106 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



So when the decision was made to use the big work platform and 

 eliminate the small platform, and add 20 feet down below that was 

 going to be smik into the ocean floor after it was upended, it created 

 a problem because then the bracing which Avas 25 feet — I believe I 

 am right — 25 feet below the water level, 20 feet added on here, plus 

 the draft of the big platform, it was impossible to float it over this 

 tier of bracing. Therefore the next change was made. That was 

 the elimination of this tier of bracing. 



Senator Stennis. Where you are now pointing ? 



Mr. DeLong. Yes, sir. Take this brace out, and fold these down, 

 so that they would have clearance in which to come in with the 

 large barge. 



Now, one of the things that we particularly objected to was the 

 stresses that would come on this tower when it was turned over with 

 all the bracing in. Now, this had a portion removed, and whether it 

 reduced it one-third or not, I would not know, but it made a sub- 

 stantial difference in the stresses that would go on the other two tiers 

 and the remaining members. So the situation, in our estimation, was 

 considerably worsened, if I may use that word. 



The structure then was floated in and the attachment was made. 

 And in the original design, prior to floating in the main platform 

 and connecting it, with the structui-e being fixed in the ocean floor, 

 concrete was to be put in around the water line rehiforcing it so if 

 the barge hit the legs and so forth they would not cripple, what we 

 call cripple, cave in or something like that. But the method that was 

 followed eliminated the concrete because it could not be put in until 

 after they had the big barge up — that is, the big platform. 



So you have the unbraced, nonreinforced portion at the waterline. 

 You had also taken out a series of bracing here. So your arm, as your 

 platform was working in the sea, you were working from there down 

 to the second tier of bracing. And where the damage was done, what 

 it was like, what members were overstressed, I would not know. And 

 it would be hard to tell. You can only tell if you have a fracture, 

 but you can't tell if you are overstressed, because your steel doesn't 

 show it until it breaks. And what overstressing was done in the turn- 

 ing up, with the members out and so forth 



Senator Stexnis. Right at that point, please point out the braces 

 that were broken when the tower was erected. I think the markers 

 show on the model. Well, perhaps markers don't show it. Do you 

 know from information which braces were broken in the operation 

 of erecting the tower? 



Mr. DeLong. We understand that the horizontal member was re- 

 moved and brought out separately. The diagonals were laid down and 

 lashed, but still pinned on the leg end. We understand that the lash- 

 ing gave way, and that started another chain reaction causing this 

 pin and that portion which fastened to the leg to break out — just 

 tore it loose from the leg. 



Senator Stennis. ^^Hiile jou are on that point, is it true that the 

 horizontal braces that you have been referring to as having been re- 

 moved before the tower was upended, were later restored ? 



Mr. DeLong. That bracing was put back in. 



Senator Stennis. Put back in. 



Mr. DeLong. But another thing that happened — the diagonal 

 which is hard to understand why it was not taken off completely and 



