correlations that quantify the biological response to blade strike (Clause 7).
The computational method can be used to scale results from laboratory fish survival tests to full-scale installations operating under different conditions (Clause 8).
The survival tests and computational method can also be applied to open-water turbines, with the caveats mentioned in Annex C.
The results of a survival test or a computed estimation can be compared with a presumed maximum sustainable mortality rate for a given fish population at the site of a pumping station or hydropower plant. However, this document does not define these maximum rates allowing to label a machine as “fish-friendly”, nor does it describe a method for determining such a maximum.
This document offers an integrated method to assess fish survival in pumping stations and hydropower plants by fish survival tests and model-based calculations. It allows (non-)government environmental agencies to evaluate the impact on resident and migratory fish stocks in a uniform manner. Thus the document will help to support the preservation of fish populations and reverse the trend of declining migratory fish stocks. Pump and turbine manufacturers will benefit from the document as it sets uniform and clear criteria for fish survival assessment. Further, the physical model that underlies the computational method in the document, may serve as a tool for new product development. To academia and research institutions, this document represents the baseline of shared understanding. It will serve as an incentive for further research in an effort to fill the omissions and to improve on existing assessment methods.
- Standard80 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard80 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
This document is concerned with the assessment of fish survival in pumping stations and hydropower plants, defined as the fraction of fish that passes an installation without significant injury. It does not concern indirect consequences of such installations, usually included in the notions ‘fish safety’ or ‘fish-friendliness’, like avoidance of fish affecting migration, behavioural changes, injury during attempted upstream passage, temporary stunning of fish resulting in potential predation, or depleted oxygen levels.
This document applies to pumps and turbines in pumping stations and hydropower plants that operate in or between bodies of surface water, in rivers, in streams or estuaries containing resident and/or migratory fish stocks. Installations include centrifugal pumps (radial type, mixed-flow type, axial type), Archimedes screws, and water turbines (Francis type, Kaplan type, Bulb type, Straflo type, etc.).
The following methods to assess fish survival are described:
— Survival tests involving the paired release of live fish, introduced in batches of test and control fish upstream and downstream of an installation, and the subsequent recapture in full-flow collection nets. The method is applicable to survival tests in the field and in a laboratory environment. (Clause 6);
— A validated model-based computational method consisting of a blade encounter model and correlations that quantify the biological response to blade strike (Clause 7).
The computational method can be used to scale results from laboratory fish survival tests to full-scale installations operating under different conditions (Clause 8).
The survival tests and computational method can also be applied to open-water turbines, with the caveats mentioned in Annex C.
The results of a survival test or a computed estimation can be compared with a presumed maximum sustainable mortality rate for a given fish population at the site of a pumping station or hydropower plant. However, this document does not define these maximum rates allowing to label a machine as “fish-friendly”, nor does it describe a method for determining such a maximum.
This document offers an integrated method to assess fish survival in pumping stations and hydropower plants by fish survival tests and model-based calculations. It allows (non-)government environmental agencies to evaluate the impact on resident and migratory fish stocks in a uniform manner. Thus the document will help to support the preservation of fish populations and reverse the trend of declining migratory fish stocks. Pump and turbine manufacturers will benefit from the document as it sets uniform and clear criteria for fish survival assessment. Further, the physical model that underlies the computational method in the document, may serve as a tool for new product development. To academia and research institutions, this document represents the baseline of shared understanding. It will serve as an incentive for further research in an effort to fill the omissions and to improve on existing assessment methods.
- Standard80 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
- Standard80 pagesEnglish languagee-Library read for1 day
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assumptions:
5.1.1 Well discharges at a constant rate, Q.
5.1.2 Well is of infinitesimal diameter and fully penetrates the aquifer.
5.1.3 The nonleaky aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and aerially extensive. A nonleaky aquifer receives insignificant contribution of water from confining beds.
