IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, PACKAGING AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO.
12, DECEMBER 2020 1965
3-D Printing Structural Electronics
With Conductive Filaments
Nathan Lazarus
Abstract— Integrating electronics into the body of complex
structural parts through 3-D printing is one of the most promising
new technologies in additive manufacturing, giving the potential
of lighter weight and smaller electronic systems. Although fused
filament fabrication (FFF) is one of the cheapest and most
widely available 3-D printing approaches available, FFF has
lagged behind alternatives, such as direct write printing for
incorporating electronics into 3-D printed parts. In this article,
complex structural electronics are demonstrated using FFF.
Numerous surface-mount components are integrated into the
printing process for 3-D structures, and electrical contact is made
using conductive thermoplastic filament with and without copper
electroplating for improved conductivity. The electrical contact
characteristics and bridging behavior of several commercially
available filaments are investigated. A circuit demonstrator,
a 555-timer oscillator circuit, is then printed using the process.
Index Terms— 3-D printing, additive manufacturing, conduc-
tive composites, fused filament fabrication (FFF), structural
electronics.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N MANY consumer products from cell phones to comput-
ers, a significant fraction of the total weight and volume is
the physical casing needed to hold the parts together. Being
able to replace this dead volume with functional electronics
has driven recent interest in what is called “structural electron-
ics,” where electronic components and wiring are integrated
directly into the bulk of the structure [1]. Additive manufac-
turing, with its ability to rapidly print complex conductors into
3-D structures, has been a promising approach for making
structural electronics a reality [2]. A number of technologies
have now been developed for integrating electronic compo-
nents into 3-D printed parts, including room temperature liquid
metals [3] and low melting point alloys within printed fluidic
channels [4], laser activation and plating [5], and aerosol jet [6]
or direct write extrusion [1], [2], [7], [8] of conductive inks.
Although 3-D printed structural electronics have become
more widely available, most approaches remain reliant on
hybrid processes or relatively expensive specialized printers
and materials. The technology remains more challenging for
lower end printers. Fused filament fabrication (FFF), layer-by-
Manuscript received April 15, 2020; revised October 19, 2020; accepted
November 10, 2020. Date of publication November 17, 2020; date of current
version December 23, 2020. This work was supported internally by ARL.
Recommended for publication by Associate Editor M. Hoffmeyer upon
evaluation of reviewers’ comments. (Corresponding author: Nathan Lazarus.)
The authors are with the Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate,
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD 20783 USA (e-mail:
nathan.lazarus2.civ@mail.mil; harvey.h.tsang.civ@mail.mil).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCPMT.2020.3038563.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCPMT.2020.3038563
U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
and Harvey H. Tsang
layer extrusion of melted thermoplastics, was one of the earli-
est 3-D printing technologies [9] and remains one of the most
widely used due to its low-cost equipment and materials [10].
FFF printers, such as the Makerbot, are common in schools
and universities [11] and have been a major factor in bringing
3-D printing to the homes of hobbyists worldwide [12].
As with other 3-D printing technologies, there has been
interest in adding electrical functionality to FFF printed parts.
While early FFF printing was based on thermoplastics such
as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid
(PLA), demand for improved material properties and new
functionality has led to widespread printing of thermoplastic
composite materials [13]. Adding metal or carbon particles
to a thermoplastic filament creates a conductive compos-
ite that can be extruded through a standard heated nozzle,
allowing printing of electrical traces and sensors within a
printed part without modification of the FFF printer [14].
A number of conductive thermoplastic composite filaments are
now commercially available [15], and the technology has been
particularly valuable for creating embedded sensors in 3-D
printed parts [16], [17].
However, there have been several major disadvantages that
have limited the use of FFF printed conductors for structural
electronics. The first has been the quality of conductors avail-
able. In alternatives such as direct ink writing (DIW), reactive
silver inks have been developed with comparable resistivity
to bulk silver after annealing [18]. Commercially available
thermoplastic filaments, on the other hand, have resistivities
between four and six orders of magnitude higher than bulk
metal conductors, such as copper and silver [19]. In the past
two years, our group and others have begun to address this
problem through using printed thermoplastics and composites
