Huawei ELTE2.3 System Reliability Prediction Technical White Paper

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.
3
INTERNAL
Product Name
Confidentiality
eLTE
Confidential
Product Version
22 pages in total
V2.3
Technical White Paper for System Reliability

Prediction of eLTE 2.3
(For internal use only)
Prepared by
Liu Hao (employee ID: 00273140)
Date
Reviewed by
Date
Approved by
Date
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd

All rights reserved.
2014-06-03
Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

INTERNAL
Change History
Date
Issue
Description
Author
2014-06-20
1.01
Added the eCNS610-related

information.
Liu Hao (employee ID:

00273140)
2014-06-03
1.00
Completed the draft.
Liu Hao (employee ID:

00273140)
2014-06-20
Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.
Page 2 of 22

INTERNAL
Technical White Paper for System Reliability

Prediction of eLTE 2.3
Key words:
eLTE 2.3, reliability, eCNS600, eCNS610, DBS3900
Abstract:
This document describes the methods for calculating the reliability indicators of the network elements (NEs)
in the eLTE 2.3 solution.
2014-06-20
Page 3 of 22

INTERNAL
1 Reliability Modeling
The reliability modeling involves the following steps:
1.
Defining functions and physical components
2.
Defining faults
3.
Defining fault properties
4.
Constructing reliability models
5.
Determining the number of simulations and the life cycle
6.
Determining assumptions in reliability prediction
1.2 Defining Functions and Physical Components

The first step for calculating system reliability is to determine the physical components used for reliability
modeling. Not all components in the system need to be incorporated in reliability modeling. The
components that do not impact key services, such as maintenance terminals, can be ignored in reliability
modeling if not required. Component selection for reliability modeling also depends on actual applications.
For example, if the voice broadcast system is used for management assistance, which is not a key service,
the components in the system can be ignored in reliability modeling. However, if the voice broadcast
system is involved in security tracing, the components need to be incorporated in reliability modeling.
In system-level reliability modeling, typical components include the eCNS, eNodeB, terminals involving
security services (for example, a vehicle-mounted terminal for train control), transmission devices, antenna
feeder devices, and power supply modules. Sometimes, a mobile terminal is ignored in system-level
reliability modeling, but its reliability can be independently calculated.
1.3 Defining Faults

System reliability indicators have a close relationship with system fault definitions. Different fault
definitions lead to different calculation results of reliability indicators.
When system or subsystem faults are defined for NEs or boards working in redundancy mode, the
redundancy type needs to be considered. For example, an eNodeB fault is determined for an eNodeB with
three carriers working in 2+1 backup mode only when two or more carriers are faulty. For a co-site network
hosting two eNodeBs working in 1+1 backup mode, a fault in only one eNodeB is not considered as a
system fault.
However, the duration for active/standby switchover needs to be considered in the preceding situations. For
details, see section 1.4 "Defining Fault Properties."
Besides hardware faults, other fault types may be involved in a project, such as software faults, faults
caused by human errors, and faults caused by external factors (for example, lightning stroke and violent
damage).
1.4 Defining Fault Properties

Common fault properties are defined as follows:
Failure distribution curve, failure rate, and mean-time-to-failure (MTTF)/mean time between failures
(MTBF)
Mean time to repair (MTTR) and definition of repairs and spare parts
Fault impact
2014-06-20
Page 4 of 22

INTERNAL
Failure Distribution Curve, Failure Rate, and MTTF/MTBF

A failure rate is the average number of failures for a component per unit of time after the component begins
to fail. Generally, a failure rate is expressed as . Accordingly, the failure rate function is expressed as (t)
because the failure rate is a function of the time t. The failure rate function corresponds to the failure
distribution curve, the value of which may vary according to the component. The failure rate for an
electronic component within its life cycle is generally a constant, and exponential distribution is used for
such a failure rate. The failure rate for a mechanical component, however, varies depending on the time
segment. Weibull distribution is generally used for such a failure rate.
MTTF indicates the average interval at which a fault occurs on a component. MTTF is a reciprocal of a
failure rate expressed by exponential distribution.
To calculate the MTTF of a board to determine the reliability of the board, the failure distribution curve (or
failure model) must be first determined, and then the failure rate can be determined.
MTBF indicates the average time between consecutive failures of a component, which can be calculated in
the following formula: MTBF = MTTF + MTTR.
MTTR and Definition of Repairs and Spare Parts

