A REHABILITATED OUTLET FOR ST. CHARLES NO.

Micah S. Smidt, P.E.1

Michael L. Graber, P.E. 2
Eric M. Hahn, P.E. 3

ABSTRACT

St. Charles Reservoir No. 2 (Reservoir No. 2) was constructed in the early 20th century on
the south side of Pueblo, Colorado and consists of a 35-foot tall, high-hazard
embankment dam. Over one hundred years later, the primary outlet works required
rehabilitation because it could not be reliably operated. Rehabilitation generally
consisted of slip-lining the existing outlet works pipes with high density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipes and grouting the annular space, installing upstream control gates, and
installing downstream knife gate valves. Rehabilitation construction was performed under
full reservoir head using underwater construction techniques because lowering the
reservoir would halt steel production at the Minnequa Works Steel Mill with an
approximate cost of at least $250,000/hour. This paper discusses key technical design and
construction challenges required to successfully implement the rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND
Original Construction and Enlargement
Colorado Fuel and Iron (CF&I) was founded in 1892 in Pueblo, Colorado to produce
steel (Miller and Schreck, 2018). Throughout the 1900s CF&I acquired reliable sources
for the materials required for steel production including: coal mines, iron mines, quarries,
coking ovens, and water. It was in that regard that on April 19, 1900 The Pueblo Daily
Chieftain reported, “ANOTHER RESERVOIR, Colorado Fuel and Iron Company to
Construct a Big One” in reference to the impending construction of the St. Charles No. 2
dam and reservoir by CF&I (Chieftain, 1900a and 1900c).

Figure 1. Excerpts from The Pueblo Daily Chieftain

1
Project Engineer, RJH Consultants, Inc., Englewood, CO, msmidt@rjh-consultants.com
2
Senior Project Manager, RJH Consultants, Inc. Englewood, CO, mgraber@rjh-consultants.com
3
Senior Project Engineer, RJH Consultants, Inc. Englewood, CO, ehahn@rjh-consultants.com

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 1

Prior to 1900, CF&I had primarily obtained water from Lake Minnequa (Reservoir No. 1)
located west of the Minnequa Works Steel Mill. As the demand for steel continued to
grow, CF&I made provisions to secure a reliable supply of water by constructing
Reservoir No. 2. The Chieftain reported that construction began at the end of June 1900
and that it would take approximately 6 months to complete. W.C. Bradbury & Co. of
Denver, Colorado was the construction contractor. A force of two-hundred men were
initially mobilized to the site to commence work on the project but it was projected that
up to 1,500 men would potentially be required at the peak of construction. Earthen
material to construct the embankment was obtained from mining refuse and stripped
surficial soils at CF&I quarries and also from material excavated within the reservoir
basin.

In 1914, the Reservoir No. 2 dam embankment was enlarged roughly 5 vertical feet to its
present size, which is about 35 feet tall and 7,200 feet long with a storage volume of
approximately 2,700 acre-feet (ac-ft). The embankment was enlarged by placing
processed slag and cinders on the downstream slope and earthen materials at the
embankment crest. Presently, raw water in Reservoir No. 2 is supplied from the St.
Charles Ditch to the Reservoir No. 3 dam which is located directly upstream of Reservoir
No. 2. Both dams are located on Salt Creek, which is tributary to the Arkansas River. A
map of the project location and the reservoir locations is presented on Figure 2.

Figure 2. Project Location Map.

The primary outlet works for dam safety releases consists of dual 24-inch-diameter cast
iron pipes that discharge to an earthen ditch. The ditch conveys reservoir releases to Salt

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 2

Creek and to St. Charles Ditch, which flows to Lake Minnequa. For steel production,
water is released from Reservoir No. 2 through the “west valve facility” (i.e. a separate
reservoir outlet facility) to a screening plant located on the north side of the reservoir and
then to the steel mill in a buried 60-inch-diameter pipeline. A plan and profile of the
existing primary outlet works configuration prior to rehabilitation is presented on Figure
3.