as seed layers for electro- [20]–[22] and electroless [23]
plating of copper and other metals. With selective plating of
bulk metal demonstrated on FFF parts, it is now possible to
fabricate conductors with performance competitive with the
best alternative 3-D printing approaches.
In addition to the conductors, the other major challenge for
FFF printed structural electronics is in the interface with elec-
trical components. Currently, there are three primary methods
in use for making contact between embedded parts and FFF
filament. For larger scale through-hole components, physical
pressure through mechanical clamping or an externally applied
force has been demonstrated for electrical contact [14]. How-
ever, this approach does not scale easily to more complicated
systems, and it is also difficult for some high-performance
filaments based on softer thermoplastics, such as Electrifi [24].
It is also possible to solder components to sufficiently thick
1966 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, PACKAGING AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
Fig. 1. (a) Part alignment and (b) making electrical contact with conductive filament and (c) and (d) example print, a pyramid with four surface-mount
components (two red LEDs and two resistors), with LEDs lit.
electroplated copper layers on printed parts [21], [25], but
this approach is manual and soldering smaller surface-mount
components is challenging.
For finer pitch surface-mount components, most demonstra-
tions instead rely on silver-loaded inks [26] or pastes [23], [21]
for mounting and electrical contact. This hybrid approach
requires either manual addition of the ink/paste by hand or use
of a direct-ink-writing print head within the process, limiting
the value of using the conductive filaments for the conductors.
Recently, however, there was a limited demonstration that
suggests it is potentially possible to print directly over a
surface-mount component and make electrical contact. In [19],
a single large surface-mount LED (5050 package size, with
widely spaced contacts) was printed over with the high-
performance conductive thermoplastic filament, Electrifi, using
an FFF printer, and shown to light successfully with an applied
voltage.
In this work, for the first time, we demonstrate the integra-
tion and electrical contact to numerous small surface-mount
components using conductive and nonconductive filaments
within the same print. Printed slots are used to align and
position surface-mount components within the FFF prints (see
Fig. 1), with a controlled pause used to allow part insertion
[see Fig. 1(a)], followed by further printing of the conductive
traces [see Fig. 1(b)] and the remainder of the part. The
component embedding behavior of two commercially available
conductive filaments was characterized. While both were able
to make electrical contact, the softer Electrifi filament was
found to sag more when crossing a gap in the print and there-
fore to more consistently contact an embedded surface-mount
pad. Electroplating of copper was also demonstrated to reduce
the electrical contact resistance to the part. An oscillator circuit
with a number of small surface-mount components, including
an eight-pin SOIC-8 package 555 timer, is then demonstrated
using the process.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
II. FABRICATION
A. 3-D Printing
Two different conductive thermoplastic filaments were
investigated for component embedding, Protopasta Conductive
PLA, and Multi3D Electrifi. The Conductive PLA consists
of PLA, a dispersant, and conductive carbon black parti-
cles [27], whereas Electrifi is based on copper particles within
a biodegradable polyester thermoplastic [24]. Each has respec-
tive advantages; the Conductive PLA is relatively rigid and
prints at similar temperatures to PLA and ABS (from 190 ◦ C
to 230 ◦ C), typically allowing easier printing, but is relatively
resistive (15 · cm in filament form). [15], [19]. Electrifi
is the most conductive thermoplastic filament commercially
available (resistivity of 0.006 · cm in filament form) [24]
but prints at lower temperatures (130 ◦ C–160 ◦ C) [19] and
is substantially softer, both of which can make it more
challenging to integrate into a standard FFF printing process.
Both filaments have higher resistivity as printed compared
with their filament resistivity (up to an order of magnitude
or more higher), although the level of increase varies through
factors such as print settings and orientation; the full resistivity
behavior for both filaments upon printing has been studied
extensively elsewhere (see [15]). After printing, the Protopasta
can be contacted directly by probes to measure or apply a
voltage; the softer Electrifi requires the addition of silver paste
or use of screw terminals on the contact points to make a
robust contact.
For the structural layer, two different thermoplastic fil-
aments (Makerbot True Green ABS and Ultimaker Silver
Metallic PLA) were used depending on the printer involved
(see below). Both tested conductive filaments adhered to either
of the structural filaments, and with the exception of the
changes in the needed extrusion temperature, the process was
found to work similarly for both.
LAZARUS AND TSANG: 3-D PRINTING STRUCTURAL ELECTRONICS WITH CONDUCTIVE FILAMENTS 1967

