[V_Terranova_Jr]

Replying to finish a discussion no one will probably see, but...

> That the original comment I replied to is false: "Good luck designing crash resilient structures without simulating it on FEM based software."

In refuting the original casually-worded blanket statement, yes, you're right. You can indeed design crash resilient structures without FEA. Especially if they are terrestrial (i.e., civil engineering).

In high-performance applications like aerospace vehicles (excluding general aviation) or automobiles, you will not achieve the required performance on any kind of acceptable timeline or budget without FEA. In these kinds of high-performance applications, the original statement is valid.

> FEM raises the quality floor of engineering output overall, and more rarely the ceiling. But, excessive reliance on computer simulation often incentivizes complex, fragile, and expensive designs.

Do you have any experience in aerospace applications? Because quite often, we reliably achieve structural efficiencies, at prescribed levels of robustness, that we would not achieve sans FEA. It's a matter of making the performance bar, not a matter of simple vs. complex solutions.

> I agree with his main point. It's an essential tool for combatting certifications and reviews in the world of increasing regulatory and policy based governance.

That was one of his points, not the main one. The idea that its primary value is pandering to paper-pushing regulatory bodies and "policy based governance" is specious. Does it help with your certification case? Of course. But the real value is that analyses from these tools are the substantiation we use to determine the if the (expensive) design will meet requirements and survive all its stressing load cases before we approve building it. We then have a high likelihood of what we build, assuming it conforms to design intent, performing as expected.