Coanda Screen vs. Bar Screen vs. Drum Screen: Which Fits Your Project?

Choosing the right water intake screen is one of the most important engineering decisions in any water diversion project. The wrong technology leads to chronic maintenance costs, regulatory non-compliance, fish mortality incidents, or (in the worst case) complete failure of the intake under the very conditions it was designed to handle.

This guide compares six intake screen technologies across 12 engineering parameters, giving you a clear, data-driven framework for technology selection. We also tell you exactly when a Coanda screen is not the right choice: because the best recommendation is always the honest one.

---

Table of Contents

1. The Six Intake Screen Technologies
2. Side-by-Side Comparison Table
3. Technology Deep Dives
4. When to Use Each Technology
5. When NOT to Use a Coanda Screen
6. Decision Framework: 5 Questions to Choose Your Screen
7. Cost Comparison: Capital vs. Lifetime
8. Fish Protection Compliance by Technology
9. Frequently Asked Questions
10. References

---

The Six Intake Screen Technologies

Before comparing, let's define each technology clearly.

1. Coanda Screen

A Coanda screen is a passive, gravity-fed intake device that uses the Coanda effect (the tendency of a fluid to follow a curved surface) combined with tilted wedge wire to shear clean water through narrow slots (0.5 to 2.0 mm, 1.0 mm standard; narrower slots on request) while debris slides off the screen face. No moving parts, no electricity required [1][2].

2. Bar Screen (Coarse Screen)

A bar screen consists of parallel steel bars spaced 20–100 mm apart, positioned across the flow channel. Bar screens remove only large debris (branches, plastic, rocks) and serve as the first stage of a multi-stage screening system. They are cleaned either by hand or by a mechanical rake [3].

3. Trash Rack

A trash rack is a heavy-duty grid of steel bars installed at the entrance to penstocks, tunnels, or conduits. Bar spacing typically ranges from 25 mm to 150 mm (1–6 inches). Trash racks protect downstream equipment from large floating and submerged debris and are standard at virtually all hydropower intakes [4][5].

4. Drum Screen (Rotary Drum Screen)

A drum screen is a cylindrical rotating screen that turns continuously or intermittently in the flow channel. Water passes through the mesh (0.2–3.0 mm openings) while debris is lifted out and removed by spray nozzles. Drum screens require electrical power but offer high flow capacities: up to 90,000 m³/hr per channel for large industrial units [6].

5. Traveling Water Screen (Band Screen)

A traveling water screen is a vertically oriented belt of screen panels that rotates continuously through the water column. Screen panels lift debris and fish from the water to a discharge trough at the top. This is the most common technology at large power plant cooling water intakes, and 316(b)-compliant versions include fish buckets with gentle spray-wash return systems [7][8].

6. Passive Wedge Wire Screen (Cylindrical / T-Screen)

A passive wedge wire screen is a submerged, stationary cylindrical or T-shaped screen constructed from wedge wire with slot widths typically 1–10 mm. Water is pulled through the screen by pump suction or passes through under gravity. The high open-area ratio (50–70%) maintains low through-screen velocities that protect aquatic life [9][10].

---

Side-by-Side Comparison Table

This is the comprehensive comparison that does not exist anywhere else in the industry. Each assessment is based on published engineering data and operating experience.

Parameter	Coanda Screen	Bar Screen	Trash Rack	Drum Screen	Traveling Screen	Passive Wedge Wire
Screening Fineness	0.5–2.0 mm	20–100 mm	25–150 mm	0.2–3.0 mm	0.5–10 mm	1–10 mm
Electricity Required	None	None (manual) / Low (mech.)	None	Yes (motor)	Yes (motor + spray)	None (gravity) or pump
Moving Parts	None	None (manual) / Rake (mech.)	None	Rotating drum + spray	Rotating belt + spray + buckets	None
Self-Cleaning	Yes (hydraulic)	No (manual/mech. rake)	No (manual/mech. rake)	Yes (spray nozzles)	Yes (spray nozzles)	Partial (sweep velocity)
Maintenance Level	Very Low	Low–Medium	Low	Medium–High	High	Low–Medium
Typical Lifespan	up to 25 years	15–25 years	20–30 years	10–20 years	10–15 years	20–30 years
Capital Cost	Medium	Low	Low	Medium–High	High	Medium
Operating Cost	Near Zero	Low	Low	Medium	High	Low
Head Loss	450–1,270 mm (standard); more for custom screens	10–150 mm	10–300 mm	50–300 mm	50–300 mm	10–100 mm
Fish Protection	Excellent	Poor	Poor	Good–Excellent	Good (with fish buckets)	Excellent
Max Flow Capacity	140 l/s per m of weir (USBR baseline)	Very high (limited only by channel size)	Very high (limited only by channel size)	Up to 90,000 m³/hr	Up to 50,000 m³/hr	Moderate (multiple units)
Cold Climate Suitability	Good (with anti-icing)	Good	Good	Fair (freeze risk on mesh)	Fair (freeze risk on panels)	Poor (submerged ice adhesion)

