View
255
Download
4
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
4. If any logos or graphics are missing or modified in the converted InDesign file, navigate to where they reside using the Links palette “Relink” icon. You can then use the screen below for the next missing graphic(s).
1. From the Quark file, make sure all logos and graphics are in place.
Through InDesign CS2, convert the Quark to an InDesign file.
Use this converted InDesign file for reference only.
2. If any graphic files are missing you will see this message. Click OK to repair the links in InDesign later.
3. If there are grouped or locked objects in the converted Quark file you will see this message. Often there are warning messages because of minor conversion issues.
Workshop 1 • Getting Started
Relink icon
1
2
3
4
5. Create a new, clean InDesign document which will be used as a master template incorporating all swatches and most styles. Under File > New > Document. Set specifications.
6. Save and name preset.
Each document will be one section of the publication.
To prepare document you also need access to your live Quark and Word files (suggest creating desktop shortcut for easier navigation). Use real text, not dummy text (to later check paragraph styles and the hyphenation & justification values within the paragraph styles).
5
6
7. Confirm all preferences including Baseline Grid. Under Edit menu > Preferences > General, Type, etc.
7
Workshop 1 • Create the InDesign Document
8. Use only CMYK color swatches. Delete any rgb swatches.
8
Libraries must be created
in current application
version
Ihave a number of reservations about the tech-
nical issues in Mr. Lane’s articles, which broke
down changes to the NEC and suggested fused
distribution may not always be necessary when
considering selective coordination requirements.
Both circuit breaker (CB) and fused systems
provide safe and reliable overcurrent protection
when systems are carefully engineered, installed
and maintained. But there are significant differ-
ences that must be recognized.
The first problem with all three articles is they do
not look at a complete system. The one-line diagram
in part two of the series, “The Skinny on Switchgear
and the New NEC,” (CSE 9/05, p.15), shows a feeder
breaker in the main switchgear (not switchboard) of
800 amps, but neither the size of the main breaker
is indicated, nor whether there is a main breaker or
a sequence service. Is there coordination between
the 800-amp feeder breaker and the main breaker?
To achieve this, the main breaker would require a
short delay trip set at 12 cycles. The vast majority of
transformers in commercial and industrial systems
are protected on the primary side by current-limiting
fuses. What would the coordination be? It’s difficult
enough to coordinate CB having instantaneous trips
with primary current-limiting fuses.
If the primary fuses open—admittedly, this rarely
happens—the system is down until the utility replac-
es the fuses, and only after determining there is no
problem in the transformer or main switchgear.
Any facility requiring an 800-amp CB for the
emergency system must be fairly large. It is reason-
able to assume a 2.5% impedance high-efficiency
1,500- or 2,000-kVA transformer. Available short-
circuit current could easily be more than 75,000
amps. What is the cost of CB switchgear-type con-
struction opposed to a bolted pressure switch and
fuse switchboard? Considering only space, fused
switchboards are readily available. They may actu-
ally take less total space than CB switchgear and
be less expensive. The use of Class-J time-delay
current-limiting fuses may also reduce the size of
equipment. What about the short-circuit rating
of other components such as busway? How will
they be affected by the short-delay trips? It is com-
mon in high-rise construction to run busway from
the main switchgear to distribution panels or to
use plug-in busway to feed main-lug only (MLO)
branch panels.
(Subhead) unnecessary risksThe same diagram shows an 800-amp CB with
short delay trips protecting the automatic transfer
switch (ATS). Will the ATS have an adequate short-
circuit rating? One ATS manufacturer tests and UL
lists its units only when protected by current-lim-
iting fuses or CB with clearing times of less than
three cycles. Generators commonly have short-n
is there. It is almost a knee-jerk response. While
some industries have planned shutdowns for ser-
vice and maintenance purposes, commercial and
other industries seldom can do so except at late
hours. This , it should be included in every project
specification. To do less is to increase hazard to
personnel. No engineer can do so and meet the
ethics of his profession.
