From 22169343230e5d365011f96137ca74a7e578c455 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robin Clark Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:31:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ... --- fmmd_concept/System_safety_2011/submission.tex | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fmmd_concept/System_safety_2011/submission.tex b/fmmd_concept/System_safety_2011/submission.tex index 4929a00..6f67d4e 100644 --- a/fmmd_concept/System_safety_2011/submission.tex +++ b/fmmd_concept/System_safety_2011/submission.tex @@ -1139,11 +1139,11 @@ and danger evaluation statistics sourced from the component failure mode statist % advance a {\fg} to a {\dc}. -\item{ From the top down the failure mode model should follow a logical de-composition of the functionality -to smaller and smaller functional modules \cite{maikowski}.} -The bottom-up approach fulfils the logical de-composition requirement, because the {\fg}s -are built from components performing a given task. - +% \item{ From the top down the failure mode model should follow a logical de-composition of the functionality +% to smaller and smaller functional modules \cite{maikowski}.} +% The bottom-up approach fulfils the logical de-composition requirement, because the {\fg}s +% are built from components performing a given task. +% \item{ Multiple failure modes (conjunction) may be modelled from the base component level up.} By breaking the problem of failure mode analysis into small stages