An innovative tool for modeling the specific flood volume was presented that can be applied to assess the need for stormwater network modernization as well as for advanced flood risk assessment. Field measurements for a catchment area in Kielce, Poland, were used to apply the model and demonstrate its usefulness. This model extends the capability of recently developed statistical and machine learning hydrodynamic models developed from multiple runs of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). The extensions enable the inclusion of (1) the characteristics of the catchment and its stormwater network, calibrated model parameters expressing catchment retention, and the capacity of the sewer system; (2) extended sensitivity analysis; and (3) risk analysis. Sensitivity coefficients of calibrated model parameters include correction coefficients for percentage area, flow path, depth of storage, and impervious area; Manning roughness coefficients for impervious areas; and Manning roughness coefficients for sewer channels. Sensitivity coefficients were determined with respect to rainfall intensity and characteristics of the catchment and stormwater network. Extended sensitivity analysis enabled an evaluation of the variability in the specific flood volume and sensitivity coefficients within a catchment, in order to identify the most vulnerable areas threatened by flooding. Thus, the model can be used to identify areas particularly susceptible to stormwater network failure and the sections of the network where corrective action should be taken to reduce the probability of system failure. The simulator developed to determine the specific flood volume represents an alternative approach to the SWMM that, unlike current approaches, can be calibrated with limited topological data availability; therefore, the aforementioned simulator incurs a lower cost due to the lower number and lower specificity of data required.

This report summarises the theoretical design of a degasification plant to recover ammonia and carbon dioxide from organic residues, such as agricultural digestates, manure and municipal/industrial wastewater. Heat and water management had been identified as one crucial factor to optimise during this research. The chemical and physical parameters reveal the high tendency of ammonia towards water phase and underline the difficulty in ammonia stripping. Besides temperature, the volumetric gas-liquid ratio had been identified as most important factors. Regarding pH-value it had been observed, that a further increase is not sufficient once pH 9 is reached. Applied absolute pressure also has been identified of lower importance, compared to temperature and volumetric gas-liquid ratio. The latter three parameters are influencing evaporation and heat management in the desorption stage. A design model from literature according to Onda showed good correlation with the practical experiments including packings. Other column fillings as cones lead to operational problems. The understanding of the exact relations in column design are further used to design a cost-efficient process with low carbon footprint. The practical tests, as such, were reproducible, however the batch operation and limitations in the column design resulted in a limited transferability towards large scale plants. In terms of the absorption stage, the pilot needs to be further optimised to reach sufficient recovery rates. An absorption of ammonia and carbon dioxide under use of gypsum is favoured to also recover carbon dioxide and to avoid sulfuric acid dosing. In that term further tests and optimisation is needed, to have a fully quantifiable pilot system. The integration of a measure-control system is a further development step. In conclusion, the degasification process with low pressure (vacuum) reveals benefits compared to conventional air stripping in terms of heat management and the necessary gas-liquid-ratio, which has effects on column diameter and eventually column height. The necessity of aggressive chemicals dosage (as caustic in desorption) or acid (in absorption) is in view of the authors not given, hence cheap and safe alternatives (e.g. CO2 stripping) and gypsum dosage as alternative sulphur source work sufficient.