Coanda Screens for Commercial Hydropower

Every hydropower operator knows the sound. The pitch of the turbine sound changes: a slight roughness appears in what should be a smooth rotation. That roughness is debris passing through the intake and hitting the runner blades at high speed. One branch fragment through a Pelton nozzle can gouge a bucket surface that took weeks to machine. One season of fine sediment through a Francis runner can reduce efficiency by 2–5%, and the loss remains until the next overhaul [1][2].

The intake screen is the first and most critical line of defence between the river and your turbine. For medium and high head hydropower plants, Coanda screens have become the dominant intake technology at more than 40 European hydropower plants: replacing trash racks, drop bar screens, and Tyrolean intakes that required constant manual cleaning and still allowed damaging debris to pass [3][4].

This guide explains how Coanda screens protect hydropower turbines, which turbine types benefit most, and how to evaluate whether a Coanda intake is right for your plant.

---

Table of Contents

1. The Debris Problem in Hydropower
2. How Coanda Screens Solve It
3. Traditional Intake Technologies and Their Limits
4. Matching Screen Design to Turbine Type
5. Head Loss: The Critical Design Constraint
6. Fish Protection Compliance for Hydropower
7. Cold Climate and Seasonal Considerations
8. Performance at Operating Sites: European Case Studies
9. When NOT to Use a Coanda Screen for Hydropower
10. ADENCO Hydropower Screen Design Process
11. Frequently Asked Questions
12. References

---

The Debris Problem in Hydropower

River water carries everything that washes from the catchment area: leaves, twigs, branches, plastic, sediment, algae, and during flood events, material ranging from gravel to entire tree trunks. This debris creates three distinct problems for hydropower operations:

1. Direct Turbine Damage (Foreign Object Damage: FOD)

Hard debris that reaches the turbine causes mechanical damage to runner blades, guide vanes, nozzles, and seals. FOD has been estimated to cost the global hydropower sector billions of dollars annually in damaged equipment, reduced efficiency, and unplanned outages [1][5]. A single branch fragment through a Pelton nozzle can gouge the bucket surface, requiring remachining. A stone through a Francis runner can chip a blade leading edge, triggering cavitation that accelerates further erosion.

2. Sediment Erosion (Abrasive Wear)

Fine sediment (particularly quartz sand, which has a Mohs hardness of 7) acts as a liquid abrasive inside the turbine. Research at the Maneri Bhali-II hydropower plant documented a 4.97% efficiency reduction from sediment abrasion, while the Chilime power station (22 MW) measured a 1.2% efficiency loss [2]. At some Himalayan stations, the erosion rate on Pelton buckets and needle valves reached 3.4 mm/year: requiring runner replacement every few seasons [6].

Rivers in the Himalayas (including Nepal), the Andes, the Alps and the Pacific coastal ranges carry some of the world's highest sediment concentrations. With glacial melt accelerating, this problem is intensifying.

3. Screen Blockage and Lost Electricity Generation

When debris accumulates on conventional intake screens, it restricts flow to the turbine. Research shows that debris can account for approximately 50% of the total head loss at a trash rack [7]. Every percentage of head loss is a direct percentage of lost electricity revenue. During autumn leaf fall or storm events, conventional screens can block within hours, requiring manual raking: often in remote, difficult-to-access locations.

The economic impact adds up: direct turbine damage + sediment erosion + blockage downtime + manual cleaning labour = a significant part of annual operating cost for many plants.

---

How Coanda Screens Solve It

A Coanda intake screen uses the Coanda effect (the tendency of a fluid jet to adhere to a curved surface) to separate clean water from debris in a single passive step. Water flows over an acceleration plate, forms a thin, fast-flowing sheet of water, and passes through tilted wedge wire (V-wire) slots while debris passes over the screen surface and is carried downstream [8][9].

The mechanism provides three things conventional screens cannot:

Hydraulic debris removal. The high-velocity shearing flow across the wedge wire surface continuously sweeps debris off the screen face. The fully static design requires no electricity supply and no raking mechanism. The screen cleans itself continuously while it operates.