MTTR is closely related to service availability. The value of MTTR equals the sum of Mean Active Repair
Time (MART) and Mean Logistical and administrative Delay Time (MLDT). MART is related to factors
such as architecture design, fault management design, and board startup time and is the intrinsic reliability
feature of components, while MLDT is the mean delay time to ensure network maintenance, such as the
time spent on personnel dispatch, transportation, and acquisition of spare parts. MLDT is related to the
staffing and equipment for the maintenance team.
The definition of repairs and spare parts involves resources and spare parts required for a repair. With the
definition, the number of spare parts in the system and the maintenance cost for the life cycle of a project
can be calculated. The transportation of spare parts also affects MTTR.
Fault Impact
The fault impact determines the impact of a fault on the functions and subsystem. The impact can be
classified into high, medium, and low levels. The impact of a fault that affects the entire system and causes
a failure to provide services is a high-level impact. If a fault leads to short-period service interruption in a
specific area served by multiple eNodeBs, the impact of the fault is a medium-level impact. A low-level
impact indicates short-period service interruption for a single service channel caused by, for example, ring
topology switchover after transmission interruption. An example of a low-level impact is 2s voice service
interruption. The fault impact is defined so that it can be used with the failure rate to determine the list of
critical items in the system, which facilitates the availability optimization of the entire system.
1.5 Constructing Reliability Models

Huawei uses reliability block diagrams (RBDs) to construct systematic reliability models for analysis and
calculation of reliability indicators.
The structure of an RBD indicates the logical relationships of faults in a system. Each block indicates a
fault of a component, a subsystem fault, or an event that affects the system fault. As for a subsystem fault,
the structure of another RBD can be used to indicate its internal logical relationships. The logical flow of an
RBD starts from the input on the left and ends at the output on the right. Between the input and the output
of the RBD, multiple blocks are arranged in serial or parallel connections depending on the characteristics
of a system.
A system with serially connected blocks indicates that a fault in any component will result in a system
failure.
2014-06-20
Page 5 of 22

INTERNAL
Figure 1-1 System with serially connected blocks

Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
A system with parallel connected blocks indicates that the components work in redundancy mode.
Figure 1-2 System with parallel connected blocks
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
A complex system consists of both serial and parallel connections, indicating that serially and parallel
connected subsystems exist in the system.
An RBD can also indicate the redundancy relationship of a decision system (k out of n). As indicated by
the number 2 in Figure 1-3, at least two paths of the three parallel paths must work properly. When two
paths are faulty, the system is faulty.
Figure 1-3 Decision system
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
An RBD can also be used to analyze common cause failures. The common cause failure indicates a fault
that can lead to failures of multiple functional components. If there is a common cause failure in a system
with redundancy design, the failure must be expressed as a block serially connected to other blocks in an
RBD. As shown in Figure 1-4, blocks 1 and 2 are failures of independent components working in
redundancy mode, and the failure expressed by block 3 can lead to simultaneous failures of the two
components.
2014-06-20
Page 6 of 22

INTERNAL
Figure 1-4 System with a common cause failure

Block 1
Block 3
Block 2
1.6 Determining the Number of Simulations and the Life Cycle

The number of simulations and the life cycle are involved as two important parameters in the calculation of
the system unavailability based on the reliability model and fault model. The number of simulations is the
number of times the system reliability model runs in simulation mode. Each time a system reliability model
runs in simulation mode, the system determines whether it stably runs for a specified period. The specified
period is the life cycle. For example, if the number of simulations is 1000, the life cycle is one year, and the
number of times a fault occurs within the life cycle of the entire system calculated based on the system
reliability model is 50, the system unavailability is 5%.
1.7 Determining Assumptions in Reliability Prediction

1.7.1 MTTR
MTTR is defined depending on the actual maintenance capability in a project. For example, the in-transit
time for the repair of eNodeBs in a remote area is different from that for the repair of eNodeBs near a city.
There is an assumption for the calculation of MTTR for each NE. For details, see the reliability prediction
report of each NE.
1.7.2 Software Availability

Software reliability is the capability that the software possesses to implement the required functionality
under specified conditions within a specified period. Software reliability can be measured by availability.
Software availability is the probability for the software not to cause system failures under specified
conditions within a specified period. Software reliability and hardware reliability have many differences,
which are caused by the fault mechanisms of software and hardware. Therefore, software reliability is
assessed differently from hardware reliability.
No mature quantitative measure is available for the analysis of software availability in the industry.
Therefore, software availability is excluded from the reliability models in this document. If software
availability needs to be considered in a project, an assumed target value can be given to an associated NE.
1.7.3 External Factors