The 140 l/s per metre figure is the generic industry baseline for the reference geometry of the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) [2][11], quoted here so the comparison rests on published third-party data rather than any one manufacturer's numbers. ADENCO's own series have rated capacities of 35 l/s (ADENCO-45), 67 l/s (ADENCO-70) and 150 l/s (ADENCO-127) per metre of screen width, depending on drop height: see the products page.

---

Technology Deep Dives

Coanda Screen: The Passive Precision Screener

The Coanda screen operates on two simultaneous flow mechanisms: orifice flow through the slot openings, which depends on the hydraulic head, and sheared flow created by the tilted wire geometry that physically separates water from the underside of the water layer. This dual mechanism delivers approximately 140 litres per second per metre of weir width for the USBR reference geometry [2][11]: a remarkably high capacity for a passive device with sub-millimetre slot openings. The ADENCO-127 has a rated capacity of 150 l/s per metre of screen width.

The screen is positioned on the downstream face of a weir, with an S-curved acceleration plate that delivers water tangent to the screen surface. Debris slides off the curved screen face under its own weight and the flow, returning to the watercourse via a bypass channel.

Best for: Medium-to-high-head sites requiring fine screening without electricity or moving parts: hydropower, mountain water supply, irrigation diversions, snowmaking.

Bar Screen: The Most Widely Used First Stage

Bar screens are the most widely installed screening technology in the world. Their simplicity (parallel bars bolted across a channel) makes them inexpensive and robust. However, bar screens only remove debris larger than 20 mm (coarse) to 5 mm (fine), making them suitable only as a first stage of screening [3].

Manual bar screens require operators to periodically rake debris by hand, which is labour-intensive and creates variable screen performance between cleaning cycles. Mechanical bar screens automate this with chain-driven rakes but introduce moving parts, a need for electricity, and maintenance work.

Best for: First-stage coarse screening at any intake, wastewater headworks, pre-screening upstream of finer screening systems.

Trash Rack: The Heavy-Duty Protector

Trash racks serve a single critical function: protecting downstream equipment (turbines, pumps, valves) from large debris impact. They are not screening devices in the filtration sense: their wide bar spacing (25–150 mm) allows most debris, sediment, and all aquatic organisms to pass through [4][5].

Trash racks are designed for approach velocities of approximately 0.6 m/s (2 ft/s), and their head loss is influenced by the bar cross-section shape, spacing, inclination angle, and blockage ratio. Rectangular bar cross-sections generate the greatest head loss; hydrodynamic cross-sections (teardrop, bullet-nose) can reduce losses significantly [5].

Best for: Penstock and tunnel protection at all hydropower plants, pump intake protection, typically used in combination with a finer screening technology downstream.

Drum Screen: The High-Capacity Mechanical Screener

Drum screens offer the highest flow capacity of any fine-screening technology. The rotating drum continuously lifts debris from the water and cleans it from the mesh using spray nozzles, providing truly continuous screening with fine mesh openings (down to 0.2 mm for woven mesh) [6].

However, this performance comes at a cost: drum screens require electrical power for rotation and spray systems, contain bearings and seals that wear, and demand regular maintenance. In cold climates, the wet mesh is exposed to air during rotation, creating freeze risk.

Drum screen maintenance is cheaper and quicker than traveling screen maintenance by a ratio of approximately 3:1, making drum screens the preferred mechanical option where space allows [6].

