5. The fieldstone used for the backup of the sandstone and for foundation walls is generally a good material.

6. The brick used for the backup of the sandstone and for interior floor and foundation arches and walls is generally a satisfactory material.

7. The mortar used is largely a lime mortar and is generally not of good quality for such mortar.

8. The masonry facings at the terrace level on the west side of both the old Senate and old House wings, which were not part of the original construction, are displaced and require prompt removal and replacement with proper bonding to the backup wall. The bottom course should be of granite.

9. The entablature at the front of the center wing is displaced and requires prompt removal and replacement.

10. The retaining walls of the terraces at both the old Senate and old House wings require reconstruction of the foundations to provide adequate frost protection.

11. The exterior walls of the west-central portion of the Capitol are distorted and cracked, and require corrective action for safety and durability.

12. Retention and repair of the existing walls as corrective action is not recommended as it would require the hazardous removal of much of the facing so as to allow installation of ties to the backup wall, or the installation of ties through the face joints with resulting disfiguration of the structure. There would still be walls and foundations of structurally inferior construction with the walls requiring continuing protective treatment.

13. Facing of the existing walls as corrective action with durable marble and granite, leaving the sandstone in place, is not recommended because it would require additions to the present foundations and there would still remain walls and foundations of structurally inferior construction without preserving the historic architecture.

14. Removal of the sandstone completely and replacement by high-quality marble and granite as corrective action is not recommended because it would be a very costly and hazardous operation and there would still remain walls and foundations of structurally inferior construction.

15. Removal of the entire wall and foundation and replacement by reinforced concrete with a facing of high-quality granite for the courses at grade and highquality marble above for the face stone is not recommended because of the hazard, cost, and interference with occupancy.

16. Retention of the wall as an interior wall of an extended building is recommended as the least hazardous and as causing the least interference with the occupancy of the present structure. A properly designed and constructed extension would also provide desirable lateral support for the west-central portion of the Capitol.

17. The attic roof slab in the House wing requires corrective action because of the extensive corrosion of the reinforcing steel.

18. Drawings should be prepared of the Capitol so that there is readily available information on the structural condition in relation to the many mechanical and electrical, and other installations which have resulted in much cutting and patching. These drawings should be kept current so that the safety of the structure as affected by changes in installations and usage can be readily checked. 19. Level readings of vertical movements and measurements of horizontal movements should be taken annually of all important elements of the Capitol so as to provide data as a basis for corrective action before cracking and failures

occur.

20. Piezometer readings to check the ground water level should be made on a regular schedule and the data used to assist analysis of the settlement data.

FULL REPORT RETAINED IN COMMITTEE FILES

I should like to say to the press, or the interested parties, that this full report will be on file here in the committee office. In the interest of economizing on printing, which we have been fussing about, and the overage in other departments we will hold this report on the Capitol on file, and only the summary of it will be printed.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

I note that the conclusions and recommendations do not indicate any crisis situation being involved, although the representation is made

that the fieldstone rubble masonry underlying the foundation is generally inferior and that the workmanship on the sandstone extramasonry facing is generally good, and that the workmanship in the brick masonry is generally acceptable.

This will be placed in the record and made available.

I think when you testified before the House, you had some remarks to make which we would be glad to hear.

Mr. STEWART. I would like to have Mr. Campioli comment on the report, since he was directly in charge of that work and can furnish the details.

SURVEY RESULTS

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The tests that were made included the borings of the soil, test pits of the soil adjacent to the foundations, also core borings through the exterior masonry walls and the removal of certain stones, five in number, to ascertain the wall construction behind the sandstone.

EXTERIOR MASONRY FACE

Our tests revealed that the exterior masonry face, the sandstone portion, was carefully laid with tight joints. The interior face of the exterior wall was also carefully laid.

Senator MONRONEY. That is the result of the survey?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

The core of these walls was not well laid. The stone was dumped in, and in some cases there was an absence of mortar. There are complete voids.

The corings in the report will reveal that situation, and there is no bond through the wall from the exterior surface to the interior surface. The good exterior and interior face hold the loose mass inside in place.

Senator MONRONEY. How thick are these walls?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. They vary up to around 7 feet thick.

Senator MONRONEY. The facings are how thick, interior and exterior?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. They vary about 1 foot-plus, in thickness, and here and there there is an occasional bonding stone, but not many.

Senator MONRONEY. I thought they were much thicker than that. Mr. CAMPIOLI. No, sir. The interior of the wall is made up of granite, which is laid loosely.

On the Senate side, in the central portion, the interior face is of brick.

On the House side, in the central portion, it is of stone.

In investigating the bearing capacity of the soil, we found the bearing capacity of the soil is adequate on the old Senate wing and the old House wing.

In other words, the load that comes down to the base of the wall on the soil is not overloading the soil. That is not true with relation to the central wing, the middle part—

Senator MONRONEY. That is the oldest part of the Capitol that you are talking about?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. That is the portion directly behind the dome. The loads on the soil

Senator MONRONEY. This was the old Capitol we are talking about, prior to 1860?

BUILDING EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

In addition to that, there was no provision made for expansion and contraction, and there has been continuous expansion and contraction in the building.

The result is that nature has made its own expansion joints through cracks which go from the top of the building down to the ground, therefore these walls are now separated by cracks vertically from top to bottom.

BOWED FOUNDATION VENEER

On both the old Senate and the old House wing sides, there is a veneer at the foundation level which has bowed out and has pulled out about 41⁄2 inches from the interior masonry walls.

HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS

That is a hazardous condition that should be rectified. Also, in addition to which, the west central portico is spanned by stones from column to column which are not made up of single stones. These stones are short of the column caps, and therefore they have a blind dovetail splice in the middle which keeps the stones from falling out. In the case of one stone, that stone has cracked through to the face, and the stones have depressed. The bottom joint has now opened to more than an inch in width.

I would say that is the most dangerous condition we have, inasmuch as any serious vibration of the building could cause that stone to fall out. If it did, every stone above it could fall below. Senator MONRONEY. On that particular arch?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

I have photographs of that situation. That stone is located right where you see a line in this photo (fig. No. 1) which is now an open joint.

This is a side view (fig. No. 2) looking down the length of that portico, and it shows how that stone has depressed in place.

This is a frontal view (fig. No. 3) showing how the joint opened up. Whereas this joint was originally a quarter of an inch in width, it is now better than a full inch.

Senator MONRONEY. It could be done on a repairable basis?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The upper portions would have to be removed. Since this is a stone bearing building, it would not be possible to take out one stone and replace it.

Senator MONRONEY. The whole portico?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. You would have to remove that bay, and perhaps more depending on conditions found when the conditions are exposed. Senator MONRONEY. You mean between the two columns?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. But not the entire portico?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. No. sir.

This is another view (fig. No. 4) showing how the blind dovetail in the rear has cracked out through to the surface. The only thing that is holding that stone in place are the wrought iron straps above that stone that keep the entire portico together

49-381 0-65- -22

BUILDING EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION

The expansion and contraction have also caused the settling of certain stones over some windows, and this (fig. No. 5) is a picture of how they have settled down on top of the wood window frames.

Senator MONRONEY. Those are the different levels. However, these are keystoned to where they do give you a firm structural base?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. The only problem is every time the building expands, as in the summertime, those stones slide down slightly, and in the wintertime when the building contracts, the stones are held in place firmly. In the process, these stones have a tendency to slip and slide, and over the years they have continued to do that.

This (fig No. 6) is a view of the belt course around the building, which shows a stone which has two cracks in it.

Senator MONRONEY. This is trim?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. This is a belt course at the principal floor level. Senator MONRONEY. But it is not weight supporting?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. It is supporting over that opening, and there are two cracks in that stone that would make it possible for that stone to drop out if the building was ever shaken for any reason.

Here is a photo (fig. No. 7) of a condition over a principal floor window, which shows two cracks over the opening. About all that seems to be supporting that stone is the window frame.

Senator MONRONEY. Is this part of the review, or is this part of yours?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. No. sir. These are photographs that were made in connection with the report, and are in the report.

This is a photo (fig. No. 8) of a key block over a window which has a crack in it, and a portion of that could fall out.

LIME MORTAR DEFICIENCY

In addition, in the examination of the test holes in the walls, where we removed the stones, we found and noted the lime mortar. When lime was originally made, generally the oyster shells were burned and crushed, but apparently in this instance they didn't even make the effort to do that.

In this particular case, we found the entire oystershells intact, and the lime does not have much value in that form.

This is a view of one of the core borings which shows the pieces of stone as removed, and this photo gives some idea of the composition of those walls.

Senator MONRONEY. In other words, this is the interior fill between the outer facing and the inner facing?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. The outer and inner facing are roughly about a foot?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Yes, sir; and I think you can probably see that from the stone on the left. You are looking at the core borings. We drilled from the outside in, and then removed the stone from within the core.

Senator MONRONEY. I see what you mean. They are broken, so it is hard to tell what the thickness is.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. They are exactly as they came out of the wall, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MONRONEY. But this does not reveal to me, at least, the thickness of the outer and inner wall, because of the breakage.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. We did not break the stones in taking them out. The stone was broken. That is the way it came out.

AGGREGATE WALL THICKNESS

Senator MONRONEY. I was determining the aggregate, the width of the wall, and how much of the aggregate is there, and how much is the outer firm rock on the face, and on the inner face.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. May I point to those stones, Mr. Chairman?

This [pointing] is the exterior stone.

Senator MONRONEY. It is a different thickness?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. These are photos of three different corings taken, and this one was taken at a location where the exterior stone was very fragile.

This photo gives the depth of the wall in feet. This is roughly 5 feet, which is the thickness of the wall at that point, but it shows the type of stones that were in here, and the spaces between them for mortar, in some cases mortar, and in some cases just void.

CENTRAL SECTION HAZARD

Mr. STEWART. To understand some of the hazard that exists in the central section, you must first go into the construction of the central section in comparison to other buildings on the Hill.

The wings of the New Senate Office Building in which we now are, are of floor slab construction, where the weight and movement on the floors are transposed to the exterior columns. We have either reinforced concrete or steel beam construction to the outside walls.

ARCH CONSTRUCTION

In the case of the Capitol, the central section of the Capitol is entirely of arch construction.

There is an old saying that "an arch never sleeps because it is built to take care of various loads that would be imposed on it."

The real stability of any arch is the security that it receives on the outside wall, either by a buttress or a thickness of the wall.

Unfortunately for the center part of the Capitol, the exterior walls of the building are such that they are not very trustworthy; that is, for any long periods of time.

Senator MONRONEY. Are you reading from the report? If you are, we will cite the pages in the report. Or is this your own estimate of the situation?

Mr. STEWART. I am not reading from the report. I base that knowledge on 35 or 40 years' experience in stone masonry work on my own part.

Senator MONRONEY. This is your opinion?

Mr. STEWART. It is my own opinion. I want to point out the difference between the type of construction in the central section of the Capitol as compared to other buildings on the Hill. In the case of the east front that we just added, we used that addition on there to act as a buttress.