Sewer systems are closely interlinked with groundwater and surface water. Due to leaks and regular openings in the sewer system (e.g. combined sewer overflow structures with sometimes reverse pressure conditions), groundwater infiltration and surface water inflow as well as exfiltration of sewage take place and cannot be avoided. In the paper a new hydrodynamic sewer network modelling approach will be presented, which includes--besides precipitation--hydrographs of groundwater and surface water as essential boundary conditions. The concept of the modelling approach and the models to describe the infiltration, inflow and exfiltration fluxes are described. The model application to the sewerage system of the City of Dresden during a flood event with complex conditions shows that the processes of infiltration, exfiltration and surface water inflows can be described with a higher reliability and accuracy, showing that surface water inflow causes a pronounced system reaction. Further, according to the simulation results, a high sensitivity of exfiltration rates on the in-sewer water levels and a relatively low influence of the dynamic conditions on the infiltration rates were found.

No abstract

No abstract

Two different approaches to increase the fraction of combined water treated in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) which would otherwise contribute to combined sewer overflows (CSO) are presented and compared based on modelling results with regard to their efficiencies during various rain events. The first option is to generally increase the WWTP inflow according to its actual capacity rather than pre-setting a maximum that applies to worst case loading. In the second option the WWTP inflow is also increased, however, the extra inflow of combined water is bypassing the activated sludge tank and directly discharged to the secondary clarifier. Both approaches have their advantages. For the simulated time series with various rain events, the reduction of total COD load from CSOs and WWTP effluent discharged to the receiving water was up to 20% for both approaches. The total ammonia load reduction was between 6% for the bypass and 11% for inflow increase. A combination of both approaches minimises the adverse effects and the overall emission to the receiving water.