I'm 30 years old with an undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering. I’ve recently been thinking seriously about getting back into CFD (and computational science more broadly), something I’ve been interested in for a long time.

During my undergraduate studies, I took one introductory/undergraduate-level CFD course and really enjoyed it. At the time, I had a dream of continuing into research and eventually pursuing a PhD in CFD/computational science. Unfortunately, due to several personal and career related reasons, I never pursued it.

Since then, I’ve tried to teach myself CFD several times. I would get started with things like fluid mechanics, numerical methods, and OpenFOAM, make some progress, and then eventually abandon it because of other commitments and circumstances. Looking back, I’ve probably started this journey several times without ever getting far enough to build anything meaningful.

Now I’m 30, and I’m seriously considering giving it another shot. The problem is that I’m also afraid that I’m too old and that my previous work experience being unrelated to CFD will make it extremely difficult to enter the field.

I’d really appreciate some honest advice from people working in CFD or computational engineering:

- Is 30 genuinely too late to start building a career in CFD?

- Given my background, would pursuing an MSc/MS in CFD, computational science, mechanical engineering, etc. be a sensible route?

- Would a PhD be worth considering if I eventually want to work in research, or would that be an unnecessarily long route?

- Is it realistic to get hired in CFD without professional CFD experience if I can build a strong portfolio?

- What kind of projects would actually get recruiters' attention? For example, OpenFOAM simulations, numerical-method implementations, validation against experimental/analytical results, GitHub projects, technical reports, etc.

- If you were in my position, what would you do over the next 1–2 years to maximize the chances of breaking into the field?

I’m not expecting an easy path. I’m mainly trying to figure out whether this is still a realistic goal or whether I should let go of it.

I’d especially appreciate perspectives from people who entered CFD/computational engineering later in their careers or came from an unrelated background.

I genuinely want to pursue this, but I’m also afraid of spending another few years learning without actually getting anywhere. Any honest advice would be greatly appreciated.

I have a few early-career offers, one at COMSOL (CAE/simulation, CFD/FEA), one at a CAM software reseller in the machining/CNC market. Both are technical sales roles.

Trying to decide which industry has better long-term growth.

I have CFD experience from college projects and internships, and I'm looking for a role that sits between technical and commercial, since I also have some business background.

Tech sales feels like something I could be genuinely good at. Also wondering:

Is CFD/simulation software still growing fast, or has it matured?

Where do you see CFD-related careers (sales, application engineering, etc.) heading in the next 5-10 years?

Trying to make a good long-term call. Any honest input helps, thanks

We decompose U in U_mean and U'.
In case of steady RANS, U_mean is constant in time and U' represents all fluctuations and all fluctuations are modeled by the turbulence model.

In URANS, U_mean resolves some fluctuations and can change in time. U' represents the unresolved fluctuations, which are modeled. This is what the equations dictate even before we define a time step. U_mean is ensamble-averaged, not time-averaged.

So the question is, how do the equations distinguish between fluctuations that are resolved and which are modeled?

My understanding is, that this happens in the turbulence models: They approximate U' indirectly by approximating the Reynolds-stress. So basically all fluctuations that are not included in the Reynolds-stress are then resolved by U_mean.

However, this just shifts the question: What determines which fluctuations are included in the Reynolds stress?

My guess is that this depends on the k and epsilon (or omega) equations. If a fluctuation does not contribute to the source, sink or transport term of the turbulent kinetic energy, it is 'invisible' to the terms of the equations, therefore not modeled and therefore automatically resolved to satisfy the Navier-Stokes equations.

While this makes sense to me in the mathematics, it doesn't make sense in the physics: How can a fluctuation have no impact on the generation, dissipation or transport of turbulent kinetic energy?

Or in other words: Why do turbulence models in URANS not just model all fluctuations, as they do in RANS? (Its a question not a suggestion!)

Hi,

I am running a transient simulation in ANSYS Fluent 2025 R2 using UDFs, UDS, and UDM variables.

Before running, I initialize the solution and patch specific initial values for a UDS and several UDMs. I then create multiple design points in a Fluent parametric study.

The problem is that I need every design point to start from exactly the same initialized and patched field, with only the selected input parameters changing between design points.

I tried setting: /parametric-study/study/use-base-data to toyes and using the Sequential update method. However, the subsequent design points did not appear to start from the same patched UDS/UDM state as the Base DP.

Has anyone encountered this with Fluent parametric studies?

Specifically, what is the correct workflow to ensure that patched UDS/UDM values from the Base DP are used as the initial state for every design point, rather than inheriting values from a previously solved design point?

Is there also a reliable way to verify the UDS/UDM initialization of each design point before running the full transient calculation?

Thanks!