282 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Senator Stennis. Well, based upon your information, is that what 

 you would call ordinary wear and tear for those pins ? 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. It seems larger than ordinary wear, yes, sir. 



Senator Stennis. All right. 



Now, just a few more questions here. If the X-brac«s increased the 

 net strength, and that is your opinion, I am sure, you said so and I 

 believe you are telling the truth as you see it, why were they not in- 

 cluded in the original design? 



Mr. RuixEDGE. They were an emergency measure, sir, because the 

 report immediately prior to their design and installation was an 

 unusual and alarming condition of the pins at minus 25 feet. These 

 were a means of correcting an existing structure, which we felt had 

 the potential of being in a dangerous condition. We would not con- 

 sider the above-water bracing a sound or economical solution for an 

 original structure, but we were faced with what we felt might be an 

 emergency situation. 



Senator Stennis. And that situation was the loss of the braces 

 below the water, as well as the increase in pin tolerance ? 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. No, sir. At that time, there was no loss of braces 

 below the water. There was the reported looseness of the pins at 

 elevation minus 25 feet. The braces were still there and intact. 



Senator Si^ennis. So the X-braces were put in just to meet the situa- 

 tion resulting from the looseness of the pins ? 



CORRECTION OF OBJECTIONABLE MOTION 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. And to correct or to improve the motion condition 

 that the personnel had found objectionable. 



Senator Stennis. Well, that motion condition w\as due primarily 

 to the looseness of the pins, wasn't it ? 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. I don't believe so, sir. The motion was part of the 

 fact that this structure is almost 300 feet above the ocean bottom and 

 it sways, as any building or structure sways due to the elastic de- 

 formation of the members. 



Senator Stennis. And it was swaying more than you expected it 

 to when you designed it. Is that right? 



Mr. Rutledge. We analysed for the sway under design conditions 

 and design stresses and our computations anticipated a sw^ay of plus 

 and minus 4 inches under design conditions, a total of 8-inch hori- 

 zontal motion. 



Senator Stennis. Now, you refer to the personnel and to the ob- 

 jections or the uncertainty engendered in their minds. You are talk- 

 ing about the men that occupied the tower ? 



Mr. Rutledge. The Air Force people, yes, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Did that situation exist over several years, so 

 far as you know ? 



Mr. TRuTLEDGE. We were informed that the tower had swayed from 

 approximately the time of original construction and Mr. Brewer's 

 measurements were measurements of the character of the sway. 



Senator Stennis. Now, T have another matter here. I think you 

 have covered this, but T was reading the contractor's testimony last 

 nififht or yesterday and also the Navy's. In substance, the contractor 

 said that the Navy made the decision to attempt repairs at sea rather 



