For nominally ductile and brittle structures the 0.1b accidental eccentricity provisions of Clause 5.3.2 are to be applied to the actions along the 100% orthogonal axis only and are to be applied in conjunction with the 30% perpendicular action applied through the nominal centre of mass for that direction (i.e. with zero eccentricity from that perpendicular action).

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. 

If you put that number in as the 'Case Number' at NZ patent search then you should find a couple of pdfs that describe the concept a bit.

As far as I know there hasn't been any specific testing on what they do as a diaphragm load path.

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.