Nisr

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration, United States Department of Commerce

NIST Technical Note 1500-11

Materials Reliability Series

Metallurgy of the

U.S. Capitol Dome

T. A. Siewert

C. N. McCowan

J. D. McColskey
I

I
NIST Technical Note 1500-11

Materials Reliability Series

Weld Repair of the

U.S. Capitol Dome

T. A. Siewert

C. N. McCowan

J. D. McColskey

Materials Reliability Division

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305-3328

A Report to the Office of the Architect of th3 Capitol on Project

900265 K

December 2002

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1500-11

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., Tech. Note 1500-11, 22 pages (December 2002)

CODEN:NTNOEF

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2002

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-001
Metallurgy of the U.S. Capitol Dome

T.A. Siewert, C.N. McCowan, and J.D. McColskey

Materials Reliability Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

This report describes the composition and some properties of the cast iron and

wrought iron that form the dome of the U.S. Capitol. It is a compilation of two

recent investigations, one by NIST and one by Lucius Pitkin, Inc. These

investigations were implemented by the Office of the Architect of the Capitol to determine the dome's condition and also to predict how the outer shell might

respond to weld repair of cracks. However, the studies also provide an interesting

glimpse into the technology that was in existence at the time of the dome's

construction, the mid-1800's, and document (perhaps for the first time) the

microstructure and properties of materials that form the dome. Knowledge of the

properties and other characteristics of the dome materials is fundamental to maintaining the dome and to predicting its future performance.

Keywords: cast iron; corrosion; fatigue tests; tensile tests; U.S. Capitol dome.

1. Historical Background on the Dome

An understanding of a structure begins with information on its construction and maintenance. A

good summary of the construction of the Capitol and its dome is available on the web site of the

Office of the Architect of the Capitol [1].

The present dome of the Capitol was built between 1856 and 1866. It replaced an earlier wooden

dome that was no longer considered to be in scale with the expansions to the House and Senate

wings (expansions needed to accommodate legislators from the states that had just been added to the Union). Cast iron was chosen because it was fire resistant, could be fonned in complex

shapes, and could be erected with pieces of convenient sizes. The designers also recognized that

the dome would be subject to movement due to heating and cooling cycles, and the design

included features to accept this movement. The U.S. Capitol Dome was the second cast-iron

dome in the world and it remains the largest iron dome to this day.

Although the majority of the dome, particularly its inner and outer shells and lower skirt, is composed of cast iron, wrought iron is used in a few places. The main framing of the dome

consists of 36 arched ribs that bear on 36 paired pillars, which in turn, bear on 36 pairs of cast

1
iron brackets that are embedded in the masonry walls of the Great Rotunda. The ribs are tied

together at multiple levels by bands or hoops consisting of either cast-iron sections or wroughtiron riveted plates. From the main rib framing, an elaborate arrangement of cast-iron brackets

support the outer shell of the dome and give it its distinctive shape. The inner shell is suspended

from the main ribs with either wrought iron hangers or cast iron brackets. Also suspended from

the main ribs near the top of the dome is a shell of cast iron grating to which the plaster base of

the fresco entitled "The Apotheosis of Washington" is applied. At the top of the dome, the 36

ribs converge into 12 which continue upward to support the Tholos and the Lantern levels, and

the Statue of Freedom. These stmctural parts of the dome were all fabricated in the 1850's and

1860's using the casting technology of the time. More information (including Thomas Walter's

elevation and cross-section drawings from 1859) is available at the Office of the Architect of the

Capitol web site [1].

Modem structures usually have a steel framework, and many of the components are joined by

welding. However, the blast furnace and refining technologies that permitted large-scale

production of rolled steel sheets and beams were not introduced until the second half of the 19"' century, while welding processes for structural fabrication were not commercialized until the

1930's and 1940's [2]. Therefore, the dome construction in the 1850's was based on the structural

metals that dominated before then, cast iron (the most economical) and wrought iron, and was

joined by wrought bolts. Cast iron (high-carbon iron that is cast in molds of the desired shapes)

is much less common in stmctures today than it was 140 year ago, because it is inherently more

brittle than stmctural steel, and cannot be shaped by hammering or rolling. Thus, most stmctures

today are constmcted of steel. Yet, cast iron is very resistant to thermal shock and damps

vibrations. Cast iron is still used in some demanding automotive applications where resistance to heat checking (in brake drums and clutch plates) and vibration (engine cylinder blocks and heavy

gearboxes) make it the material of choice.