Author Keith Lane responds: My intent was
to solicit good conversation in the engineering
community, which I think my article has succeeded
in doing. I am certainly not against AHJs adopting
the 2005 NEC. The heart of the piece was the issue
of selective coordination but neither the size of the
main breaker is indicated, nor whether there is a
main breaker or a sequence service. Is there coor-
dination between the 800-amp feeder breakerAs
noted in my conclusion, I am in favor of good
engineering analysis, which would include a com-
prehensive fault current calculation, coordination
study and appropriate settinehensive fault current
analysis, priate setting of the breakers or with the
use of fused distribution, the reliability of electrical
distribution systems would be increased over what
is required by the NEC prior to 2005.
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
Codes & Standards
The Debate Over Circuit Breakers vs. Fused Solutions ContinuesBy First Last, Italic Byline [c-s]
Consulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006 A
Standard column configurations are created for whatever is present in the magazine: (2 col, 3 col, 2 + 3 col, etc.) We use one text box with column and gutter settings, rather than multiple threaded frames.
Non-printing layout margins & columns for inside, outside, top and bottom set to live area. Column numbers are set on individual master pages for standard column configurations. Temporary guides are sometimes set to mark important guides, such as for rules in column gutters, etc.
Workshop 1 • Master page A with 2 column configuration, baseline grid and live text for mockup
It was quite obvious that the contrac-
tor had installed bolts that were too
short to fully engage the threads of the
nut. While on the site, the engineer also
noted that the stucco lath and moisture
barrier operations had been completed.
In his follow-up report of the site visit,
the engineer cited the bolting deficiency,
with a correction, and also wrote that
“the stucco cladding paper and lath is
complete, ready for the scratch coat.”
This report became a key issue in the case
against the designer, as the structural
design allowed for the stucco cladding to
participate in the building’s lateral force
resistance system.
Two years later, when cracks in the
stucco and other collateral finishes were
observed, it was determined by forensic
experts that the attachment of the lath
to the wood frame employed staples that
were too short, and that the fastener
spacing exceeded the design specifica-
tions. Essentially, the weight of the stucco
exceeded the capacity of the fasteners
to secure it to the frame. The engineer’s
written report of observation was inter-
preted by the developer’s attorney as an
endorsement of the contractor’s adher-
ence to the structural design.
Attorneys for the developer cited the
field report, indicating that it provided
a representation that all of the work
observed by the engineer was consistent
with industry practices and wisdom. They
argued that the engineer’s comment
that “...the stucco cladding paper and
lath is complete” additionally inferred,
“...according to building codes and my
specs.” The court agreed and held that no
other individual was better informed and
in a better position to observe a defect
in the application of the lath than the
engineer. The engineer was found by the
court to have contributed substantially to
the failures of the stucco attac ures of the
stucco attachment.
Avoiding riskHow could this liability risk have been
avoided? It’s all about duty. In this situa-
tion, the engineer snatched liability away
from the contractor and the developer by
voluntarily assuming the duty of evaluat-
ing the contractor’s work.
But let’s return in time to the
developer’s initial concern about the struc-
tural connection. The engineer observes
the same condition, but this time offers
a substantially different report about the
stucco: “Stucco lath and moisture barrier
work appears complete. Since structural
integrity of the building depends on the
fastener use and placement for positive
attachment to the frame, it is strongly
recommended that you verify through
the building department or a deputy
inspector that the details of the specifi-
cations were faithfully adhered to.”
The engineer has just directed the
owner or developer to verify compliance
with some other entity and has pointed
out that it is a critical component of the
building’s design. Thus, the liability has
been kept in the lap of the owner. The
same use of “recommendations” can
charge the owner to seek verification
from the contractor, thus asserting that
the engineer’s observation was not an
inspection. More importantly, it estab-
lishes that inspection of the work is out-
side of the engineer’s scope.
