ISO 21448: Simulation Credibility for SOTIF — When Does Virtual Testing Count as Evidence?

Date
2027-02-19
Location
Online
Host
Zach L
Register

About this event

A live 30-minute expert session on Simulation Credibility for SOTIF — When Does Virtual Testing Count as Evidence? (ISO 21448 — Safety of the Intended Functionality). What We'll Cover: Where simulation sits in the ISO 21448 validation strategy and the split between vehicle-level, SiL, HiL, and driving-simulator evidence The credibility method step by step: fidelity requirements per use case, sensor-model validation against real recordings, and correlation metrics with track tests How simulation evidence maps to ISO 21448 Clause 10 and 11 and produces the tool-credibility report and simulation-to-reality correlation artifact Common mistakes: photorealism mistaken for fidelity, one-time correlation never revisited after model updates, no documented domain of validity for the simulator The evidence auditors look for: per-scenario justification of virtual versus physical execution and a maintained validity envelope for every model Related topics: simulation credibility · sensor models · sil hil testing · sim to real correlation · virtual validation · digital twin adas · model fidelity · tool qualification simulation · driving simulator · synthetic scenarios · simulation evidence · validity envelope · physics based sensor model · correlation metrics Critical Systems Analysis provides embedded functional safety consulting for ISO 21448 — Safety of the Intended Functionality. Learn more: https://criticalsystemsanalysis.com Partner with us: https://meetings.hubspot.com/benjamin-twombly/strategic-partnerships

Topics

About Functional Safety Foundations

This online session delivers expert-led instruction on the regulatory landscape and implementation approach for Functional Safety Foundations.

The cross-sector fundamentals underlying every functional safety standard: risk as severity × likelihood, the safety function concept, integrity levels, the safety lifecycle, and the split between random and systematic failures.

What it regulates

Shared vocabulary and reasoning: hazard → risk → risk reduction allocation → safety requirement → verified implementation → maintained integrity in operation.

Who must comply

Everyone entering the field — the conceptual base of the entire catalog.

Key requirements of Functional Safety Foundations

  • Hazard and risk fundamentals
  • Safety function anatomy: sensor-logic-actuator with defined safe state
  • Integrity ladders (SIL/PL/ASIL/DAL) as risk-reduction currencies
  • Random vs systematic failure treatment
  • Lifecycle and management of functional safety incl. competence

Key concepts: Functional Safety Foundations

Functional safety management
Planning, competence, documentation and assessment wrapped around technical work.
Random vs systematic
Hardware wear-out/chance failures quantified statistically versus design/process errors controlled by rigor.
Risk reduction allocation
Distributing required risk reduction among mechanical design, safeguards, control functions and procedures.
Safe state
The defined condition a function drives the equipment to on demand or fault.

Frequently asked questions: Functional Safety Foundations

Why can't testing alone prove safety?

Rare-event targets (like 1e-7/h) are unverifiable by test duration, and systematic errors evade random testing — hence the standards' dual machinery of quantified hardware analysis plus process rigor and independent assessment.

Standard information based on the published text of Functional Safety Foundations. Event content is provided by the host. For authoritative guidance, consult the official standard body.