External factors are not considered in the reliability models in this document.
In some projects, however, some external factors need to be considered as required. For example, the
probability of optical fiber faults caused by rodents need to be considered in areas where no rodent-free
measure is used for optical fibers. In areas flooded with violence, the probability of violent damages to the
outdoor equipment needs to be considered.
Lightning protection measures are taken for Huawei outdoor eNodeBs, and therefore the probability of
damages caused by lightning stroke can be ignored.
2014-06-20
Page 7 of 22

INTERNAL
1.7.4 Human Factors

Human factor analysis or human error analysis is used to measure the impact of human errors on system
availability. Human errors are errors leading to system faults caused by misoperations of system operation
personnel. Humans are flexible in executing tasks. Humans can handle exceptions and faults at any time,
but human errors may also be introduced. Human errors mainly include the failure to execute a specified
function, incorrect execution of a specified function, and execution of an unspecified function.
Human errors are not considered in reliability models in this document. In actual projects, the system
operation behaviors of humans can be determined based on the application scenario of the system to
analyze the impact of human errors so as to calculate the probability of human errors that may lead to
system faults. A large number of methods can be used to analyze the probability of human errors, among
which there is a simple method that mainly depends on the judgment of experts, that is, human error
assessment and reduction technique (HEART).
2 Reliability Prediction Methods

2.1 Board Reliability Prediction Methods
2.1.1 Component Reliability Prediction Method
The formula for calculating the component failure rate is as follows:
SSi Gi Qi Si Ti
where,
Gi is the generic steady-state failure rate for the ith component.
Qi is the quality factor of the ith component.
Si is the stress factor of the ith component.
Ti is the steady-state temperature factor for the ith component under normal working temperature.
Under 40C and 50% stress, S equals T, which has a value of 1.0, and therefore the formula can be
simplified as:
Ssi = Gi Qi
2.1.2 Method for Calculating the Board Failure Rate

The board failure rate is the sum of the component failure rates and can be calculated in the following
formula:
n
SS E N i SSi
i 1
where,
n is the number of component types.
Ni is the number of components of the ith component type.
E is the board environment factor. For the fixed and controlled environment on the ground, E has a
value of 1.0.
2014-06-20
Page 8 of 22

INTERNAL
2.2 System Reliability Prediction Methods

The calculation of system reliability depends on the system fault definitions to a large extent. Different
system fault definitions lead to use of different algorithms. For example, some board faults in the system
lead to a failure of the entire system, whereas some board faults lead to unavailability of only some
functions in the system. According to Bellcore SR-TSY-001171, there are two kinds of system-level faults:
total system downtime (TSD) and partial system downtime (PSD).
2.2.1 System Fault Definitions and Formula

TSD is an approximate time period during which the entire system breaks down and fails to handle any
requests. TSD is generally expressed as minutes per year.
PSD is the weighted mean of the downtime during which the system only partially fails. The weight factor
is the number of lines impacted by a specific failure mode.
The calculation formulas for the TSD and PSD are as follows:
TSD
Li N L
Ti NT
PSD
(D (L / N
0 Li N L
))
where,
Li is the number of subscriber lines impacted by failure mode i.
Ti is the number of trunk lines impacted by failure mode i.
NT is the total number of trunk lines in the system.
NL is the total number of subscriber lines in the system.
Di is the predicted downtime of failure mode i, expressed as minutes per year.
2.2.2 Calculation of Di
According to the preceding formulas, the calculation of system reliability or system availability depends on
the calculated Di value of each board.
The impact of a failure mode is first analyzed to determine which boards in the system will cause TSD and
which will cause PSD. Then, the Di values of these boards are calculated.
During Di calculation, boards with redundancy and boards without redundancy are differentiated.
Calculation of Di for Boards Without Redundancy

The availability of a board without redundancy can be calculated in the following formulas according to the
previously calculated failure rate and determined recovery rate (reciprocal of MTTR):
Availability (A) = MTBF/(MTBF + MTTR)
Downtime (Di) = 525,600 x (1-A) (expressed as minutes/year)
Failure rate (1 Failures In Time or FIT) = 10-9/hour
2014-06-20
Page 9 of 22

