As part of the run-up to our World Congress in Stockholm, Sweden we rans a short survey checking the simulation community's attitude to "Certification by Simulation".We wanted to know how far we were from having simulation replace test in the areaa short of certification. It was a simple, blunt question designed to show the disparity of viewpoints we hear on this subject.

Here at NAFEMS, we get the chance to talk to organisations from across industry, and I feel it is safe to say that in some areas simulation has already replaced test. Want an example? I recently talked to one regulator from the automotive industry who described how ray tracing was an acceptable way of clearing the passenger car rear view mirror check. It is a pretty basic analysis. In this instance, numerical simulation can replace test as the technology is mature and the variability in the inputs that drive the simulation are low. The obvious reason for using simulation instead of test is that it reduces cost and time; by using simulation the fiddly, tedious, manual and time consuming process of setting up a dummy and installing a camera to check the view field is eliminated. You can go on to make the case that the simulation is more useful than the test as the height of the driver can be adjusted easily without having to haul a dummy out of the car and spend time setting up a new one. Sure, errors can creep into a simulation but the same is also true with the test… was the dummy set up at exactly the right position? was the camera perfectly aligned? etc. There is variability on both sides of the simulation vs. test debate. There is some low hanging fruit, in some areas we can eliminate the need to test, and in these areas, I expect OEMs to be making the case to the regulator that simulation can replace test.