2. Evaluations of Material in the Dome

In the early 1 990's, a study investigating water penetration of the dome during heavy rainstonns

revealed problems in several areas, including leakage due to numerous cracks and breaks in the

cast iron plates that form the skin of the dome. In turn, the staff from the Office of the Architect

of the Capitol sought information on the materials that had been used to constmct the dome, as well as advice on how to repair cracks that were found in the skin of the dome. One response

came in 1998 from Lucius Pitkin, Inc., an organization with expertise in areas such as mechanical property testing, weld engineering, nondestmctive testing, and failure investigations.

Their report included an engineering assessment of various stmctural members comprising the

dome [3]. Specifically, this assessment included

• nondestructive characterization of the microstmcture and mechanical properties of the

ribs and skin of the dome and of the wrought iron tension ring,

metallurgical testing of samples selected from various stmctural members, and

measurement of the thermally induced strains.

2
Data from their study are included in the next section on results.

During the tour in 1998, we saw that the cast iron rib framework of the dome is in excellent

condition. The castings that form the skin have visibly degraded only where corrosion has

penetrated the paint (especially where paint could not reach all the surfaces) and has led to rusting, or where the castings that form the skin of the dome have been stressed beyond their

ductile limits and have cracked. This led to two studies of possible procedures for weld repair, one in 1998 and one in 2002. A separate report covers the weld procedures and their properties

[4]. This report covers the baseline characterization data on the dome materials themselves.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructure

Cast irons are iron alloys in which the carbon content exceeds the solubility limit of the austenitic

(high-temperature) phase of iron. By definition, cast irons have carbon contents above 2 mass

percent, which distinguishes them from the various grades of steel. Besides carbon, alloying

elements such as silicon are often added, while impurities can be carried along from the ore or come from the materials added during processing. These other elements have effects as well,

however this discussion will concentrate on the carbon. During cooling and solidification, the excess carbon precipitates as either iron carbide or graphite. For the cast irons found in the

dome, the excess carbon is found as flakes. This form is known as gray cast iron because the

large graphite flakes in the structure give a gray appearance to a fracture surface. Gray iron was

very common at the time of the construction of the dome. Since then, many other types of cast iron (ductile, malleable, etc.) have been developed, and are distinguished by the shape of the

graphite flakes or nodules [5].

In turn, there are two different classes of gray cast iron in the dome, ferritic cast iron in the ribs

and pearlitic cast iron in the skin. Here, the two names refer to the microstructure that surrounds

the graphite flakes in the gray cast iron, either a ferritic phase (predominantly iron) or a pearUtic

phase (a fine mixture of layers of iron and iron carbide). The ferritic versus pearlitic structure is determined primarily by the cooling rate, with ferritic structure promoted by a slower cooling rate and pearlitic promoted by a faster cooling rate. A secondary reason is that the rib castings have a

slightly different composition, the implications of which are discussed in more detail in the

following sections. Together, cooling rate and composition explain why a ferritic structure is observed in the massive rib beams, and the pearlitic structure is observed in the thinner skin

castings (less than 1 cm thick plates) that form the skin. More information on the distinctions

between ferritic and pearlitic iron is included in handbooks on the processing of metals [2, 5-6].

Other structural parts of the dome were constructed of wrought iron, a material produced by

mixing molten, high-carbon iron (like cast iron) with oxides. The mixture was "puddled" in a furnace to remove most of the carbon and reduce the concentration of other impurities [2]. The

3
resulting ball of iron was squeezed into the shape of a bar (to remove excess slag), which could

then be rolled into plates or rods. In turn, some rods could be processed into bolts and some

plates processed into nuts and washers. The end result was a wide variety of structural

components (from plates to nuts) composed of a lower-carbon iron, with layers of silicates,

sulphides, and oxides. The tensile strength of the wrought iron is greater than that of gray cast

iron, and it is much more ductile. In effect, the additional refining and processing steps added

cost, but improved the mechanical properties for use in locations with more demanding

requirements. The tension ring at the base of the dome and the bolts and nuts were made from

wrought iron.

The report by Lucius Pitkin includes a number of micrographs, some taken from metallurgical

specimens and some from replicas taken by polishing the surface of the ribs and plates. None of

these micrographs is included here because we only had a photocopy of their report, so the

quality of the micrographs was low.

