See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313477452

ON THE WAY TO PLANKTON NET CALIBRATION

Conference Paper · October 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 205

2 authors:

Karsten Breddermann Mathias Paschen

University of Rostock University of Rostock
9 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation of technical measures to increase the selectivity of commercially used trawls for the catch of flatfish in the Baltic Sea View project

Manoeuvrability and dynamic stability of equilibrium positions of submerged vehicles and equipment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mathias Paschen on 09 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

ON THE WAY TO PLANKTON NET CALIBRATION

Karsten BREDDERMANN, Mathias PASCHEN
University of Rostock, Chair of Ocean Engineering, Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Marine Technology, 2, Albert-Einstein-Straße, 18059 Rostock,
Germany

Abstract
In ocean research plankton nets (mesh size and twine diameter are of O(10-4 m),
porosity less than 0.5) are the most widely used devices to estimate the
zooplankton abundance. However, the efficiency and selectivity of plankton nets
which differ in scale or design are difficult to determine and hence, a global
comparison of zooplankton abundance is nearly impossible.
This paper presents a numerical investigation of the flow through and around
plankton nets applying Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methods.
Comparisons with data published in literature show that RANS simulations are
suitable to predict the hydrodynamics of plankton nets and in this way make it
possible to develop conversion factors for each net.

Keywords
Filtration efficiency, plankton net, RANS simulation

Nomenclature
D - Mouth diameter net [m]
L - Side length net [m]
F - Filtration efficiency, F= Qreal/Qtheory
Qreal - Volume flow rate into the net [m³/s]
Qtheory - Volume flow rate calculated by mouth area [m³/s]
and undisturbed approach velocity u0
V - Approach velocity, velocity of carriage [m/s]

b - Mesh opening [µm]

d - Twine diameter [µm]
u0 - Undisturbed approach velocity, flow speed in [m/s]
flume tank
u - Velocity component in x-direction [m/s]

- Taper angle of the net cone [degree]

- Porosity, = 1/(1+d/b)² [-]
- Mass density of water [kg/m³]

153
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Introduction
Zooplankton has a great significance as a basis of the food chain in waters or as
an indicator for the water quality. Hence an accurate estimation of the
abundance of zooplankton is important.
Up to now plankton nets have been the most widely used devices to estimate the
zooplankton abundance. However, the efficiency and selectivity of plankton nets
which differ in scale and design are difficult to determine. Perry et al. ([3])
stated that “Rigorous intercalibration should be conducted to document gear and
sampling design differences and develop conversion factors”.
Many papers were published to enable comparability between different nets
(listed in [8]). The common approach in order to assess a conversion factor is to
analyze the samples and form a ratio of the biomass or abundance estimates
from each device. Only very few researchers took heed of the Working Party 2
(WP-2) recommendations ([7]) and investigated the hydrodynamics of the
catching device.
Investigating the hydrodynamic properties has the advantage that the resulting
conversion factors are not influenced by factors like sampling location, time of
day or patchiness of zooplankton. Therefore an objective comparison is ensured.
Also, statements may be given concerning the avoidance of the sampler by
organisms or the extrusion of organisms through the mesh.
However, flow investigations are time-consuming and have to be conducted in
an appropriate testing facility with adequate measurement techniques.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) methods could improve this situation. The
flow problem is virtually replicated and is solved by numerical methods and
algorithms on a computer. This has the advantage that at once plenty of
information about flow properties can be obtained and that the expensive
working time in a testing facility is substituted by comparatively cheap
computational time.

Therefore the objective of this paper is to introduce CFD methods, more

precisely Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methods, to predict flow
patterns around and through plankton nets. The method is assessed by flow
investigations done at the WP-2 prototype net, results published by Tranter and
Heron, [6] and by flow investigations done by Enerhaug, results published in the
conference proceedings of DEMaT 2005, [2].

Methods
Test Objects
The technical specifications of the plankton nets are presented in detail in [5]
and [2]. All nets are simple conical ring nets. For lucidity's sake the major
specifications are given in Table 1 and are shown in Figure 1 and 2.

