High-resolution tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing

Loterie, Damien; Delrot, Paul; Moser, Christophe

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14630-4

Cited by 248 publications

(287 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

280

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 1 ] The three key technological challenges currently being explored can be summarized as “finer, faster, more”, “implying achieving finer features or smaller voxel sizes connected with better spatial resolution, [ 2 ] increasing the manufacturing speed in terms of the number of 3D printed voxels per second (making the technology “scalable”), [ 3 ] and making accessible more dissimilar materials as well as complex 3D multimaterial architectures. [ 4,5 ] In the ongoing quest for the advanced 3D printing technology, optics‐based approaches play a prominent role, including one‐photon‐absorption based (nonscanning) parallel projection technologies, [ 6–8 ] computed axial lithography as an inverse tomography approach based on multiple 2D optical one‐photon exposures from multiple different directions, [ 9,10 ] and different forms of multiphoton‐absorption 3D printing, [ 11–16 ] mostly based on femtosecond or picosecond pulsed lasers. Two‐photon lithography has been pioneered by Maruo et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitive Photoresists for Rapid Multiphoton 3D Laser Micro‐ and Nanoprinting

Wegener

Hahn

Nardi

et al. 2020

Advanced Optical Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

parallel projection technologies, [6-8] computed axial lithography as an inverse tomography approach based on multiple 2D optical one-photon exposures from multiple different directions, [9,10] and different forms of multiphoton-absorption 3D printing, [11-16] mostly based on femtosecond or picosecond pulsed lasers. Twophoton lithography has been pioneered by Maruo et al. in 1997. [17] In a few exceptions, continuous-wave (cw) lasers have been used. [18,19] Going "faster" can mean scanning a single focus faster, [20] adapting multiple foci approaches, [21,22] scanning multiple foci faster, [3] or printing more voxels/ pixels in parallel per unit time in projection-based approaches without scanning in the focal plane, [6,7,9,10,12] yet scanning normal to the focal plane. In any case, increasing the printing rate is inherently connected to either using more laser power and the same photoresist, or to using comparable or less laser power by exploiting optimized more sensitive photoresists. As femtosecond or picosecond laser power is a precious commodity associated with a considerable fraction of the cost of most advanced 3D multiphoton laser printers, we dedicate the main part of this contribution to a screening of sensitive multiphoton-absorption-based photo resists. These photoresists are either taken from the published literature, reproduced and remeasured in our labs, or are newly investigated herein as promising candidates. Driven by recent advances in rapid multiphoton single-focus 3D laser nanoprinting, multifocus variants thereof, and projection-based multiphoton 3D laser nanoprinting, the necessary average total laser powers from femtosecond laser oscillators or even from amplified femtosecond laser systems have exceeded the Watt level. Aiming at ever faster 3D printing, there exist two options: Using yet more powerful lasers or searching for more sensitive photoresists allowing for higher speeds at comparable or lower power levels. Here, altogether more than 70 different photoresists from the literature and a few new candidates are reviewed with regard to effective multiphoton sensitivity. A dimensionless sensitivity figure-of-merit allows to directly compare data taken under sometimes vastly different conditions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitive Photoresists for Rapid Multiphoton 3D Laser Micro‐ and Nanoprinting

Wegener

Hahn

Nardi

et al. 2020

Advanced Optical Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…supra). Ce principe étant défini, si la pièce est creuse, il sera probablement délicat dřespérer éliminer des supports internes par des méthodes mécaniques, ce qui conduit à travailler avec des machines spéciales adaptées à des multi-matériaux ou ne nécessitant pas de supports (Shusteff et al, 2017 ;Loterie, Delrot et Moser, 2019 ; Kelly, 2019 ; André, Gallais et Amra, 2016).…”

Section: Intervention De Supports Durant La Construction De L'objetunclassified

“…Ces technologies utilisent en général une seule source pour n voxels (lřobjet) et évitent dřintroduire des supports dans le processus de numérisation (cf. par exemple Amra et al, 2019 ;Shusteff et al, 2017 ;Kelly et al, 2019 ;Loterie, Delrot et Moser, 2019 ;Wang et al, 2019). La perte de temps éventuelle liée au processus multi-photonique est compensée par les gains en temps calcul et en élimination physique des supports.…”

