morning edit

logic_diagram/logic_diagram.tex

@@ -391,51 +391,73 @@ and unused available zones.
 
 \section{Context, functional groups, failure modes and symptoms}
 
+The intended application of these diagrams, is to model failure modes
+of collection of components, or {\fgs}. The aim is to
+create a derived component that represents the {\fg}.
+PLD diagrams are designed to aid this process.
+% Asterisks represent combinations of failure 
+%modes. These are failure mode scenarios, or `test~cases'.
+
 \input{shortfg}
 
 \subsection{Symptom Collection}
 
+\paragraph{Failure Mode Modular De-Composition (FMMD).}
 The methodology using these propositional logic diagrams is concerned with
 taking functional groups of components, analysing how the functional group
 can fail, and then deriving a failure mode model for the functional group
 so that we can treat it as a component in its own right, or as a `derived component'
 
+\paragraph{From component failure modes to {\fg} failure modes.}
 We represent the failure
 modes of the components within a {\fg} as contours in the diagram.
 The test cases represent combinations of component failure modes
-within the functional group.
+within the functional group. These are drawn as asterisks on the diagram.
-The test cases, when analysed can be grouped into $SMG$s.
-The SMG, Symptomatically merged group, is a collection of test
-cases where the failure symptom is the same.
 %
-Each SMG
+The test cases, when analysed can be grouped into $SMG$s.
+The $SMG$, Symptomatically merged group, is a collection of test
+cases where their failure symptoms, from the perspective of the {\fg}, is the same.
+%
+Each $SMG$
 defines a failure mode behaviour of the functional group as though the
 {\fg} were considered as a high level component.
 %
 As we may be interested in treating the functional group
-and a component to model higher levels of design, or failure mode abstraction,
+as a {\dc} to model higher levels of design, or failure mode abstraction,
 we can derive a new diagram from the $SMG$s. Each $SMG$ represents a failure
 mode of the functional group, therefore in the higher level diagram
-each SMG is represented by a contour.
+each $SMG$ is represented by a contour.
 
 {
 \definition{
 \label{SMGderivation}
 %A diagram can be drawn to represent the collection of $SMG$s.
 The diagram $d$ represents $SMG$s as graphs of asterisks connected with joining lines.
-A new diagram can be derived from this, replacing each SMG with a contour in the new diagram.
+A new diagram can be derived from this, replacing each $SMG$ with a contour in the new diagram.
 This diagram is at one higher level of failure~mode abstraction than the diagram that
 it was produced from.
 This diagram is the `symptom collection' diagram derived form $d$.
 }
 }
-\subsection{Derived Component}
 
+\paragraph{Derived Component.}
 The diagram $d$ represents the failure modes of a functional group,
 with the joining lines defining the its symptom collection.
-The `symptom collection' respresents the functional group
+The `symptom collection' represents the functional group
-at a higher level of failure mode abstraction. It represents the 
+at a higher level of failure mode abstraction. That is to say,
-{\fg} as a higher level component, or {\textbf{derived component}}, with a defined set of failure modes.
+the contours in the new diagram represent the ways in which the {\fg} considered
+as an entity can fail. The new represents the 
+{\fg} as a higher level component, or {\textbf{derived component}}, with its own set of failure modes.
+
+\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
+{
+% ref symptom extraction process paper HERE
+}
+{
+Chapter \ref{chap:sympex} describes the symptom abstraction process, detailing algorithms and 
+validation and consistency checks applied.
+}
+
 
 \section{Example Diagrams}
 
@@ -503,7 +525,7 @@ sub-system failures, for instance two fuel shutdown safety valves failing to clo
 % reference gas shutoff valve closure example
 %
 
-\clearpage
+%\clearpage
 \subsection { Logical XOR example }
 
 \begin{figure}[h]
@@ -556,7 +578,7 @@ under analysis.
 
 
 
-\clearpage
+%\clearpage
 \subsection {Labels and usage}
 
 %In diagram \ref{fig:ld_meq} Z and W were labelled but were not necessary for the final expression
@@ -624,7 +646,7 @@ of $ R = b \oplus c $.
 In failure analysis, this could be considered to be a functional~group with three failure states $a$,$b$ and $c$.
 It has three SMG's Q,R and P. Thus there are three ways in which this functional~group is considered to fail.
 
-\clearpage
+%\clearpage
 
 
 
@@ -688,9 +710,10 @@ by the FMMD software tool.
 
 
 
-\clearpage
+%\clearpage
 
 
+\pagebreak[3]
 \subsection { Inhibit Failure }
 
 %
@@ -914,6 +937,15 @@ The act of collecting common symptoms by joining lines is seen more intuitive
 than lists of logic equations. % seen as BY ME ! HA !
 It also neatly by-passes the problem of having test cases
 which could inadvertently be placed into more than one $SMG$.
+\ifthenelse {\boolean{paper}}
+{
+% explain unitary state failure modes here? I'd rather not have to in the `paper' version.... 16MAR2011
+}
+{
+Having $SMG$s share test~cases would violate the concept of unitary state
+failure modes (see \ref{sec:unitarystate}).
+}
+
 Syntax checking (looking for contradictions and tautologies), as well as detecting
 errors of omission are automated in the FMMD tool.
 
@@ -954,7 +986,7 @@ configuration is being termed \textbf{pair-wise intersection} of contours, in th
 A PLD editor can be set to ensure that each diagram has a test case for every 
 double simultaneous failure instance.
 
-\clearpage
+\pagebreak[3]
 \section{N Simultaneous Errors}
 
 There are systems where it may be necessary to model for N simultaneous failures.
@@ -1013,4 +1045,5 @@ The test case AFE represents the condition where all four engines have failed \c
 %\theend
 
 
-
+%\pagebreak[4]
+\clearpage

logic_diagram/paper.tex

@@ -23,8 +23,8 @@
 %\fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 \cfoot{Page \thepage\ of \pageref{LastPage}}                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 \rfoot{\today}                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
-\lhead{Propositional Logic Diagram FMMD}  
+\lhead{Propositional Logic Diagram }  
-
+\rhead{FMMD - Failure Mode Modular De-Composition}
                                               % numbers at outer edges
 \pagenumbering{arabic}                        % Arabic page numbers hereafter
 \author{R.P.Clark}

shortfg.tex

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ of components `functional groups'.
 %
 For instance we may have a handful of components
 brought together to perform a simple function
-like amplifying a signal or a power supply.
+like a `signal amplifier' or a `power supply'.
 %
 The components in a {\fg} can be considered
 to be `functionally~adjacent' to each other, in that