154
INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

Table 1
Technical specification of the investigated plankton nets.
mouth length taper mesh twine Porosity
diameter of side angle opening diameter
net abbreviation
(D) (L) ( ) (b) (d) ( )
in m in m in deg. in µm in µm
prototype
N22 0.57 2.42 6.3 210 90 0.49
WP-2 net
Enerhaug 0.80
E14 1.56 6.0 500 230 0.47
model 1.4
Enerhaug
E31 0.80 3.85 6.0 950 305 0.57
model 3.1
Enerhaug
E32 0.80 3.85 6.0 143 153 0.23
model 3.2

Figure 1
The net´s main specifications.

Figure 2
Characteristic dimensions of a square-mesh gauze.

155
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Numerical Simulation of Flows

In general a RANS simulation is divided in 5 main stages. The first step is to
create a CAD model of the object to investigate and to create an appropriate
computational fluid domain around it. Then, in a next step the fluid domain is
discretized by generating a numerical grid which divides the fluid domain into
small control volumes, also called mesh elements. In a third step the boundary
conditions, like speed of the flow or symmetry conditions, are defined. After this
the solving process starts. For each control volume the flow equations are solved
iteratively and hence a full picture of the behaviour of the flow is obtained.
Finally, the reliability of the results has to be checked. This is the most
important step in a RANS simulation. The results obtained from the solver
might be accurate from a numerical point of view, but still fail to predict the
flow characteristics.

In this research ANSYS ICEM CFD 12.0 was used to create the geometries and
to generate the numerical grid. The pre-processing, solving and post-processing
was done with ANSYS CFX 12.0. The solver of ANSYS CFX is based on
finite-volume techniques. Both programs are commercially available.

RANS methods provide time-averaged information about the flow properties. In

this case, time-averaged information is sufficient, since clogging effects are not
considered, a constant towing velocity was ensured during measurements in the
testing facilities and the nets were assumed to be rigid.
RANS equations are obtained by decomposing a flow property into a mean
value plus turbulent fluctuations , '

'
, (1)

and then, time-averaging the continuity, the Navier-Stokes and the transport
equations. The time-averaged Navier-Stokes equation for incompressible
Newtonian fluids is given by (summation notation)

ui ui u j 1 p 2
ui u i' u 'j (2)
fi ,
t xj xi x 2j xj

where xi , x j for i, j 1, 2, 3 are the coordinate directions and ui , u j are the velocity
components. The external loads are denoted with fi ; the pressure is denoted with
p and is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. The terms ui'u 'j are called
“Reynolds stresses” and are the weak point of the RANS methods. The stresses

156
INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

have to be assumed by means of a turbulence model which governs the

applicability to a flow problem and which necessitates the validation with
experimental results. Here, the Shear Stress Transport (SST) model was used to
assume the Reynolds stresses.
Simplification
Simplifications are essential since the computational cost is too high to model
the net with all its characteristics. More precisely, it was impossible to model the
net as a flexible structure and - furthermore - to model the geometry of the gauze
in detail with the computer power available. Therefore the net is assumed to be
rigid and the gauze is simplified. Also, neglecting the suspensions, the nets are
supposed to be rotation-symmetric and just halves of the nets are modelled.
To simplify the gauze it should be recalled that the gauze induces a pressure loss
to the flow and according to Reynolds [4], the direction of the outflow is normal
to the gauze. Thus, the physical properties of the gauze are simulated by
defining a directional pressure loss over a porous body representing the gauze.
Flows in Porous Media
To simulate a pressure loss due to a porous body, the momentum equation in the
numerical algorithms is extended by a source term Si .

ui ui u j 1 p 2
ui u i' u 'j (3)
fi Si ,
t xj xi x 2j xj

Si C R1ij u i C R 2ij u j u i , (4)

where CR1ij is a linear resistance coefficient and CR 2ij is a quadratic resistance

coefficient. Note that ui and u j are the superficial velocities and not the actual
velocities in the porous media.

