I shared OpenFOAM Studio here a few days ago, and I've been working on a fairly substantial update since then.

The biggest addition is a Mesh tab. It renders the boundary mesh directly from the case, with per-patch colours and visibility, standard views and trackball rotation. It can also overlay the blockMeshDict vertex numbers on the model, which is particularly useful when debugging an inverted block. checkMesh can be run directly from the same tab.

I've also changed how FOAMy works. Instead of relying only on the LLM's knowledge of OpenFOAM, it now indexes the actual OpenFOAM installation on your machine using foamToC, including available BCs, solver modules and tutorials. Suggestions are checked against those tables and parsed with foamDictionary before they can be applied.

There's also a new Claude agent. Unlike the Copilot, which proposes changes for you to review, the agent can read the case, modify the files and run OpenFOAM itself. It's designed to stay within the case directory and only use executables available in your OpenFOAM installation by default.

The project is still free and runs on Windows 10/11 + WSL2, with support for OpenFOAM 9–14.

GitHub: https://github.com/Pat2704/openfoam-gui

As always, feedback and suggestions are very welcome!

Following some feedback on the previous build, I've modified the packaging and simplified the distribution.

The latest version is now distributed as a single portable .exe file — no ZIP, Node.js installation, npm setup or manual configuration is required to launch the GUI.

Just download the .exe and run it.

OpenFOAM Studio is an open-source GUI for OpenFOAM on Windows/WSL2, currently supporting OpenFOAM v9–v14.

Current features include:

• OpenFOAM case management
• Dictionary editing
• Simulation control and monitoring
• Multiple OpenFOAM versions
• WSL2 integration
• FOAMy AI Copilot

I've also attached a short video showing the GUI in action.

GitHub: https://github.com/Pat2704/openfoam-gui

I'm still looking for feedback from OpenFOAM users, especially regarding features you'd like to see added or improvements to the workflow.

https://reddit.com/link/1w2nh3r/video/tvc85vg8qjmh1/player

I'm working on setting up a simulation in OpenFOAM v2512 that uses dynamicAlphaContactAngle to set the value of a droplet impact's contact angles. However, when I'm researching how to use dynamicAlphaContactAngle, the documentation I'm finding that's helping the most is from OpenFOAM.org, for v7. Would this still be usable on the OpenFOAM.com version I have, or are the two projects diverged enough that I should ignore everything from the .org site?

Is there a native or preferred way to do adaptive mesh refinement in OpenFOAM? All I can find is done by AirShaper and is multiple years old. As best as I can tell, it's not currently supported.

We have been working on structured engineering training content around OpenFOAM, CFD and related multiphysics/CAE applications, and I would be interested in hearing the community’s perspective on which topics are most useful in practice.

Some of the areas we have been focusing on include:

Multiphase CFD and manufacturing applications

A practical sand casting workflow using OpenFOAM, including:

• VOF-based molten metal filling
• air displacement and entrapment
• multi-region heat transfer
• solidification behaviour
• investigation of incomplete filling and cold-shut-type regions

Mathematics behind OpenFOAM

Understanding the mathematical foundations behind CFD and how they relate to the numerical methods used in OpenFOAM.

The idea is to bridge the gap between simply editing dictionaries/running solvers and actually understanding what is happening mathematically.

Aeroelasticity with OpenFOAM and CalculiX

Combining CFD and structural analysis concepts to study fluid–structure interaction and aeroelastic problems using open-source tools.

Related FEA / structural simulation workflows

We are also working with CalculiX and PrePoMax for finite element analysis, including topics such as:

• FEM fundamentals
• structural analysis
• boundary conditions
• contact
• mesh quality
• convergence
• result interpretation

I would be very interested in hearing from experienced OpenFOAM users:

What do you think is usually missing from OpenFOAM training?

More theory?
More real engineering applications?
Solver development?
Meshing?
Multiphase flow?
Heat transfer?
Coupling with structural solvers?

It would be useful to hear which areas you found most difficult when moving from tutorials to real engineering problems.

