WaterBody vs FluidBody

[mbeaufils]

Water Body #14 and FluidBody #15

Do we need both?

[IHalfon]

Water Body seems appropriate. Other kinds of fluids (oil and gas for example) are not usually encountered in geotechnics and civil eng.

[dponti]

I personally would stick with the definition of FluidBody of which one of the major and perhaps only fluid of interest in geotechnics would be water. The WaerBody definition only indicates a mass of water distinct from another mass of water, whcih could include surface water as well as water filling voidis, which is part of the fluid body definition. To the degree that surface water is important to consider in geotechnics perhaps that should be defined separately. So, perhaps two fluid masses - FluidBody (subsurface fluid filling voids composed of water and/or other constituents), and SurfaceWater - a mass of water that resides on the surface of the earth such that a surface of the mass is exposed to the atmosphere.

[neilchadwick-dg]

There is a big difference between how we handle surface water bodies vs groundwater bodies in terms of:

• visualisation
• analysis

I think that aligns with @dponti. What I describe above is the critical separation, so we at least need two types of body, but not quite as proposed originally, it would appear.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, we should also differentiate between observational and design/analysis bodies if we are going to be consistent.