| Using Telcordia Calculation Methods to Adjust Failure Rates |
Improve the Accuracy of Your Reliability Predictions!
The general purpose of the calculation methods outlined in the Telcordia (Bellcore) document,
Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment, is to take into account additional information about the
devices, units, and systems under analysis. These calculation methods consider various burn-in, field, and
laboratory test data. They also provide for calculating the infant mortality rate, or first-year drop out,
for the systems under analysis. However, this particular topic is beyond the scope of this brief.
Before reviewing the three Telcordia calculation methods, it is important that you understand
the basic terminology that is used to describe them. The following table defines terms used within the
Telcordia (Bellcore) document.
| Term |
Definition |
| Device |
An electrical part with well-defined
electrical characteristics. Devices include integrated circuits, diodes, resistors, and
more. |
| Unit |
An assembly of devices typically
at the lowest replaceable level. Units include circuit packs, modules, power supplies,
plug-in devices, and more. |
| System |
A complete assembly that performs an
operational function. |
| Steady-State Failure Rate |
The constant failure rate after one
year of operation, providing information about long-term product performance. |
| Burn-in |
The operation of a device under
accelerated temperature or other stress conditions to stabilize its performance. |
Your choice of a particular Telcordia calculation method depends upon your analysis
requirements and the amount of data available. General descriptions of each method and its different cases
are provided in the remaining pages of this brief. For more detailed information, please refer to the
Telcordia (Bellcore) document itself.
Note: The terminology from previous Bellcore standards—Method I, Method II, and Method III—is
replaced in Telcordia Issue 1 with Black Box Technique, Black Box Technique Integrated with Laboratory Data,
and Black Box Technique Integrated with Field Data, respectively. The underlying calculation procedures are
the same; only the terminology has been updated to promote better understanding. Although the sections that
follow note both sets of terminology in the heading, the Method I, II, and III terminology is used within
these topics for succinctness.
Method I (Black Box)
Method I is generally referred to as a Parts Count method because the steady-state failure
rate for a unit is assumed to be the sum of the steady-state failure rates for its devices. Because Method
1 is based on generic failure data for various device types, it is used when specific part data is
unavailable.
In the previous Bellcore standards, three different cases of Method I are defined. Case 1 and
Case 2, which are very general, both assume that operating temperature is 40 degrees Celsius and rated
stress is 50 percent. Case 1 assumes a burn-in of less than or equal to 1 hour, while Case 2 assumes a
burn-in of greater than 1 hour. Case 3 provides for the use of variable temperature and stress values.
Case 1 is similar to the MIL-HDBK-217 Parts Count methodology, and Case 3 is similar to the MIL-HDBK-217
Parts Stress methodology.
| Case |
Description |
| 1 |
Predictions are based on the Black Box
option with unit/system burn-in <= 1 hour. There is no device burn-in. All devices are assumed
to be operating at 40 degrees Celsius and at 50 percent rated electrical stress. |
| 2 |
Predictions are based on the Black Box option
with unit/system burn-in > 1 hour. There is no device burn-in. All devices are assumed to be
operating at 40 degrees Celsius and at 50 percent rated electrical stress. |
| 3 |
This is the general case for Method I reliability
predictions. It can take into account device burn-in and varying temperature and stress data. |
Method II (Black Box Integrated with Laboratory Data)
The purpose of Method II is to adjust the predicted MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) of a
unit or device based on available laboratory or test data. Using Method II, the steady-state failure rate
is calculated as a weighted average of the measured laboratory failure rate and the Method I generic
failure rate, with the weights determined by the laboratory data.
When laboratory tests are very
informative, the Method II base failure rate is heavily influenced by the laboratory data.
When laboratory tests are less informative, the Method II base failure rate is heavily
influenced by the Method I generic failure rate. The factors taken into consideration in the weighting
of laboratory data include the number of device failures during laboratory test, the number of devices
tested, the actual time devices were tested, and the temperature acceleration during test.
When laboratory data is included, the calculations for predicting steady-state failure rates
are dependent upon whether devices or units have had previous burn-in. In the previous Bellcore standards,
four different cases of Method II are defined. The table below describes each of these cases.
| Case |
Description |
| L1 |
Devices are laboratory tested and have
no burn-in. |
| L2 |
Units are laboratory tested and have no
unit/device burn-in. |
| L3 |
Devices are laboratory tested and have
had burn-in. |
| L4 |
Units are laboratory tested and have had
unit/device burn-in. |
Method III (Black Box Integrated with Field Data)
The purpose of Method III is to adjust the predicted MTBF of a unit or device based on field
data. Method III is calculated as a weighted average of the observed field failure rate and the Method I
generic failure rate. The number of total operating hours during field testing determines the weights.
When the number of total operating hours is large, the Method III base failure rate is heavily
influenced by the field data. When the number of total operating hours is small, the Method III base failure
rate is heavily influenced by the Method I prediction.
In previous Bellcore standards, three different cases of Method III are defined. The
following table describes each of these cases.
| Case |
Description |
| III (a) |
Provides failure rate predictions for
devices, units, or subsystems based on actual in-service performance. |
| III (b) |
Provides failure rate predictions for
devices, units, or subsystems based on in-service performance as part of another system.
Adjustments are made to these estimates to take into account differences in operating conditions
and environments. |
| III (c) |
Provides failure rate predictions for
devices, units, or subsystems based on the in-service performance of similar equipment from
the same manufacturer. Adjustments are made to these estimates to take into account
differences between the operating conditions and environments of the two systems. |
The Telcordia calculation methods described in this document are supported in the Relex
Reliability Prediction module. In addition to supporting a wide range of prediction models, including
MIL-HDBK-217, Telcordia, RDF, etc., Relex Reliability Prediction allows the Telcordia calculation methods
to be applied to any linear-based model. This means that you can adjust the failure rates for virtually
any reliability prediction model to account for laboratory and field data by using these Telcordia
calculation methods.
If you would like additional information about how Telcordia calculation methods are
implemented in Relex Reliability Prediction, please e-mail
info@relex.com.
|