0.8 



- 



' 1 



' 1 





. 1 1 , . 



1 ' 1 ' 



1 



0.7 





•o 



^^^^ 



\ 





//' 



— 



0.6 



— 





• 



^^ 







— 



0,5 



— 



■ 



■ 









- 



0.4 



" 





--^ 



^ 





\ T 



— 



0.3 



" 













— 



0.2 



— 



. 1 



1 1 





1,1. 



I.I, 



1 



6 8 

 Hi /L 



10" 



Figure 10: Comparison between Predicted and Experimental Transmission, T, 

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

 data with h /L = 0.1, d = 0.078 ft., h = 1 ft, d = 0.5 ft; ■ : 

 Reflection Coefficient; • : Transmission Coefficient. Predicted 

 values; : B = 2.2, R = 70; : 3 = 2.7, R = 70. 



Figure 11: Comparison between Predicted and Experimental Transmission, T, 



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

 with h^/L = 0.1, d = 0.078 ft, h^ =■ 1 f t , £ = 1.0 ft; ■ : Reflec- 

 tion Coefficient; • : Transmission Coefficient. Predicted values; 

 : B^ = 2.2, R = 70; : 6 = 2.7, R =70. 



39 