The key to this area of practice is to
be always mindful of the duty that one
can end up assuming as a result of a
simple conversation or a brief written
memo. Once again, although the case
involved a structural design issue, the
same practice should be incorporated
into the standard policies of all disciplines
of engineering. Designers and specifiers
should maintain strict control over the
actual duties that they assume, and they
should avoid even the appearance of
approving an owner’s and contractor’s
work. Otherwise, the other players in
the construction drama will be delighted
to hand the engineer their responsibili-
ties and receive the endorsement of the
design professional for the work they
have just completed. The construction
industry has established the standard
that the contractor is responsible for the
methods and materials of constructing
the project. But as soon as an engineer
states, even in ambiguous terms, that the
work is “complete,” he or she has joined
right in on the responsib. Designers and
specifiers should maintain strict control
over the actual duties that they assume,
and they should avoid even the appear-
ance of approving an owner’s. By simply
adding, “The Owner should verify with
the equipment manufacturer’s represen-
tative that all connecr this application,”
the engineer places responsibility better
informed and in a better position where
it belongs—back with the owner.
RecommendationsThe use of “recommendation” lan-
guage cannot be emphasized enough,
not only for observation reports of site vis-
its, but also certificates for payment and
written requests
for information
from the contrac-
tors. By including
a recommenda-
tion to verify,
confirm, validate appropriate, design
professionals place themselves one step
further from the inevitable dispute. The
following is a suggested checklist:
● Limit observations and report lan-
guage to the purpose o.
● Limit oral conversations with the
contractor to basic items. Follow low up
substantive questions every report or
written oral conversation.
● Include “recommendations to verify”
in every report or written correspondence
dealing with contractor rify through the
building department or a deputy inspec-
tor that performance.
● Follow up in writing, asking the
owner/developer if their verification of
the work confirmed compliance by the
contractor, manufacturer or fabricator.
● Limit the construction-phase services
wherever possible. The project rarely has
a sufficient budget to allow for detailed
verification of design compliance.
The key to this area of practice is to
be always mins a result conversation or
a brief written memo. Once again,
Codes & Standards
Consulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
Consulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
It was quite obvious that the contrac-
tor had installed bolts that were too
short to fully engage the threads of the
nut. While on the site, the engineer also
noted that the stucco lath and moisture
barrier operations had been completed.
In his follow-up report of the site visit,
the engineer cited the bolting deficiency,
with a correction, and also wrote that
“the stucco cladding paper and lath is
complete, ready for the scratch coat.”
This report became a key issue in the case
against the designer, as the structural
design allowed for the stucco cladding to
participate in the building’s lateral force
resistance system.
Two years later, when cracks in the
stucco and other collateral finishes were
observed, it was determined by forensic
experts that the attachment of the lath
to the wood frame employed staples that
were too short, and that the fastener
spacing exceeded the design specifica-
tions. Essentially, the weight of the stucco
exceeded the capacity of the fasteners
to secure it to the frame. The engineer’s
written report of observation was inter-
preted by the developer’s attorney as an
endorsement of the contractor’s adher-
ence to the structural design.
Attorneys for the developer cited the
field report, indicating that it provided
a representation that all of the work
observed by the engineer was consistent
with industry practices and wisdom. They
argued that the engineer’s comment
that “...the stucco cladding paper and
lath is complete” additionally inferred,
“...according to building codes and my
specs.” The court agreed and held that no
other individual was better informed and
in a better position to observe a defect
in the application of the lath than the
engineer. The engineer was found by the
court to have contributed substantially to
the failures of the stucco attac ures of the
stucco attachment.
Avoiding riskHow could this liability risk have been
avoided? It’s all about duty. In this situa-
tion, the engineer snatched liability away
from the contractor and the developer by
voluntarily assuming the duty of evaluat-
ing the contractor’s work.
But let’s return in time to the
developer’s initial concern about the struc-
tural connection. The engineer observes
the same condition, but this time offers
a substantially different report about the
stucco: “Stucco lath and moisture barrier
work appears complete. Since structural
integrity of the building depends on the
fastener use and placement for positive
attachment to the frame, it is strongly
recommended that you verify through
the building department or a deputy
inspector that the details of the specifi-
cations were faithfully adhered to.”