Fine filtration at high flow. Typical Coanda screen slot widths of 0.5–2.0 mm exclude the debris that damages turbine components. In laboratory tests a 1.0 mm slot excluded about 90% of particles larger than the slot and a 0.5 mm slot about 98%; pilot plants in the UK and Switzerland recorded 94% exclusion of 0.5–1.0 mm particles at a 1 mm slot [18]. At a generic industry baseline of approximately 140 l/s per metre of weir width [8] (ADENCO's own series have rated capacities of 35, 67 and 150 l/s per metre for the ADENCO-45, ADENCO-70 and ADENCO-127 respectively, depending on drop height: see the products page), a single screen panel can supply a substantial hydropower plant.

No energy use. The entire process is powered by gravity. Water accelerates over the plate under gravity, passes through the screen under gravity, and debris is carried downstream under gravity. There is no pump, no motor, no electrical connection at the intake.

For a hydropower operator, this means: clean water reaching the turbine continuously, with no manual intervention, no electricity consumption, and no mechanical components to maintain.

---

Traditional Intake Technologies and Their Limits

To understand why more than 40 European hydropower plants have adopted Coanda screens, it helps to understand what they replaced:

Technology	Typical Opening	Self-Cleaning?	Electricity Required?	Manual Maintenance	Debris That Passes
Coarse trash rack	25–150 mm	No	No	Weekly–daily raking	Leaves, twigs, small branches, all sediment
Fine bar screen	6–25 mm	No	No	Daily–hourly raking	Leaves, fine twigs, all sediment
Travelling band screen	3–10 mm	Yes	Yes (motor)	Monthly	Fine organic debris, all sediment
Drum/rotary screen	0.5–3 mm	Yes	Yes (motor)	Monthly	Fine sediment only
Tyrolean intake	20–40 mm	Partially	No	Periodic flushing	Leaves, organic debris, fine sediment
Coanda screen	0.5–2.0 mm	Yes	No	Annual inspection only	Fine silt (<slot width) only

The comparison reveals why Coanda screens have replaced older technologies at sites where debris and maintenance were persistent problems. No other passive (gravity-operated) technology achieves filtration finer than 2 mm with continuous debris removal.

For a detailed comparison across all intake screen technologies, see our guide: Coanda Screen vs. Bar Screen vs. Drum Screen.

---

Matching Screen Design to Turbine Type

Different turbine types have different vulnerabilities to debris and sediment. The screen design (particularly the slot width) should be matched to the turbine's sensitivity:

Pelton Turbines (High Head: >200m)

Pelton turbines use one or more high-velocity water jets striking bucket-shaped blades on a wheel. The nozzle orifice is typically 50–200 mm in diameter, and any particle that can pass through the nozzle will impact the bucket surface at velocities of 30–80 m/s.

Vulnerability: Extreme. The high jet velocity means even small debris particles cause significant impact damage. Sediment erosion on bucket surfaces and needle valves is the primary maintenance issue at Pelton plants in sediment-laden catchments [6].

Recommended Coanda slot width: 0.5–1.0 mm: the finest practical filtration to protect high-value nozzle and bucket components.

ADENCO recommendation: For Pelton plants, we select the narrowest slot widths available. The cost of narrow-slot wedge wire is small compared with the cost of a single Pelton runner overhaul.

Francis Turbines (Medium Head: 30–300m)

Francis turbines are reaction turbines where water flows radially inward through guide vanes and runner blades. The leading and trailing edges of the runner blades are the parts most exposed to erosion [2].

Vulnerability: High. Francis runners are precision-cast components. Erosion on blade leading edges disrupts the designed flow pattern, reducing efficiency and triggering cavitation that accelerates further damage.

Recommended Coanda slot width: 1.0–1.5 mm: balancing debris exclusion with the higher flow volumes typical of Francis plants.

ADENCO recommendation: For Francis plants, the most important design requirement is matching the screen capacity to the turbine's design flow. Multi-panel Coanda arrays are common at Francis plants where single-panel width is insufficient.

Kaplan Turbines (Low Head: 2–40m)

Kaplan turbines are axial-flow propeller turbines with adjustable blades. They operate under low head and high flow.

Vulnerability: Moderate for debris impact, but high for sediment. The outer trailing edges and top runner chamber are most prone to erosion [5]. The large flow volumes mean substantial debris quantities pass through the system.

