From 6eedb1e62dd081d5deabf7d944f09cd6d22f3331 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Robin Clark Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:53:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] table missing --- .../component_failure_modes_definition.tex | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex b/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex index 7b968c2..e5c95b7 100644 --- a/component_failure_modes_definition/component_failure_modes_definition.tex +++ b/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.