The engineer has just directed the
owner or developer to verify compliance
with some other entity and has pointed
out that it is a critical component of the
building’s design. Thus, the liability has
been kept in the lap of the owner. The
same use of “recommendations” can
charge the owner to seek verification
from the contractor, thus asserting that
the engineer’s observation was not an
inspection. More importantly, it estab-
lishes that inspection of the work is out-
side of the engineer’s scope.
The key to this area of practice is to
be always mindful of the duty that one
can end up assuming as a result of a
simple conversation or a brief written
memo. Once again, although the case
involved a structural design issue, the
same practice should be incorporated
into the standard policies of all disciplines
of engineering. Designers and specifiers
should maintain strict control over the
actual duties that they assume, and they
should avoid even the appearance of
approving an owner’s and contractor’s
work. Otherwise, the other players in
the construction drama will be delighted
to hand the engineer their responsibili-
ties and receive the endorsement of the
design professional for the work they
have just completed. The construction
industry has established the standard
that the contractor is responsible for the
methods and materials of constructing
the project. But as soon as an engineer
states, even in ambiguous terms, that the
work is “complete,” he or she has joined
right in on the responsib. Designers and
specifiers should maintain strict control
over the actual duties that they assume,
and they should avoid even the appear-
ance of approving an owner’s. By simply
adding, “The Owner should verify with
the equipment manufacturer’s represen-
tative that all connecr this application,”
the engineer places responsibility better
informed and in a better position where
it belongs—back with the owner.
RecommendationsThe use of “recommendation” lan-
guage cannot be emphasized enough,
not only for observation reports of site vis-
its, but also certificates for payment and
written requests
for information
from the contrac-
tors. By including
a recommenda-
tion to verify,
confirm, validate appropriate, design
professionals place themselves one step
further from the inevitable dispute. The
following is a suggested checklist:
● Limit observations and report lan-
guage to the purpose o.
● Limit oral conversations with the
contractor to basic items. Follow low up
substantive questions every report or
written oral conversation.
● Include “recommendations to verify”
in every report or written correspondence
dealing with contractor rify through the
building department or a deputy inspec-
tor that performance.
● Follow up in writing, asking the
owner/developer if their verification of
the work confirmed compliance by the
contractor, manufacturer or fabricator.
● Limit the construction-phase services
wherever possible. The project rarely has
a sufficient budget to allow for detailed
verification of design compliance.
The key to this area of practice is to
be always mins a result conversation or
a brief written memo. Once again,
Codes & Standards
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
B B
Workshop 1 • Master page B with 3 column configuration, baseline grid and live text for mockup
Ihave a number of reservations about the tech-
nical issues in Mr. Lane’s articles, which broke
down changes to the NEC and suggested fused
distribution may not always be necessary when
considering selective coordination requirements.
Both circuit breaker (CB) and fused systems
provide safe and reliable overcurrent protection
when systems are carefully engineered, installed
and maintained. But there are significant differ-
ences that must be recognized.
The first problem with all three articles is they do
not look at a complete system. The one-line diagram
in part two of the series, “The Skinny on Switchgear
and the New NEC,” (CSE 9/05, p.15), shows a feeder
breaker in the main switchgear (not switchboard) of
800 amps, but neither the size of the main breaker
is indicated, nor whether there is a main breaker or
a sequence service. Is there coordination between
the 800-amp feeder breaker and the main breaker?
To achieve this, the main breaker would require a
short delay trip set at 12 cycles. The vast majority of
transformers in commercial and industrial systems
are protected on the primary side by current-limiting
fuses. What would the coordination be? It’s difficult
enough to coordinate CB having instantaneous trips
with primary current-limiting fuses.
If the primary fuses open—admittedly, this rarely
happens—the system is down until the utility replac-
es the fuses, and only after determining there is no
problem in the transformer or main switchgear.