Best for: Large municipal and industrial intakes requiring high flow capacity and fine screening, cooling water intakes, fish hatchery supply.

Traveling Water Screen: The Regulatory Standard

Traveling water screens have been the dominant technology at large U.S. power plant cooling water intakes for decades. Modern 316(b)-compliant traveling screens incorporate fish buckets on each panel that gently collect impinged fish, lift them above the water line, and return them to the waterbody via a low-pressure spray-wash system [7][8].

Independent laboratory testing of modified Ristroph traveling screens has demonstrated fish mortality rates below 5% across 19,000+ fish of 10 species [7]. However, traveling screens are the most mechanically complex and maintenance-intensive intake screening technology, with multiple chains, bearings, seals, spray systems, and fish return troughs requiring regular servicing.

Best for: Large cooling water intakes at thermal power plants, facilities that must meet EPA 316(b) and already have a submerged intake.

Passive Wedge Wire Screen: The Submerged Option

Passive wedge wire screens are installed submerged in the waterbody, relying on the natural sweep velocity of the flowing water (or pump suction) to maintain screen cleanliness. Their high open-area ratio (50–70%) keeps through-screen velocities below 0.15 m/s (0.5 fps), which is the EPA 316(b) threshold for fish protection [9][10].

The main challenge is biofouling: submerged screens in warm water accumulate algae, mussels, and biofilm that reduce effective open area over time. Countermeasures include copper-nickel alloy construction, antifouling coatings, and periodic airburst cleaning systems (which do require power) [10].

Best for: Submerged intakes in lakes, reservoirs, and low-velocity rivers; make-up water for cooling systems; desalination plant raw water intake; sites where surface structures are not feasible.

---

When to Use Each Technology

Your Situation	Best Technology	Why
Hydropower intake, medium-to-high head, remote location	Coanda Screen	No electricity, minimal maintenance, fine screening, fish-safe
Large power plant cooling water, 316(b) compliance required	Traveling Screen (316b-modified)	Regulatory standard, proven fish handling
Very high flow (>10,000 m³/hr), fine screening needed	Drum Screen	Highest capacity fine screening available
First-stage debris removal before finer screening	Bar Screen	Low cost, robust, standard practice
Penstock/turbine protection from large debris	Trash Rack	Heavy-duty, high flow, low head loss
Submerged intake in lake or reservoir, no surface structure	Passive Wedge Wire	Below waterline, low velocity, fish-safe
Remote mountain stream, no access to the electricity grid	Coanda Screen	No external power, gravity-fed, self-cleaning
Irrigation canal diversion, sediment-heavy water	Coanda Screen	Self-cleaning rejects sediment, fine screening protects emitters
Snowmaking water supply, cold climate	Coanda Screen (with anti-icing)	Fine screening for nozzle protection, no electricity needed at remote sites
Wastewater headworks, very high solids	Mechanical Bar Screen	Designed for high debris loads, proven in wastewater

---

When NOT to Use a Coanda Screen

This section exists because honest engineering advice builds more trust than sales talk. A Coanda screen is an excellent technology, but it is not the right answer for every project.

1. Insufficient Head Available

Coanda screens use up hydraulic head between the weir crest and the screen base: the USBR Coanda Design Guide (Wahl, 2003, report R-2003-03) gives 0.45 to 1.3 m as the typical range [2][11], and ADENCO's standard screens use drop heights of 450, 700 and 1,270 mm, with custom screens going higher. 450 mm is the drop of the smallest screen. Below that, the screen cannot develop sufficient flow velocity across the screen face, and the Coanda effect and self-cleaning action depend on this velocity.

Use instead: Passive wedge wire screen (submerged, minimal head loss) or a pumped intake with drum or traveling screen.

2. Very Low Head Hydropower

At run-of-river sites where every centimetre of available head directly affects energy production, the head used up by a Coanda screen (450 mm to 1.3 m in the published range, 450 to 1,270 mm for ADENCO's standard screens) may be an unacceptable share of the available head. For example, at a site with 2 metres of head, a Coanda screen would use up 25–65% of the available head just for screening [11].

Use instead: Trash rack with mechanical raking system, designed to minimize head loss through hydrodynamic bar cross-sections and optimized spacing [5].