The group from NIST also obtained a few pieces of the dome in 1998, and a few more in 2002,

to assist with the two studies of weld repair procedures [4]. These pieces included a few circular

coupons removed during the installation of new rain-water drains, and parts of a railing and a

gutter that had been replaced in the past. Most of this material was used for the studies of weld

repair procedures, but the remaining material further away from the weld (unaffected by the weld

thermal cycles) was studied later to obtain data on the original structure. Thanks to the

characterization work already done by Lucius Pitkin, NIST was able to concentrate on

developing complementary data on the dome materials. Since the dome includes about 4,500

tons of cast iron produced by a number of different foundries during a 10-year period, we tried to evaluate as many pieces as possible to assess the range of compositions and properties likely to occur through the dome.

In the NIST laboratory, we examined several sections of the original skin and confirmed that the

microstmcture was primarily a pearlitic gray cast iron. The skin castings contained graphite

flakes that fit two standard classifications. The castings had a combination of randomly

dispersed flake graphite (type A) and graphite rosette (type B) structures, although the

microstmcture varies from casting to casting and is quite complicated. The type B graphite

structure is typical of castings that are cooled more rapidly, such as those with section

thicknesses below about 10 mm [5]. Figure 1 shows a region from a skin casting that has both

rosettes and randomly oriented flakes between the rosettes. The marker in the lower right of the

figure is 200 |j,m long, so the magnification is about 150 X. This figure is at a relatively low

magnification and so is useful in showing the variation in the flake shapes over this section. This

micrograph was prepared by grinding a piece of casting on a series of successively finer grits, at each stage removing surface damage introduced by the previous grit. To reveal the internal

structure, the final surface was finished by polishing with a fine alumina powder. The black

regions are the carbon (graphite) flakes, while the white areas are a mixture of pearlitic and

ferritic iron. The type A flakes are the large angular chunks, while the type B flakes are the small

clusters of fine flakes (rosettes). Other pieces of castings showed different ratios of the two
graphite structures, varying from solely type A to solely Type B. Such variation in

microstructure is not unusual for castings produced over a 10-year period by a number of

different foundries, especially when the section thickness is near the transition of type A to type

B.

Figures 2 and 3 show regions at magnifications about double that of Figure 1. Figure 2 shows a region with a typical type A strucmre, while Figure 3 shows one with a typical type B structure. At these higher magnifications, more details of the structure become visible, both variations in

the shape of the graphite flakes and slightly different shadings in the areas with the highly

reflective surface. The phases in the reflective areas can be better distinguished with the use of

an etchant, a chemical solution that reacts at different rates with the various phases. Figure 4

shows the effect of using Klemm's reagent after a nital pre-etch, at a still higher magnification

[7-8]. Here, the graphite flakes are still easily distinguished by their acicular shape, while many

new phases have become visible. The large, rounded dark areas are pearlite, with fine lines in

their interiors marking the ahemating layers of iron and iron carbide. The large, rounded light areas are ferrite, so this region would be characterized as a mixed ferrite-pearlite structure, in

which the ferrite dominates. The light-colored regions (with small etched islands) at the

boundaries of the ferrite and pearlite grains are a low-melting-point eutectic of iron carbide and

iron phosphide.

The microstructure serves as a record of how the casting structure developed. As the casting

cooled from the liquid, the graphite flakes fomed along with austenite (a high temperature phase

of solid iron), using up much of the iron, carbon, and silicon in the melt. Finally, the only liquid

left had the composition of the low-melting-point eutectic, and filled in the gaps betw^een the

austenite grains. Just below the melting temperature, the casting was a mixture of graphite flakes

(only a few percent of the volume), austenite (the majority of the volume), and the low-mehingpoint eutectic (only a few percent filling in the gaps between the austenite grains). As the casting

continued to cool, some of the remaining carbon diffused to the carbon flakes and the austenite

transformed to a mixture of ferrite and pearlite. determined by the cooling rate and the amount of

carbon in the austenite.

With a color camera, even more details are visible. Figure 5 shows a region near that of Figure 4. Here, there are differences in color within the ferrite grains, which indicate a graded change in

composition from the center of the grain to the outside. This gradient is known as coring and is quite common in slowly cooled metals. Certain components in the mohen metal solidify at slightly higher temperatures. As the liquid is depleted in these components, the layer that is solidifying slowly changes in composition.