5.1.4 Discharge from the well is derived exclusively from storage in the aquifer.
5.1.5 The geometry of the assumed aquifer and well conditions are shown in Fig. 1.
5.2.3 Application of Theis Method to Unconfined Aquifers:
5.2.3.1 Although the assumptions are applicable to artesian or confined conditions, the Theis solution may be applied to unconfined aquifers if drawdown is small compared with the saturated thickness of the aquifer or if the drawdown is corrected for reduction in thickness of the aquifer, and the effects of delayed gravity yield are small.
5.2.3.2 Reduction in Aquifer Thickness—In an unconfined aquifer dewatering occurs when the water levels decline in the vicinity of a pumping well. Corrections in drawdown need to be made when the drawdown is a significant fraction of the aquifer thickness as shown by Jacob (5). The drawdown, s, needs to be replaced by s′, the drawdown that would occur in an equivalent confined aquifer, where:
5.2.3.3 Gravity Yield Effects—In unconfined aquifers, delayed gravity yield effects may invalidate measurements of drawdown during the early part of the test for application to the Theis method. Effects of delayed gravity yield are negligible in partially penetrating observation wells at and beyond a distance, r, from the control well, where:
After the time, t, as given in Eq 9 from Neuman (6).
where:
Sy = the specific yield. For fully penetrating observation wells, the effects of delayed yield are negligible at the distance, r, in Eq 8 after one tenth of the time given in the Eq 9.
Note 1: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the co...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers an analytical procedure for determining the transmissivity and storage coefficient of a nonleaky confined aquifer. It is used to analyze data on water-level response collected during radial flow to or from a well of constant discharge or injection.
1.2 This analytical procedure, along with others, is used in conjunction with the field procedure given in Test Method D4050.
1.3 Limitations—The limitations of this practice for determination of hydraulic properties of aquifers are primarily related to the correspondence between the field situation and the simplifying assumptions of this practice (see 5.1).
1.4 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026.
1.4.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded or calculated, in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in analytical methods for engineering design.
1.5 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of the practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without the consideration of a project’s many ...
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice allows the user to compute the true hydraulic efficiency of a pumped well in a confined aquifer from a constant rate pumping field test. The procedures described constitute the only valid method of determining well efficiency. Some practitioners have confused well efficiency with percentage of head loss associated with laminar flow, a parameter commonly determined from a step-drawdown test. Well efficiency, however, cannot be determined from a step-drawdown test but only can be determined from a constant rate test.
5.2 Assumptions:
5.2.1 Control well discharges at a constant rate, Q.
5.2.2 Control well is of infinitesimal diameter.
5.2.3 Data are obtained from the control well and, if available, a number of observation wells.
5.2.4 The aquifer is confined, homogeneous, and extensive. The aquifer may be anisotropic, and if so, the directions of maximum and minimum hydraulic conductivity are horizontal and vertical, respectively.
5.2.5 Discharge from the well is derived exclusively from storage in the aquifer.
5.3 Calculation Requirements—For the special case of partially penetrating wells, application of this practice may be computationally intensive. The function fs shown in Eq 6 should be evaluated using arbitrary input parameters. It is not practical to use existing, somewhat limited, tables of values for fs and, because this equation is rather formidable, it may not be tractable by hand. Because of this, it is assumed the practitioner using this practice will have available a computerized procedure for evaluating the function fs. This can be accomplished using commercially available mathematical software including some spreadsheet applications. If calculating fs is not practical, it is recommended to substitute the Kozeny equation for the Hantush equation as previously described.
Note 1: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability o...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes an analytical procedure for determining the hydraulic efficiency of a production well in a confined aquifer. It involves comparing the actual drawdown in the well to the theoretical minimum drawdown achievable and is based upon data and aquifer coefficients obtained from a constant rate pumping test.
1.2 This analytical practice is used in conjunction with the field procedure, Test Method D4050.
1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard, except as noted below. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units, which are provided for information only and are not considered standard. The reporting of results in units other than inch-pound shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.
1.3.1 The gravitational system of inch-pound units is used when dealing with inch-pound units. In this system, the pound (lbf) represents a unit of force (weight), while the unit for mass is slugs.