3. Extremely High Flow Requirements with Space Constraints

A Coanda screen delivers approximately 140 l/s per metre of weir width on the USBR reference geometry [11]. The ADENCO-127 is rated at 150 l/s per metre. For very high flow requirements (say, 10 m³/s), you would need 67 to 70 metres of weir length. If your site does not have the physical space for a weir this long, a Coanda screen is not practical.

Use instead: Drum screen or traveling screen, which can cope with very high flow volumes in a small space.

4. Submerged Intake Requirements

Some projects require the intake structure to be completely submerged: for aesthetic reasons, ice protection, navigational clearance, or site constraints. Coanda screens are surface-mounted overflow devices by definition; they cannot be submerged.

Use instead: Passive wedge wire cylindrical screen, installed on the lakebed or river bottom.

5. Existing Low-Level Intake Retrofit

If you are retrofitting an existing low-level (submerged) intake and the hydraulic design already has very little spare head, converting to a Coanda screen requires rebuilding the entire intake as a weir-mounted structure. This may be too expensive compared to installing a drum screen or passive wedge wire screen within the existing infrastructure [11].

Use instead: Drum screen retrofit, passive wedge wire screen, or traveling screen: all can be installed in existing channels or intake chambers.

---

Decision Framework: 5 Questions to Choose Your Screen

Use these five questions to narrow your technology selection before contacting manufacturers.

Question 1: What is your available head?

• Less than 450 mm → Below the drop of the smallest Coanda screen; performance suffers and an engineering review is needed. Consider passive wedge wire, drum screen, or traveling screen.
• 450–1,270 mm → Coanda screen is viable; this is the range of ADENCO's standard drop heights. Also consider drum screen.
• More than 1,270 mm → Coanda screen is ideal, and custom screens can use a larger drop. Maximum self-cleaning velocity and capacity.

Question 2: What is your required screening fineness?

• >20 mm (coarse debris only) → Bar screen or trash rack.
• 1–10 mm (general screening) → Coanda screen, drum screen, traveling screen, or passive wedge wire.
• <1 mm (very fine screening) → Coanda screen (down to 0.5 mm) or drum screen with fine mesh (down to 0.2 mm).

Question 3: Is electricity available at the site?

• No electricity available → Coanda screen or passive wedge wire screen. Both operate with no external power.
• Electricity available → All technologies are viable; choose based on other factors.

Question 4: Is fish/aquatic organism protection required?

• Yes, strict regulatory compliance (316(b), EU WFD, UK EA) → Coanda screen, passive wedge wire, or 316(b)-modified traveling screen. All three can meet regulatory velocity and screening requirements [12][13][14].
• No specific regulations → Choose based on other factors; bar screens and trash racks are acceptable.

Question 5: What is your total design flow?

• <500 l/s → Coanda screen (3.6 m weir) is compact and cost-effective.
• 500–2,000 l/s → Coanda screen (3.6–14.3 m weir) is viable if space allows. Drum screen is an alternative.
• >2,000 l/s → Evaluate weir length feasibility for Coanda. Drum screen or traveling screen may be more space-efficient.

---

Cost Comparison: Capital vs. Lifetime

The most misleading metric in intake screen selection is capital cost alone. A bar screen may cost a fraction of a Coanda screen at purchase, but it does not provide fine screening, requires regular maintenance, and will not meet fish protection regulations.

The correct comparison is lifetime cost: capital plus 25 years of operation, maintenance, energy, and replacement.

Cost Factor	Coanda Screen	Bar Screen (Mech.)	Drum Screen	Traveling Screen	Passive Wedge Wire
Capital Cost	Medium	Low–Medium	Medium–High	High	Medium
Energy Use	None	Low	Medium	High	None to low
Maintenance Effort	One inspection a year	Regular	Frequent	Frequent	Occasional
Replacement Cycle	up to 25 years	15–25 years	10–20 years	10–15 years	20–30 years
Lifetime Replacements (25 yr)	0	0–1	1–2	1–2	0–1
Relative 25-Year Cost	Low	Low–Medium	High	Very High	Low–Medium

Note: The comparison is qualitative. Real costs vary significantly by project size, location, materials, and site conditions. Contact ADENCO for a project-specific cost analysis.