Metallography can also help to characterize the structure of the wrought iron plates. Figure 6

shows a cross section through one of the plates, parallel to the rolling direction. Here, the ferrite structure is separated by a multimde of dark horizontal lines, which are slag islands left from the

refining process. The slag islands are fairly soft at the rolling temperature and elongated during

rolling into these long shapes known as stringers. Figure 7 shows the structure at a higher

5
I

magnification. The large stringer in the center fractured into many chunks during the rolHng

operation, while the smaller stringers stretched elastically. This behavior is due to the variation

in composition of individual stringers, including metal sulphides, silicates, and oxides. Of these

constituents, some are quite ductile at the rolling temperatures, while other are quite brittle. Figure 8 shows the wrought iron structure with a color etch, similar to that of Figure 5. Here, the

femte that appeared only as reflective in figures 6 and 7 is revealed to be composed of a large

number of smaller grains. This structure explains the good ductility of the wrought iron

compared to the cast iron. There are no large graphite flakes to serve as crack starters, and the

low level of impurities (such as iron phosphides) means that the ferrite is quite ductile.

3.2. Composition

On one cast iron rib, the team from Lucius Pitkin found the composition (in mass percent) to be

3.39 C, 1.07 Mn, 0.92 Si, 0.61 P, and 0.10 S. On one piece of wrought iron (boilerplate), they

found the composition (in mass percent) to be 0.025 C, 0.13 Mn, 0.10 Si, 0.13 P, and 0.01 S. This wrought iron composition matches well with good practice for the production of wrought

iron, which was carbon of less than 0.035 mass percent, silicon of 0.075 to 0.15 percent, sulfur of

less than 0.02 percent, and phosphorus of 0.1 to 0.25 percent [4]. When composition standards

came into use in later years, the U.S. specifications carried a maximum of 0.09 percent Mn, but even then there were exemptions such as "there was no logical ground for condemning an

otherwise well-made product because of a relatively high manganese content" [4]. It should also

be pointed out that a certain fraction of these elements are incorporated in the slag islands, not in

'

the iron itself. Thus, they have less effect on the mechanical properties of the wrought iron. In other words, a crack in a brittle slag island is less likely to propagate through the wrought iron

than a similar crack in a brittle phase in an iron casting.

The group at NIST also measured the composition. Table 1 list the results of spectroscopic

analysis of three specimens taken from different castings on the skin of the dome. In addition to the key elements reported by Lucius Pitkin, additional trace elements are listed for one specimen

to document the levels of these impurities in the castings in the dome. These compositions can be considered characteristic of the castings produced in this time period. The contents of some

key elements differ from those reported by Lucius Pitkin for the rib specimen, but this is not

surprising because these castings are from the skin of the dome (and so are predominately

pearlitic cast iron rather than the ferritic iron used in the ribs). It seems reasonable to assume that

the different foundries produced castings using different formulations, and some adjustments

may have been made to the melts to increase the liquidity for the thin skin castings over those for

the ribs. For example, the liquidus temperature of a casting drops from 1295 °C to 1 175 °C as the carbon content increases from 2.5 to 3.6 mass percent [5]. If the maximum temperatures in the furnaces were limited by the technology of the time, dropping the liquidus temperature by

adding carbon would have been the easiest way to increase the superheat of the casting (the

temperature difference between the melt and that of solidification) and so increase the ability of

the liquid metal to fill the furthest comers of the mold. In addition, lower temperatures greatly

6
reduce the damage to the mold during pouring of the iron, so increased carbon content is the best

way to combine a complete fill of a thin mold with a good surface appearance. This reasoning

further explains the higher carbon content in the skin castings.

Incidently. the skin castings do ha\ e periodic rough areas on the inner surfaces that may mark

where risers were remo\"ed dunng cleaning of the castings. Riser is the casting term for a

reservoir of liquid metal used to feed metal into the casting to offset solidification shrinkage.

Only in a few places, such as changes in section size, did we find solidification shrinkage in the

castings. One of these locations, beneath a tab on a railing section, is shown in figure 9.

i aoie 1Composition of pearlitic gray cast iron from the skin of the dome.