Recommended screen approach: Coanda screens are generally not recommended for Kaplan plants because of the head loss inherent in the technology (450–1,270 mm on ADENCO's standard screens, more for custom builds). At sites with only 2–10 m of available head, losing 0.45–1.3 m of head at the intake screen is often unacceptable. The US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Coanda Design Guide (Wahl, 2003, report R-2003-03) [4] makes the same point: where less than about 1 m of drop is available, only a shallow screen angle is possible, and at a low-head plant the drop the screen needs is a large share of the total head. For Kaplan plants, travelling band screens or submerged wedge wire cylinders are typically more appropriate.

Summary: Screen Design by Turbine Type

Turbine Type	Typical Head	Debris Sensitivity	Recommended Slot	Coanda Suitable?
Pelton	>200 m	Extreme	0.5–1.0 mm	Ideal: head loss negligible relative to total head
Francis	30–300 m	High	1.0–1.5 mm	Yes: head loss acceptable above ~50 m total head
Turgo	50–250 m	High	0.5–1.0 mm	Yes: similar to Pelton applications
Crossflow	5–200 m	Moderate	1.0–2.0 mm	Yes for sites with >30 m of head; borderline at sites with less head
Kaplan	2–40 m	Moderate	N/A	Generally not: head loss too significant

---

Head Loss: The Critical Design Constraint

The head loss between the weir crest and the bottom edge of a Coanda screen is typically 450–1,300 mm in the published literature [3][8]; ADENCO's standard screens have drop heights of 450, 700 and 1,270 mm, and custom screens can be built with a larger drop. This is an inherent characteristic of the technology: the water must accelerate over the plate and flow across the full screen length under gravity.

For a Pelton plant with 200 m of head, 1.0 m of head loss at the intake represents 0.5% of total head: negligible. For a Francis plant with 50 m of head, it represents 2.0%: acceptable for most operators given the maintenance savings. For a Kaplan plant with 10 m of head, it represents 10%: a serious reduction in efficiency that usually excludes Coanda technology.

The practical rule: Coanda screens are economically justified for plants with total head above approximately 30 m, where the head loss represents less than 3–4% of total available head. Below this threshold, the loss of electricity generation caused by the head used up by the screen typically exceeds the maintenance savings.

When evaluating head loss impact on your specific plant, use the relationship:

Annual revenue impact (%) ≈ (screen head loss ÷ gross head) × 100

For a plant with 100 m of head producing £200,000/year in electricity revenue, a 1.0 m head loss costs approximately £2,000/year: easily justified when compared with the cost of manual screen cleaning labour, turbine maintenance from debris damage, and lost electricity generation from screen blockage events.

---

Fish Protection Compliance for Hydropower

Fish screening is no longer optional for hydropower. Regulatory frameworks across all major markets now require intake screening that prevents fish entrainment and impingement:

• EU Water Framework Directive (WFD): Requires all inland waters to reach "good ecological status," which increasingly triggers fish screening requirements at water intake points [10]
• UK Environment Agency (EA): Maximum 3 mm screen opening for upland catchments; 1 mm near tidal limits for glass eel protection [11][12]
• UK Eels Regulations 2009: Mandatory screening at intakes to prevent eel entrainment [12]
• US EPA Section 316(b): Maximum intake velocity of 0.5 feet per second (0.15 m/s) and impingement mortality below 24% [13]
• Natural Resources Wales: Specific fish screen requirements for all hydropower water intakes [14]

Coanda screens can be supplied to meet most fish protection requirements because:

1. Slot widths of 0.5–2.0 mm physically exclude all fish except the smallest larval stages
2. No suction or impingement: fish are not drawn against the screen surface; debris and fish are swept over the screen and carried downstream
3. Low approach velocities are achievable through correct screen sizing

For detailed regulatory guidance, see our fish protection compliance guide: Fish-Friendly Water Intake Screens: Meeting Section 316(b) and EU Regulations.

At many hydropower sites, the fish screening requirement alone justifies the Coanda investment: because meeting the same regulatory standard with conventional screens typically requires powered mechanical systems with significantly higher capital and operating costs.