The key insight: technologies with near-zero operating cost and minimal maintenance increase their advantage every year. A Coanda screen that costs 2x more than a mechanical bar screen at purchase will typically cost less over a 25-year lifecycle because it uses no electricity, needs only minimal maintenance labour, and does not need replacement parts.

---

Fish Protection Compliance by Technology

Regulations around the world are tightening. Understanding which technologies can meet current and future fish protection requirements is critical for long-term compliance.

Regulation	Key Requirement	Coanda	Bar Screen	Trash Rack	Drum	Traveling (316b)	Passive WW
U.S. EPA 316(b)	Velocity <0.5 fps, <24% impingement mortality	Yes	No	No	Conditional	Yes	Yes
EU Water Framework Directive	Good ecological status, no significant fish impact	Yes	No	No	Conditional	Conditional	Yes
UK Environment Agency	Velocity <0.1 m/s, mesh appropriate to species	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Australian Guidelines	Velocity <0.1 m/s, 2–3 mm slot for larvae	Yes	No	No	Yes	Conditional	Yes

Coanda screens achieve fish protection through a fundamentally different mechanism than other technologies: there is no impingement because the screen is gravity-fed with no suction, and no entrainment because slot widths of 0.5–1.0 mm physically exclude even larval-stage fish [15]. Research by Buell (2000) confirmed that both salmon smolt and fry pass Coanda screens undamaged [16].

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best intake screen for a hydropower plant?

For medium-to-high-head hydropower plants, a Coanda screen is typically the best choice because it provides fine screening (down to 0.5 mm), operates passively, and is inherently fish-safe. For low-head sites (<2 m head), a trash rack with mechanical raking or a drum screen may be more appropriate due to the head requirements of Coanda screens. For a detailed analysis matched to turbine type, see: Coanda Screens for Hydropower.

Can a Coanda screen replace a bar screen?

A Coanda screen can eliminate the need for both a bar screen and a fine screen in many applications, since it provides screening down to 0.5 mm in a single device. However, in very high debris-load environments (urban wastewater, flood-prone rivers), a coarse bar screen upstream of a Coanda screen can extend the Coanda screen's operational range.

What is the difference between a Coanda screen and a drum screen?

A Coanda screen is passive (no electricity, no moving parts, gravity-fed, self-cleaning), while a drum screen is active (requires motor, bearings, spray water, electrical infrastructure). Drum screens offer higher flow capacity per unit of installed area, but Coanda screens offer lower lifetime cost and are better suited for remote or off-grid locations. Drum screens can achieve finer screening (down to 0.2 mm mesh) versus 0.5 mm for Coanda screens.

How does a Coanda screen compare to a trash rack?

A Coanda screen and a trash rack serve fundamentally different functions. A trash rack removes large debris (25–150 mm spacing) to protect turbines and pumps. A Coanda screen provides fine screening (0.5 to 2.0 mm slots, 1.0 mm standard; narrower slots on request) to remove sediment, small debris, and aquatic organisms. Many hydropower plants use both: a trash rack at the penstock entrance and a Coanda screen at the initial water diversion.

Which intake screen is best for fish protection?

Coanda screens and passive wedge wire screens are the two most effective technologies for fish protection: both operate passively without suction, physically excluding fish through narrow slot widths. For a comprehensive regulatory guide covering Section 316(b), EU WFD, and UK eel protection regulations, see: Fish-Friendly Water Intake Screens.

What intake screen works without electricity?

Coanda screens and passive wedge wire screens both operate without any external power. Coanda screens are gravity-fed and use the Coanda effect for self-cleaning. Passive wedge wire screens rely on the natural flow of the water (sweep velocity) or gravity head for flow and cleaning. Manual bar screens also require no power but need manual labor for cleaning.

Is a Coanda screen more expensive than a bar screen?

The capital cost of a Coanda screen is higher than a manual bar screen. However, Coanda screens have near-zero operating costs while bar screens incur ongoing labour and parts replacement. Over a 25-year lifecycle, a Coanda screen typically delivers lower total cost of ownership. For a detailed pricing breakdown, see: How Much Does a Coanda Screen Cost?.

What is the best intake screen for irrigation?

For gravity-fed irrigation diversions from canals or rivers, Coanda screens are an excellent choice: they protect drip emitters from clogging, operate without electricity, and remove sediment continuously. For a full guide including portable box screen configurations and slot-to-emitter matching, see: Coanda Screens for Agricultural Irrigation.