Flement Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

(mass %) (mass %) (mass %)

C 3.36 3.62 3.86

Mn 0.67 0.82 0.48

Si 3.20 2.18 2.31

P 0.78 0.82 0.60

S 0.11 0.08 0.06

Cr 0.01

Ni 0.04

Mo 0.01

Cu 0.02

Al 0.001

Ti 0.11

Carbon equivalent 4.7 4.62 4.83

Table 1 also includes a value for carbon equivalence (CE). a term used here to characterize the

behavior of cast iron as being above or below the eutectic composition (4.3 mass percent C) on

the iron-carbon phase diagram. While many different formulas ha\ e been developed to compute

the carbon equivalence, one common and simple version is

CE = Cr( Si + P)/3, (1)

where the elements are in mass percent [9]. This equation for carbon equi\ alence indicates that

7
both silicon and phosphorus function like carbon in determining the microstructure, but at onethird its effectiveness. The cast iron composition (from a rib, as reported by Lucius Pitkin) had a CE of 3.9, well below that of the eutectic composition (and so known as hypoeutectic), while the

cast iron from the skin had CEs from 4.62 to 4.83, well above that of the eutectic composition

(and so known as hypereutectic). This difference in carbon equivalent also suggests differences

in the structures between the rib and skin castings.

Note that this CE combines the relative effect of the various components in the cast iron on the

solidification mode. There are other CEs that calculate the relative effect of the various

components in the cast iron on the crack resistance during reheating, such as when the casting

might be heated prior to repair by welding.

Modem gray cast irons usually have carbon contents between 2.5 and 4 mass percent and silicon

contents between 1 and 3 mass percent [9]. Being at the high end of the range for both elements

(also having a high P content) means that the carbon equivalents for the dome castings are unusually high. However, the high carbon equivalent is not the goal by itself, but it is rather a by-product of aiming to make the cast iron more fluid and to promote a gray cast iron structure in

such a thin-wall casting. Solidification of a composition with a lower carbon content in such a

thin section could favor the formation of a white iron structure, one even more brittle than gray

iron [5].

While the carbon is the most important variable in cast irons, other elements have roles as well.

Silicon promotes the formation of the carbon flakes and improves the corrosion resistance, and

so is kept in the range of 1 to 3 mass percent. Phosphorus does not have a desirable effect for

this application and is present only because it was carried along from the ore and refining

operations.

3.3. Mechanical Properties

The group from Lucius Pitkin used a few 12 mm (1/2 in) square or round tensile specimens to detennine that the femtic iron castings (dome ribs) had tensile strengths of between 120 and 130

MPa (17.4 and 18.8 ksi), while the wrought iron had a tensile strength near 325 MPa (46 ksi).

These values are typical of the materials produced at the time. To minimize the amount of

material that they needed to remove from the dome, they evaluated several more ferritic and

pearlitic castings using a Brinnell hardness tester, and then converted these values to equivalent

strengths. For seven different cast ribs (ferritic structure), they measured hardnesses of 130 to 160 BHN, which correspond to strengths of 1 10 to 165 MPa (16 to 24 ksi), in close agreement

with the strength measurements. For three exterior cast plates (pearlitic) in the dome, they

measured hardnesses of 158 to 179 BHN, which coiTCspond to tensile strengths of 158 to 186

MPa (23 to 27 ksi), slightly higher than those obtained from tensile tests on the femtic cast irons.

All the casting strengths are lower than those of most current-technology gray iron castings,

which usually have strength minimums of 210 to 280 MPa (30 or 40 ksi), although there are

8
grades as low as 140 MPa (20 ksi) and as high as 420 MPa (60 ksi). The strength is determined

by factors such as the composition and cooling rate.

The group at NIST made several measurements of the tensile strength of the pearlitic cast iron

from a piece of the gutter. The width of the gutter, about 1 1 5 mm. determined the length of the

tensile specimens, and resulted in reduced-section specimens such as those shown in Figure 10. Other than in length and the use of clamp rather than pin grips, the specimens were machined to the sheet-type specimen dimensions shown in Figure 1 "Rectangular Tension Test Specimens" of

ASTM Standard E 8 "Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials" [10].

The faces of the specimens were machined enough to remove the surface damage, and so had

final thicknesses near 7 mm. which were just under the original thickness of the casting. The

specimen width was machined to 12.5 mm, producing a cross-sectional areas near 90 mm"

Because of the low ductility expected for cast irons, the elongation was measured by strain gages

bonded to the machined faces, as shown in Figure 1 1 . The data from the tensile tests were

developed following the procedures in E 8, and are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Tensile test data.