---

Cold Climate and Seasonal Considerations

Many hydropower sites operate in cold climates where frazil ice (small ice crystals carried in flowing water), snow accumulation, and freezing temperatures create intake challenges from November through March.

Research at NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) documented two distinct ice clogging mechanisms on Coanda screens [15]:

• Type I: Soft ice adhering to the wedge wire surfaces: typically manageable with adequate flow
• Type II: Solid ice forming between the wedge wires at extreme temperatures (below -14°C): requires active intervention

For cold-climate hydropower plants, ADENCO designs screens with anti-icing equipment: electric heating elements integrated into the screen frame, warm water recirculation, or heated air diffuser systems. The low-carbon L grades resist sensitisation from the thermal cycling of heated screens, and grade selection for heated screens is confirmed during ADENCO's engineering review.

Seasonal debris loading also affects design. Autumn leaf fall in wooded catchments represents the peak blockage risk for any intake screen. The Lodore Falls hydropower plant in the UK (a wooded catchment) experienced wire basket screen blockage within hours during autumn before switching to a Coanda screen [3]. After the Coanda screen was installed, the flow-swept screen surface handled the leaf load without intervention.

For a comprehensive discussion of anti-icing technologies, see: Anti-Icing Technology for Water Intake Screens.

---

Performance at Operating Sites: European Case Studies

More than 40 medium and high head hydropower plants in Europe now use Coanda intake screens, primarily in the Alps and the United Kingdom [3][4]. Published case studies document consistent performance improvements:

Lodore Falls, UK: 170 kW Turgo Plant

• Head: 150 m gross
• Flow: 235 l/s
• Turbine: Turgo
• Previous intake: Wire basket screen: blocked within hours during autumn leaf fall
• Coanda result: Self-cleaning operation through all seasons. The plant operator estimated a 15% increase in annual production (from a baseline of 700–800 MWh), generating over US$7,000 additional annual revenue and a two-year payback on the Coanda screen [3][4].

Alpine Sites: Multiple Plants

Across Alpine sites in Austria, Switzerland, and northern Italy, Coanda screens have been retrofitted to sites where traditional Tyrolean intakes and bar screens could not handle high sediment loads during spring melt and summer storm events. These sites report:

• Dramatically reduced manual maintenance: from weekly or daily raking to annual inspection only
• Improved turbine condition: longer intervals between runner overhauls due to reduced sediment ingress
• Higher annual electricity generation: fewer forced outages from screen blockage during high-debris events

UK Retrofit: Plant Saved from Decommissioning

At one documented UK plant, the existing intake had become so problematic that the operator was considering decommissioning the plant entirely. The Coanda retrofit restored reliable operation, and the plant continues to generate electricity [3].

These results are consistent with what we see at ADENCO's hydropower sites: the combination of passive debris removal, fine filtration, and gravity-powered operation creates economic returns that justify the investment at most sites; the published evaluation at Lodore Falls put that plant's payback at about two years, and the figure for any given site is worked out from its own electricity generation and maintenance records.

---

When NOT to Use a Coanda Screen for Hydropower

ADENCO is a Coanda screen manufacturer, but we do not recommend our product for every hydropower project. Coanda screens are not the right choice when:

1. Total head is below 30 m. The 450–1,270 mm head loss at the screen (ADENCO's standard drop heights) uses up too large a proportion of the available head. For low-head plants (Kaplan, low-head Francis), travelling band screens or submerged cylinder screens are more appropriate.

2. The raw water carries very little debris. If the catchment is rocky, sparsely vegetated, and carries little organic debris, a conventional coarse trash rack may be entirely sufficient, and costs less.

3. Very high flow with low head is required. Coanda screens deliver approximately 140 l/s per metre of weir width on the USBR reference geometry [8], and 150 l/s per metre on the ADENCO-127. For plants requiring thousands of litres per second at low head, the required screen width may be impractical.

4. The site has no natural weir or difference in elevation. Coanda screens require water to flow over a weir crest. If the intake is a side-channel or submerged type with no natural elevation change, the civil works to create a suitable weir may be cost-prohibitive.

5. Extreme frazil ice conditions with no anti-icing budget. In the most severe cold climates (sustained temperatures below -14°C), Coanda screens require anti-icing equipment. If the project budget cannot accommodate anti-icing, a submerged intake may be more practical.