1.4 Limitations—The limitations of the technique for determination of well efficiency are related primarily to the correspondence between the field situation and the simplifying assumption of this practice.
1.5 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and round established in Practice D6026, unless superseded by this standard.
1.5.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded or calculated, in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported date to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to ...
- Standard8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard8 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 The assumptions of the physical system are given as follows:
6.1.1 The aquifer is of uniform thickness and confined by impermeable beds above and below.
6.1.2 The aquifer is of constant homogeneous porosity and matrix compressibility and of homogeneous and isotropic hydraulic conductivity.
6.1.3 The origin of the cylindrical coordinate system is taken to be on the well-bore axis at the top of the aquifer.
6.1.4 The aquifer is fully screened.
6.2 The assumptions made in defining the momentum balance are as follows:
6.2.1 The average water velocity in the well is approximately constant over the well-bore section.
6.2.2 Flow is laminar and frictional head losses from flow across the well screen are negligible.
6.2.3 Flow through the well screen is uniformly distributed over the entire aquifer thickness.
6.2.4 Change in momentum from the water velocity changing from radial flow through the screen to vertical flow in the well are negligible.
6.2.5 The system response is an exponentially decaying sinusoidal function.
Note 3: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers determination of transmissivity from the measurement of the damped oscillation about the equilibrium water level of a well-aquifer system to a sudden change of water level in a well. Underdamped response of water level in a well to a sudden change in water level is characterized by oscillatory fluctuation about the static water level with a decrease in the magnitude of fluctuation and recovery to initial water level. Underdamped response may occur in wells tapping highly transmissive confined aquifers and in deep wells having long water columns.
1.2 This analytical procedure is used in conjunction with the field procedure Test Method D4044/D4044M for collection of test data.
1.3 Limitations—Slug tests are considered to provide an estimate of transmissivity of a confined aquifer. This test method requires that the storage coefficient be known. Assumptions of this practice prescribe a fully penetrating well (a well open through the full thickness of the aquifer), but the slug test method is commonly conducted using a partially penetrating well. Such a practice may be acceptable for application under conditions in which the aquifer is stratified and horizontal hydraulic conductivity is much greater than vertical hydraulic conductivity. In such a case the test would be considered to be representative of the average hydraulic conductivity of the portion of the aquifer adjacent to the open interval of the well. The method assumes laminar flow and is applicable for a slug test in which the initial water-level displacement is less than 0.1 or 0.2 of the length of the static water column.
1.4 This practice for analysis presented here is derived by van der Kamp (1)2 based on an approximation of the underdamped response to that of an exponentially damped sinusoid. A more rigorous analysis of the response of wells to a sudden change in water level by Kipp (2) indicates that the method presented by van der Kamp (1) matches the solution of Kipp (2) when the damping parameter values are less than about 0.2 and time greater than that of the first peak of the oscillation (2).
1.5 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore each system shall be used independe...
- Standard6 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard6 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assumptions:
5.1.1 Well discharges at a constant rate, Q.
5.1.2 Well is of infinitesimal diameter and fully penetrates the aquifer, that is, the well is open to the full thickness of the aquifer.
5.1.3 The nonleaky aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and areally extensive. A nonleaky aquifer receives insignificant contribution of water from confining beds.
5.1.4 Discharge from the well is derived exclusively from storage in the aquifer.
5.1.5 The geometry of the assumed aquifer and well conditions are shown in Fig. 1.
5.2.3 Application of Theis Nonequilibrium Method to Unconfined Aquifers:
5.2.3.1 Although the assumptions are applicable to confined conditions, the Theis solution may be applied to unconfined aquifers if drawdown is small compared with the saturated thickness of the aquifer or if the drawdown is corrected for reduction in thickness of the aquifer and the effects of delayed gravity yield are small.
