Open RAN Hardware Compatibility Metrics From Failure-Point Stress Tests

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The compatibility of hardware components in an Open RAN architecture is often not thoroughly tested, leading to potential performance issues and field failures, which negatively impact the Quality of Experience (QoE) for end subscribers.

Innovation Solution

A method to determine a compatibility metric for hardware platforms by stress testing individual components using operational parameters, identifying failure points, and combining scores to assess overall compatibility.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If hardware components are selected from multiple vendors to promote vendor diversity and supply chain resilience, then adaptability and competition are improved, but compatibility and reliability deteriorate due to insufficient testing

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevendor diversityVSAvoidhardware compatibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by conducting compatibility testing of hardware components before they are deployed in the Open RAN system. The method involves stress testing individual hardware elements and determining compatibility metrics in advance, so that incompatible components are identified and excluded before field deployment, thereby preventing reliability issues while maintaining vendor diversity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the parameter of compatibility assessment by introducing a quantitative compatibility metric that evaluates hardware components against multiple operational parameters. This parameter transformation allows for systematic comparison and selection of compatible hardware from multiple vendors, resolving the contradiction between vendor diversity and reliability

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Ease of manufacture

If hardware components are not thoroughly tested before deployment, then device complexity and ease of manufacture are improved, but reliability and compatibility deteriorate leading to field failures

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedeployment simplicityVSAvoidfield operation reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements preliminary action by establishing a compatibility testing framework that evaluates hardware components before deployment. The method determines compatibility metrics through stress testing of individual hardware elements, creating a pre-validation process that ensures reliability while maintaining simple deployment procedures

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces complex manual compatibility verification with an automated compatibility metric determination system. By substituting the mechanical process of thorough manual testing with a standardized metric-based assessment, the system maintains ease of manufacture while significantly improving reliability through consistent, reproducible compatibility evaluation

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS20260010421A1Method of determining a compatibility metric of a hardware platform for running an Open RAN application
Publication Date: 2026.01.08 VODAFONE GROUP SERVICES LTD
  • US20260010421A1 patent drawing
  • US20260010421A1 patent drawing
  • US20260010421A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A method of determining a compatibility metric of a hardware platform for running an Open Radio Access Network application is provided. The method includes, for each of a plurality of hardware elements, increasing an operational load on the hardware element by adjusting a value of one or more operational parameters selected from a plurality of operational parameters, and for each of the one or more operational parameters, either detecting that the hardware element has failed and storing the value of the operational parameter when failure is detected, or storing the value of the operational parameter when the operational load on the hardware element is greatest. The method further includes determining a compatibility score for the hardware element based on the stored value of each of the one or more operational parameters, determining a compatibility metric for the hardware platform by combining the compatibility scores for each of the hardware elements.