COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 29 
There is reproduced below a schematic diagram illustrating this 
damage with the exception that at this time the lowest diagonal brace, 
shown as being fractured, actually was intact. 
DAMAGES REPAIRS 
1. 12 Sep 60-Flying Bridge es 7 ’ , 1. Flying Bridge repaired. 
smashed against *B" 
Caisson (Hurricane Donne) 
2. 11, 12 & 13 Nov 60-Divers 2. Diagonal femoved-Hov 60 
Repairs were designed to 
structure, reported the 
following damages: 
a. Stress crackg develop= 
ed in primary and 
secondary members of 
the "XZ" brace. 
Diagonal member 
fractured at "a" 
collar gusset plateso 
c. Pin plates between 
diagonal and herisental 
a. All stress cracks 
Fe=welded es soon 
a3 discovered. 
be Collar connection to 
repair center comesc- 
tion atarted DU; Nov 6C 
Completed 6 Jan 61. 
@» Diagonal wire rope 
bracing systex to 
Support the entire 
damage _area-Design 
completed & fabrica- 
tion started 15 Deo 6¢ 
3. No repair. 
b 
aly 
in slots in horlismtal 
members o 
7 Jan 61-Diver reperted 
diagonal brace fractured 
at upper pin plate 
3 
connection. 
Hes So 
; H : : ‘ ( : 
® 
TEXAS OW. 2: 
tISTORY OF DAMAGES AND REPAIRS 
(2 SEP Go Te T JAN Gl 
By item 4 of the contract between Steers and the Air Force of 
September 27, 1960, for repair of the scaffold and underwater inspec- 
tion, Steers was requested to give the Air Force a report, if possible— 
concerning the tower’s present structural capacity or incapacity to withstand 
future storm conditions within the limits set by the original design criteria of 
winds up to 125 miles per hour in combination with breaking wave action 
having a crest height of 35 feet. This statement of the present structural 
stability and “storm worthiness” will be of key importance to the Air Force 
personnel evacuation procedures for Texas tower No. 4 to prevent the loss of 
life in future. 
At a meeting on September 28, 1960, Steers informed them that it 
would not attempt this work and referred the Air Force to the design 
engineers, Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge for such a report. 
On or about October 3, 1960, the Moran, Proctor firm agreed to do 
this work but did not confirm it in writing until January 4, 1961. In 
their confirming letter, the design engineers agreed to— 
(a) Examine the results of the findings of damage; 
