Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Collaborative site?

Collaborative site?

Collaborative site?

I see occasional references to a "collaborative site," i.e., a web site where engineers can upload/download spreadsheets with minimal hassle - at least that's my impression. Would someone please a) set me straight about the collaborative site, and b) give me the link. Thanks!

(I'd like to upload a spreadsheet I put together for solving cantilevered sheetpile retaining walls and get comments, suggestions for improvement, etc.)

RE: Collaborative site?

Go to mathcad's collaboratory site. It is wonderful. I don't remember its address but you can find it under mathsoft.com

RE: Collaborative site?

The collaborative site mentioned in this forum is for MathCad and, as such, it is likely to be for MathCad only.  While this seems an idea borne of good intention there is almost no diversity in authors.  That is, for the structural applications etc, one author has uploaded 9/10 applications.  For me, this can lead to very specific applications or in other words the applications are not likely generic enough to fit many different situations.

RE: Collaborative site?

The site is


Enter as guest if not a user of Mathcad 2000

Most of the referred sheets (which are of free download, yet you need Mathcad to operate them) are within the Civil Engineering Folder.

I am the referred 9 out of 10 author. I made a backup of my mcd files 2 days ago and my sheets run well over 4000, most of which I have uploaded. Of course the posted sheets nor pretend nor attain to cover the whole range of problems a structural designer, what I as an architect in Spain must be and am, will find. But if everyone in the field posts in the thousands, we would do far better.

By the way, Qshake, FLLW was a great architect, so most in the world that think and know of these things think, and was born if I remember well in the 1860's, what in the particular circumstances of a near pioneer-like life does not help much to have the best engineering training in the world. Even so he managed in a required test to exceed 3 times the structural requirement of strength on which professionals of the structural strength doubted, what points to structural acumen, no? He many other times tricked others opposing his structural views, that's on the record.

RE: Collaborative site?

I had a feeling that poster was you.  Clearly what I meant in my post above is that there should be far more individuals posting to this site.  In such a way, we would be assured that an application has some independent verificaiton or, even further, proposes another method which might have been overlooked by another author.  There are many algorithms out there, some better than others.

As for Frank Lloyd Wright, well appreciation for architecture much like art, is in the eye of the beholder.  Having stated my opinion, I don't mean to say FLW isn't worthy of being a great architect but just that I don't find his architecture fascinating at all.  You are entitled to your opinion as well.

Lastly, a recent Structural magazine article on one of FLW's structures left the reader less than enthused with his knowledge of structural behavior.  Moreover, folks are quick to point to the Japanese hotel which survived the large and devastating earthquake as a structural wonder...Frankly (no pun intended), the amount of money spent on the foundation I should hope it did survive that quake and any thing else!

RE: Collaborative site?

I would love verification and correction...simply is not coming, Qshake. I also would love better algorithms. Then some are banal, just to forfeit making some multiplications. Others are awkward, either too early in my programming or my knowledge in the field, just my first trials on something...

Respect (no pun intended) FLLW the great architect, please in the end be nice to the man, he knew much more than many did. Of course he was not at any time in his career the stalwart of structural engineering, but he did passably enough to let the buildings made for the admiration of so many.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close