INTERNAL
Calculation of Di for Boards with Redundancy

The availability of boards with redundancy can be calculated by using the Markov model for repairable
products.
Boards with redundancy can be differentiated by work mode: active/standby backup and load sharing. The
availability of the two types of boards with redundancy can be calculated in one of the following formulas:
The availability of boards working in N+1 backup mode can be calculated as follows:
A 1 {C [1 a N ( N 1 N a)] N (1 C ) (1 a N ) N}
The availability of boards working in N+1 load sharing mode can be calculated as follows:
A 1 {C A [1 a N ( N 1 N a)] N (1 C A ) (1 a N 1 ) ( N 1)}
where,
A is the availability of boards working in N+1 redundancy mode.
C is the switchover ratio or the probability of successful switchover times.
CA is the probability of successful switchover times for the active board.
CS is the probability of successful switchover times for a standby board.
CA x CS indicates the switchover ratio of boards working in active/standby backup mode.
CA indicates the switchover rate of the boards working in load sharing mode.
a is the availability of each board working in N+1 redundancy mode, which can be calculated using
MTBF/(MTBF+MTTR).
Di can be calculated based on the availability.

In actual applications, the calculation of Di is complicated with many conditions considered. For example,
the backup mode can be warm backup or hot backup, and the time for an active/standby switchover cannot
be calculated using a simple formula. The lifetime distribution of different components can neither be
calculated using a simple formula.
To accurately calculate the system availability, Huawei adopts professional reliability simulation software.
The software creates system reliability models based on RBDs and then analyzes the system availability
and reliability based on Monte-Carlo simulation to simulate the availability indicators close to the actual
projects.
2.3 Other Relevant Parameters

The MTTR mentioned in this document refers to the onsite repair time and does not include the time
required for personnel transfer or logistics.
In this document, the MTTR of each board and equipment is determined to be 1, 2, 4, or 24 hours
according to the MIL-HDBK-472, engineering experience, and field data.
In addition, according to the reliability engineering baseline of Huawei, the failure detection rate of active
boards is 95%, the failure detection rate of standby boards is 90%, and the switchover success rate is 99%.
3 eCNS600 Configuration and Reliability Prediction

3.1 eCNS600 Reliability Prediction Models
eCNS600 reliability models can be constructed based on boards configured with or without redundancy.
2014-06-20
Page 10 of 22

INTERNAL
3.1.1 eCNS600 Reliability Model Constructed with Boards Configured

Without Redundancy
SMU
PEM
EPC
FAN
SWU
SDM
SMU
ISU
SWI
OMU
USI
SWU
OXI
3.1.2 eCNS600 Reliability Model Constructed with Boards Configured with

Redundancy
PEM
FPC
FAN
SMU
SDM
SWU
SWI
PEM
FPC
FAN
SMU
SDM
SWU
SWI
OMU
USI
ISU
QXI
OMU
USI
ISU
QXI
3.2 Typical Configurations of eCNS600 Reliability Models

3.2.1 Typical Configuration of eCNS600 Boards Without Redundancy
Board/Module
Description
Quantity
PEM
Power Entry Module
FPC
Flexible Printed Circuit
FAN
Fan
SMU
Service Management Unit
SDM
Service Data Management
SWU
Switch Unit
2014-06-20
Page 11 of 22

INTERNAL
Board/Module
Description
Quantity
SWI
Switch Interface Unit
OMU
Operation and Maintenance Unit
USI
Universal Service Interface
ISU
Integrative Session Unit
QXI
QUAD 10GE Interface Unit
3.2.2 Typical Configuration of eCNS600 Boards with Redundancy

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
PEM
Power Entry Module
FPC
Flexible Printed Circuit
FAN
Fan
SMU
Service Management Unit
SDM
Service Data Management
SWU
Switch Unit
SWI
Switch Interface Unit
OMU
Operation and Maintenance Unit
USI
Universal Service Interface
ISU
Integrative Session Unit
QXI
QUAD 10GE Interface Unit
3.3 eCNS600 Board Reliability Indicators

Board/Module
Failure Rate (FITs)
MTBF (Hours)
MTBF (Years)
OMU
2219.61
450529.60
51.43
USI
403.19
2480220.24
283.13
ISU
1973.01
506839.80
57.86
QXI
403.19
2480220.24
283.13
SMM
683.53
1462993.58
167.01
SDM
101.1
9891196.83
1129.13
SWU
2357.99
424090
48.41
2014-06-20
Page 12 of 22

