0.2 — 



-T 1 — I I I I I I 1— I 1 I Mil' 



6 8 10-3 

 H; /L 



6 8 10-2 



Figure 8; Comparison between Predicted and Experimental Transmission, T, 

 and Reflection Coefficients, R. Wilson's (1973, Table 7) data 

 with k h = 0.503, d = 0.125 ft, l = h = 1.81 ft; ■ : Reflection 

 Coefficient; • : Transmission Coefficient. Predicted values; 

 ; e = 2.7, R - 170; : i = 2.7, R = 70. 



Figure 9: Comparison between Predicted and Experimental Transmission, T, 

 and Reflection Coefficients, R. Keulegan's (1973, Table 12) 

 data for h /L = 0.1, d = 0.078 ft, h =1 ft, t = 0.25 ft; ■ : 

 Reflection Coefficient; • : Transmission Coefficient. Predicted 

 values; : £^ = 2.2, R =70; : .; = 2.7, R = 70. 



38 