Being honest about these limitations builds more trust with our hydropower clients than promising more than we can deliver.

---

ADENCO Hydropower Screen Design Process

Every ADENCO hydropower screen is designed for the specific site. Our process:

Step 1: Site Assessment

We review the plant's gross head, design flow rate, catchment characteristics (vegetation, sediment load, climate zone), and regulatory requirements (fish screening, environmental permits).

Step 2: Design Matched to the Turbine

Based on the turbine type, we select the slot width, wire profile, and tilt angle that provide the required debris exclusion while maximising flow capacity.

Step 3: Screen Sizing

Using the design flow rate and the site-specific capacity per metre of width (adjusted for slot width, tilt angle, and available head), we calculate the required screen width. For larger plants, we design multi-panel arrays with independent collection chambers. For detailed sizing methodology, see: How to Size a Coanda Intake Screen.

Step 4: Material Selection

Based on the water chemistry (particularly chloride concentration, pH, and temperature range) we select from our six stainless steel grades. Fresh-water hydropower sites are supplied in the standard 304 grade. Sites with chloride or seawater influence (estuarine or coastal) require 316L or higher. For material selection guidance, see: 304 vs. 316 Stainless Steel for Water Intake Screens.

Step 5: Cold Climate Measures

For sites in cold climate zones, we select anti-icing options (electric heating, warm water recirculation, or heated air diffuser) and select appropriate stainless steel grades for screens that are repeatedly heated and cooled.

Step 6: Fabrication and Delivery

Each screen is manufactured to the project requirements and delivered with installation guidance. ADENCO provides technical support up to and including commissioning.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best water intake screen for commercial and large-scale hydropower?

For medium and high head hydropower plants (above approximately 30 m total head), Coanda screens provide the best combination of fine debris filtration, passive operation, and low lifecycle cost. More than 40 European commercial hydropower plants use Coanda intake screens. For low-head plants (below 30 m), travelling band screens or submerged wedge wire cylinders are typically more appropriate. For a side-by-side comparison of all intake technologies, see: Coanda Screen vs Bar Screen vs Drum Screen.

How much debris do Coanda screens remove?

Coanda screens with typical slot widths of 0.5–2.0 mm exclude virtually all debris larger than the slot width: leaves, twigs, branches, gravel, and most organic material. Only fine silt and dissolved material smaller than the slot width passes through. At hydropower plants, this has been documented to dramatically reduce turbine maintenance requirements and extend runner overhaul intervals.

Do Coanda screens work in winter conditions at hydropower sites?

Yes, with appropriate anti-icing equipment. ADENCO includes anti-icing for all hydropower plants in cold climate zones. For a complete guide to the science of frazil ice and 5 prevention methods, see: Anti-Icing Technology for Water Intake Screens.

What is the head loss of a Coanda intake screen?

The head loss between the weir crest and the bottom edge of a Coanda screen is typically 450–1,270 mm on ADENCO's standard screens (450, 700 or 1,270 mm of drop height; more for custom screens), depending on the screen length, slot width, and design flow. For high-head Pelton plants (200+ m), this represents less than 0.5% of total head: negligible. For medium-head Francis plants (50–100 m), it represents 1–2%. For low-head Kaplan plants, the head loss can exceed 5–10% of total head, which is usually unacceptable.

Are Coanda screens fish-friendly for hydropower intakes?

Yes. Coanda screens physically exclude fish through narrow slot widths and create no suction or impingement: fish are swept over the surface and carried downstream with the surplus flow. For detailed compliance guidance covering Section 316(b), EU WFD, UK EA, and eel regulations, see: Fish-Friendly Water Intake Screens.

How much maintenance does a Coanda screen require at a hydropower site?

Annual visual inspection and occasional pressure washing (every 2–5 years): compared to daily or weekly raking for conventional trash racks. At the Lodore Falls plant in the UK, the previous wire basket screen blocked within hours during autumn; the Coanda replacement operates continuously without intervention. For the full maintenance schedule based on 10+ years of operating data, see: Coanda Screen Maintenance.

Can a Coanda screen be retrofitted to an existing hydropower intake?