In the simulations the ANSYS CFX directional loss model was used. It requires
the direction of the streamlines through the porous body and the resistance
coefficients in the direction and transverse to the streamlines, since the pressure
loss is computed in these directions.
As mentioned above, assuming that the direction of the streamlines leaving the
gauze is normal to the gauze and assuming that the transverse pressure loss is
ten times higher than the streamwise pressure loss (ANSYS CFX default setting)
only two coefficients, CR1 and CR 2 in streamwise direction are required. These
coefficients were deduced by the expression given by Brundrett [1] and are
presented in Table 2.

157
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Table 2
Resistance coefficients
net C R1 in kg/(m²s) C R 2 in kg/m³
N22 212.88 757.33
E14 77.19 914.54
E31 32.32 562.65
E32 555.35 4846.20

Computational fluid domain

Three subdomains were merged to build the domain of the prototype WP-2 net.
The front and rear subdomains were meshed with structured hexahedral
elements; the subdomain around the net was meshed with unstructured elements
(Figure 3).
The domains around the Enerhaug nets were meshed with unstructured elements
(Figure 4). The characteristics of the domains are given in Table 3.

Figure 3
Mesh cut plane N22.

Figure 4
Mesh cut plane E31.

158
INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

Table 3
Domain sizes.
net domain length domain width domain height number of
in m in m in m elements
N22 14.00 2.74 0.61 2858114
E14 20.00 8.00 1.35 3196746
E31 and E32 20.00 8.00 1.35 3993090

Default Set Up
For all of the investigations carried out the same coordinate system was chosen.
The coordinate system is right-handed and has its origin at the intersection of the
center axis of the net and the plane which is spanned by the leading edge of the
collar. The x-axis points in the direction of the flow and the y- and z-axis are
aligned with the bisecting planes (Figure 5).

Figure 5
Coordinate system.

The approach velocities for the prototype WP-2 net was 1 m/s and the approach
velocities for the Enerhaug nets varied from 0.13 to 0.83 m/s. Wall boundary
conditions were applied to the channel walls and to the non-porous structures of
the nets. The rotating bottom of the flume tank in which the Enerhaug nets were
investigated was simulated by a free-slip condition. On the outlet of the domains
mass flow rates were applied.

Results
To acquire knowledge about the flow through and around plankton nets by CFD
methods it must be ensured that the CFD software used is a valuable tool for this
purpose and that the simplifications which were made are admissible.

159
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Besides the software dependent checks which have to be fulfilled for every
single simulation, the reliability of the simulation results should be evaluated by
comparison with experimental data for some major cases.

It should be pointed out that the main objective is not to achieve consistency
between experiment and simulation. Instead, obtaining similar results should be
a consequence, proving that the experiments were simulated properly. Also,
experiments must be considered as a reference and not as the sole results, since
every measuring method has its uncertainties and often no information is
available whether the experiments were conducted accurately or not.
The prototype WP-2 net
In [6] it is said that a laboratory flowmeter with a diameter of 1 cm was used to
record a velocity profile across the mouth at the level of the rim. Unfortunately,
no information is given about the length of the flowmeter. Since the profile was
recorded starting in the center of the net and ending beyond the rim it is very
likely that the position of the actual measured profile is ahead of the rim.
Therefore the experimental data is compared with simulation results at three
positions given by the dashed lines in Figure 6.

Figure 6
Measurement positions N22.

The experimental data and the simulation data are presented in Table 4 and
Table 5. In Figure 7 the velocity profiles are depicted. The velocity is plotted as
a function of z for the appropriate measurement positions (x position).

The filtration efficiency (F) is given by the ratio of the actual volume flow rate
into the net (Qreal) to the volume flow rate computed by multiplying the mouth
area with the approach velocity (Qtheory). In this case the approach velocity is the
speed of the carriage.

160
INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

In order to calculate the actual volume flow rate radial symmetry of the flow
into the net is assumed. Each measurement along the radius of the mouth
represents an area of a ring which is defined by the radius divided by the number
of measurements. Finally, the sum of measured velocities multiplied by the
corresponding areas gives the flow rate into the net. The filtration efficiencies
and their deviations from the measurement are listed in Table 6.

