COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 87 



Senator Jackson. Well, let me put it this way. In connection with 

 towers No. 2 and No. 3, have they had storms at least comparable to 

 what tower No. 4 had, prior to Hurricane Donna ? 



Captain Albers. They had one big storm that I know of that I 

 cannot say was in excess of the criteria ; we do not know. But it ap- 

 proached the design criteria. 



Senator Jackson. But the point is, tower No. 4 was in trouble prior 

 to Hurricane Donna, so that there was a question of whether this 

 tower really was meeting the design specifications. 



Captain Albers. All of the trouble before Hurricane Donna, I 

 think, can be traced to this one brace here that it was necessary to 

 replace due to the fact that it was lost during the erection operations. 



Senator Jackson. And you say they can all be traced to that? 



Captain Albers. I believe they can, sir. 



Senator Jackson. Well, now, are there any differences in design of 

 towers No. 2 and No. 3 as compared with No. 4 ? 



Captain Albers. We used exactly the same criteria and the same 

 design stresses. There is considerable difference in that tower No. 2 

 and tower No. 3 do not have any of this bracing system. 



Senator Jackson. Towers No. 2 and No. 3 do not ? 



Captain Albers. They have none of that bracing system. 



Senator Jackson. Wliy did you have the bracmg system in No. 4? 



Captain Albers. The water here is so deep that it required inter- 

 mediate bracing of the columns. This column approaches the height 

 of a 22- or 23-story building, sir. 



Senator Jackson. Knowing all that has happened, having the bene- 

 fit of Monday morning quarterbacking, what would you do on this to 

 change it if you had it to do over ? 



Captain Albers. I believe I would raise the tower somewhat and 

 use a somewhat larger wave as a criterion. 



Senator Jackson. You would not change the overall design of 

 it? 



Captain Albers. I feel that the overall design is correct. We have 

 discussed design and the Kuss patent, and so forth. The Kuss patent 

 was merely a scheme of rotation of the platform. It does not go into 

 such details as pins and so forth. I do not think the use of pins is 

 a part of the patent. It is merely a scheme of erection of a tower. 



Senator Jackson. In your judgment, the depth of the legs in the 

 sea soil would not have any real bearing on what happened after it was 

 erected ? 



Captain Albers. I feel sure that they did not have anything to do 

 with it, because in fact, they are still there ; at least, I am told they are 

 still there. As I understand it, there was no damage done to the 

 foundations of the platform. The legs were broken some distance 

 above the caissons. 



Senator Jackson. In other words, in your judgment, the fact that 

 there was a depth of only 18 feet for the sinking of the legs was not 

 the proximate cause of the ultimate difficulty that led to the collapse ? 



Captain Albers. In my opinion, it had no relationship with the 

 failure of the tower. I am told that when the tower failed, all the 

 braces on this AB side were broken and ineffective. 



Senator Jackson. Why do you feel that towers No. 2 and No. 3, that 

 have been through some rough storms, have not encountered any diffi- 

 culty as compared with No. 4 ? 



