“I have been copied into some emails, discussions, about the testing ADCO had an independent lab did, showing some inconsistencies of the steel,” Zhang said.
“That’s when we realised there could be some issues with the steel complying to the standards.
Public wreck centre: Demolition of the collapsed roof structure in March 2023.Credit: Arsineh Houspian
“I believe it was before the collapse.
“The message was quite clear. The message was ‘we found some inconsistencies that need to be questioned’.”
While he was sent lab results highlighting issues with the content and strength of the Chinese steel, Zhang said he did not look into the details because he was working full-time on another job and left it to ADCO senior project engineer Zlatan Radakovic to urgently follow up on the concerns.
Loading
Zhang told the court that he was invited to a meeting at the Kew site days after the collapse, though he claimed he was never interviewed by management about why he thought the roof had failed.
“I showed up and one of the senior site managers kind of comforted me to make sure I don’t have any psychological or mental issues,” he said.
“And the other part (of the meeting) was for management to explain to the team that we are working with WorkSafe and don’t spread rumours, don’t go around and tell people what you think, it doesn’t help because none of us is qualified to tell what was the reason.”
After Carr reminded Zhang of an email he sent to his managers five days after the collapse – which was titled ‘preliminary findings on shop drawings to GT1’ – Zhang said he had forgotten offering his opinion and providing information on what had gone wrong with the failed truss, called GT1.
Later, after being taken through a series of messages exchanged during the project, Zhang confirmed he received a call from the project’s engineer during the steel’s fabrication asking for a change to increase its gauge, which presented a “big financial and time impact” for the client.
“I remember it was a very brief call. We didn’t dive into the details, but he made it clear it’s required for engineering purposes. So if that point is clear to me, it would be a complete waste of time to argue with him,” Zhang said.
When asked if the team failed to resubmit the plans for approval due to time pressures on the Kew project, Zhang denied any additional approvals were required, though said they would have been ideal.
“We didn’t reissue the shop drawings because the shop drawings was approved,” Zhang said.
“If I had time I would definitely resubmit it, but I would maintain that the drawings was approved and the engineer never asked for resubmission.
“It’s a better practice, I agree with you, but it wouldn’t be a mistake.”
The hearing continues.
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.