INTERNAL
Board/Module
Failure Rate (FITs)
MTBF (Hours)
MTBF (Years)
SWI
518.08
1930203.83
220.34
PEM
487
2053261.6
234.4
FAN
1000
1000000
114.2
FPC
272.7
3667033.4
418.6
3.4 eCNS600 Reliability Prediction

3.4.1 Reliability Prediction for eCNS600 Boards Without Redundancy
MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
Interruption Duration (Minutes/Year)
15.73
99.99928%
3.81
15.73
99.99854%
7.62
3.4.2 Reliability Prediction for eCNS600 Boards with Redundancy

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
40.0
99.99972%
1.50
40.0
99.99943%
3.00
4 eCNS610 Configuration and Reliability Prediction

4.1 eCNS610 Reliability Prediction Models
Figure 4-1 eCNS610 reliability prediction model with eight hard disks, fans working in 7+1 backup mode, and
power supply modules working in 1+1 backup mode
Memory 1
Mother
board
RAID
controller
card
...
CPU
24
I/O card
Backplane
connecting
hard disks
Memory 24
Hard disk 1
...
Hard disk 8
2014-06-20
Power supply
module 1
Fan 1
8
...
Fan 8
7
Power supply
module 2
Page 13 of 22

INTERNAL
4.2 Typical Configurations of eCNS610 Reliability Models

Board/Module
Quantity
Mother board
RAID controller card
CPU
Memory
24
I/O card
Backplane connecting hard disks
Hard disk
Fan
Power supply module
4.3 eCNS610 Board Reliability Indicators

Board/Module
Failure Rate (FITs)
MTBF (Hours)
MTBF (Years)
Mother board
3721.0
268744.96
30.7
RAID controller card
559.2
1788268.96
204.1
CPU
40.0
25000000
2853.8
Memory
5000.0
200000
22.83
Backplane connecting hard disks
82.9
12062726.2
1377.0
I/O card
82.6
12106537.5
1382.0
Fan
582.0
1718213.06
196.1
Hard disk
3425.0
291970.80
33.33
Power supply module
2000.0
500000
57.1
4.4 eCNS610 Reliability Prediction

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
12.29
99.999071%
4.88
12.29
99.998143%
9.76
2014-06-20
Page 14 of 22

INTERNAL
5 DBS3900 Configuration and Reliability Prediction

A DBS3900 consists of two independent modules: baseband (BB) module and radio frequency (RF)
module, which are connected over the common public radio interface (CPRI) through an optical cable.
5.1 BBU3900/BBU3910
The BBU3900/BBU3910 is an indoor baseband unit, which fits into 2U space of any standard 19-inch
cabinet. The BBU3900/BBU3910 occupies small space and can be easily installed.
The BBU3900/BBU3910 includes boards such as UMPT, UPEU, and UBFA and is fed with 48 V DC
power.
5.2 RRU3251/RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3253
The RRU3251, RRU3232, RRU3252, and RRU3253 are remote radio units used outdoors, which can be
installed on a pole or a wall near the antenna.
Figure 5-1 RRU
5.3 DBS3900 Reliability Prediction Models

5.3.1 DBS3900 Reliability Model Constructed with Boards Configured
Without Redundancy
Figure 5-2 DBS3900 reliability model 1
RRU
UPEUc
FANc
UMPT
LBBP
...
RRU
2014-06-20
Page 15 of 22

INTERNAL
5.3.2 DBS3900 Reliability Model Constructed with UPEUs and LBBPs

Configured with Redundancy
UPEUc
LBBP
FANc
RRU
UMPT
UPEUc
...
LBBP
RRU
5.3.3 DBS3900 Reliability Model Constructed with UMPTs Configured

with Redundancy
UPEUd
UMPT
LBBP
RRU
FANd
...
UPEUd
UMPT
LBBP
RRU
5.4 Typical Configurations of DBS3900 Reliability Models

5.4.1 Typical Configuration 1 for the DBS3900
Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUc
Power and Environment interface unit
FANc
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
Main Processing & Transmission unit
LBBPd2
Baseband Process and Radio Interface unit
RRU3251
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUc
2014-06-20
Page 16 of 22

INTERNAL
Board/Module
Description
Quantity
FANc
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUc
FANc
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3251
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUc
FANc
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUc
FANc
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3251
Remote Radio Unit
1-3
2014-06-20
Page 17 of 22