Table 4
Measured velocities across the mouth of N22 in the water tank, without bridle.
distance velocity of velocity of
from centre carriage (Vc) Vc meter (V) V
in inch in m in knots in m/s in knots in m/s V/Vc
0 0.000 1.94 1.00 1.88 0.97 0.969
2 0.051 1.94 1.00 1.89 0.97 0.974
4 0.102 1.94 1.00 1.88 0.97 0.969
6 0.152 1.94 1.00 1.88 0.97 0.969
8 0.203 1.94 1.00 1.85 0.95 0.954
9 0.229 1.94 1.00 1.8 0.93 0.928
10 0.254 1.94 1.00 1.74 0.90 0.897
11 0.279 1.93 0.99 1.71 0.88 0.886
12 0.305 1.93 0.99 1.76 0.91 0.912
14 0.356 1.93 0.99 1.85 0.95 0.959
16 0.406 1.93 0.99 1.88 0.97 0.974

Table 5
Simulated velocities across the mouth of N22.
velocity u at velocity u at velocity u at
distance from centre x= 0.00 m x= -0.02 m x= -0.04 m
in m in m/s in m/s in m/s
0.000 0.97 0.97 0.97
0.029 0.97 0.97 0.97
0.058 0.97 0.97 0.97
0.087 0.97 0.97 0.96
0.116 0.97 0.96 0.96
0.145 0.97 0.96 0.96
0.174 0.97 0.96 0.96
0.203 0.97 0.96 0.95
0.232 0.97 0.95 0.94
0.261 0.98 0.92 0.91
0.290 0.51 0.79 0.88
0.319 1.01 0.89 0.91
0.348 0.99 0.96 0.95
0.377 0.98 0.97 0.97
0.406 0.98 0.98 0.97

161
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Figure 7
Velocity profiles in front of N22, u0= 1 m/s.

Table 6
Filtration efficiency of N22 and deviation.
measurement CFD results CFD results CFD results
x= 0.00 m x= -0.02 m x= -0.04 m
F 0.938 0.972 0.957 0.951
deviation in % - 3.6 1.9 1.4

Enerhaug nets
In the experiments conducted by Enerhaug, [2], a speed log was used which
measured the velocity component only in x-direction. The locations of the
measurement points used for comparison are depicted in Figure 8 and the
coordinates are given in Table 7. However, in the simulation symmetry was
assumed and just halves of the nets were modelled. Therefore the values of the
simulated velocity in point 1 and point 3 are equal.
The measured and calculated data are presented in Table 8, Table 9 and Table
10.
The filtration efficiency was calculated according to [2] by taking the mean of
the velocity readings in the points 1, 3 and 4 and dividing the mean by the
approach velocity. In Table 11 the filtration efficiencies and their deviations
from the measurements are listed.

162
INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

Figure 8
Measurement positions Enerhaug nets.

Table 7
Coordinates measurement positions Enerhaug nets.
Point no. x in m y in m z in m
1 -0.03 0.00 0.28
2 -0.03 0.00 0.00
3 -0.03 0.00 -0.28
4 -0.03 -0.28 0.00
5 -0.03 -0.52 0.00

Table 8
Measured and calculated velocity data E14.
approach approach normalised normalised deviation
velocity, velocity u, velocity, velocity u, velocity, velocity, normalised
E14 measure. measure. CFD CFD measure. CFD velocities
point u0 in u0CFD in uCFD in
no. [m/s] u in [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] u/u0 uCFD/u0CFD in %
1 0.120 0.103 0.130 0.105 0.86 0.81 5.5
2 0.130 0.114 0.130 0.109 0.88 0.84 4.2
3 0.129 0.109 0.130 0.105 0.84 0.81 4.0
4 0.127 0.102 0.130 0.105 0.80 0.81 -0.9
5 0.129 0.126 0.130 0.115 0.98 0.89 9.0

1 0.578 0.538 0.580 0.492 0.93 0.85 8.9

2 0.594 0.548 0.580 0.509 0.92 0.88 4.8
3 0.582 0.538 0.580 0.492 0.92 0.85 8.2
4 0.579 0.527 0.580 0.491 0.91 0.85 6.9
5 0.585 0.563 0.580 0.513 0.96 0.89 8.0

