COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 105 



Mr. Bauer. I would rather Mr, DeLong would do that, because^ 



Senator Stennis. All right. 



Mr. Bauer. May I explain that at the time we went through the 

 method of our construction here, I was engaged in building Texas 

 tower No. 2 ; I was absent most of the time. 



Senator Stennis. All right. Mr. DeLong make that contrast for us. 



Mr. DeLong. The tower, as it was constructed, had some changes. 



DEVIATIONS FROM ORIGINAL DESIGN CAUSE SERIES OF CHANGES 



The original tower design had a large diameter what we call pan 

 below, through which, from above the water, you drove piling into 

 the ocean floor, and that was a steel structure, the pilings were driven 

 through, then concrete was tremied, underwater concrete, around the 

 piling so the tower was fixed to the ocean floor. The design, as it 

 was laid out, had a small platform, what we call a temporary plat- 

 form, designed to go out with the structure and upend, so they could 

 then drive their piling — this is the method that we were against, and 

 as Mr. Bauer explained. But after the contract was let, like every 

 contract, people get together and discuss their problems and ways 

 and means of trying to improve the doing of the job. The theory 

 was advanced that the ocean floor was of such material that if they 

 picked something like a 25-foot diameter base, 20 feet deep, and 

 sank it that far into the ground, that it would be a stable struc- 

 ture. And they proceeded on that basis. They made the design 

 changes, which is normal when you start to talk about the problems, 

 and this was done. Again, I say, I do not know from what limited 

 information we have whether it was sound or not, because we assumed 

 that it was because the people that agreed to it — Moran, Proctor — 

 have done many foundations. 



Then the next change came when the temporary platform was 

 eliminated which, as this structure upended, was supposed to come 

 up with it. It was a light structure — because the template then 

 would sit on the ocean floor, and if it sat unevenly or something like 

 that, you would want a light weight up here. That is the reason that 

 we came in with a light template originally on our submerged 

 structures, because we wanted a light weight, we did not want to 

 stress the members any more than they had to be stressed. 



So they eliminated that. Evidently, everybody was in agreement, 

 which is again done every day in trying to work out problems between 

 the contract officer and the engineers and the constructor. 



But when they eliminated this, they went to the next step. And 

 here is where, like one step leads to another. They decided to bring 

 the main platform in, as the motion picture shows, after the struc- 

 ture had been tipped up, and it was so testified yesterday that it 

 exceeded 4,000 tons. I think our computations at the time, when 

 we objected to the method and said it would be very dangerous to 

 bring the structure — the permanent platform in, even after the legs 

 were fixed — that you would be at the mercy of the sea and a squall 

 or a little storm could come up and you would break up your legs, 

 and just be in trouble. And as the record showed yesterday, it took 

 them 12 hours in which to make the connection. We feel that you are 

 exposed too long to the mercy of the sea in doing that, and you can 

 get in trouble. 



