COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 251 



attended. The discussions at this conference lasted from 10 a.m. to 4 :30 p.m. 

 with about 1 hour break for lunch. After very lengthy discussions of the abili- 

 ties of the tower legs to survive an accidental impact of a barge or ship it was 

 finally decided that fenders would be used on all three towers. We were in- 

 structed to proceed with final design drawings for the fenders of the towers on 

 the basis of the following decisions : 



(1) It was decided to use the chain-type fender for which we have prepared 

 preliminary designs. 



(2) It was decided that the design energy to be absorbed by the fender should 

 be one-half of that previously used in our fender design studies. In other words, 

 the design energy to be absorbed by the fender should be 25 percent of the total 

 energy of a 500-ton barge or ship with an approach velocity of 10 knots. 



(3) It was decided that each fender should be supported by 12 chains on the 

 grounds that the chains can be used to provide protection for the legs above and 

 below the depth covered by the actual fender structure and on the grounds that 

 the chain is a small part of the cost and it seems probable that Commander 

 Albers can obtain salvage anchor chain at nominal or no cost for this use. 



(4) For the fender structure itself in the region of mean sea level it was 

 decided to use a three ring type structure with the ring spaced 10 feet apart 

 vertically and braced together as shown on our preliminary design drawing. 



(5) It was decided that we should investigate the desirability of using hori- 

 zontal rings of chain, cable, or pipe struts between the vertical chains at one or 

 more levels above the fender structure. Our studies on the desirability of such 

 horizontal supplementary rings are to be submitted to the Bureau of Yards and 

 Docks. 



It was agreed that these represent final decisions in regard to fenders and 

 that we can proceed with the final design drawings for the fenders on this basis, 

 subject only to the usual review by the Navy of our design drawings. We should 

 receive a letter from the Navy giving us these as final instructions. If we do 

 not receive such a letter within the next few days, we shall have to write a letter 

 stating that this is our understanding of the results of the conference. 



Following this conference Capt. Garner Clark asked Messrs. Kuss and Rut- 

 ledge to come to his office with Commander Albers and Commander Aubey. 

 Captain Clark was concerned about a visit from Colonel DeLong and George 

 Ferris in which they tried to persuade Captain Clark that they could produce 

 a modified or alternate design for TT-4 in 10 days. Captain Clark has refused 

 to give them permission to submit a bid based on an alternate design. Both 

 Mr. Kuss and the writer doubt that the various forms of the alternate design as 

 described at this meeting can be made feasible and both are sure that an alter- 

 nate design which gives any adequate consideration to the structural and con- 

 struction problems cannot be produced in any time period in the order of mag- 

 nitude of 10 to 20 days. After discussion of this situation, Captain Clark agreed 

 that he was satisfied he had done the right thing in rejecting the proposal of a 

 bid based on any form of alternate design. 



Philip O. Rutledge. 



Mr. Kendall. Mr. Rutledge, in view of the greater water depth 

 at the site of tower No. 4 and the more extensive bracing system and 

 related matters, why is it that the bid of J. Rich Steers and Morrison- 

 Knudsen was in practically the same amount for tower No. 4 as for 

 tower No. 3 ? Can you explain that, sir ? 



Mr. Rutledge. I cannot answer that question, sir, because I did 

 not make the bids. 



Mr. Kendall. Yes, sir. 



But on the basis of the design, do you not think that it would be 

 reasonable that TT-4 would be more expensive to construct than 

 TT-3? 



COST COMPAEISON BETWEEN TEXAS TOWERS NOS. 3 AND 4 



Mr. Rutledge. Apparently the contractors did not think so, accord- 

 ing to their bids. 



Mr. Kendall. What is your judgment as an engineer, sir ? 



70733— 61— '1)7 1 



