276
Date:
18.12.86.
Time:
9.0
-
9.50
Reporter:
PMO
MR CHEONG:
1
2 3
3
stage that we could have taken action.
MR CHEONG: Mr Mottram, do you have a copy of the
4 Director of Audit's report ?
5
6
7
8
MR MOTTRAM: Yes.
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
May I draw your attention to paragraph 139. would appreciate if you would read through it, just to recap your
memory. Give you thirty seconds. Now, there is just one thing I would like to enquire; is it factually correct in paragraph 139
of the Director's report, that the consultants insisted upon a
continuous pouring of concrete for the entire height of the perimeter
walls ?
15
16
MR MOTTRAM: Yes.
17
18
19
20
MR CHEONG: And is it also scientifically correct in fact
that this could be achieved in theory but was very difficult in
practice ?
21
22
MR MOTTRAM: No, not at all.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
100 ft long 6 metres high, it does not.
construction joints are still employed.
MR CHEONG: Why ?
MR MOTTRAM: Well, pouring on concrete does not
necessarily mean that you are going to pour a whole wall for instance
What it means is that the
All it means is that when
30
31
32
33
34
a contractor is going to do a pour he will make sure he has sufficient concrete in his delivery pipe line to be able ensure the power is done without interruption. In other words, he had to ensure, to arrange his work to make sure that his concrete delivery was such that it was not interrupted in the middle of a pour, for instance.
35
36
MR CHEONG: If there were then, assuming
-
let's assume
2 3 4 5 6 7
H
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
∞ ∞ 0 2 3 + LOT ∞ 2 2 2 2 ≈ ± 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2
8
9
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
11
12
13
14
for a moment that the contractor did not ensure continuous delivery
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.