COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 77 



DETERMINATION Or DESIGN CONFIGUEATION 



Mr. KJENDALL. Captain, what were the considerations that led to the 

 fixing of the platform of Texas tower No. 4, 67 feet above sea level ? 



Captain Albers. It was a combination of wave height, tide height, 

 increase in the water depth, plus the clearance. 



Mr. Kendall. For what height wave would that give clearance 

 according to the design criteria ? 



Captain Aljbers. A 96-foot wave. 



Mr. Kendall. Was the tendency of the waves to climb when they 

 strike a solid object like these caissons taken into consideration? 



Captain Albers. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. Well, Captain, I believe you know now, do you not, 

 that it is an accepted fact that at least once, in September of 1960, the 

 wind and wave forces exceeded this design criteria ? 



Captain Albers. So I have been advised. 



Mr. I&;ndall. Is it not true, Captain, that the tower was designed 

 with the thought of presenting the least resistance to the forces of the 

 waves and wind ? 



Captain Albers. That is correct. 



Mr. Kendall. Will you show us where the X-bracing was installed 

 in 1960? 



Captain Albers. This red bracing on the model. 



Mr. Kendall. Would you not, as an engineer, say that was con- 

 trary to and militated against the original design? 



X-BRACING above WATER ABSORBS ADDITIONAL FORCE FROM WAVES 



Captain Albers. It absorbed additional force from these waves, and 

 I have not made any computations on it nor seen any. I am told, 

 however, that it added also to the strength of the tower, 



Mr. Kendall. But, actually, it was placed m the area where the 

 force of the waves was the greatest as far as the tower is concerned ? 



Captain Albers. Greater than where our braces were installed ; yes, 

 sir. 



Mr. Kendall. You will agree that it did introduce a new stress 

 factor into the tower that would have to be figured ? 



Captain Albers. Would require a complete reanalysis. 



Mr. Kendall. Now, Captain, as you know, one of the primary 

 purposes of this hearing is to determine why Texas tower No. 4 col- 

 lapsed. You are an engineer and you are familiar with the design, 

 and at least a part of the construction of tower No. 4. Do you have 

 any thoughts on this point ? 



ADEQUACY OF DESIGN CRITERIA 



Captain Albers. I would say it failed because of the wave action 

 being more than the designed criteria. 



Mr. Kendall. Would this mean that the original design was faulty 

 or inadequate ? 



Captain Albers. I think our original design criteria, if I had to do 

 it over again, would be increased. But the tower did not fail under 



