Journal: Advanced Functional Materials

Article Title: Metals by Micro‐Scale Additive Manufacturing: Comparison of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties

doi: 10.1002/adfm.201910491

Figure Lengend Snippet: Studied small‐scale metal AM techniques. Techniques and printed metals tested in this study, including literature values and measured data for the mechanical performance of the printed materials: E : Young's modulus, H : hardness, σ y : yield stress, σ 0.07 : flow stress at 7% strain. For inks, as‐deposited (ad.) and thermally annealed (ann.) metals are discriminated. References in the first column refer to historically important publications and notable review articles. Consult Table S1, Supporting Information, for average values of the mechanical properties of all tested samples including standard deviations. *Note: Pt nanoparticles embedded in a carbonaceous matrix

Article Snippet: [ 54 , 56 ] All structures were printed with FluidFM Nanopipette probes (300 nm opening, Cytosurge AG) mounted on either a FluidFM BOT (Cytosurge AG and Exaddon AG) in the case of pads, or on a FluidFM ADD‐ON (Cytosurge AG) for classical AFM systems (Nanowizard I, JPK) in the case of pillars.

Techniques:

Journal: Advanced Functional Materials

Article Title: Metals by Micro‐Scale Additive Manufacturing: Comparison of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties

doi: 10.1002/adfm.201910491

Figure Lengend Snippet: Small‐scale metal AM methods included in this study and pillars printed by these techniques. Small‐sale AM methods are grouped into transfer and synthesis methods, based on their principle of metal deposition. Subgroups include: Transfer of colloids, transfer of melts, electrochemical synthesis and synthesis via electron/ion‐induced CVD. The SE micrographs show representative pillars printed with each of the techniques tested in this study. As‐printed and annealed pillars are shown if thermal annealing was performed (not the same samples). Samples for DIW and LIFT (ink) are printed from Ag inks, and samples from EHDP and LAEPD from suspensions of Au nanoparticles. The LIFT (melt) pillar is Cu (for Au, see Figure S1, Supporting Information), as are the structures for MCED, the FluidFM and EHD‐RP. FIBID and (cryo‐)FEBID pillars were deposited from Methylcyclopentadienyl platinum (IV) trimethyl (MeCpPt(Me)3). *: Pt nanoparticles embedded in a carbonaceous matrix. Tilt angle of all micrographs: 55°.

Article Snippet: [ 54 , 56 ] All structures were printed with FluidFM Nanopipette probes (300 nm opening, Cytosurge AG) mounted on either a FluidFM BOT (Cytosurge AG and Exaddon AG) in the case of pads, or on a FluidFM ADD‐ON (Cytosurge AG) for classical AFM systems (Nanowizard I, JPK) in the case of pillars.

Techniques:

Journal: Advanced Functional Materials

Article Title: Metals by Micro‐Scale Additive Manufacturing: Comparison of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties

doi: 10.1002/adfm.201910491

Figure Lengend Snippet: Printed pads. SE micrographs of representative pads printed with each of the techniques. If thermal annealing was performed, samples of as‐printed and annealed pads are shown. Metals: DIW, LIFT (ink): Ag; EHDP, LAEPD: Au. LIFT (melt), MCED, FluidFM, EHD‐RP: Cu. FIBID, (cryo‐)FEBID: MeCpPt(Me)3. For Au deposited by LIFT (melt), see Figure S1, Supporting Information. *: Pt nanoparticles embedded in a carbonaceous matrix. Tilt angle: 45°.

Article Snippet: [ 54 , 56 ] All structures were printed with FluidFM Nanopipette probes (300 nm opening, Cytosurge AG) mounted on either a FluidFM BOT (Cytosurge AG and Exaddon AG) in the case of pads, or on a FluidFM ADD‐ON (Cytosurge AG) for classical AFM systems (Nanowizard I, JPK) in the case of pillars.

Techniques:

Journal: Advanced Functional Materials

Article Title: Metals by Micro‐Scale Additive Manufacturing: Comparison of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties

doi: 10.1002/adfm.201910491

Figure Lengend Snippet: Mechanical testing. Nanoindentation and microcompression data of samples printed by three exemplary techniques: DIW (s.t.) representing transfer techniques, FluidFM for electrochemical techniques, and FIBID for electron/ion‐induced CVD. a) Representative pads before (left) and after (right) nanoindentation. The indents are highlighted in red. Tilt angle: 45°. b) Single indentation curves (black) and average Young's modulus E (red) and hardness H (blue) as a function of indentation depth. The solid line is the mean value derived from all measured indents, the shaded area the standard deviation. Elastic and plastic properties are reported from the highlighted depth range. c) Pillars before (left) and after (right) microcompression. Tilt angle: 55°. d) Three representative stress‐strain curves measured for each technique. One curve is highlighted for clarity. *: Pt nanoparticles embedded in a carbonaceous matrix.

Article Snippet: [ 54 , 56 ] All structures were printed with FluidFM Nanopipette probes (300 nm opening, Cytosurge AG) mounted on either a FluidFM BOT (Cytosurge AG and Exaddon AG) in the case of pads, or on a FluidFM ADD‐ON (Cytosurge AG) for classical AFM systems (Nanowizard I, JPK) in the case of pillars.

Techniques: Derivative Assay, Standard Deviation

Journal: Advanced Functional Materials

Article Title: Metals by Micro‐Scale Additive Manufacturing: Comparison of Microstructure and Mechanical Properties

doi: 10.1002/adfm.201910491

Figure Lengend Snippet: Young's modulus E, hardness H and flow stress σ0.07 of printed metals. Element symbols indicate the printed metals. a) E measured by nanoindentation (circles) and microcompression (triangles) for as‐deposited (black) and annealed (red) samples of all techniques. Error bars are one measured standard deviation. Literature data are open symbols. Element labels of FEBID data points refer to literature data. b) H (circles) and σ0.07 (triangles). Hardness data is divided by a constraint factor of 2.8 for a direct comparison with the flow stress. Literature data: open symbols. Note that these graphs intend to summarize the measured data and should not be perceived as a quantitative ranking of the absolute capabilities of the techniques, as future materials optimization may improve the microstructure of the printed materials. c, d) Measured data normalized by literature data for thin films deposited by traditional microfabrication methods (Table S3, Supporting Information). Note that the Young's modulus of thin films E PVD is consistent in literature. Hence, the normalized data for E is representative. In contrast, literature values for H PVD are subjected to considerable variations. The normalized H data should be treated with corresponding care, although we tried to select a value that is most representative of the available literature. References for literature data: EHDP,[ 42 ] LAEPD,[ 43 ] LIFT (ink),[ 47 , 78 , 79 ] MCED,[ 26 , 51 ] FluidFM,[ 54 ] EHD‐RP,[ 57 ] FEBID.[ 22 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] *: Pt nanoparticles embedded in a carbonaceous matrix.

Article Snippet: [ 54 , 56 ] All structures were printed with FluidFM Nanopipette probes (300 nm opening, Cytosurge AG) mounted on either a FluidFM BOT (Cytosurge AG and Exaddon AG) in the case of pads, or on a FluidFM ADD‐ON (Cytosurge AG) for classical AFM systems (Nanowizard I, JPK) in the case of pillars.

Techniques: Standard Deviation