Section: L'impression 3d Volumiqueunclassified

L’émergence silencieuse de la complexité en impression 3D

André¹

2020

Entropie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inventé en 1984 en quelques jours, le concept de fabrication additive s'est développé assez rapidement pour atteindre un marché de l'ordre de 40 Milliards €/an avec un taux d'augmentation annuel de 20%. Si la première technologie a été la polymérisation résolue dans l'espace de résines induite par de la lumière, d'autres modes de fabrication ont vu le jour depuis cette date fondatrice permettant la réalisation d'objets dans de multiples matières. A partir des premières preuves de concept, des améliorations incrémentales mono-disciplinaires ont été menées conduisant au succès actuel. Aujourd'hui d'autres espaces applicatifs se dessinent en exploitant l'aptitude de certains matériaux à changer de forme (et de fonctionnalité) en présence d'une stimulation. C'est ainsi que sont nées deux technologies soeurs, l'impression 4D et le bio-printing avec des marchés potentiels de l'ordre de plusieurs milliers de milliards €/an. Mais, pour que ces transitions aient le succès espéré, il faut accepter d'explorer le compliqué (4D) et le complexe (Bioprinting). Ce constat impose donc une réflexion épistémologique à laquelle les scientifiques doivent impérativement s'intéresser pour tenter de trouver des voies de progrès si l'on veut éviter de se cantonner dans son « quant-à-soi » avec une accumulation de preuves de concepts. Le présent article fait des rappels sur le thème de la fabrication additive, mais surtout tente de montrer comment la complexité s'est introduite silencieusement dans la dynamique de recherche sur le thème, elle-même limitée par une faiblesse numérique de chercheurs et par la difficulté ordinaire des traitements de problèmes inverses et des approches téléologiques en recherche. ABSTRACT. Invented in 1984 in a few days, the concept of additive manufacturing has been developed quickly enough to reach a global market of around 40 billion €/year with a 20% annual growth rate. Although the first technology was the space resolved polymerization of resins induced by light, other manufacturing methods have emerged since this founding date allowing the realization of objects in multiple materials. From the first proofs of concept, incremental mono-disciplinary improvements have been made leading to the current success. Today, other application spaces are emerging by exploiting the ability of certain materials to change their shape (and functionality) in the presence of a stimulation. This is how two sister technologies, 4D printing and bio-printing, were born with potential markets of several trillion €/year. But, for these transitions to be as successful as expected, we must accept to explore complication (4D) and complexity (Bio-printing). This observation therefore imposes an epistemological reflection into which scientists should deeply involve, in order to find ways of progress that avoid confining ourselves to an "autistic conduct" with an accumulation of proof of concepts. This article provides reminders on the theme of additive manufacturing, but above all it attempts to show how complexity has silently enter...

show abstract

“…In 1986, Chuck Hull proposed that three-dimensional (3D) systems applied for a technology of stereolithography (SLA), which attracted the world’s attention and to some extent represented the origin of a 3D printing technology [ 1 ]. Since the late 1980s, additive manufacturing (AM), often referred to as 3D printing or rapid prototyping, has been gradually popularized [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Currently, additive manufacturing for four-dimensional (4D) printing is mainly divided into two categories: Extrusion-based methods [ 5 ], and vat photopolymerization methods [ 2 , 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

4D Printing: A Review on Recent Progresses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the late 1980s, additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, has been gradually popularized. However, the microstructures fabricated using 3D printing is static. To overcome this challenge, four-dimensional (4D) printing which defined as fabricating a complex spontaneous structure that changes with time respond in an intended manner to external stimuli. 4D printing originates in 3D printing, but beyond 3D printing. Although 4D printing is mainly based on 3D printing and become an branch of additive manufacturing, the fabricated objects are no longer static and can be transformed into complex structures by changing the size, shape, property and functionality under external stimuli, which makes 3D printing alive. Herein, recent major progresses in 4D printing are reviewed, including AM technologies for 4D printing, stimulation method, materials and applications. In addition, the current challenges and future prospects of 4D printing were highlighted.

show abstract

High-resolution tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing

Cited by 248 publications

References 30 publications

Sensitive Photoresists for Rapid Multiphoton 3D Laser Micro‐ and Nanoprinting

Sensitive Photoresists for Rapid Multiphoton 3D Laser Micro‐ and Nanoprinting

L’émergence silencieuse de la complexité en impression 3D

4D Printing: A Review on Recent Progresses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About