0.8 



0,7 

 0.6 

 0.5 

 0.4 

 0.3 

 0.2 — 



-I I I I I rnr 



10-3 



10-2 



H; / L 



Figure 6: Comparison between Predicted and Experimental Transmission, T, 

 and Reflection Coefficients, R. Wilson's (1973, Table 5) data 

 with k h = 0.482, d = 0.031 ft, £ = h = 0.432 ft; ■ : Reflec- 

 tion Coefficient; • : Transmission CoePficient. Predicted value 

 : 6„ = 2.7, R = 170; : B = 2.7, R = 70. 



0.8 



1 



■ 1 1 1 1 





1 



1 ' 1 



' 1 ' 





0.7 

 0.6 

 0.5 



- 



■\ 



m 



• 



«- — ' — ^a"^ 



n 



R 



: 



0.4 

 0.3 



— 







• 



\ 

 .^^\ 



V-^ 



T 



- 



0.2 



1 



< 1 < 1 < 





, 1 



1 , 1 



1 1 1 





10- 



2 



Hi / L 



10- 



Comparison between Predicted and Experimental Transmission, T, 

 and Reflection Coefficients, R. Wilson's (1973, Table 6) data 

 with 0.45 ■ k h 0.51, d = 0.0625 ft, t = h = 1.0 ft; ■ : Reflec 

 tion Coefficient; O : Transmission Coefficient. Predicted 

 values; : ,; = 2.7, R =170; : f, = 2.7, R =70. 



35 



