Cited by 19Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesManufacturing Process and Optimization

Fabrication of a Stainless-Steel Pump Impeller by Integrated 3D Sand Printing and Casting: Mechanical Characterization and Performance Study in a Chemical Plant

Open access
Hernández, Felix, Fragoso, Alex·2022·Applied Sciences

Abstract

The emergence of additive manufacturing is renovating the landscape of available production technologies. In this paper, we describe the fabrication of a closed vane pump impeller (ϕ 206 mm, height 68 mm, weight 4 kg) by binder jetting 3D printing of a sand mould followed by casting using stainless steel 316 to create an identical copy of a part in service in a chemical plant in Tarragona, Spain. The original part was reverse engineered and used to create a sand mould by binder jetting 3D printing on which new impellers were fabricated by casting. Metallographic studies showed an austenitic matrix with 6.3% of ferritic phase and 40 μm × 8 μm ferrite grains without precipitated carbides. The impeller was put into operation in a centrifugal pump at a polyol/polyglycol plant belonging to Dow Chemical Ibérica SL from October 2020 to April 2021. Process variables related to the pump behaviour were compared with the same variables obtained in previous cycles with the original impeller for three different product viscosities (30, 180, and 500 cSt). At 500 cSt, the average current consumption was 9.34 A as compared with the 9.41 A measured with the original impeller. Similarly, the pump pressure remained essentially constant during process operation with both impellers (3.97 bar with the new impeller vs. 3.99 bar with the old). Other monitored parameters (product flow, tank level) were similar in both cases, validating the fabrication strategy from an operational point of view. This work further demonstrated that the implementation of additive manufacturing technologies in chemical process engineering is a useful solution to fabricate spare parts that are difficult to replicate with other technologies, providing consequent economic benefits.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/app12073539

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies related to microstructural defects produced by additive manufacturing are still sparse, though several mention that the microstructure does not undergo radical changes.

    “Studies related to microstructural defects produced by this process are still sparse, though several mention that the microstructure does not undergo radical changes [54][55][56].”

    From Towards Sustainability in Hydraulic Machinery Manufacturing by 3D Printing (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

