Hi everyone

I started setting up Hexahedral mesh in TCAS-lite with Axial design and simulation (Axial Fan Design and Simulation – CFD SUPPORT).

After finishing mesh generation, please see in attached picture, I found mesh created shown as Tetrahedral mesh (left side) but in tutorial report be Hexahedral mesh.

I am new user for TCAE. I'm thing there something wrong during my first setup.

Is there any suggestion for make Hexahedral mesh?

I need to simulate a hydrogen explosion near a wall: I need pressure values ​​over time for the structural calculation.
Is it possible to set up the simulation and use BlastFoam in TCFD?
Reading around, I found that the XiFoam or XiFluid solvers exist: does anyone know anything about them? Could they be integrated into TCFD?

Dear CFD Support team,

I am a Master’s student in Mechanical Engineering (Energy Transition specialization) at the University of Brescia, Italy.

For one of my CFD/OpenFOAM exams, I am required to develop a validated simulation project (not a thesis, but an academic project), including comparison with reference or published results. For this purpose, I downloaded your Burj Al Arab simulation example from your platform.

My goal is to reconstruct the case in OpenFOAM and use it as part of my exam project. I would like to kindly ask if it would be possible to receive additional technical details to help me accurately reproduce the simulation in OpenFOAM. In particular, I am looking for:

• Computational domain dimensions and setup;

• Boundary conditions (inlet velocity profile, outlet, wall and ground conditions);

• Turbulence model and main parameters;

• Mesh generation details (refinement regions, layers, resolution);

• Reference values used for force coefficients or validation

If available, even a simplified description of the setup or equivalent OpenFOAM dictionaries (0/, constant/, system/) would be extremely helpful.

The purpose of my work is purely academic, and I aim to ensure the simulation is physically consistent and properly validated.

Thank you very much for your time and support.

Best regards,
Hamza Chokry

I need to simulate this in fluent.

Take a bubble of radius 1 mm with internal pressure as 3 kPa, while the outside liquid is at 1 bar pressure. This bubble is at a distance of 1.1 mm from a flat surface. Gravity acts vertically down.

the bubble is of vapour.

I used multiphase model with VOF.

I created a Rectangular domain to simulate it in 2D with suitable dimensions.

I am facing problems in setting up the pressure difference in and outside the bubble , like I used operation condition has 100kPa , and boundary conditions as pressure oulet for top, right and left side of the Rectangular domain , and wall for bottom side.

Then I patched the bubble with suitable radius, but I am not able to set the presure differnce .

Could anyone help me setting the pressure difference.

Artificial intelligence is changing our world as we know it. A storm of change concerns every field, everything, and everyone. In this little thought experiment, I would like to think about how our beloved Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and CAE simulations are likely to change. I know, I know. Predicting the future is generally a foolish exercise, …, so I decided to write the following lines about it. Disclaimer: It’s March 2026. 

At the moment, AI is entering CFD through at least three distinct paths, each affecting engineering work in a very different way: Agents, Surrogates, and Coding. These three guys are already happening, and they are quickly changing CAE, and the pace is only growing. Let’s take a look at them one by one.

I need to learn how to model fire and explosion with cfd. Can any one help me?

Under development ...

TBRAIN is a new software module for TCAE, an intelligent autonomous agent that automates engineering simulation workflows (especially CFD).

Its goal is to eliminate the need for expert knowledge, drastically accelerate projects, and make simulation accessible through natural-language control, similar to ChatGPT.

I am running the Ahmed benchmark case downloaded from cfdsupport, and I get a different drag coefficient compared to what is in the report on the website (experimental value: 0.2850, website value 0.2848, my value 0.305). This is a fairly significant difference. I am using the files exactly as downloaded, in TCAE-Lite version 25.10. What would be the reason for this difference in drag prediction?

Hello,

I am interested in the Axial Fan TCAD geometry builder mentioned in this example:
https://www.cfdsupport.com/axial-fan-design-and-simulation/

Can someone in the forum clarify whether the TCAE-Lite version provides access to this geometry builder, or if the full TCAE package is required?

Thank you for your help!