1 0.855 0.797 0.830 0.707 0.93 0.85 8.6

2 0.870 0.793 0.830 0.732 0.91 0.88 3.3
3 0.839 0.743 0.830 0.707 0.89 0.85 3.8
4 0.804 0.752 0.830 0.706 0.94 0.85 9.0
5 0.825 0.814 0.830 0.735 0.99 0.89 10.2

163
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Table 9
Measured and calculated velocity data E31.
approach approach normalised normalised deviation
velocity, velocity u, velocity, velocity u, velocity, velocity, normalised
E31 measure. measure. CFD CFD measure. CFD velocities
point u0 in u0CFD in uCFD in
no. [m/s] u in [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] u/u0 uCFD/u0CFD in %
1 0.120 0.123 0.130 0.116 1.03 0.89 12.9
2 0.130 0.125 0.130 0.118 0.96 0.91 5.3
3 0.129 0.128 0.130 0.116 0.99 0.89 10.0
4 0.127 0.127 0.130 0.116 1.00 0.89 10.8
5 0.129 0.133 0.130 0.119 1.03 0.92 10.9

1 0.578 0.592 0.580 0.527 1.02 0.91 11.3

2 0.594 0.586 0.580 0.537 0.99 0.93 6.2
3 0.582 0.572 0.580 0.527 0.98 0.91 7.6
4 0.579 0.571 0.580 0.526 0.99 0.91 8.0
5 0.585 0.565 0.580 0.537 0.97 0.93 4.1

1 0.855 0.834 0.830 0.756 0.98 0.91 6.7

2 0.870 0.828 0.830 0.770 0.95 0.93 2.6
3 0.839 0.816 0.830 0.756 0.97 0.91 6.4
4 0.804 - 0.830 0.755 - 0.91 -
5 0.825 0.821 0.830 0.770 1.00 0.93 6.7

Discussion
The prototype WP-2 net
Inspecting Figure 7 it can be noticed that on the whole there is a good agreement
between the simulation and the experimental results. However, in the area of the
leading edge of the collar discrepancies are clearly visible.
The profile at x= 0.00 m runs out of the plot. This is due to the stagnation point
where the fluid separates around the leading edge. Also, as mentioned above, the
real position of the flowmeter in x-direction is not truly known.
The profile at x= -0.04 m matches the measured profile best. Still, the profiles
slightly mismatch in the area of the leading edge. This could be due to the
geometry of the collar. The geometry is not described properly in [5] and had to
be modelled accordingly to a non-scaled sketch given in that paper.
Furthermore, the velocity recorded by the flowmeter is compared with the
velocity component in the x-direction. It is not clear to what extent the reading
of the flowmeter matches this velocity component, especially in regions where
the flow is deflected.

164
INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

Even though there are some uncertainties in the comparison the maximum
deviation of the filtration efficiencies is less than 4%.

Table 10
Measured and calculated velocity data E32.
approach approach normalised normalised deviation
velocity, velocity u, velocity, velocity u, velocity, velocity, normalised
E32 measure. measure. CFD CFD measure. CFD velocities
point u0 in u0CFD in uCFD in
no. [m/s] u in [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] u/u0 uCFD/u0CFD in %
1 0.120 0.094 0.130 0.096 0.78 0.73 6.2
2 0.130 0.094 0.130 0.099 0.72 0.76 -5.0
3 0.129 0.092 0.130 0.096 0.71 0.73 -3.0
4 0.127 0.088 0.130 0.095 0.69 0.73 -5.8
5 0.129 0.119 0.130 0.121 0.92 0.93 -0.8

1 0.578 0.557 0.580 0.504 0.96 0.87 9.7

2 0.594 0.546 0.580 0.514 0.92 0.89 3.6
3 0.582 0.524 0.580 0.504 0.90 0.87 3.4
4 0.579 0.541 0.580 0.504 0.93 0.87 7.1
5 0.585 0.551 0.580 0.538 0.94 0.93 1.5

