English a little clearer here
This commit is contained in:
parent
de780fab7e
commit
419cf517e9
@ -1193,7 +1193,10 @@ This would make it seemingly impossible to model as `unitary state'.
|
||||
There are two ways in which we can deal with this.
|
||||
We could consider the component a composite
|
||||
of two simpler components, and model their interaction to
|
||||
create a derived component.
|
||||
create a derived component (i.e. use FMMD on the simpler components).
|
||||
The second way to do this would be to consider the combnations of non-mutually
|
||||
exclusive {\fms} as new {\fms}: this approach is discussed below.
|
||||
|
||||
\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
|
||||
{
|
||||
This technique is outside the scope of this paper.
|
||||
@ -1211,8 +1214,8 @@ This technique is outside the scope of this paper.
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Combinations become new failure modes.}
|
||||
Alternatively, we could consider the combinations
|
||||
of the failure modes as new failure modes.
|
||||
We could consider the combinations
|
||||
of the non-mutually exclusive failure modes as new failure modes.
|
||||
We can model this using an Euler diagram representation of
|
||||
an example component with three failure modes\footnote{OK is really the empty set, but the term OK is more meaningful in
|
||||
the context of component failure modes} $\{ B_1, B_2, B_3, OK \}$ see figure \ref{fig:combco}.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user