Lab testing detected “inconsistencies” in the Chinese steel used to support the roof of a $73 million Melbourne public pool before it caved in during a construction collapse, a court has heard.
A court heard imported steel used by construction company ADCO to build the Kew Recreation Centre was found to have a range of issues, including insufficient yield stress, tensile strength and excessive aluminium.
The site of the Kew Recreation Centre construction collapse on October 20, 2022.Credit: Jason South
The company’s procurement manager, responsible for sourcing the steel, told the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court that late changes to some aspects of the plans were also not resubmitted for approval as it would have caused a “big financial and time impact” for its client, the City of Boroondara.
The roof of the $73 million Kew Recreation Centre redevelopment on High Street caved in at 10pm on October 20, 2022, causing a deafening bang locals likened to an explosion.
Twisted metal members, which had been holding up the roof, fell from both sides.
The Victorian Building Authority (VBA) has filed 18 charges against ADCO Group and its director John Conroy following a two-year investigation into the major construction collapse.
After ADCO’s procurement manager Richard Zhang failed to provide a witness statement, the VBA applied to the court to conduct a compulsory examination of him.
Under cross-examination from VBA counsel Chris Carr, KC, on Wednesday, Zhang said senior external engineers had raised concerns about the accuracy of mill certificates for imported steel they had used on previous projects and, as a result, agreed the material for the Kew pool would need to be independently tested by Australian labs.
He said the testing was undertaken when the steel arrived in Australia after his role on the project had finished, though he was still included in email chains that raised concerns about the steel before the collapse.
“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.
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.