Figure 3. Plan and Profile of Existing Conditions.

The existing east pipe (i.e. right pipe looking downstream) was about 185 feet long and
the existing west pipe (i.e. left pipe looking downstream) was about 215 feet long. The
existing intake structures were constructed of creosote-treated timbers. Two sets of gate
control valves were located on each pipe. One set was located in manholes along the
upstream embankment slope, and one set was located in a brick valve house near the toe
of the downstream slope.

In the latter half of the 20th century, CF&I was acquired, changed its name to Rocky
Mountain Steel Mills, and was subsequently acquired by EVRAZ Group becoming Evraz
Rocky Mountain Steel Mills (ERMS). The No. 2 and No. 3 dams are currently owned
and operated by ERMS and have been vital for steel production for over a hundred years.

Existing Conditions
Prior to rehabilitation, the existing primary outlet works for Reservoir No. 2 had not been
operated in approximately ten years. At that time, the operability of the control valves
was unknown, and there was a concern that one or both of the valves would not close and
reseal if opened. This scenario would drain the reservoir and curtail delivery of water for
steel production.

A video inspection of the outlet pipes was performed by RNR Enterprises. The
inspection extended from the outlet to the downstream face of the upstream valves. The

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 3

pressurized upstream (inundated) portions of the outlet pipes and intake structures were
not included in the video inspection. The inspection video revealed moderate corrosion
and negative camber. Cracks, holes, and other structural defects were not observed. Also,
the downstream side of the upstream valves appeared to be in acceptable condition with
no apparent leaks.

Under the direction and supervision of RJH Consultants, Inc. (RJH), the upstream
portions of the outlet pipes and the intake structures were observed and inspected by
underwater divers. After performing an extensive search of the reservoir bottom at the
record location of the intake structures, the team determined that the intake structures
were buried under approximately 12 feet of densely consolidated sediment. Also, both
intake structures and the upstream 60 feet of the west pipe were filled with very dense
sediment.

A rating curve was developed to estimate the ability of the existing primary outlet works
to meet the Colorado State Engineer’s Office (SEO) mandated reservoir evacuation
criteria. Based on these calculations, the primary outlet works could lower the top 5 feet
of the reservoir in approximately 6 days, which exceeded the regulatory SEO requirement
of 5 days. The west valve facility could be used to reliably lower Reservoir No. 2 and
meet SEO reservoir evacuation requirements; however, this was logistically undesirable
for ERMS.

REHABILITATION DESIGN

Design Objectives and Key Design Issues

ERMS decided to rehabilitate the primary outlet works because of a) concerns regarding
the operability of the valves and potential impacts to steel production, b) to facilitate
reservoir evacuation for dam safety purposes without using the west valve facility, and c)
to accommodate a contractual obligation with the City of Pueblo to provide downstream
flows to Lake Minnequa through St. Charles Ditch. The intent of the rehabilitation was
to improve the condition of the outlet works and to install new components to meet
current design practices and regulatory requirements. The following key issues impacted
rehabilitation design and construction:

• The reservoir could not be lowered for construction. Divers and underwater
construction techniques were required.
• The top of the sediment was about 19 feet above the invert elevation of the
existing intake structures.
• The existing intake structures could not be reused/retrofitted and required
removal.
• The existing valves were not reliable and required removal.
• The existing outlet works pipes must remain in place.
• A minimum capacity of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) was required through each
outlet works pipe at the maximum normal water surface.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 4

 • An uncontrolled reservoir release could potentially curtail steel production
resulting in a tremendous financial loss to ERMS. Reducing risk of an
uncontrolled reservoir release during construction would require development of
detailed construction procedures and sequencing.

General Rehabilitation Design

The selected design concept generally consisted of lining the outlet works and installing
new valves. A plan and profile of the rehabilitated primary outlet works is presented on
Figure 4. A detail of the rehabilitated intake structure is presented on Figure 5. A brief
discussion of the primary components is provided below.

