Applying C5.78 (lightly reinforced) and C5.92/C5.95 (well reinforced exterior) to the same joint, C5.78 consistently gives higher capacity — meaning a well-reinforced joint assesses as weaker than an unreinforced one. Physically nonsensical.

C5 provides no explicit condition on when each method applies relative to the other, but even if you accept that they are not meant to be compared — the result still doesn't make physical sense. A joint with more reinforcement should never give lower capacity. Has anyone else encountered this? or if i missed something?

I remember when Module 6 came out many of the engineers in the office were surprised to see such a low load factor for Q for the static case. Whilst I am not a Geotech, I understood that the static case in the guidance was intended to represent a "drained soil case" where the footing was exerting pressure on the founding soil for a long period of time. In this context, the use of a live load coefficient of 0.4 was in line with the use of a long term live load factor, ψl. So it made sense to me in that way.

I guess I'm just thinking that the original guidance would not have contained such an obvious flaw without some kind of rationale to justify it. Wondering what others think about this one. 

So far I know it's a proprietary product cast into a wall panel to connect hollowcore floors and/or topping slabs.

Attached is the sort of detail I have, and that's about all I can find on google too.

The building I'm assessing already has seating retrofitted, so primarily I need to know if these things provide any additional capacity to transfer diaphragm loads into the wall.

There is a paragraph in clause 5.4.1 of the wind code "Under-eaves pressure shall be taken as equal to those applied to the adjacent wall surface below the surface under consideration"

My question is, should this be added to the pressure acting on the top of the roof (the "over-eave")?

I've got a fairly typical warehouse with a low-pitch roof, which extends out 2m over the wall where the roller doors are. I'm using +0.7 as the under-eaves shape factor (Table 5.2a) and -0.9 as the over-eaves shape factor (Table 5.3a) for a net shape of 1.6 upwards.

I'm comparing it to the canopy shape factors (Table B9) which have a max of 1.5 upwards, and wondering if I'm being too conservative?

First problem I found is you can't edit the front slope, which means I can't use the software for my current project (a wall halfway up a slope). As I understand it, having a front slope drastically reduces your passive resistance and affects the solution. 

Second item is more of a "it would be nice to have this". I see that there is only 2 soil layers (backfill vs founding soil) and the change is assumed to occur at the base of the cut face. It would be nice to have the analysis capable of 2+ soil layers at varying height.