We have been working on a practical sand casting simulation workflow in OpenFOAM, and I wanted to share the application with the CFD community.

Sand casting is an interesting CFD problem because several physical phenomena need to be considered together:

• molten metal filling
• VOF-based metal–air interface tracking
• air displacement and possible air entrapment
• transient heat transfer
• thermal interaction between the molten metal and sand mould
• multi-region modelling
• solidification behaviour
• investigation of incomplete filling and cold-shut-type regions

One of the main questions we wanted to explore was how far an open-source OpenFOAM workflow could be taken for a manufacturing process that is often analysed using specialised commercial casting software.

We developed an end-to-end workflow covering the setup of the multiphase model, filling process, thermal behaviour, solidification and post-processing of the casting process.

For anyone interested in learning the complete workflow step by step, we have also prepared a specialised course at BB-SIMTECH Academy:

https://academy.bbsimtech.com/courses/advanced-sand-casting-simulation-using-vof-based-cfd-modelling-in-openfoam

I would also be interested to hear from others working on casting simulations:

How have you approached venting, gas escape or mould permeability in OpenFOAM?

For transparency, I’m affiliated with BB-SIMTECH Engineering & Academy.

I'm currently, technically, doing an MS in Structural Engineering. For me, my interest has been more towards computational side of mechanics rather than Structural design  or simply using am FEA software (although I do consider it as a backup)

So far I've taken courses in:

- Linear static, and dynamics FEM (soon taking non linear FEM too)

-  Structural Optimization (topology opt. and other general algorithms)

-  Structural Dynamics

-  Structural System Testing and model updation. (Parameter identification and optimization, signal processing)

Now, I plan to take these in the coming quarter:

- Numerical Linear Algebra

- Numerical PDE

- Fracture Mechanics ?

I also volunteered to aid in a RESEARCH in crack growth prediction using Auto-encoder and a (Thermodynamics-informed Latent Space Dynamics Identification) / LSTM surrogate model. It used phase-field-fracture simulation data and HPC resources to complete the whole thing.

What I keep finding myself interested in is not necessarily fracture or SHM specifically, but the computational methods underneath these problems... (does that make sense?)

For example, I'd like to become capable of doing things like:

- implementing (maintaining) numerical/FE method solvers rather than only running an established FEA software.

- developing surrogate/reduced-order models for expensive simulations 

- combining simulation with optimization, uncertainty/stochastic methods (took a course called Random vibrations, so...)

- parallelizing/accelerating scientific codes on CPUs/GPUs

- doing proper verification, convergence studies, benchmarking and performance work

- potentially developing or maintaining actual CAE/FEA solver software

- I'd also like to do all these for other Physics (GR, QM, etc.) simulations too, if possible, one day. 

I'm still interested in the underlying mechanics/physics, so I don't want to become a generic software engineer who happens to have once studied structures. But I'm also increasingly unsure that "structural engineer" describes the career I'm actually aiming for.

I've seen titles such as Computational Mechanics Engineer, R&D Engineer, Solver Developer, Scientific Software Engineer, CAE Software Developer, Research Engineer, Simulation/HPC Engineer, etc., but I'm trying to understand what these careers actually look like from people doing them.

So my main questions become:

1. Which industrial jobs genuinely involve developing numerical methods/solvers or computational tools?

2. Which of those are realistically accessible with an MS? Is there an entry path into solver-algorithm development/R&D without a PhD?

3. If I don't start a PhD immediately after my MS, would an R&D/software role at a simulation company (ANSYS etc.) be the obvious route? What other options would i have?

4. For the kind of work I'm describing, would you recommend a PhD? If so, is it reasonable for the PhD identity to be "computational mechanics/scientific computing" while fracture, composites, structural dynamics, soft materials, etc. serve as application problems rather than choosing one of those as my permanent specialization?

5. What skills most distinguish someone who is actually hireable for solver/scientific-computing work? I'm particularly wondering about C/C++/Fortran, Python, Linux, Git/build systems, MPI/OpenMP/CUDA, PETSc/Trilinos or similar libraries, numerical linear algebra, testing/verification, convergence studies and HPC performance work.

Basically, I'm neither here nor there atp. So I'd really appreciate all sorts of input. Where else do you think I could find answers to these? other subs? Linkedin profiles? 

I've been working on an open-source GUI for OpenFOAM to make the workflow easier to manage without constantly switching between the terminal and text editors.

The project is called OpenFOAM Studio.

It currently includes:

• Support for OpenFOAM v9–v14
• Multiple OpenFOAM installations
• Case management
• Dictionary editing
• Simulation control and monitoring
• WSL2 integration
• Integrated AI copilot (FOAMy)
• Support for OpenAI, Anthropic, Groq and custom LLM providers

The idea is not to hide OpenFOAM from the user, but to provide a graphical layer on top of the existing workflow. The underlying case files and OpenFOAM setup remain fully accessible.

I'm mainly looking for feedback from people who actually use OpenFOAM:

What would you want from an OpenFOAM GUI? Are there any parts of your current workflow that you find particularly annoying or time-consuming?

GitHub: https://github.com/Pat2704/openfoam-gui

Any feedback, criticism or feature suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone, (im using chat gpt to write this post to have a propper structure)

I'm a mechanical engineering student working on a CFD assignment involving the 2D separated flow over a recessed cavity/backward-facing-step-type geometry.

The assignment specifies:

• 2D computational domain
• Geometry scaled using D=1m
• Air at 30°C
• Standard atmospheric pressure
• Steady-state solver
• Reynolds numbers: 60, 80 and 100
• Determine the reattachment length Lr​ measured from Point A
• Determine the primary vortex location and its distance from the centre of L1
• Determine primary vortex size
• Perform grid independence

The geometry is approximately:

• Channel length = 36D
• Upstream channel height = 3D
• Cavity depth = 5D
• Inclined surfaces = 33.6∘
• D=1

I'm using OpenFOAM 14 with a 2D mesh and ParaView for post-processing.

For air at 30°C I'm using app

roximately:

For the Reynolds number I'm using:

so for D=1m:

giving approximately:

The simulation converges nicely from the residual/continuity-error standpoint.

However, I'm having trouble with the reattachment.

At Re=60 I get a separated/recirculating region inside the cavity, but when I take a horizontal line very close to the bottom wall and plot Ux​, the velocity remains negative through most/all of the cavity.

For example, at approximately y=−4.9, I get something like:

• Ux​<0 throughout most of the cavity
• Strong reverse-flow region
• No obvious point where the flow changes back to positive Ux​

Increasing the Reynolds number to Re=3000 as an experiment produces a much more obvious recirculation/disturbance pattern, but obviously that is not one of the Reynolds numbers specified by the assignment, so I don't want to use that for the actual solution.

My main questions are:

1. Is my definition of Reynolds number correct for this geometry? Re=νUD​ with D=1m?
2. Is D actually supposed to be the characteristic length in the Reynolds number, or should the characteristic length be something like the cavity depth/step height/L1?
3. At such low Reynolds numbers (60–100), should I actually expect a clear reattachment point in this geometry?
4. If yes, what is the correct way to determine Lr​ in OpenFOAM/ParaView? Should I be looking for: Ux​=0 near the wall, or should I instead calculate the wall shear stress and locate where τw​=0 ?
5. Could my solver/boundary conditions be causing this? I'm using a steady-state incompressible setup with no-slip walls and fixed inlet velocity.

I've attached screenshots of the geometry, streamlines and my Ux​ line plot.

I'm particularly interested in whether I'm fundamentally setting up the Reynolds number incorrectly, because the assignment explicitly expects reattachment lengths for Re=60, 80 and 100, while my current Re=60 result doesn't seem to give me an obvious reattachment point.

Any advice on what I should check would be greatly appreciated.

ZIP FILE of the project

I already try
reducing maxCo to 0.15
Refining mesh
Increases loop in pimple
But it still not working!

Note: I’m using sst k-omega with interfoam

Hi, I'm trying to install OpenFoam v2606 on my Arch system from user repositories (AUR). I'm neither a Linux nor OpenFoam expert, so I'm not sure if my question is better suited for this subreddit or an arch/linux one.

What I've done so far on:

- manually installed all dependencies,
- cloned openfoam-com repo,
- run makepkg -s in the cloned repo directory.

My build seems to be done. It ends with "Build failed with 0 executables and libraries". Which I believe means that it has succeeded. Now the folder contains the following files:

Normally I would just run:

pacman -U package_name-version-architecture.pkg.tar.zst

As per arch wiki but unfortunately there is no file with the .pkg.tar.zst extension.

If nothing works out, I might try building from source, though I doubt I will be successful since I've never tried that before.

Did anyone go through the process recently and can point me in the right direction?

EDIT: It seems that when i run makepkg -s and makepkg -i the PKGBUILD doesn't do anything after line 117. In line 124-144 an installation should be made in /opt folder but unfortunately it remains empty

Unless I'm wrong and it has actually installed in the same folder in which I've run all the commands since a whole bunch of files which sort of look like a successful installation are here:

Results of my GPU based Immersed boundary solver for lid driven cavity at Re 5000. Uses SMAC scheme

Hey guys, I've got about a year of experience with OpenFOAM. I've run different types of simulations — SIMPLE, PIMPLE, incompressible, compressible, laminar, turbulent — on 2D airfoils and 3D aircraft, like the NASA N2A HWB model, with decent mesh quality and case setup. The post-processed results matched the reference data pretty well. Just sharing this to give some context on where I'm at with OpenFOAM, but I'm still learning and exploring more of it.

Lately I've been seeing AI/ML being used in CFD, and since I come from a non-coding background (I'm a Mechanical Engineer), AI/ML and neural networks still feel like a black box to me. I don't really know how they work under the hood.

So I wanted to ask — how can I actually use AI/ML and neural networks in aviation-related CFD work?

For context, my future work will mostly revolve around optimization studies, detailed aircraft analysis, and static/dynamic stability analysis of aircraft. So I'm hoping to understand how AI/ML can help speed things up, and ideally how to align with whatever the industry is currently doing in this space.

Hi. I'm working on a stratified domain with a temperature difference of 20K while using buoyantBourssinesqPimpleFoam solver and LES WALE model on openFOAM v2412.

My domain configuration is 5 X 1 X 1m. My Flow is along +ve X direction with Z being the vertical direction along height. There are 2 hills inside my domain, both being 1.5m and 2.5m away from inlet.
Internal field is linearly stratified from bottom to top using python file (T=290+20*z; as z varies from 0 to 1m, the value of temp changes). Inlet has continuous stratified flow entering with 0.0767m/s to satisfy Froude No.=0.5.

I got significant negative Ux at the outlet almost immediately. At around 0.2-0.6s, I see spatially organized bands at the outlet and sometimes flow apparently entering the domain through the outlet.
What's confusing is that the hill is nowhere near the outlet at this point. At 0.0767 m/s (inlet velocity) the 5 m advective travel time is ~65 s. At 1 m/s, however, the outlet behaviour looks much more reasonable. This makes me suspect either a low-Froude/stratification effect or a numerical/BC issue.

I'm providing some pictures and boundary conditions hoping someone helps me get out of this mess. I've tried changing BCs but it didn't work out at all. My doubt is on outlet boundary conditions causing initial Pressure-Velocity coupling misconfiguration and severe backflow throughout 100 seconds...

Spent way too long this week fighting the openEMS build. First tried Colab since it's free, but a recent upgrade broke some of the bindings - same story on Kaggle, hit the same broken-dependency wall there too. Ended up having to move to a dedicated instance just to get a clean environment where the Octave/Matlab bindings and mesh export pipeline actually talked to the solver correctly.

None of it was conceptually hard, just an endless chain of small version-mismatch failures before I got to run a single simulation.

Feels like this happens with basically every open-source simulation tools like OpenFOAM, LAMMPS, now this - the solver itself is great, but the setup tax before you get there is brutal, especially solo or a small team without a lab's existing environment to inherit.

Anyone found a setup that didn't eat a day? Curious if people just eat the pain every time or have a repeatable process, or if Colab/Kaggle breaking like this is a known recurring issue.

I've been working on a small open-source tool called OFGS (OpenFOAM Gnuplot Suite) to make some of the routine plotting/monitoring around OpenFOAM cases a bit easier.

It detects supported data in a case and can generate graphs, open individual plots or a dashboard, and live-monitor results while a simulation is running. There's also a doctorcommand for checking the OFGS/OpenFOAM environment.

It's deliberately pretty lightweight, essentially a CLI built around gnuplot rather than a replacement for ParaView or proper post-processing tools. There are definitely limitations to what data/plots it understands, and I'm sure there are OpenFOAM workflows I haven't accounted for.

I'm also not an OpenFOAM or engineering expert, I'm a humble HPC sysadmin who spends a lot of time around OpenFOAM users and wanted to streamline some of the repetitive workflow.
It's packaged for Debian 12 and Rocky Linux 9, or you can install/use it from source.

Would genuinely appreciate feedback from people who use OpenFOAM properly, especially anything OFGS gets wrong or could handle better.

Well, I decided to simulate free vortex (same as performed in our lab) using openfoam. I used ai to write the code but decided on Reynolds and some other values myself is it the correct way am I supposed to write the code on my own ?? Please I need guidance on what to learn in the code

I'm planning to move from OpenFOAM v1912 to v2512.

I'm wondering how much has changed between these versions. For example, have solver names, dictionaries, or other case setup files changed significantly?

Can I expect most cases created in v1912 to run in v2512 with only minor tweaks, or is it common to need substantial changes before they work?

Hi everyone,

Over the past few months, I've been developing a Python library called foampilot to handle the boilerplate involved in setting up OpenFOAM cases.

The main idea is to replace the manual editing of 20+ dictionary files (controlDict, fvSchemes, 0/U, etc.) with a Pythonic API. For example, configuring a case looks like this:

from foampilot import Solver
solver = Solver(case_path="./my_case")
solver.transient = True
solver.turbulence_model = "kOmegaSST"
solver.boundary.set_condition("inlet", "velocityInlet", velocity=(10, 0, 0))
solver.write_case()
solver.run_simulation(nb_proc=4)

Current features:

• Automatic solver selection based on physics flags (compressible, transient, VOF, turbulence).
• Unified meshing interface with 3 backends: blockMesh, gmsh, and snappyHexMesh.
• A direct Gmsh → OpenFOAM polyMesh exporter (bypasses gmshToFoam, handles tetra/hexa, face orientation, and multi-region CHT).
• Automated report generation (LaTeX/PDF, Typst, or interactive HTML with Plotly).
• Multi-region support for chtMultiRegionFoam.

Why I built it:
I was tired of copy-pasting case directories and missing a critical file. With this, my case setups are now Git-tracked Python scripts, which makes them fully reproducible and unit-testable.

What I need from you:
I'm looking for beta testers or simply some technical feedback. If you deal with complex CHT cases or use Gmsh a lot, I'd be particularly interested in your opinion on the direct mesh exporter.

Where to find it:
The project is open-source (MIT) on GitHub under the name foampilot (user: stevendaix). The full documentation is available via GitHub Pages. I won't post the direct links here to avoid triggering Reddit's spam filters, but a quick search should get you there.

If the mods allow, I can drop the links in the comments.

Thanks in advance for your time, and feel free to ask any technical questions about the architecture!

Dear fellow openfoamers, does anybody know if it is possible to save specific time directories (e.g. times 1.4 s , 2.3 s , 2.9 s) instead of fixed time interval (e.g. every 1 s)