Figure 4. General Plan and Profile of the Rehabilitation Design.

Figure 5. Detail of Intake Structures and Steel Conduit Extensions.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 5

Intake Structures – The intake structures consist of precast reinforced concrete structures
with trash racks and control gates. The intake structures were designed to be lowered
into position in the reservoir using a crane and installed by a diver underwater. The
control gates are hydraulically operated with a hydraulic power unit (HPU) located in a
vault at the dam crest. The HPU is powered by a 12-volt battery charged by a
photovoltaic panel.

Pipe Lining – The pipe lining consists of slip-lining HDPE pipes (liner pipes) within the
existing cast iron pipes (casing pipes) and grouting the annular spaces. This method was
selected over other alternatives including cured-in-place pipe, spray lining, etc. because it
has a strong history of success on numerous similar projects and could better
accommodate a submerged installation.

18-inch outside diameter HDPE pipes with a dimension ratio of 11 (DR-11) were
selected for the liner pipes. The outside diameter was selected to provide adequate room
for grouting equipment and pipe insertion considering the observed negative camber.
The DR was selected based on engineering judgement of the loadings likely to be
imposed during insertion of the HDPE pipe into the cast iron pipes and was confirmed to
exceed American Water Works Association recommendations (AWWA, 2006).

Steel Conduit Extensions – The steel conduit extensions extend from the new intake
structure to facilitate a watertight connection to the existing 24-inch diameter cast iron
pipes.

Filter Diaphragm – The filter diaphragm consists of filter sand (concrete sand) and
provides filter protection for seepage along the exterior of the 24-inch diameter cast iron
pipes. A slotted drain pipe is located below the cast iron pipes within the filter
diaphragm to convey collected seepage to the plunge pool.

Downstream Knife Gate Valves – The downstream knife gate valves are manually
operated and located in manholes near the downstream embankment toe.

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining wall and Grouted Riprap Plunge Pool –
The HDPE pipes extend downstream to an MSE retaining wall where the pipes discharge
to open atmosphere. Erosion protection consists of a grouted riprap plunge pool. The
channel transitions to an unlined earthen channel approximately 20 feet downstream of
the plunge pool.

Design Issues and Implemented Solutions

The primary consideration for selection of the preferred concept was the ability to slip-
line and grout the full length of the existing outlet works under full reservoir head. In an
unsubmerged condition, this approach generally requires the following components:
• Upstream and downstream bulkheads.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 6

 • Vent pipes and grout pipes terminating at various intervals along the length of the
casing pipe. This facilitates air removal from the annular space preventing vapor
locking, and allows grout to be monitored during placement.
• Casing spacers attached at frequent intervals to the outside diameter of the liner
pipe. Liner pipes typically float when submerged in grout because of the specific
gravity of HDPE and entrapped air within the pipe. Casing spacers allow
movement but maintain an acceptable distance between the inside diameter of the
casing pipe and the outside diameter of the liner pipe.
• Reliable, strong, fluid, and non-shrink to slightly expansive grout mix.

This traditional method becomes relatively complex when performed under full reservoir
head. Access becomes significantly limited at the submerged upstream end which limits
observation, reduces venting, and reduces personnel access during grouting. Much of the
work must be performed in submerged conditions that are dark, cold, and limit the
construction methodology and tools that can be used. Also, the reservoir pool influences
sequencing and planning because the location of flow control within the outlet pipes must
be shifted at least three times during construction.

To address problems associated with submerged conditions, the following installation

sequence was developed:
1. Establish temporary flow control at the upstream end of both pipes (i.e. plug the
upstream end of both existing pipes).
2. Abandon existing valves (existing flow control) to provide access to the full
length of the cast iron pipes.
3. Insert the HDPE liner pipe into the cast iron pipe.
4. Grout the annulus between the HDPE liner pipes and the existing cast iron pipes.
5. Install downstream valves, establish flow control at the downstream end, and
remove temporary upstream flow control.
6. Complete upstream underwater installation of the intake structures, gates,
trashracks, and other miscellaneous items.
7. Reestablish flow control at the new upstream control gates.