Yes, provided the existing weir is wide enough to accommodate the screen panel and high enough to provide the drop the screen needs (450 to 1,270 mm on ADENCO's standard screens). The Lodore Falls screen in the UK was a retrofit to an existing weir, requiring only a collection chamber, weir crest refurbishment, and minor pipe adjustment. However, if the existing hydraulic design is borderline (particularly if the available head is limited) the retrofit may not be feasible. ADENCO evaluates retrofit suitability as part of the initial site assessment.

What does a Coanda screen cost for a hydropower plant?

The cost depends on the screen width (determined by design flow), slot width, stainless steel grade, and any cold-climate measures. For a detailed discussion of pricing factors, see: How Much Does a Coanda Screen Cost?. Published case studies show payback periods of approximately two years at plants where Coanda screens replaced problematic conventional intakes, based on increased annual electricity revenue and reduced maintenance costs.

---

References

1. "Silt Erosion and Cavitation Impact on Hydraulic Turbines Performance: An In-Depth Analysis and Preventative Strategies." PMC/MDPI, 2024. Retrieved April 2026, from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11033088/

2. "Common Failures in Hydraulic Kaplan Turbine Blades and Practical Solutions." PMC/MDPI, 2023. Retrieved April 2026, from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10179411/

3. "The Coanda Effect." International Water Power & Dam Construction Magazine. Retrieved April 2026, from http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/features/featurethe-coanda-effect/

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

5. "Trash Racks: Minimise Downtime & Maximise Generation." Hydro Maintain. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.hydropowermaintenance.com/trash-racks-minimise-downtime/

6. "Sediment Erosion in Pelton Turbines: A Review." Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Springer, 2023. Retrieved April 2026, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s10033-023-00880-y

7. "Trash Racks & Bar Screens." Water Screen Systems. Retrieved April 2026, from https://waterscreensystems.com/trash-racks-bar-screens/

8. Wahl, T.L. (2001). "Hydraulic Performance of Coanda-Effect Screens." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 127, No 6. ASCE.

9. Wahl, T.L. et al. (2021). "Surface Tension Effects on Discharge Capacity of Coanda-Effect Screens." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 147, No 8. ASCE.

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

11. UK Environment Agency. "Screening for Intake and Outfalls: A Best Practice Guide." Retrieved April 2026, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c9293ed915d6969f45d2d/scho0205bioc-e-e.pdf

12. Natural Resources Wales. "Intake Screening for Fish: Hydropower." Retrieved April 2026, from https://naturalresources.wales/permits-and-permissions/water-abstraction-and-impoundment/hydropower/intake-screening-for-fish/?lang=en

13. U.S. EPA. "Section 316(b) Final Regulations." Federal Register, 2014. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/08/15/2014-12164/

14. "Testing the Effectiveness of Fish Screens for Hydropower Intakes." UK Environment Agency, 2013. Retrieved April 2026, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80a356e5274a2e87dbaf65/Testing_the_effectiveness_of_fish_screens_for_hydropower_intakes_-_report.pdf

15. "Performance of Coanda-Effect Screens in a Cold Climate." Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, Vol 28, No 4, ASCE, 2014.

16. FIThydro: Fish-Friendly Innovative Technologies for Hydropower. EU Horizon 2020 Project. Retrieved April 2026, from https://www.fithydro.wiki/

17. "Passive Water Intake Screen to Reduce Entrainment of Debris and Aquatic Organisms." MDPI Water, Vol 17, No 23, December 2025.

18. Huber, D. Coanda-Effect Screens: Laboratory Tests of 1.0, 0.5 and 0.2 mm Slot Panels (diploma report, NTNU, BEDUIN project); Howarth, W. (2001). Keswick pilot study, UK; ENTEC AG (1998). Swiss pilot study. Sediment exclusion efficiency by particle size for 1 mm and 0.5 mm slot screens.

---

Published by ADENCO: Advanced Engineering Coanda Intake Screens. ADENCO designs and manufactures project-specific Coanda intake screens for hydropower plants worldwide, from 10 kW micro-hydro to multi-MW plants. Every screen is designed for your turbine type, site conditions, and regulatory requirements. Request a hydropower intake consultation →