Any facility requiring an 800-amp CB for the
emergency system must be fairly large. It is reason-
able to assume a 2.5% impedance high-efficiency
1,500- or 2,000-kVA transformer. Available short-
circuit current could easily be more than 75,000
amps. What is the cost of CB switchgear-type con-
struction opposed to a bolted pressure switch and
fuse switchboard? Considering only space, fused
switchboards are readily available. They may actu-
ally take less total space than CB switchgear and
be less expensive. The use of Class-J time-delay
current-limiting fuses may also reduce the size of
equipment. What about the short-circuit rating
of other components such as busway? How will
they be affected by the short-delay trips? It is com-
mon in high-rise construction to run busway from
the main switchgear to distribution panels or to
use plug-in busway to feed main-lug only (MLO)
branch panels.
(Subhead) unnecessary risksThe same diagram shows an 800-amp CB with
short delay trips protecting the automatic transfer
switch (ATS). Will the ATS have an adequate short-
circuit rating? One ATS manufacturer tests and UL
lists its units only when protected by current-lim-
iting fuses or CB with clearing times of less than
three cycles. Generators commonly have short-n
is there. It is almost a knee-jerk response. While
some industries have planned shutdowns for ser-
vice and maintenance purposes, commercial and
other industries seldom can do so except at late
hours. This , it should be included in every project
specification. To do less is to increase hazard to
personnel. No engineer can do so and meet the
ethics of his profession.
Author Keith Lane responds: My intent was
to solicit good conversation in the engineering
community, which I think my article has succeeded
in doing. I am certainly not against AHJs adopting
the 2005 NEC. The heart of the piece was the issue
of selective coordination but neither the size of the
main breaker is indicated, nor whether there is a
main breaker or a sequence service. Is there coor-
dination between the 800-amp feeder breakerAs
noted in my conclusion, I am in favor of good
engineering analysis, which would include a com-
prehensive fault current calculation, coordination
study and appropriate settinehensive fault current
analysis, priate setting of the breakers or with the
use of fused distribution, the reliability of electrical
distribution systems would be increased over what
is required by the NEC prior to 2005.
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
Codes & Standards
The Debate Over Circuit Breakers vs. Fused Solutions ContinuesByLine [p-styLe], Italic Byline [c-style]
AConsulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
Workshop 2 • RBI Paragraph & Character Styles for Master page A
p-style Section
c-style Bold Section
p-style Head
p-style Text DropCap[nested DropCap]
p-style Text
p-style PullQuote
p-style Subhead
c-style Bold Text
p-style Text
Workshop 2 • RBI Paragraph & Character Styles for optional Master Page A
Ihave a number of reservations about the tech-
nical issues in Mr. Lane’s articles, which broke
down changes to the NEC and suggested fused
distribution may not always be necessary when
considering selective coordination requirements.
Both circuit breaker (CB) and fused systems
provide safe and reliable overcurrent protection
when systems are carefully engineered, installed
and maintained. But there are significant differ-
ences that must be recognized.
The first problem with all three articles is they
do not look at a complete system. The one-line
diagram in part two of the series, “The Skinny on
Switchgear and the New NEC,” (CSE 9/05, p.15),
shows a feeder breaker in the main switchgear
(not switchboard) of 800 amps, but neither the
size of the main breaker is indicated, nor whether
there is a main breaker or a sequence service. Is
there coordination between the 800-amp feeder
breaker and the main breaker? To achieve this, the
main breaker would require a short delay trip set
at 12 cycles. The vast majority of transformers in
commercial and industrial systems are protected
on the primary side by current-limiting fuses. What
would the coordination be? It’s difficult enough
to coordinate CB having instantaneous trips with
primary current-limiting fuses.
(Subhead) unnecessary risksThe same diagram shows an 800-amp CB with
short delay trips protecting the automatic trans-
fer switch (ATS). Will the ATS have an adequate
short-there is no problem in the transformer or
main switchgmp fault on the load side of a branch
breaker may cause all three CBs to open. If power
look? After the fa removed, the switches and CBs
trical distribution systems would be increased over
what is required by the NEC prior to 2005.