The steel conduit extension (shown in Figure 5 above) was used to accommodate a
structural connection between the existing outlet works and the new components as well
as to enable completion of the first five steps of the proposed sequence, which are the
most challenging steps of the rehabilitation.

The steel conduit extension consists of (from upstream to downstream) an 18-inch-

diameter steel pipe, an 18-inch to 22-inch-diameter special flange, and a 22-inch-
diameter steel pipe. The 18-inch-diameter pipe was separated into two segments that
were designed to be joined underwater – one segment was cast into the intake structure
headwall and one segment was connected to the special flange. The 22-inch-diameter
steel pipe was designed to fit within the existing cast iron pipe from the upstream end and
also to accept insertion of the new HDPE pipe from the downstream end. The HDPE
pipe extends inside of the 22-inch-diameter steel pipe to provide a consistent pipe
material across the transition from steel to cast iron. The annular space between the cast

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 7

iron pipe and steel pipe was designed to be filled with a sealant material and encased with
concrete placed underwater. The special flange performed several functions that
included: a) transitioning the pipe size (18-inch-diameter to 22-inch-diameter), b)
allowing a bulkhead to be attached that could be used to provide temporary upstream
flow control (during grouting), and c) providing a “stop” for HDPE liner pipe insertion
that also functioned as a partial-seal for grout placement. The 18-inch-diameter steel pipe
size was selected to provide a smoother transition from steel to HDPE, and to provide
better access for future maintenance and inspection of the rehabilitated outlet.

REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION

General Rehabilitation Construction

Construction was completed in approximately 4 months and occurred between mid-

summer and late fall. Weather conditions were fairly temperate and cold weather did not
influence construction progress. ASI Construction, LLC of Pueblo West, Colorado was
the construction contractor. The general sequence of construction activities followed the
design sequence presented in the previous section. The most challenging aspects of
construction pertained to the underwater construction. Significant features of this work
included the following:
• Upstream sediment excavation and demolition of existing facilities.
• Installation of the steel conduit extension.
• Slip-lining and grouting.
• Installation of upstream intake structures.

Additional discussion of significant construction features are discussed in the following

sections.

General Underwater Construction

Underwater construction was staged from the dam crest. Dive equipment included an air
compressor, redundant air supplies including a pressurized tank on the back of the diver
(referred to as a bail-out tank), pressure gages and equipment to monitor diver air supply,
audio-visual (AV) equipment to allow communication with the dive supervisor and the
onsite RJH engineer, a wet-suit, a dive helmet, and a redundant dive helmet. Each dive
helmet was connected to equipment and personnel on the surface by two air supply hoses,
communication equipment and power supply cable, and a rope which were tightly bound
together by tape. Typical dive personnel included a diver, a dive supervisor, and a
standby diver (for emergency rescues). Support personnel included crane and heavy
equipment operators. Divers used wet suits to perform the work, which allowed the
divers to be heated by circulating heated water through the wet suit. On some underwater
construction projects, dive times (the time the divers can spend working on the reservoir
bottom) can be limited because of dive depths, project altitude, and limits on cumulative
dive time in a 24-hour period. For this project, dive times were generally adequate
because the project site altitude was relatively low (4,920 feet) by Colorado standards,
and the reservoir depth was relatively shallow (±25 feet).

