Template Building Workshop

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.


be always mins a result conversation or

a brief written memo. Once again,

Codes & Standards

Consulting-Specifying Engineer • MONTH, 2006


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.


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.


be always mins a result conversation or

a brief written memo. Once again,

Codes & Standards


B B

Workshop 1 • Master page B with 3 column configuration, baseline grid and live text for mockup











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.


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.


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











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.


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.


The Debate Over Circuit Breakers vs. Fused Solutions Continues

Codes & Standards


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]












































Codes & Standards


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.












































Codes & Standards


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


Editor’s note: NotesEditor

GraphicCaption

PullQuote PullQuote

Head

Codes & Standards


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.

Technology

Template Building Workshop