table missing

component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex

@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Currently this sort of information is generally only  available for generic comp
 %erform a given function.
 
 %\vspace{0.3cm}
-\begin{table}[p]
+\begin{table}[h]
 \begin{tabular}{||l|l||} \hline \hline
   {\em Definition } & {\em Description}    \\ \hline
 System & A product designed to  \\
@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ Base Component & Any bought in component, which \\
 
 \end{tabular}
 \label{tab:def}
+\caption{Table of FMMD definitions}
 \end{table}
 %\vspace{0.3cm}
 
@@ -154,9 +155,10 @@ We can now consider the Functional group as a component now, because
 we have a set of failure modes for it.
 
 \subsection{Sub-System Class Definition}
-A sub-system can now be defined by the classes used to create it, and 
+A sub-system can be defined by the classes used to create it, and 
 its set of derived failure modes.
-
+In this way sub-systems naturally form trees, with the lower most leaf nodes being
+base components.
 Note that the UML model is recursive. We can build functional groups using sub-systems
 as components. This UML model naturally therefore, forms a hierarchy
 of failure mode analysis, which has a one top level entry, that being the SYSTEM.