    The metallographic comparison (section labeled “Dimension,” page unavailable) reports that the impeller cast using a 3D-printed sand mould had a similar microstructure to the original impeller, with variations described as not considerable. This supports the no-radical-change point for this impeller, but the paper does not establish that studies of microstructural defects are sparse or that several studies found similarly small changes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Gao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Ramanujan, D.; Ramani, K.; Chen, Y.; Williams, C.; Wang, C.; Shin, Y.; Zhang, S.; Zavattieri, P. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput. Aided Des. 2015, 69, 65-89. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Talamona, D.; Mukhtarkhanov, M.; Perveen, A. Application of Stereolithography Based 3D Printing Technology in Investment Casting. Micromachines 2020, 11, 946.
  3. Femmer, T.; Flack, I.; Wessling, M. Additive Manufacturing in Fluid Process Engineering. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2016, 88, 535-552. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Zentel, K.; Fassbender, M.; Pauer, W.; Luinstra, G. 3D printing as chemical reaction engineering booster. Adv. Polym. React. Eng. 2020, 56, 97-137.
  5. Kotz, F.; Risch, P.; Helmer, D.; Rapp, B. High-Performance Materials for 3D Printing in Chemical Synthesis Applications. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1805982. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Maier, M.; Lebl, R.; Sulzer, P.; Lechner, J.; Mayr, T.; Zadravec, M.; Slama, E.; Pfanner, S.; Schmölzer, C.; Pöchlauer, P.; et al. Development of customized 3D printed stainless steel reactors with inline oxygen sensors for aerobic oxidation of Grignard reagents in continuous flow. React. Chem. Eng. 2019, 4, 393-401. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Belka, M.; B ączek, T. Additive manufacturing and related technologies-The source of chemically active materials in separation science. Trends Anal. Chem. 2021, 142, 116322. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Zhu, J.; Wu, P.; Chao, Y.; Yu, J.; Zhu, W.; Liu, Z.; Xu, C. Recent advances in 3D printing for catalytic applications. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 433, 134341. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Chen, C.; Mehl, B.; Munshi, A.; Townsend, A.; Spence, D.; Martin, R. 3D-printed microfluidic devices: Fabrication, advantages and limitations-A mini review. Anal. Meth. 2016, 8, 6005-6012. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Hock, S.; Rose, M. 3D-Structured Monoliths of Nanoporous Polymers by Additive Manufacturing. Chem. Ing. Tech. 2020, 92, 525-531. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Zhao, L.; Zeng, G.; Gu, Y.; Tang, Z.; Wang, G.; Tang, T.; Shan, Y.; Sun, Y. Nature inspired fractal tree-like photobioreactor via 3D printing for CO 2 capture by microaglae. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2019, 193, 6-14. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Ligon, S.; Liska, R.; Stampfl, J.; Gurr, M.; Mülhaupt, R. Polymers for 3D Printing and Customized Additive Manufacturing. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 10212-10290. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  13. Gal-Or, E.; Gershoni, Y.; Scotti, G.; Nilsson, S.; Saarinen, J.; Jokinen, V.; Strachan, C.; Boije af Gennäs, G.; Yli-Kauhaluoma, J.; Kotiaho, T. Chemical analysis using 3D printed glass microfluidics. Anal. Meth. 2019, 11, 1802-1810. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Gyak, K.; Vishwakarma, N.; Hwang, Y.; Kim, J.; Yun, H.; Kim, D. 3D-printed monolithic SiCN ceramic microreactors from a photocurable preceramic resin for the high temperature ammonia cracking process. React. Chem. Eng. 2019, 4, 1393-1399. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Vafadar, A.; Guzzomi, F.; Rassau, A.; Hayward, K. Advances in Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Common Processes, Industrial Applications, and Current Challenges. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1213. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Bandyopadhyay, A.; Zhang, Y.; Bose, S. Recent developments in metal additive manufacturing. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2020, 28, 96-104. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Vaezi, M.; Drescher, P.; Seitz, H. Beamless Metal Additive Manufacturing. Materials 2020, 13, 922. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Kladovasilakis, N.; Kontodina, T.; Charalampous, P.; Kostavelis, I.; Tzetzis, D.; Tzovaras, D. A case study on 3D scanning, digital reparation and rapid metal additive manufacturing of a centrifugal impeller. IOP Conf. Ser. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1037, 012018. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Ponticelli, G.; Tagliaferri, F.; Venettacci, S.; Horn, M.; Giannini, O.; Guarino, S. Re-Engineering of an Impeller for Submersible Electric Pump to be Produced by Selective Laser Melting. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7375. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  20. Shakil, S.; Smith, N.; Yoder, S.; Ross, B.; Alvarado, D.; Hadadzadeh, A.; Haghshenas, M. Post fabrication thermomechanical processing of additive manufactured metals: A review. J. Manuf. Proc. 2022, 73, 757-790. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Lynch, P.; Hasbrouck, C.R.; Wilck, J.; Kay, M.; Manogharan, G. Challenges and opportunities to integrate the oldest and newest manufacturing processes: Metal casting and additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020, 26, 1145-1154. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Sivarupan, T.; Balasubramani, N.; Saxena, P.; Nagarajan, D.; El Mansori, M.; Salonitis, K.; Jolly, M.; Dargusch, M. A review on the progress and challenges of binder jet 3D printing of sand moulds for advanced casting. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 40, 101889. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Mostafaei, A.; Elliott, A.; Barnes, J.; Li, F.; Tan, W.; Cramer, C.; Nandwana, P.; Chmielus, M. Binder jet 3D printing-Process parameters, materials, properties, modeling, and challenges. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2021, 119, 100707. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Zheng, J.; Chen, A.; Zheng, W.; Zhou, X.; Bai, B.; Wu, J.; Ling, W.; Ma, H.; Wang, W. Effectiveness analysis of resources consumption, environmental impact and production efficiency in traditional manufacturing using new technologies: Case from sand casting. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 209, 112671. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Shangguan, H.; Kang, J.; Yi, J.; Deng, C.; Hu, Y.; Huang, T. Controlled cooling of an aluminum alloy casting based on 3D printed rib reinforced shell mold. China Foundry 2018, 15, 210-215. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Deng, C.; Kang, J.; Shangguan, H.; Hu, Y.; Huang, T.; Liu, Z. Effects of hollow structures in sand mold manufactured using 3D printing technology. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2018, 255, 516-523. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Snelling, D.; Li, Q.; Meisel, N.; Willaims, C.B.; Batra, R.C.; Druschitz, A.P. Lightweight metal cellular structures fabricated via 3D printing of sand cast molds. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2015, 17, 923-932. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Gill, S.S.; Kaplas, M. Efficacy of powder-based three-dimensional printing (3DP) technologies for rapid casting of light alloys. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 52, 53-64. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Martinez, D.; Bate, C.; Manogharan, G. Towards Functionally Graded Sand Molds for Metal Casting: Engineering Thermo- mechanical Properties Using 3D Sand Printing. JOM 2020, 72, 1340-1354. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Sundaram, D.; Svidró, J.T.; Svidró, J.; Diószegi, A. On the Relation between the Gas-Permeability and the Pore Characteristics of Furan Sand. Materials 2021, 14, 3803. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Mitra, S.; EL Mansori, M.; Rodríguez de Castro, A.; Costin, M. Study of the evolution of transport properties induced by additive processing sand mold using X-ray computed tomography. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2020, 277, 116495. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Gill, S.; Kaplas, M. Comparative Study of 3D Printing Technologies for Rapid Casting of Aluminium Alloy. Mater. Manuf. Proc. 2009, 24, 1405-1411. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Shangguan, H.; Kang, J.; Deng, C.; Hu, Y.; Huang, T. 3D-printed shell-truss sand mold for aluminum castings. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 2017, 250, 247-253. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Sama, S.; Badamo, T.; Lynch, P.; Manogharan, G. Novel sprue designs in metal casting via 3D sand-printing. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 25, 563-578. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Sama, S.; Badamo, T.; Manogharan, G. Case Studies on Integrating 3D Sand-Printing Technology into the Production Portfolio of a Sand-Casting Foundry. Int. J. Metalcast. 2019, 14, 12-24. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Scime, L.; Beuth, J. Using machine learning to identify in-situ melt pool signatures indicative of flaw formation in a laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing process. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 25, 151-165. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Mitchell, A.; Lafont, U.; Hoły ńska, M.; Semprimoschnig, C. Additive Manufacturing-A Review of 4D Printing and Future Applications. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 24, 606-626. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Vora, H.D.; Sanyal, S. A comprehensive review: Metrology in additive manufacturing and 3D printing technology. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 5, 319-353. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Khalajzadeh, V.; Beckermann, C. Simulation of Shrinkage Porosity Formation During Alloy Solidification. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2020, 51, 2239-2254. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Vander Voort, G.; Lucas, G.; Manilova, E. Metallography and Microstructures of Stainless Steels and Maraging Steels. In Metallography and Microstructures; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2004; pp. 670-700.
  41. Astafurov, S.; Astafurova, E. Phase Composition of Austenitic Stainless Steels in Additive Manufacturing: A Review. Metals 2021, 11, 1052. [CrossRef · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hernández, F., & Fragoso, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Technical Expertise and Support, Dow Chemical Ibérica SL, 43006 Tarragona, Spain
  • Universitat Rovira i Virgili (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Hernández, Felix
  • Fragoso, Alex
Venue
Applied Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-03-30
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
3539
ISSN
2076-3417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4221025665
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Rovira & Virgili repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Manufacturing Process and Optimization
Keywords
pump impellers, stainless steel 316, binder jetting, sand casting, additive manufacturing, centrifugal pump, current consumption, pump pressure, metallography, austenitic stainless steel, chemical plants

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review