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 8

Divers used a variety of hand tools and specialized underwater hydraulically driven
power tools to perform the required work. Due to the possibility of air lines and tether
lines becoming tangled when two or more divers are in the water at the same time, only
one diver was in the water at a time performing work. Underwater construction
observations typically consisted of sole auditory feedback and “blind” measurements
obtained based on diver judgement and limited visibility at depth; in this case, the diver
had limited visibility and personnel viewing the camera feed had no visibility. Therefore,
experienced divers, a good working relationship with the contractor, and appropriate
specification language were paramount to provide accurate underwater construction
observation. Key components of an underwater construction specification include
requiring qualified divers, an experienced dive superintendent, audio-visual feedback and
recording requirements, and an underwater construction plan that details how the work
will be performed and documented.

Underwater Excavation and Demolition

Underwater excavation of deposited sediment and demolition of the existing intake

structures was performed July through August using a long-reach excavator staged on a
barge within the reservoir (shown on Figure 6), and then with a Godwin Dri-Prime pump
and a hydraulic jack hammer when hand work was required. The pump was used to
dredge and jet material from the work area while the jack hammer was used to break
apart over-consolidated sediment below the existing structures.

Figure 6. Underwater Excavation with the Long Reach Excavator.

Approximately 19 feet of sediment was removed above the invert of the existing cast iron
pipes and an approximate 20- by 30-foot working pad was excavated. Final excavation-
slopes were generally between 1.4H:1V and 3H:1V. The existing intake structures were
demolished using an underwater chainsaw, and the long-reach excavator was used to pull
the structure components from the reservoir.

During excavation, careful coordination was required between the diving contractor,
excavator operator, owner, and engineer to maintain the safety of the diver, protect the
existing cast iron pipes, and to confirm that the excavation performed was adequate for
construction rehabilitation. This coordination, and the necessary underwater construction
techniques, resulted in an extended construction schedule than would otherwise be
required relative to unsubmerged excavation and demolition.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 9

Following completion of excavation, sediment suspended in the reservoir continued to
migrate into the work area and obscured working conditions for the duration of
construction. The pump was operated in an attempt to clear the sediment but was
relatively ineffective. The majority of underwater construction was completed with
limited to no visibility, which is not uncommon for underwater construction activities.

Steel conduit extension

In mid-August, the steel conduit extensions were lowered into the reservoir by a diver
with a lift-bag (air inflated bag similar to a tire inner tube) and installed in the upstream
end of the existing cast iron pipes. An AWWA C-207 blind flange was bolted to the
upstream end of both steel conduit extensions; therefore, once the annular space between
the steel and the existing cast iron outlet pipes was sealed, flow control was established at
the upstream end of the outlet works at the steel conduit extension. Ball valves on the
blind flange and the vent at the crown of the steel pipe were used to facilitate grouting
and re-pressuring of the pipes. The steel conduit extension, blind flange, and grout vent
port are shown on Figure 7.

Figure 7. Steel Conduit Extension (blind flange shown in foreground).

The annular spaces between the steel pipes and the cast iron pipes were sealed using
Ramnek (fiber reinforced asphalt sealant), Syntho-Glass (fiberglass reinforced
underwater epoxy sealant), and concrete. Ramnek was pressed into the annular space
around the full pipe circumference using hand tools. The joint was then wrapped in
Syntho-Glass as an additional sealing measure. After placement of the Ramnek and
Syntho-Glass, the joint was encased in concrete cast-in-place underwater.

Concrete placement underwater was similar to unsubmerged concrete placement except

for a few procedural modifications. Formwork for the underwater concrete work was
constructed using burlap concrete bags that cure underwater to form a single mass of
concrete. Concrete was pumped to the structure using a concrete boom truck and
placement was performed using tremie methods: the tremie pipe was used to form a
mound of concrete which was placed in the formwork from the bottom up to maintain the
water-cement ratio and prevent aggregate segregation. Concrete consolidation was

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 10

performed underwater by a diver using a hydraulically driven immersion-type vibrator
suitable for underwater applications.

Following concrete placement, and with flow control now established at the upstream end
of the outlet works pipes, the existing valve housings and valve discs were removed. A
small flow of water was observed discharging from the west outlet pipe following valve
removal, but it was unclear if this leak originated at the steel conduit extension or from an
existing defect. The leak was not addressed at this point because it was not practical and
because grouting of the annular space provided the best opportunity to seal the leak.

Sliplining and Annular Space Grouting

In September, the HDPE pipes were inserted into the existing cast iron outlet pipes and
the annular spaces between the HDPE pipes and the outlet pipes were grouted. The
HDPE liner pipes were inserted with grout/vent pipes and casing spacers attached to the
outside diameter of the HDPE pipe. An inflatable pipe plug was installed at the upstream
end of the HDPE pipe to prevent grout from entering the pipe. Seven grout/vent pipes
were attached to the outside of the HDPE pipe. The length of the pipes were
incrementally varied at 25-foot intervals. The casing spacers were manufactured by
Pipeline Seal and Insulator, Inc. and were installed at about 8-foot intervals to limit liner
pipe deflection between the casing spacers. Following insertion, the HDPE pipes were
allowed 24 hours to attain thermal equilibrium and then a front-end loader was used to
further push the HDPE pipes into the cast iron pipes. Each pipe moved an additional 6-
to 12-inches.

The downstream bulkhead was constructed of dry pack grout with redundant structural
support provided by wooden kickers and whalers. Each grout/vent pipe was extended
through the bulkhead and a drain pipe was installed at the pipe invert. The downstream
bulkhead of the left pipe is presented on Figure 8.

Figure 8. Downstream bulkhead

The first placement of grout occurred in the middle of September and only partially filled
the annular space with cementitious grout. Grout was placed from downstream to
upstream using a trailer-mounted concrete pump truck. As grouting progressed, ball
valves located on each grout tube were incrementally closed as the grout progressed

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 11

upstream and return was achieved through the grout/vent pipes. The upstream-most
grout tube was located at the crown of the steel conduit extension at the upstream end and
was vented to the atmosphere above the reservoir water surface. During grouting, this
grout tube was monitored by a diver. A pressure gage on the grout port was monitored
throughout grouting to maintain pressure in the annular space below 20 pounds per
square inch (psi) to reduce the potential for causing damage to the existing and new outlet
works components. Additionally, a redundant pump truck was located onsite in case the
primary pump truck experienced a mechanical failure.

During grouting, several problems relating to venting and grout leakage occurred that
attributed to the unsuccessful grout placement. The unsuccessful grouting was evident as
presented on Figure 9 because some of the vent pipes were not completely filled with
grout, seepage flow discharged from these vent pipes (gallons per minute), and seepage
flow discharged from the annular space at the downstream end through the now cured
grout (less than a gallon per minute).

Figure 9. Leakage following first grout placement

During grouting, grout leaks occurred at the downstream bulkhead and at the existing
valves. These leaks were resolved using quick-set grout material that the contractor had
stockpiled onsite. The grout that leaked was likely replaced with additional grout when
pumping operations resumed and was not the primary cause of the unsuccessful grout
placement.

The primary cause of the venting disruption is attributed to inadvertent flotation of the
HDPE pipe at the upstream end that resulted in blockage of the upstream vent pipe. The
casing spacers were designed to reduce the flotation of the HDPE pipe and maintain a
minimum grout thickness within the annular space. The casing spacers were not intended
to prevent movement of the HDPE pipe because it would have eliminated clearance that
was paramount to successful pipe insertion. In addition to blockage at the upstream vent,
grout return was also not obtained from grout/vent pipes located near the upstream end of
the annular space. This could be attributed to several factors including a partially kinked
grout pipe or a vapor locked (positive pressure) annular space.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 12