Specimen Ultimate

Strength (MPa)

Ultimate

Strength (ksi)

Elastic Strain at Fracmre (%)Plastic Strain at Fracture f° o) BM-1 186 27 0.18 0.25

BM-2 front 182 26.4 0.25 0.19

BM-2 back 183 26.5 0.25 0.19

BM-3 front 168 24.5 0.22 0.17

BM-3 back 170 24.6 0.19 0.18

The dual-displacement-strain measurements per specimen (front and back) were designed to detect any bending, after the relatively low elongation value was observ^ed in BM-1 . .Any

bending would have a relatively large effect on the measurement of small elongations such as those for the cast iron, but the almost exact correspondence between the data for the fronts and

backs of the other specimens confirms that little bending occurred.

These tensile strength data compare well with the values calculated by Lucius Pitkin from the

hardness measurements. The strength measurements also compare well w ith predictions based on compositions and microstructure. The high carbon equivalent that helped to increase the

fluidity during the casting operation negatively affected the strength. Increasing the carbon

equivalent from 3.5 to 4.5 in gray iron castings lowers the tensile strength from about 350 MPa to 150 MPa [5]. Thus the low strength (compared to typical gray iron castings today) can be

attributed partially to the high carbon equivalent, which can be attributed in mm to the practical

aspects of foundry technology of the fime. It reflects the balance between the desire to gain

fluidity while keeping the melting temperature low.

9
No yield strengths are reported for the skin specimens because all specimens failed before or just

after meeting the 0.2 percent offset plastic criterion of E 8. However, the strain gages provided an accurate measure of the actual plastic deformation to failure, which ranged from 0.17 to 0.25

percent. The plastic strain did not appear suddenly after a period of elastic loading, but occurred

gradually and progressively as the load was applied. Figure 12 shows the record of a typical

stress-strain test. Here, the stress is shown along the vertical scale and the strain along the

horizontal scale. The record begins at no load or strain, in the lower left of the figure, and

continues to failure of the specimen in the upper right. A tangent is drawn parallel to the first part of the record to estimate the slope of the curve during the elastic loading. The curve begins

to deviate from this straight line at a very low load, perhaps as low as 25 MPa (4 ksi). Thus,

tensile damage begins to accumulate at very low stresses (about 20 percent of the ultimate

strength), and confimis that the dome is very sensitive to slight bending or tensile loads, such as occur when the corrosion products build up in the joints. Several unloading cycles during the

tensile tests provided a rough estimate of the modulus, around 83 GPa, somewhat lower than the

handbook value of near 100 GPa [11]. Tensile loading is an unusual condition for most of the

dome. Most of the stmcture is designed to be in compression. We did one uniaxial test in

compression and measured an ultimate strength of about 540 MPa (77 ksi) and a strain of about

1 .6 percent. These values are only approximate, because the specimen started to buckle at this

point, making further analysis very complicated. The real message is that the cast iron is about

twice as strong in compression as in tension, and it has greater elongation.

The group at Lucius Pitkin did not calculate yield or elastic strains for the rib specimens, but the

chart records included in their report allow rough estimates of these properties to be made [2].

The strain curves for two rib specimens begin to deviate from pure elastic behavior at about 40

MPa (6 ksi), a value similar to that for the skin castings. The curves reach stresses of about 100

MPa and 120 MPa (15 and 17 ksi) at a plastic strain of 0.2 percent (the traditional definition of

yielding), then continue to stretch to final elongations of 0.3 and almost 0.5 percent. The rib

castings are distinctly more ductile than the skin castings.

Gray cast irons are typically stronger by a factor of two in compression than in tension, supported

both by the single test of skin material and literature [9]. Thus, the tensile values quoted in the

table above can be nearly doubled for modeling of compression applications. The application of

cast iron for compression members and wrought iron for tension members indicates a recognition

of these characteristics by the designers of the dome, and helps to explain its good performance

over the years.

The curvature of the tensile test data (figure 12) suggested that plastic deformation begins at low

loads and strains. To get a better understanding of the development of this damage, we prepared

several more specimens like those used for the tensile tests, and exposed them to cyclic loads

(fatigue tests). We used a servohydraulic test machine to apply a sinusoidal load spectrum. We

clamped the ends of the specimens, then cycled between a minimum and maximum tensile load.

Based on the low cyclic loads (mostly themial expansion) on the dome, we started with a load

just above the first deviation from elastic behavior in figure 12 (about 25 MPa or 4 ksi), a load

10
thought to represent the intensity of variable loads on the dome due to snow, wind, and thermal

cycles. We then cycled between this load and half this load until fracture (an R ratio of 0.5).