ByLine [p-styLe], Italic Byline [c-style]
Editor’s note: This month’s Codes & Standards, following the tone set in Letters (p.7), is an in-depth rebut-
tal to Keith Lane’s August-through-October series analyzing the 2005 edition of the NEC. A response from Mr.
Lane follows. It should be noted that Lane’s original article was run in three parts because of length.
1,250-hp, 3600-rpm, 2,300-volt, WP-1 enclosure, constant-speed motor drives an aeration blower at Weyerhaeuser’s Longview Complex.
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
The Debate Over Circuit Breakers vs. Fused Solutions Continues
Codes & Standards
AConsulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
p-style Section
c-style Bold Section
p-style Head
p-style Text
p-style PullQuote
p-style Subhead
p-style Text DropCap[nested DropCap]
p-style GraphicCaption
p-style NotesEditor
c-style BoldItalics
NotesEditor[nested]
Ihave a number of reservations about the tech-
nical issues in Mr. Lane’s articles, which broke
down changes to the NEC and suggested fused
distribution may not always be necessary when
considering selective coordination requirements.
Both circuit breaker (CB) and fused systems
provide safe and reliable overcurrent protection
when systems are carefully engineered, installed
and maintained. But there are significant differ-
ences that must be recognized.
The first problem with all three articles is they
do not look at a complete system. The one-line
diagram in part two of the series, “The Skinny on
Switchgear and the New NEC,” (CSE 9/05, p.15),
shows a feeder breaker in the main switchgear
(not switchboard) of 800 amps, but neither the
size of the main breaker is indicated, nor whether
there is a main breaker or a sequence service. Is
there coordination between the 800-amp feeder
breaker and the main breaker? To achieve this, the
main breaker would require a short delay trip set
at 12 cycles. The vast majority of transformers in
commercial and industrial systems are protected
on the primary side by current-limiting fuses. What
would the coordination be? It’s difficult enough
to coordinate CB having instantaneous trips with
primary current-limiting fuses.
(Subhead) unnecessary risksThe same diagram shows an 800-amp CB with
short delay trips protecting the automatic trans-
fer switch (ATS). Will the ATS have an adequate
short-there is no problem in the transformer or
main switchgmp fault on the load side of a branch
breaker may cause all three CBs to open. If power
look? After the fa removed, the switches and CBs
trical distribution systems would be increased over
what is required by the NEC prior to 2005.
ByLine [p-styLe], Italic Byline [c-style]
Editor’s note: This month’s Codes & Standards, following the tone set in Letters (p.7), is an in-depth rebut-
tal to Keith Lane’s August-through-October series analyzing the 2005 edition of the NEC. A response from Mr.
Lane follows. It should be noted that Lane’s original article was run in three parts because of length.
1,250-hp, 3600-rpm, 2,300-volt, WP-1 enclosure, constant-speed motor drives an aeration blower at Weyerhaeuser’s Longview Complex.
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
The Debate Over Circuit Breakers vs. Fused Solutions Continues
Codes & Standards
AConsulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
element label Section
element label Head
element label Pullquote
element label Body
element label Caption
element label Graphic
Workshop 2 • RBI Element labels for Smart Connection Enterprise
element label Byline
element label Intro
element label Graphic
Accurate element labels must be included for all text and graphic frames. Under Window > Show Element Labels (this feature for Smart Connection Enterprise rollout).
Do not group frames because element labels will be disgarded.
Ihave a number of reservations about the tech-
nical issues in Mr. Lane’s articles, which broke
down changes to the NEC and suggested fused
distribution may not always be necessary when
considering selective coordination requirements.
Both circuit breaker (CB) and fused systems
provide safe and reliable overcurrent protection
when systems are carefully engineered, installed
and maintained. But there are significant differ-
ences that must be recognized.