Subsequent grouting consisted of a combination of cementitious grout and chemical
grouting techniques. Prior to placing additional grout, divers removed the blind flanges,
installed wedges between the HDPE liner pipes and the steel pipes to centralize the
HDPE liner pipes, and then re-installed the blind flanges. To remove the blind flanges,
flow control had to be shifted to the downstream end of the HDPE pipes. Therefore,
prior to removing the blind flanges, the knife gate valves were installed and the center
ball valves on the blind flanges were opened to pressurize the HDPE pipes so that the
blind flanges could be removed in a safe and controlled manner. After the blind flanges
were reinstalled, additional cementitious grout was pumped into the vent pipes that did
not receive grout return during the first placement and also in the vents on the steel
conduit extensions. Following this grout placement, seepage flow through the vent pipes
ceased but seepage through the grouted annular space persisted, although at a reduced
rate. Seepage through the grouted annular space was mitigated by injecting less than 10
gallons of Mountain Grout Ultra through 0.5-inch-diameter grout ports drilled and set
into the grouted annular space. The leak was effectively stopped following placement of
the chemical grout. Any other imperceptible leaks were intercepted and filtered by the
diaphragm filter installed at the downstream end of the annular space. The downstream
end of the grouted annular space is shown on Figure 10.

Figure 10. Annular Space Following Chemical Grouting.

Intake Structure Construction

After the annular space was successfully grouted, the blind flanges were removed and the
special flange was installed reducing the diameter of the steel pipe from 22- to 18-inches.
Then, the precast concrete intake structures were lowered into the reservoir and attached
to the steel conduit extension using a Hymax 2000 compression coupling that allows for
up to approximately 8 degrees of angular deflection. The intake structure foundation was
prepared by placing staggered layers of burlap concrete bags to provide a level and firm
bearing surface. The coupling and steel pipe were then encased in cast-in-place
underwater concrete.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 13

Operational Testing

A full-scale test of the rehabilitated outlet works was performed with representatives of
the Owner, Contractor, SEO, and RJH. The slide gate on each intake structure was
operated through a full range of motion and the performance of the valves, pipes, and
other components were observed and found to perform as intended.

CONCLUSION

Underwater construction rehabilitation of the St. Charles Reservoir No. 2 primary outlet
was the owner-preferred alternative for the reservoir outlet rehabilitation. The reservoir
could not be lowered without curtailing steel production at the Minnequa Works Steel
Mill, and the existing outlet works could not be reliably operated. The rehabilitation
design generally consisted of sliplining and grouting HDPE liner pipes placed within the
existing cast iron outlet pipes, and installing new upstream control gates and downstream
knife gate valves. Underwater construction presents a unique set of design and
construction challenges that must be addressed through careful planning and
coordination. Successful rehabilitation of the St. Charles Reservoir No. 2 primary outlet
works was achieved by designing components that were simple to install underwater, yet
sufficiently robust to mitigate the harsh underwater construction environment; devising a
construction sequence that coordinated flow control to achieve design objectives; by
retaining a construction contractor with experience in dams as well as in underwater
construction; and by working closely with the Owner, Contractor, and SEO to achieve the
design intent. Following the outlet works rehabilitation, the primary outlet was
successfully operated and achieved the design intent.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authors would like to acknowledge the collective effort of the Colorado Engineer’s
Office, EVRAZ Rocky Mountain Steel, and ASI Construction Services, all of whom
contributed to the successful delivery of a challenging and important project.

REFERENCES

American Water Works Association (AWWA, 2006). Manual M-55 PE Pipe—Design

and Installation.

American Water Works Association (AWWA, 2018). Steel Pipe Flanges for Waterworks
Service Sizes 4 In. Through 144 In. (100 mm Through 3,600 mm).

The Pueblo Daily Chieftain (Chieftain, 1900a). Another Reservoir. Pueblo, Colorado.
April 19, 1900.

The Pueblo Daily Chieftain (Chieftain, 1900b). As Big as Minnequa. Pueblo, Colorado.
June 14, 1900.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 14

The Pueblo Daily Chieftain (Chieftain, 1900c). Spur to Reservoir. Pueblo, Colorado.
June 21, 1900.

Miller, Victoria and Schreck, Christopher (Miller and Schreck, 2018). Images of America
– The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. 2018

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 15