Table 3 shows the data from these tests.

Table 3. Fatigue tests on skin material.

Maximum Load (MPa) Minimum Load (MPa) Cycles to Failure

35 17.5 > 180,000

70 35 > 180,000

105 52.5 60,000

105 52.5 > 180,000

140 70 > 180,000

Table 3 shows some quite encouraging results from the fatigue tests. Below maximum tensile

loads of 105 MPa (15 ksi), the fatigue specimens were still intact and crack-free up to 180,000

cycles. The tests were terminated after this value because it corresponds to almost 500 years of

daily thermal cycles (caused by the usual day to night temperature swings and the heating of the sun as it passes over the surface of the dome). Since the dome has experienced only about one

third of this life, there should be ample remaining life for loads at this level. In addition, most of

the loads on the dome are expected to be compressive, so these tensile test results would be

conservative estimates of compression fatigue behavior. Only once at 105 MPa, did we note a

fracture, and then only after 60,000 cycles. This failure initiated at a 2 mm deep corrosion pit on

the surface of the specimen. Additional specimens at 1 05 MPa and at 1 40 MPa were still intact

and free of cracks up to 180,000 cycles. Other than the one failure at a maximum load of 105

MPa after 60,000 cycles at a prexisting corrosion pit, all specimens lasted 1 80,000 cycles at maximum loads up to 140 MPa.

The group at Lucius Pitkin also calculated the equivalent stresses (based on modulus) of

thermally induced strains to be +4.3 to -9.4 MPa (+630 to - 1360 psi) over a temperature range

of 17 °C (30 °F). Even when expanded to cover the maximum temperature fluctuation from

summer to winter, the thermally induced stresses are only a small fraction of the tensile strength

of the cast iron or wrought iron. However, their report does not mention whether the strain gage

data were corrected for thermal effects.

4. Summary (based on evaluation of specimens taken from the dome)

The rib castings

are gray iron with a type A (random) distribution of graphite flakes,

have a ferritic structure around the graphite flakes because their massive sections limited

11
the cooling rate. The slow cooling rate is further supported by the large size of the

graphite flakes, some near 0.8 mm long, and

• have yield strengths near 1 10 MPa, tensile strengths near 130 MPa, and elongations

between 0.3 and 0.5 percent.

The skin castings

are gray iron with a combination of type A (random) and type B (rosette cluster)

distributions of gi^aphite flakes,

• have a mixture of pearlitic and ferritic grains around the graphite flakes because their

thinner section promoted faster cooling. The faster cooling rate is further supported by

the smaller graphite flakes, usually below 0.2 mm long, and

• fracture at strengths near 1 80 MPa, but at elongations of only about 0. 1 8 percent, not

quite reaching the traditional criteria for a yield strength. However, this characteristic is not unusual, since yield strength is not required and seldom even measured for cast irons

[5]. Only where the corrosion products have built up in the joints between castings, have

there been any failures of the castings.

• can handle fatigue loads of 70 MPa (10 ksi) at an R value of 0.5 for a lifetime beyond

180,000 cycles.

The tension ring and plates

are wrought iron, typical of that produced in the 19th century,

• have a femtic structure with long stringers of non-metallic inclusions (slag), and

• have ultimate strengths near 325 MPa (46 ksi).

5. References

[ 1

] http://aoc.gov/projects/dome_ren/dome_ren_overview.htm [November 2002]

[2] The Making, Shaping, and Treating ofSteel, 9"" Edition, U.S. Steel, Herbick and Held

Publishers, Pittsburgh, 1971, pp. 8 to 28.

[3] United States Capitol Dome Structural Member Assessment - Washington, D.C., Lucius

Pitkin, Inc. Report M98028, July 14, 1998.

[4] T.A. Siewert, C.N. McCowan, R.A. Bushey, J. Doherty, T. Christ, D.J. Kotecki, D.L.

Olsen, L.W. Myers, Jr., E. Hinshaw, and S. Kiser, JVeld Repair ofthe U.S. Capitol Dome,

NIST TechNote 1500-10, 2002.

[5] Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance Alloys, Metals Handbook,

Tenth Edition, Volume 1, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, 1990, pp. 3 to 32.

[6] R. Bushey, "Welding of Cast Irons," chapter in Welding, Brazing, and Soldering, Metals

12
Handbook, Tenth Edition, Volume 6, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, 1993, pp.

708 to 721.