INTERNAL

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUc
FANc
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUd
FANd
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3251
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUd
FANd
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUd
FANd
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
2014-06-20
Page 18 of 22

INTERNAL
Board/Module
Description
Quantity
LBBPd2
RRU3251
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUd
FANd
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUd
FANd
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3251
Remote Radio Unit
1-3

Board/Module
Description
Quantity
UPEUd
FANd
BBU Fan Module
UMPT
LBBPd2
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
Remote Radio Unit
1-3
2014-06-20
Page 19 of 22

INTERNAL
5.5 DBS3900 Board Reliability Indicators

Board/Module
Failure Rate (FITs)
MTBF (Hours)
MTBF (Years)
UPEUc
380
2631578.95
300.4
UPEUd
560
1785714.29
203.8
FANc
940
1063829.79
121.4
FANd
950
1052631.58
120.1
UMPT
1550
645161.29
73.6
LBBPd
1120
892857.14
101.9
RRU3253/3259
5710
175131.35
19.9
RRU3251
2460
406504.07
46.4
RRU3232/RRU3252/RRU3256
3100
322580.65
234.4
5.6 DBS3900 Reliability Prediction

5.6.1 Reliability of the DBS3900 Configured in Mode 1
MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
28.99
99.99961%
2.07
28.99
99.99882%
6.21

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
28.90
99.99960%
2.08
28.90
99.99881%
6.23

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
46.20
99.99998%
1.30
46.20
99.99926%
3.90
2014-06-20
Page 20 of 22

INTERNAL

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
46.12
99.99997%
1.30
46.12
99.99926%
3.90

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
123.54
99.999908%
0.48
123.54
99.999723%
1.44

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
122.22
99.999907%
0.49
122.22
99.999720%
1.47

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
27.77
99.999589%
2.16
27.77
99.998767%
6.48

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
27.54
99.999585%
2.18
27.54
99.998756%
6.54

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
46.00
99.999752%
1.30
2014-06-20
Page 21 of 22

INTERNAL
MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
46.00
99.999255%
3.90

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
45.86
99.999751%
1.31
45.86
99.999253%
3.92

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
121.03
99.999906%
0.49
121.03
99.999717%
1.48

MTBF (Years)
MTTR (Hours)
Availability
120.61
99.999905%
0.50
120.61
99.999716%
1.50
2014-06-20
Page 22 of 22

Huawei ELTE2.3 System Reliability Prediction Technical White Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huawei ELTE2.3 System Reliability Prediction Technical White Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability

Liu Hao (employee ID: 00273140)

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Added the eCNS610-related

Liu Hao (employee ID:

Completed the draft.

Liu Hao (employee ID:

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Technical White Paper for System Reliability

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Defining functions and physical components

Defining fault properties

Constructing reliability models

Determining the number of simulations and the life cycle

Determining assumptions in reliability prediction

1.2 Defining Functions and Physical Components

1.3 Defining Faults

1.4 Defining Fault Properties

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Failure Distribution Curve, Failure Rate, and MTTF/MTBF

MTTR and Definition of Repairs and Spare Parts

1.5 Constructing Reliability Models

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Figure 1-1 System with serially connected blocks

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Figure 1-4 System with a common cause failure

1.6 Determining the Number of Simulations and the Life Cycle

1.7 Determining Assumptions in Reliability Prediction

1.7.2 Software Availability

1.7.3 External Factors

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

1.7.4 Human Factors

2 Reliability Prediction Methods

Gi is the generic steady-state failure rate for the ith component.

Qi is the quality factor of the ith component.

Si is the stress factor of the ith component.

2.1.2 Method for Calculating the Board Failure Rate

n is the number of component types.

Ni is the number of components of the ith component type.

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

2.2 System Reliability Prediction Methods

2.2.1 System Fault Definitions and Formula

Li is the number of subscriber lines impacted by failure mode i.

Ti is the number of trunk lines impacted by failure mode i.

NT is the total number of trunk lines in the system.

NL is the total number of subscriber lines in the system.

Di is the predicted downtime of failure mode i, expressed as minutes per year.

Calculation of Di for Boards Without Redundancy

Availability (A) = MTBF/(MTBF + MTTR)

Downtime (Di) = 525,600 x (1-A) (expressed as minutes/year)

Failure rate (1 Failures In Time or FIT) = 10-9/hour

Huawei confidential. No spreading without permission.

Technical White Paper for System Reliability Prediction of eLTE 2.3

Calculation of Di for Boards with Redundancy