The first problem with all three articles is they
do not look at a complete system. The one-line
diagram in part two of the series, “The Skinny on
Switchgear and the New NEC,” (CSE 9/05, p.15),
shows a feeder breaker in the main switchgear
(not switchboard) of 800 amps, but neither the
size of the main breaker is indicated, nor whether
there is a main breaker or a sequence service. Is
there coordination between the 800-amp feeder
breaker and the main breaker? To achieve this, the
main breaker would require a short delay trip set
at 12 cycles. The vast majority of transformers in
commercial and industrial systems are protected
on the primary side by current-limiting fuses. What
would the coordination be? It’s difficult enough
to coordinate CB having instantaneous trips with
primary current-limiting fuses.
(Subhead) unnecessary risksThe same diagram shows an 800-amp CB with
short delay trips protecting the automatic trans-
fer switch (ATS). Will the ATS have an adequate
short-there is no problem in the transformer or
main switchgmp fault on the load side of a branch
breaker may cause all three CBs to open. If power
look? After the fa removed, the switches and CBs
trical distribution systems would be increased over
what is required by the NEC prior to 2005.
ByLine [p-styLe], Italic Byline [c-style]
Editor’s note: This month’s Codes & Standards, following the tone set in Letters (p.7), is an in-depth rebut-
tal to Keith Lane’s August-through-October series analyzing the 2005 edition of the NEC. A response from Mr.
Lane follows. It should be noted that Lane’s original article was run in three parts because of length.
1,250-hp, 3600-rpm, 2,300-volt, WP-1 enclosure, constant-speed motor drives an aeration blower at Weyerhaeuser’s Longview Complex.
Considering only space, fused switchboards can take up less total space than CB switchgear, cost less and require no need for rear access.
The Debate Over Circuit Breakers vs. Fused Solutions Continues
Codes & Standards
AConsulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
Save and keep all documents with live text (mockup) prior to stripping out the text. These files are the ones that get sent to e-Logic, with complete paragraph and character styles and element labels in place.
Workshop 3 • Mockup to art director, CMS, e-Logic for review
FIlE PREPaRaTIoN FoR E-loGIC REvIEw
1. Review ALL documents with art director and CMS prior to e-Logic review.
2. All mockups will be sent to e-Logic with complete paragraph and character styles and element labels in place.
3. Suggest locking frames on Master Pages that don’t move, such as a folio or section name.
4. With all document pages highlighted in pages palette, Override All Master Page Items on document pages for e-Logic review. Pages palette > Fly out menu > Override All Master Page Items (Alt+Shift-Ctr+L). This must be done because e-Logic reviews document pages, not master pages.
5. Make revisions as required by e-Logic report.
p-style Section
c-style Bold Sectionelement label
Section
4
4
Text DropCap
Text
SubheadText
ByLine [p-styLe], Italic Byline [c-style]
Editor’s note: NotesEditor
GraphicCaption
PullQuote PullQuote
Head
Codes & Standards
AConsulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006
Workshop 3 • Create actual template
aFTER DoCumENT aPPRoval By E-loGIC CREaTE THE aCTual TEmPlaTE
1. In each master page, create dummy text in all frames—dummy text is the actual name of the style sheet used (text is stripped out except for style names).
2. Examples: in the head frame you would type Head; in the Byline frame type Byline, Italic Byline [c-style]; in the NotesEditor frame type NotesEditor; in the body frame type Text DropCap, Text, Subhead, etc. (using the appropriate paragraph styles, see samples).
3. There are some exceptions such as the name of the Section and Editor’s Note (a nested c-style), which don’t change. In these cases—when the text doesn’t change—leave the live text intact.
4. Document pages must be revised to the format of the updated Master Pages.
5. All templates will have complete paragraph and character styles and element labels in place.
3
2
2
2
Remember, InDesign
has unlimited
undos (ctr-z)
3 2
Save and keep all documents with live text (mockup) prior to stripping out the text. These files are the ones that get sent to e-Logic, with complete paragraph and character styles and element labels in place.
Recommended