22 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Mr. Charyk. We left the responsibility for the determination of 

 the proper design specifications with them. 



Senator Stennis. It seems you assumed, then, in spite of the actual 

 experience, that the original criteria was adequate. 



Mr. Charyk;. That is correct. 



Senator Stennis. All right. 



Senator Saltonstall. I would like to ask this question, in line 

 with what the Chairman has just said. You assumed that the tower 

 was safe when you put on this additional bracing above the water- 

 line that is shown there on the model in red. Now, was there ever 

 any determination made of the difficulties that might arise from the 

 additional resistance to the waves by those bracings ? 



Mr. Charyk. I presume that this was completely considered by the 

 architect-engineer. 



Senator Saltonstall. As you see, looking at the model, there is 

 no bracing anywhere near the waterline until you install this addi- 

 tional bracing above the waterline, which would make for additional 

 wave resistance. 



Mr. Charyk. This would certainly introduce additional forces on 

 the structure. And I w^ould assume that this was properly considered 

 by the architect-engineer. 



Senator Saltonstall. You assume. You have no specific knowl- 

 edge or specific certification ? 



Mr. Charyk. It was indicated in the communications to us this 

 effect had been considered. 



Senator Saltonstall. "^Vlio made that statement ? 



Mr. Charyk. The architect-engineer. 



Senator Saltonstall. And it was not the Navy, then, who was the 

 architect-engineer ? 



Mr. Charyk. At this point, the Air Force was contracting directly 

 with the architect-engineer. 



Senator Saltonstall. So that the Navy did not have anything to 

 do with installing these additional braces above the waterline. 



Mr. Charyk. They did not. 



Senator Saltonstall. That was done directly by the Air Force^ 

 with the contractor ? 



Mr. Charyk. That is correct. 



Senator Saltonstall. And the contractor certified that the original 

 design was not injured by those additional bracings ? 



Mr. Charyk. The architect-engineer indicated that this had been 

 properly considered by him. 



Senator Saltonstall. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 



Mr._ Chairman, I am trying t"© call attention to the fact that now 

 the Air Force is dealing directly with tlie contractor with relation to 

 the above-water bracing, which had so much to do with additional 

 resistance from waves. 



Senator Stennis. Thank you. Senator. 



Senator Symington ? 



Counsel, do you have further questions at this point ? 



Mr. Kendall. Dr. Charyk, do you know whether or not any con- 

 tract has been awarded for the inspection of towers 2 and 3 from a 

 structural integrity standpoint ? 