5.2.3.2 Reduction in Aquifer Thickness—In an unconfined aquifer, dewatering occurs when the water levels decline in the vicinity of a pumping well. Corrections in drawdown need to be made when the drawdown is a significant fraction of the aquifer thickness as shown by Jacob (8). The drawdown, s, needs to be replaced by s′, the drawdown that would occur in an equivalent confined aquifer, where:
5.2.3.3 Gravity Yield Effects—In unconfined aquifers, delayed gravity yield effects may invalidate measurements of drawdown during the early part of the test for application to the Theis method. Effects of delayed gravity yield are negligible in partially penetrating observation wells at a distance, r, from the control well, where:
after the time, t, as given in the following equation from Neuman (9):
where:
Sy = the specific yield.
For fully penetrating observation wells, the effects of delayed yield are negligible at the distance, r, in Eq 11 after one tenth of the time given in the Eq 12.
Note ...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers an analytical procedure for determining transmissivity and storage coefficient of a nonleaky confined aquifer under conditions of radial flow to a fully penetrating well of constant flux. This practice is a shortcut procedure used to apply the Theis nonequilibrium method. The Theis method is described in Practice D4106.
1.2 This practice, along with others, is used in conjunction with the field procedure given in Test Method D4050.
1.3 Limitations—The limitations of this practice are primarily related to the correspondence between the field situation and the simplifying assumptions of this practice (see 5.1). Furthermore, application is valid only for values of u less than 0.01 (u is defined in Eq 2, in 8.6).
1.4 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026.
1.4.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded or calculated, in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in analytical methods for engineering design.
1.5 Units—The values stated in either SI Units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. Reporting of results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with...
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Constant drawdown test procedures are used with appropriate analytical procedures to determine transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storage coefficient of aquifers.
Note 1: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors: Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the methods for controlling drawdown and measuring discharge rates and head to analyze the hydraulic properties of an aquifer or aquifers.
1.2 This practice is used in conjunction with analytical procedures such as those of Jacob and Lohman (1)/(2),2 and Hantush (3).
1.3 The appropriate field and analytical procedures for determining hydraulic properties of aquifer systems are selected as described in Guide D4043.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.5 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.
- Standard3 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard3 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is useful for analyzing data on the recovery of water levels following pumping or injection of water to or from a control well at a constant rate. The analytical procedure given in this test method along with several others is used in conjunction with the field procedure in Test Method D4050.
5.2 Assumptions:
5.2.1 The well discharges at a constant rate, Q, or at steps of constant rate Q1, Q2 ... Qn.
5.2.2 Well is of infinitesimal diameter and is open through the full thickness of the aquifer.
5.2.3 The nonleaky aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and extensive in area.
5.2.4 Discharge from the well is derived exclusively from storage in the aquifer.
5.2.5 The geometry of the assumed aquifer and well are shown in Fig. 1.
5.3 Implications of Assumptions:
5.3.1 Implicit in the assumptions are the conditions of radial flow. Vertical flow components are induced by a control well that partially penetrates the aquifer, that is, not open to the aquifer through the full thickness of the aquifer. If vertical flow components are significant, the nearest partially penetrating observation well should be located at a distance, r, beyond which vertical flow components are negligible. See 5.3.1 of Test Method D4106 for assistance in determining the minimum distance to partially penetrating observation wells and piezometers.
5.3.2 The Theis method assumes the control well is of infinitesimal diameter. The storage in the control well may adversely affect drawdown measurements obtained in the early part of the test. See 5.3.2 of Test Method D4106 for assistance in determining the duration of the effects of well-bore storage on drawdown.
5.3.3 Application of Theis Recovery Method for Unconfined Aquifers:
5.3.3.1 Although the assumptions are applicable to artesian or confined conditions, the Theis solution may be applied to unconfined aquifers if (A) drawdown is small compared with the saturated thickness of the aquifer or if the ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers an analytical procedure for determining the transmissivity of a confined aquifer. This test method is used to analyze data from the recovery of water levels following pumping or injection of water to or from a control well at a constant rate.
1.2 The analytical procedure given in this test method, along with several others, is used in conjunction with the field procedure in Test Method D4050. Guide D4043 provides information for determining hydraulic properties.
1.3 Limitations—The valid use of the Theis recovery method is limited to determination of transmissivities for aquifers in hydrogeologic settings reasonably corresponding to the assumptions of the Theis theory (see 5.2).
