Coherent structures in open channel flows with bed load transport over an hydraulically rough bed

Excess sediment production in the upper parts of catchments may result in important impacts over morphodynamics of gravel bed-rivers. By changing morphodynamics, sediment overfeeding may induce important changes in the structure of near-bed flow, mainly in what concerns exchange of momentum and mass between flow within the roughness elements and flow in the upper regions. It is not well-known how turbulent statistics, including those characterizing the bursting cycle, are affected by bed load transport, for mobile but geometrically similar beds. This study addresses this issue. It is aimed at evaluating the impacts of sediment transport on flow hydrodynamics, namely on statistics of turbulent coherent structures. In order to accomplish the proposed objective, laboratory tests were undertaken. Two-dimensional instantaneous flow velocity fields in the stream-wise and vertical directions were measured with Particle Image Velocimetry. Two laboratory tests simulated a framework gravel bed with sand matrix and a framework gravel bed with sand matrix but with sediment transport imposed at near capacity conditions. The framework consists of coarse gravel whose diameters range between 0.5 cm and 7 cm and is kept immobile under the imposed flow conditions. The mobile sediments are sand with a mean diameter of 0.9 mm. For both tests, the quadrant threshold analysis technique was employed and shear stress distribution statistics were analyzed and discussed in what concerns their contribution and persistence. In the case of mobile conditions, sweep events tend to govern the flow in the near-bed region. Relevant differences between mobile and sub-threshold beds are found in the wake of roughness elements, mostly for sweep statistics. In the presence of bed-load, ejection events decrease their participation in the shear stress production processes. This decrease in the ejection events contribution is partially balanced with an increase in the frequency of inward events

Report of the Committee on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Smaller and/or Closely Held Businesses

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_assoc/1374/thumbnail.jp

Proposed statement on auditing standards : generally accepted auditing standards : (supersedes Generally accepted auditing standards of Statement on auditing standards no. 1, Codification of auditing standards and procedures, AICPA, Professional standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 150);Generally accepted auditing standards : (supersedes Generally accepted auditing standards of Statement on auditing standards no. 1, Codification of auditing standards and procedures, AICPA, Professional standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 150); Exposure draft (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 2001, May 4

The body of auditing literature grew and evolved considerably during the twentieth century. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) boards and committees have issued ninety-three Statements on Auditing Standards (SASs), some of which have been superseded, and numerous auditing interpretations. The AICPA also has published Auditing Statements of Position, Audit and Accounting Guides and numerous other publications containing guidance of varying authority on how to conduct an audit of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). Although the AICPA has, on occasion, realigned and clarified the authority of these publications, some uncertainty remains in the minds of auditors and others about which publications auditors must know and follow when conducting an audit. Furthermore, because of the large volume of auditing publications, some auditors may not be aware of publications that may be applicable to their audit engagements. The Auditing Standards Board (ASB) believes the proposed SAS will significantly reduce uncertainty about which publications the auditor must comply with and which publications the auditor must consider when performing an audit in accordance with GAAS. The ASB also expects that auditors will become more aware of other applicable auditing publications that may provide useful auditing guidance, increasing the likelihood that auditors will use them. All of this should result in increased audit quality. The proposed SAS: 1. Identifies the body of auditing literature. 2. Clarifies the authority of auditing publications issued by the AICPA and others. 3. Specifies which auditing publications the auditor must comply with and those he or she must consider when conducting an audit in accordance with GAAS. 4. Identifies specific AICPA auditing publications and provides information on how to obtain them. This proposed SAS would supersede SAS No. 1, Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures, AU section 150, Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. Certain other descriptions of the authority of AICPA auditing publications also will be revised to conform to the descriptions included in the proposed SAS. These include the head note in AU Section 100, Statements on Auditing Standards - Introduction (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 100), the authority statement included at the end of each newly-published SASs, the Notice to Readers included in AICPA Audit and Accounting Guides and AICPA Audit Guides, and certain other notices and authority statements included in other AICPA auditing publications.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1282/thumbnail.jp

Formal Versus Functional Method in Comparative Constitutional Law

In the field of comparative constitutional law, the dominant approach to concept formation and research design is formal. That is, comparative projects generally identify what counts as the supreme law that can be enforced against all other sources of law based on the “constitutional” label of the positive law (written constitutions and the jurisprudence of constitutional courts) and the law books. This formal method, however, has significant limitations when compared with the functional method used in the field of comparative law more generally speaking. After a brief exposition of the functional method, this article explores the advantages of the functional method as applied to comparative constitutional law with the problem of judicial review (based on the supreme law) of social and economic policy-making in France, the United States, and Germany. Only in Germany is this law contained in constitutional law. In France, the supreme law is to be found largely in administrative law, because the constitutional court faces an institutional competitor, some would say superior, in the highest administrative court (Conseil d’État). In the United States, the supreme law is to be found in administrative law because economic and social rights—the rights that most directly affect this area of state activity—have largely been read out of constitutional law. Based on the functional method, the article proceeds to identify the similarities that unite the law of France and Germany and that set it apart from the law of the United States. It also outlines the important avenues of theoretical inquiry triggered by these similarities and differences in judicial review. The article concludes by sketching a functional agenda for empirical research in comparative constitutional law