Daniel Garcia

Hi everybody, 

I ran a steady state + transient CFD simulation on a centrifugal compressor (with a k-omega SST model) and when post-processing the results and comparing the stationary part to the unsteady part of the calculation I have significantly different results. Indeed, the unsteady part shows a higher mass flow rate. This seems to be due to a higher flow speed and a different flow angle, noticeable directly at the inlet of the rotor. On the picture attached you see these differences (on the left: unsteady part; on the right: steady state part). Is it possible that this difference in flow rate could be explained by the fact that the dynamic mesh in the unsteady part could aspire the flow in the rotor and thus change the angle and speed of this one? And maybe this effect could have been lower if I would have set a lower CFL (kept for now to 20 in my case)? 

If you have any ideas about this phenomenon that would be very helpful. 

Thanks and have a great day,

Alex 

Hello everybody, 

I am setting my first CFD transient simulation on a centrifugal compressor and I would like to know if you have any recommendations on the values of parameters like CFL number or PIMPLE algorithm settings. I assume that the default value of CFL number is relatively large (=20 hence >>1) because the PIMPLE algorithm is flexible and that's common to use higher values for turbomachinery applications?

Also, how is the monitoring and post-processing of the results different from the ones of steady state simulations? 

Any clarifications and recommendations would be very helpful. 

Thank you and have a nice day ! 

Alex

CAE simulations. The art of the possible.

What factors contribute to making CAE projects successful? In the company I work for, in 15 years, we have delivered hundreds of CAE projects to industrial companies (most of them in the turbomachinery field). Some projects were highly successful, while others were not. In this article, I would like to share a few thoughts and lessons learned about project-success patterns and engineering productivity in general.

The Game

In engineering, we don’t simulate reality. We merely simulate our understanding of reality with currently available resources. In other words, the game we play here is about turning our knowledge and effort (and talent) into the best possible results. CAE projects, like software, are never really finished. They only have their versions. At any point, you can make them better. When chasing accuracy, the effort grows exponentially, so it’s smart to recognize the point when the results are good enough. Having clear, measurable goals is critical to prevent infinite drift, resource waste, and disappointment. Well-defined goals help to navigate, focus, and prioritize. The game we play is all about goals and their feasibility with the available knowledge and effort.

Continue reading on CFD SUPPORT website >>> https://www.cfdsupport.com/cae-simulations-the-art-of-the-possible/

Hello everyone,

We are a team of university students currently working on a project to replicate the CFD simulation of the DJI 9450 propeller. First of all, we would like to thank the content creators for the excellent "Acoustic Benchmark Propeller DJI 9450" study. It has been an invaluable resource for our work.

As we try to reproduce the simulation results, we've encountered some confusion regarding the benchmark target values and would be very grateful for any clarification from the community or the official team.

Issue 1: Discrepancy Between Two Reported Results

We have been referencing two main documents:

 [1] The formal PDF research report (Acoustic Benchmark of DJI 9450.pdf).

 [2] The web page report, available at: https://www.cfdsupport.com/download/report/DJI-9450-Propeller-Benchmark/tcfd/TCFDReport.html

We noticed a significant difference in the thrust and torque values at 6000 RPM between these two sources. Specifically:

 * The PDF Research Report [1] lists a target Thrust of 4.256 N and a target Torque of 0.066 N·m.

 * The Web Page Report [2]shows a computed Thrust of 3.438 N and a computed Torque of 0.058 N·m.

Furthermore, the simulation result graph in the PDF report (approx. 4.2 N) also differs from the web page report's result (3.44 N).[1] We suspect this might be due to differences in mesh density. Could anyone confirm if this understanding is correct, and which set of values should we consider the definitive target for our validation?

Issue 2: Question About the Source of the Benchmark Target Value

To delve deeper, we located the original experimental paper cited in the PDF report (Intaratep, N., et al., AIAA 2016-2873).[1, 1] However, upon reviewing this paper, we found that the measured experimental thrust for a single rotor at 6000 RPM is approximately 6.1 N (as read from Fig. 6).[1,1]

This experimental value is considerably different from the benchmark target of 4.256 N listed in the PDF report, which has caused us significant confusion.

Our specific questions are:

 * Could anyone clarify the source of the benchmark target values (Thrust = 4.256 N, Torque = 0.066 N·m) used in the PDF report? Why does this target differ from the ~6.1 N we found in the original experimental paper (AIAA 2016-2873)?

 * To help us perform a more accurate validation and learn from this work, would it be possible to get access to the mesh file (e.g., in OpenFOAM or MSH format) or the complete geometry file (STL/STEP) used for the high-fidelity simulation presented in the PDF report?

Any clarification would be immensely helpful for our academic research.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards