Productized CFD engineering

CFD engineering for faster thermal and fluid design decisions

I help product and R&D engineering teams diagnose thermal, airflow and pressure-drop problems, then compare design alternatives before the next hardware iteration. The first specialization is electronics thermal management; broader CFD projects are in scope when the engineering question is clear.

Fewer prototype iterations
Faster design decisions
Reduced thermal and fluid risk

Discuss an engineering problem Electronics thermal management

Or email sensio.juan@gmail.com

What a study is for

1
Diagnose hotspots, recirculation and restrictions.
2
Compare fan, vent, heatsink or layout alternatives.
3
Decide the next hardware change with a written recommendation.

The deliverable is a design decision, not a gallery of CFD plots.

Initial specialization

Electronics thermal management

The first vertical is electronics cooling for product teams: understand why a design overheats or starves of airflow, then test the next change in simulation before another enclosure is built.

Open the electronics thermal management page

Overheating and hotspots
Enclosure airflow and recirculation
Fan and vent selection
Pressure loss and flow restrictions
Heatsink, enclosure and layout alternatives
Fewer physical prototype iterations

Productized studies

Three CFD studies with a defined engineering outcome

Each study is scoped around one decision. Prices are not published here; the first step is a technical discovery conversation.

Thermal & Airflow Diagnostic

Work: Baseline model → hotspots, recirculation and restrictions → prioritized engineering recommendations.

Problem: A thermal or airflow issue is already visible, but the mechanism limiting performance is not.
Typical inputs: CAD or simplified geometry, heat loads, materials when relevant, fan or ventilation data if used, and operating or ambient conditions.
Deliverables: Assumptions and model definition, key temperature and flow visuals, diagnosis of dominant issues, ranked actions, and a technical review call.
Timeline: Scoped after a technical discovery call. Schedule depends on geometry, physics and the agreed operating points — no fixed turnaround is published as a guarantee.

Decision: Know what limits performance and which change is worth trying next.

Cooling Design Optimization

Work: Compare agreed alternatives and quantify temperature, airflow and pressure impact before prototyping.

Problem: The team must choose between fan, vent, heatsink, enclosure or layout alternatives before building another prototype.
Typical inputs: A defined baseline, the variants to compare, and the same class of CAD, loads and boundary data used for the diagnostic.
Deliverables: Comparison table for the agreed variants, supporting visuals, trade-off notes, and a recommended next design step.
Timeline: Scope is set by the number of variants and conditions agreed in discovery. Additional sweeps are not started by default.

Decision: Select the next hardware change from a controlled comparison, not from guesswork.

Pressure Drop / Ventilation Performance Study

Work: Quantify losses and flow distribution → identify restrictions → recommend geometry, vent or fan changes.

Problem: Required airflow is limited by system resistance, poor distribution, or an unknown fan operating point.
Typical inputs: Geometry of the flow path, vent or duct details, fan curves when relevant, and the target flow or operating conditions.
Deliverables: Pressure and flow breakdown, restriction diagnosis, variant comparison when agreed, and engineering recommendations.
Timeline: Defined during discovery from the flow path complexity and whether a fan operating-point review is in scope.

Decision: See where losses occur and which geometry or hardware change is worth testing next.

Discuss the engineering problem before scoping a study

A short technical conversation is enough to see whether CFD can answer the question, what inputs are needed, and which of the three studies fits.

Discuss an engineering problem Email Juan

No calendar booking link is published. Email is the contact route.

Process

From product data to a design decision

01

CAD + operating conditions
02

Model setup
03

Baseline simulation
04

Engineering diagnosis
05

Design variants
06

Comparison
07

Decision / recommendations

The work ends with a recommendation the team can act on. Contours and streamlines are supporting evidence, not the product.

Typical problems

When a CFD study is useful

Unexpected hotspots

Components run near thermal limits and the dominant heat path is unclear.

Poor enclosure airflow

Air bypasses critical parts or recirculates instead of removing heat.

Fan or vent mismatch

The installed fan does not deliver the expected flow once system resistance is included.

Excessive pressure drop

Vents, filters, ducts or components restrict flow more than the design assumed.

Uncertain design alternatives

Fan, vent, heatsink or layout options need comparison before the next hardware change.

Too many prototype rounds

Thermal and fluid questions are being answered by trial-and-error hardware iterations.

Inputs

What I need from you

Exact inputs are defined during discovery. The list below is the usual starting point, not a prerequisite checklist that blocks a first conversation.

CAD or geometry at a fidelity suited to the question
Materials and thermal properties when they affect the result
Heat loads and operating points
Fan curves or ventilation information when relevant
Boundary and ambient conditions
Current prototype or test observations, if available

Deliverables

What you receive

The package is an engineering recommendation. Formal certification, notified-body work or laboratory accreditation is not offered unless separately agreed.

Assumptions and model definition
Key temperature, flow and pressure visualizations tied to the question
Diagnosis of the dominant issues
Comparison table for the agreed variants
Prioritized engineering recommendations
Technical review call
Concise report or the deliverable package agreed in discovery

Technical background

PhD-level CFD and numerical simulation

Projects are founder-led by Juan Sensio (Juan Bautista Pedro Costa). He holds a PhD in Thermal Engineering from the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. The doctoral thesis, On the Numerical Simulation of Compressible Flows, covers numerical methods for compressible, turbulent flows.

That background — CFD, numerical methods and engineering simulation — is the basis for the studies on this page. The work is engineering problem-solving for product and R&D teams: diagnose the limiting mechanism, compare defined design alternatives, and support the next hardware decision.

Demonstration

Representative study logic

No client cases, measured temperature reductions or performance percentages are published yet. The sequence below is a demonstration of the working method for a fan-cooled electronics enclosure, not a project result.

Without a focused study Typical reactive loop

1 Prototype overheats
2 Team increases fan speed or opens vents
3 A new prototype is built
4 Temperature changes, but the mechanism is still unclear

With a focused study Decision-driven approach

1 Baseline model used to inspect airflow and hotspots
2 Recirculation or inlet restriction identified
3 Two geometry or vent changes compared
4 Next prototype is a justified change, not a guess

Demonstration of approach only. Not a client case and not a measured result.

Fit

Best fit

Product or R&D teams with an in-house engineering owner
Electronics, enclosures, power or airflow-critical hardware
A thermal or fluid question is blocking design, prototyping or reliability
CAD, loads and boundary conditions exist or can be estimated
Stakeholders who need a decision, not only CFD images

CFD is not the right tool when boundary conditions cannot be defined, the governing physics are outside the model, or the decision depends on factors the simulation cannot see. That is identified in discovery.

Questions

Technical FAQ

Validation is matched to the decision. That typically means documenting assumptions, checking that the model represents the relevant physics, running mesh or sensitivity checks where they affect the conclusion, and comparing against measurements or known data when those exist. Limitations are stated in the report. A model is not presented as a substitute for a formal certification campaign.

What engineering decision is currently blocked?

Email a short description of the product, the thermal or fluid question, and the next hardware decision. The first step is problem definition.