1.4 Units—The values stated in either SI Units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. Reporting of test results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this test method.
1.5 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026. All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026, unless otherwise superseded by this standard.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
WITHDRAWN RATIONALE
This test method covers an analytical procedure for determining the transmissivity of a confined aquifer. This test method is used to analyze data from the recovery o...
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
- Standard5 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
An essential requirement of hydrogeologists in evaluating the hydraulic properties of a segment of earth materials is to define and map hydrogeologic units, aquifers, and confining units, which are determined on the basis of relative permeability. Discussion of the hydrogeologic units is facilitated by individual designations (see Practices D5409, D5434, and D5474).
Determinations of hydrogeologic units are based on indirect methods, knowledge of the geologic materials (geologic mapping, surface geophysical surveys, borehole geophysical logs, drill-cuttings and core descriptions, and so forth), and hydraulic testing (aquifer tests, laboratory permeability tests on core samples, and so forth).
The physical properties of all rock units will change if traced laterally and vertically. The rock units are broken by unconformities and faults, which may or may not affect the flow of groundwater. The process of designating and naming aquifers and confining units, therefore, is a somewhat subjective undertaking, and, if not thoroughly documented, can lead to confusion.
Guidelines for naming aquifers can help avoid some of the confusion and problems associated with hydrogeologic studies if the guidelines are straight forward to apply, flexible, and applicable to studies of a variety of scales from site-specific to regional.
The guidelines that follow include discussions of the terminology of aquifer nomenclature, the definition of the hydrogeologic framework, the suggested procedures for naming aquifers, and examples of naming aquifers.
These guidelines have resulted from numerous discussions on the subject of aquifer nomenclature among hydrogeologists. Although unanimous agreement on these proposals has not been achieved, the exercises provided an extremely useful purpose in creating additional thought and discussion.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers a series of options but does not specify a course of action. It should not be used as the sole criterion or basis of comparison and does not replace or relieve professional judgement.
1.2 This guide contains instructions and suggestions for authors of groundwater (hydrogeologic) reports in assigning appropriately derived and formatted aquifer nomenclature. Discussed are the water-bearing units that may require name identification, which are, ranked from largest to smallest, aquifer system, aquifer, and zone. Guidance is given on choosing the source of aquifer names, those are from lithologic terms, rock-stratigraphic units, and geographic names.
1.3 Included are examples of comparison charts and tables that can be used to define the hydrogeologic framework. Illustrations of eleven different hypothetical aquifer settings are presented to demonstrate the naming process.
1.4 Categories of items not suggested as a source of aquifer names are reviewed because, although they should be avoided, they occur in published documents. These categories are the following: time-stratigraphic names, relative position, alphanumeric designations, depositional environment, depth of occurrence, acronyms, and hydrologic conditions.
1.5 Confining units are discussed with the suggestion that these units should not be named unless doing so clearly promotes an understanding of a particular aquifer system. Suggested sources of names for confining units correspond to those for aquifer names, which are lithologic terms, rock-stratigraphic units, and geographic names.
1.6 It is suggested that in reports that involve hydrogeology, the author should consider first not naming aquifers (see 6.2).
1.7 Format and expression styles are assessed along with the general cautions related to name selection of aquifers and confining units.
1.8 This guide is a modification of a previously published report (1).
1.9 This guide offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This guide cannot replace educati...
- Guide17 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The practices described are only for water bearing reservoirs, ponds, canals, and ditches.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the description of suitable materials and procedures for installing prefabricated asphalt reservoir, pond, canal, and ditch liner (exposed type).
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
WITHDRAWN RATIONALE
This practice covered the description of suitable materials and procedures for installing prefabricated asphalt reservoir, pond, canal, and ditch liner (exposed type).
Formerly under the jurisdiction of Committee D35 on Geosynthetics, this practice was withdrawn in June 2016. This standard is being withdrawn without replacement because it was transferred from another committee and no technical expert has come forward to review the standard.
- Standard3 pagesEnglish languagesale 15% off