1 0.855 0.828 0.830 0.731 0.97 0.88 9.0

2 0.870 0.803 0.830 0.745 0.92 0.90 2.8
3 0.839 0.771 0.830 0.731 0.92 0.88 4.1
4 0.804 0.783 0.830 0.730 0.97 0.88 9.6
5 0.825 0.740 0.830 0.770 0.90 0.93 -3.5

Table 11
Filtration efficiency of Enerhaug nets and deviation.
approach velocity
net u0 in m/s F, measurement F, CFD deviation in %
0.13 0.83 0.81 2.3
E14 0.58 0.92 0.85 7.8
0.83 0.93 0.85 8.4
0.13 1.01 0.89 11.7
E31 0.58 1.00 0.91 9.2
0.83 0.99 0.91 8.1
0.13 0.73 0.73 -0.6
E32 0.58 0.93 0.87 6.5
0.83 0.95 0.88 7.3

165
DEMAT ´11 INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS

Enerhaug nets
The deviations of the velocity and filtration efficiencies are given in Table 8 to
Table 11.
The velocity component deviates up to 13% and the filtration efficiencies up to
12%.
A maximum deviation of 13% is, at first, sufficient. However, a better
congruence would be desirable.
The assumption that the flow out of gauze is normal to the gauze might be not
correct. Also, the formula given by [1] to calculate the pressure loss over gauzes
is proven to be valid for gauzes inclined only up to 45 degrees (angle between
flow direction and normal of gauze). Typically, gauzes from plankton nets are
inclined between 75 and 90 degrees. Thus, further improvements in the
application of the directional loss model are required.
Furthermore, the suspensions of the nets in the flume tank were not modelled in
the simulation since there was no detailed geometry information about them.
This, too, might influence the results considerably.

It is not clear why the accuracy of the simulation results of the prototype WP-2
net and the Enerhaug nets differ, but in both cases no information about
measurement accuracy is given and in both cases there are uncertainties
concerning the modelling of the mouth opening and experimental set-up,
respectively. Finally, in both cases no information is given about the behaviour
of the nets in the flow. As mentioned above the nets were assumed to be rigid
but might have fluttered in the flow.

Conclusion
In this report promising results about the application of RANS methods to
predict the hydrodynamics of plankton nets have been obtained.

The weak point of the simulation is its simplification of the gauze assumed as a
porous body. The flow through inclined gauzes and the pressure loss over
inclined gauzes demand further investigations.

Once the shortcoming of the simplification is resolved it will be possible to

predict the hydrodynamics of any kind of plankton net with high accuracy. And
in this manner compare any kind of plankton net with each other and develop
conversion factors for each net.

166
View publication stats

INVESTIGATIONS ON FLUID-NETTING INTERACTIONS DEMAT ´11

References
1. Brundrett, E. – Predicion of pressure drop for incompressible flow through
screens – Journal of Fluid Engineering/ASME, 115, 2, 1993, 239-242
2. Enerhaug, B. – Flow through fine-meshed pelagic trawls – Contributions on the
Theory of Fishing Gears and Related Systems, 4 (Proceedings of the DEMaT
2005), 2005, 153-164
3. Perry, R. I. et al. – Identifying global synchronies in marine zooplankton
populations: issues and opportunities – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61,
2004, 445-456
4. Reynolds, A. J. – Flow deflection by gauze screens – Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science, 11, 3, 1969, 290-294
5. Tranter, D. J. and Heron, A. C. – Experiments on filtration in plankton nets –
Australian Journal of Freshwater Research, 18, 1967, 89-111
6. Tranter, D. J. and Heron, A. C. – Hydrodynamic tests on the prototype net of
Working Party 2 – UNESCO Zooplankton sampling, Part II, 1968, 170-172
7. UNESCO – UNESCO Zooplankton sampling - Monographs on oceanographic
methodology, 1968
8. Wiebe, P. H. and Benfield, M. C. – From the Hensen net toward four-
dimensional biological oceanography- Progress in Oceanography, 56, 2003, 7-
136

167