"Metallographic Techniques for Cast Irons," chapter in Metallography, Structures and

Phase Diagrams, Metals Handbook, Eighth Edition, Volume 8, ASM International,

Materials Park, Ohio, 1973, p. 92.

G. Vander Voort, Metallography: Principles and Practice, McGraw Hill, 1984, p. 642.

Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance Alloys, Metals Handbook,

Ninth Edition, Volume 1, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, 1990, p. 4.

"Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials," ASTM Standard E 8,

Annual Book ofASTM Standards 2002, Vol 3.01, ASTM International, Philadelphia,

Penn., 2002.

Smithells Metals Reference Book, Sixth Edition, Butterworths, 1983, . 15-2.

13
Figure 1 . A micrograph of a skin casting, showing a combination of graphite rosettes and

randomly oriented flakes. The marker in the lower right is 200 [im long, so the magnification is about 150 X.

14
Figure 2. A region of a casting with a type A graphite structure (300 X).

Figure 3. A region of a casting with a type B graphite structure (300 X).

15
Figure 5. Color etching of an area similar to that of Figure 4, emphasizing the phases.

16

Figure 9. Low-magnification image of an internal pore discovered during sectioning through

tab in a railing section (10 X).

18
Figure 11. Representative fracture ofgray cast iron, specimen BM-3.

19
Figure 12. Stress-strain curve for specimen BM-1.

20
I

I

I

I

i

ii

I

J.

!

I

Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—Reports NIST research

and development in metrolog>' and related fields of phy sical science, engineering, applied mathematics,

statistics, biotechnologv'. and information technologv . Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major

emphasis on measurement methodology' and the basic technologv" underlying standardization. Also

included from time to time are sur\ ey articles on topics closely related to the Instimte's technical and

scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

XoTiperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safet}" codes)

developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulators" bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST. NIST annual reports, and

other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Pro\ ides quantitati\ e data on the ph} sical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literanire and critically e\'aluated. De^'eloped imder a \\'orldwide program coordinated by NTST under the authority.' of the National Standard Data Act ( PubUc

Law 90-396 ). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data ( JPCRD) is pubhshed bi- monthh' for NTST bv the -American Instimte of Ph\ sics (.AIP ). Subscription orders and renewals are available from AlP.'P.O. Box 503284, St. Louis. MO 63150-3284.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Instimte on building

materials, components. s\'Stems. and whole strucnires. The series presents research results, test methods,

and performance criteria related to the strucmral and em ironmental functions and the durabilit}- and

safet\ characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Smdies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. .Ajialogous to monographs but not so comprehensi\'e in scope or definitis e in treatment of

the subject area. Often serv e as a \ ehicle for final reports of w ork performed at NTST under the sponsorship of other go\ emment agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures pubhshed by the Department of

Commerce in Pan 10. Title 15. of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards estabUsh nationally

recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common

imderstanding of the characteristics of the products. NTST administers this program in support of the

efforts of pri\ ate-sector standardizing organizations.

Order the above NISTpublicationsJrom: Superintendent ofDocuments, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402 or http:; bookstore.gpo.go\^/.

Order the foUowlng NISTpublications—FIPS and NISTTRs—^from the National Technical Information

Ser\-ice. Springfield. VA 22161 or http: ''ww-«-. ntis.gov products.

Federal Information Processing Standards PubUcarions (FIPS PUB)—Pubhcations in this series collectively constimte the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register sen es as the

official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NTST pursuant to the Federal Propert>' and Administrati\'e Serv ices Act of 1949 as amended Public Law 89-306 ("9 Stat.

1 127). and as implemented by Executive Order 1 1717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 1 L 1973) and Part 6 of

Title 15 CFR iCode of Federal Regulations).

NTST Interagency or Internal Reports (XISTIR)—A special series of interim or final repons on work

performed b\ N 1ST for outside sponsors (both government and nongovernment). In general, initial distribution is handled b\" the sponsor: public distribution is b\' the National Technical Information

Serv ice. Springfield, \'A 22161 or http: hookstore.gpo.go\' index.html. in hard copy, electronic media,

or microfiche form. NISTIR"s ma} also report results of NIST projects of transitor\' of limited interest including those that w iU be pubhshed subsequently in more comprehensive form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, Colorado 80305-3337

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300