Can I retrofit an existing intake with a Coanda screen?

Retrofitting is feasible if the existing intake has sufficient available head (minimum ~450 mm) and space for a weir structure. Coanda screens are modular and can be custom-sized to fit existing weir dimensions. If the existing intake is a submerged low-level design with barely enough head, retrofitting to Coanda may require significant civil works, and a drum screen or passive wedge wire retrofit may be more practical.

What intake screen has the lowest maintenance cost?

Coanda screens have the lowest maintenance cost of any fine-screening technology: no electricity, no moving parts and typically one inspection a year, against the weekly to daily maintenance mechanically cleaned screens need. For the full maintenance schedule and cost breakdown based on operating data from installed screens, see: Coanda Screen Maintenance.

---

References

1. Coanda, H. (1934). "Procédé et dispositif pour faire dévier une veine fluide pénétrant dans un autre fluide." French Patent No. 788,140.

2. Wahl, T.L. (2003). Design Guidance for Coanda-Effect Screens. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Research Report R-2003-03. Denver, CO.

3. "Bar Screen in Wastewater Treatment." Water & Wastewater. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.waterandwastewater.com/bar-screen-in-wastewater-treatment/

4. "Estimating Energy Efficient Design Parameters for Trash Racks at Low Head Hydropower Stations." MDPI Water, Vol. 14, No. 17, 2609 (2022). DOI: 10.3390/w14172609

5. "Assessment of Head Loss Coefficients for Water Turbine Intake Trash-Racks by Numerical Modeling." Journal of Advanced Research, Elsevier (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.10.002

6. "Rotary Drum Screens in Hydropower Plants." Waterman Australia. Retrieved April 2026, from https://watermanaustralia.com/rotary-drum-screens-in-hydropower-plants/

7. "EPA 316(b) Compliant Fish Screens." Atlas-SSI. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.atlas-ssi.com/intake-screens/traveling-water-screens/316b-fish-handling/

8. U.S. EPA. (2014). "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities." Federal Register, 79 FR 48300.

9. "Passive Water Intake Screen to Reduce Entrainment of Debris and Aquatic Organisms Under Various Hydraulic Flow Conditions." MDPI Water, Vol. 17, No. 23, 3424 (2025). DOI: 10.3390/w17233424

10. "Passive Water Intake Screens vs. Traveling Screens." Hendrick Corporation. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.hendrickcorp.com/blog/passive-water-intake-screens-vs-traveling-screens/

11. "The Coanda Effect." International Water Power & Dam Construction. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/analysis/the-coanda-effect/

12. 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart J: Section 316(b) Requirements. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-125/subpart-J

13. EU Water Framework Directive. European Commission. Retrieved April 2026, from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive_en

14. UK Environment Agency. "Screening for Intake and Outfalls: A Best Practice Guide." Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/screening-for-intake-and-outfalls-a-best-practice-guide

15. Baumgartner, L. et al. (2025). "Protecting Larval Fish at Water Intakes: Hydraulic and Biological Evidence." Biology Open, Vol. 14, No. 12. DOI: 10.1242/bio.060624

16. "Bottom-type intakes (Coanda screen, Lepine water intake, etc)." FIThydro Wiki, EU Horizon 2020. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.fithydro.wiki/index.php/Bottom-type_intakes_(Coanda_screen,_Lepine_water_intake,_etc)

17. "What Are the Different Types of Intake Screens?" Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.wedgewire-filter.com/news-what-are-the-different-types-of-intake-screens.html

18. Wahl, T.L. (2001). "Hydraulic Performance of Coanda-Effect Screens." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 6, pp. 480–488. ASCE. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:6(480)

19. Meister, J. et al. (2026). "Barriers for Fish Guidance: A Systematic Review." MDPI Water, Vol. 18, No. 2, 225. DOI: 10.3390/w18020225

---

Published by ADENCO: Advanced Engineering Coanda Intake Screens. ADENCO designs, manufactures, and delivers custom Coanda intake screens for hydropower, municipal, agricultural, snowmaking, and industrial applications worldwide. Need help choosing the right intake technology for your project? Contact our engineering team for a free consultation.