TABLE I
P RINT S ETTINGS

In this work, two low-cost commercial FFF printers, a

Makerbot Replicator 2X and Ultimaker 3, were used; the
Makerbot was used for initial process development, and the
Ultimaker was purchased late in the project both to show
that the process was not printer specific and allow consistent
printing of finer resolution for creating a more complex circuit.
The transition between the printers is clearly noted in the text.
Table I shows the printer settings for each of the fil-
aments/printers. Both printers were used with a 0.4-mm-
diameter nozzle and a 30% hexagonal infill. The filament
diameters for the Ultimaker 3 and Makerbot were 3 and
1.75 mm, respectively. The higher temperature needed for
extruding the Electrifi filament on the Ultimaker is expected
and is due to a narrower heating block for printers from that
manufacturer that requires a higher temperature for printing
the composite filament [24]. Layer heights for all prints for
both printers were set to 100 μm. For the Makerbot, the parts
were printed on a Kapton tape surface, and a raft was used
for improved adhesion; purge towers were also designed at
the four corners of the print (as seen on the print in Fig. 2) to
limit mixing of the two filaments. For the Ultimaker, a blue
painter’s tape surface was used, and the adhesion of the PLA
on the painter’s tape was sufficient that a raft was unnecessary;
the printer also has a feature where the print heads are raised
during the use of the other extruder, so purge towers were not
found to be necessary.
B. Component Embedding
Fig. 2 shows the steps for printing structural electronics,
in this case for the Makerbot Replicator 2X using Electrifi on
ABS. Within the CAD file for the print, slots are designed
such that the top pads of the surface-mount component, when
inserted, will be roughly flush with the top surface of the slot
for contact. The designs are then exported as standard STL
files and imported into the appropriate 3-D printer control
software (Makerbot Desktop 3.1 or Ultimaker Cura 4.2.1 for
the Makerbot and Ultimaker, respectively). The print is then
started and allowed to print normally [see Fig. 2(a)] until the
top of a slot is reached. At this point, the print is paused
and the print head is moved up and away from the part [see
Fig. 2(b)]. The discontinuous surface at this point is due to
Fig. 2. Printing process. (a) Substrate printed in nonconductive polymer.
(b) Print is paused. (c) Parts are placed using tweezers. (d) Conductive
composite filament is printed over the part to lock in place and make electrical
contact. (e) Remainder of the part is printed. (f) Final part showing LED turned
on through an applied voltage.
the underlying fill pattern that is in the process of being
printed over when the part was paused. For simpler prints,
observing and manually pausing the print was possible; for
more complicated/longer prints, an automatic pause was set in
the printer. For the Makerbot, the “Z Pause Height” function
was used to define the time and vertical position of the pause;
for the Ultimaker, several lines were added to the.gcode file
at the desired point to pause and raise the head.
The surface-mount components were then added using
tweezers [see Fig. 2(c)]. While the component insertion
process here was manual due to the low-cost printers used,
components could also be added using an automatic pick-and-
place head as in [28]. After insertion, the printer is unpaused
and continues with the print, first printing the thermoplastic
filament conductors [see Fig. 2(d)], followed by the remainder
of the structure [see Fig. 2(e)]. Fig. 2(f) shows the final part
after a voltage has been applied to turn on the embedded
component, an LED.
III. R ESULTS
A. Contact Resistance
The component embedding behavior for both of the two
conductive filaments was first investigated. Both Electrifi and
the Protopasta Conductive PLA were found to be able to make
electrical contact to surface-mount chips. Fig. 3(a) and (b)
shows an Electrifi trace printed on the side of a spherical print
and making contact to an LED on the top surface, whereas
Fig. 3(c) and (d) shows a planar print showing contact from
the Protopasta filament to a similar LED.
The electrical contact resistance was also characterized for
both filaments to a standard 0805 package surface-mount

Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1968 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, PACKAGING AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020

Fig. 3. (a) Printed part with embedded LED and vertical Electrifi vias.
(b) With LED turned on. (c) Printed Protopasta Conductive PLA traces to an
LED. (d) After applied voltage.

resistor; 0805 sized surface-mount resistors have lateral dimen-

sions 2.0 mm × 1.2 mm, and the chips here have pads on the
two flat pads on either end of the top surface, with dimensions
of each pad approximately 1.2 mm × 0.35 mm. Four-point
resistance test structures [see Fig. 4(a)] were printed for each
filament. The testing region consists of traces 1.5 mm ×
1.5 mm in cross section and a total of 15 mm in length (7.5 mm
on either side of the component for the embedded component).
In all cases, three samples were measured, and the average
and standard deviation are reported. For the embedded cases,
a resistor with a relatively low resistance (1 ) was used in
all cases, and the embedded component resistance is included
in the reported value.
For the traces without embedded chips, the total measured
resistance was (1.09 ± 0.12) and (543 ± 10)  for the Electrifi
and Protopasta filaments, respectively. With embedded resistor,
the resistance rose to (47.5 ± 9.9) and (3140 ± 2420)  for
the Electrifi and Protopasta, respectively. Since each contains
two contacts (one to either end of the resistor), in addition to
the added resistance of the component, the contact resistance
to each pad is roughly 23 and 1.3k  for the Electrifi and
Protopasta, respectively.
Previously, our group has demonstrated electroplating of
Fig. 4. (a) Contact resistance test structures for Electrifi; top and bottom are
copper on Electrifi to improve electrical conductivity [21]. print with and without embedded resistor, respectively. (b) Copper electroplat-
In this work, parts were printed and plated to investigate ing test samples after electroplating; left and right are print with and without
the effects of electroplating on the electrical contact to embedded resistor, respectively. (c) Yield test for Protopasta Conductive PLA
with ten embedded resistors. All scale bars are 1 cm.
an embedded surface-mount component. The same contact
test geometries were used, with an additional conductor
extending to allow for electrical contact while being dipped
into electroplating solution [see Fig. 4(b)]. Parts were then (0.013 ± 0.004)  for the samples with and without a
electroplated in a copper electroplating solution consisting component, respectively. The contact resistance to each pad,
of 160 mL of water, 40 mL of 96% by weight sulfuric therefore, dropped to approximately 2.5  after copper elec-
acid, and 20 g of copper sulfate. The parts were positioned troplating, a reduction of an order of magnitude. While the
roughly 35 mm from a sacrificial copper anode and plated contact point between the Electrifi and the embedded part is
for a total of 1.1 Amp· min (Ampere minutes) at a current partially obscured since the Electrifi rests on the top surface of
density of between 20 and 80 mA/mm2 , which based on our the pad, these results show that it remains possible to reduce
prior plating characterization in [21] corresponds to a plated the contact resistance through electroplating.
copper thickness of approximately 20 μm. Three samples with There were substantial differences in the yield and reliability
and without embedded 1- resistor were again measured. of contacting parts using the two filaments. With the correct
The measured resistance after plating was (5.9 ± 0.93) and slot sizing, the Electrifi was found to be capable of consistent

Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
LAZARUS AND TSANG: 3-D PRINTING STRUCTURAL ELECTRONICS WITH CONDUCTIVE FILAMENTS 1969

and repeatable contact to embedded components, with the vast

majority of contacts successful (allowing complete circuits
with numerous individual contacts such as the 555 timer
to be printed). Component embedding with the Protopasta
was found to be possible, as with the LED in the figure,
but was found to less reliable. To quantify this behavior,
a simple test structure consisting of a series of embedded
0805 package surface-mount resistors, all with value 1 ,
were printed [see Fig. 4(c)]. For the Electifi filament, all
ten chips were successfully embedded with solid electrical
contact across the resistor (meaning that both sides of the
resistors were successfully contacted, so a total of twenty
electrical connections were made without fail). The structure
is designed for two-point electrical continuity testing rather
than precise resistance measurements (the screw terminals for
making contact to the Electrifi have their own substantial
resistance, which unlike the prior test is not being addressed
here through a four-point measurement), but the measured
resistance in all cases was on the order of tens to a few
hundreds of ohms. For the Protopasta Conductive PLA, eight
of the ten resistors were contacted successfully (resistance less
than a few tens of k); two of the resistor paths measured
as open circuits. This result means that at least two (and
potentially up to four) of the electrical contacts failed out of
the 20 attempted, giving a contact yield of no better than 90%
for the conductive PLA.

B. Bridging
To understand the reasons for this difference in printing
yield, the bridging behavior of the two filaments was inves-
tigated. For each conductive filament, a part was printed in
ABS with a series of gaps of differing widths and subsequently
bridged with a line of conductive filament eight layers thick
and 1 mm wide. Both were capable of bridging a sizeable gap
(to at least 2-mm designed spacing, the largest tested). The
Electrifi, however, is a substantially softer filament, with thin
layers less able to support their own weight; the printed trace,
therefore, sags down into the gap, as is clearly evident in the
side view [see Fig. 5(a)]. The Protopasta filament bridges the
gap far better, with minimal sag [see Fig. 5(b)]. The degree
of sag for each type of filament was characterized optically
for a range of different gaps [see Fig. 5(c)], with at least three
gaps measured for each data point, and the average gap width
measured optically for each set of data points; the average
gap was consistently several hundred micrometers narrower
than designed due to spreading of the thermoplastic upon
extrusion.
The component embedding process here is based on placing
components roughly at the top surface of a gap and relying
on flow of the extruded filament to conform to the pad and
make a robust contact. FFF typically results in a relatively
rough surface finish, up to several hundred micrometers (as
seen in the cross sections in Fig. 5); this roughness results in
a similar level of variability in the component position and
the height of the gap edges. Since the Protopasta filament
bridges the gaps very well, with vertical sag on the order
of a hundred micrometers, the extruded material likely does
Fig. 5. Printed (a) Electrifi and (b) Protopasta Conductive PLA trace (1 mm
wide, eight layers thick) crossing designed gap of 1 mm (scale bar is 1 mm),
and (c) measured sag depth.
not always make a robust contact to an embedded part.
The Electrifi, on the other hand, sags hundreds of micrometers
more for gaps the size of the surface-mount components used,
resulting in the filament conforming well to the top surface of
the part and giving a solid electrical contact.
C. 555 Timer Circuit
Simple oscillators based on the 555 timer IC have been
a common example circuit within the 3-D printing commu-
nity [8], [21], [23] since it requires a modest number of com-
ponents and provides a clear visual indication of functionality.
The small outline integrated circuit (SOIC) eight-pin surface-
mount version of the 555 timer requires an independent
connection to seven pins without shorting, with a pin pitch of
only 1.27 mm; note that one of the eight pins of the package is
not used for the oscillator circuit here. Due to the narrow pin
spacing, the Makerbot was found to be unable to consistently
avoid shorting, and the Ultimaker 3 with Electrifi was instead
used. The tendency of Electrifi to conform to the pints of the
embedded part can be seen clearly in Fig. 6(a). Even though

Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1970 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, PACKAGING AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
Fig. 6. (a) Side view of embedded SOIC-8 package(scale bar 2 mm) and
SOIC lead. (b) Side view. (c) End-on view CT scans of individual pin interface
(scale bars 500 μm).
Fig. 7. (a) Embedded SOIC-8 integrated circuit (scale bar 5 mm). (b) and
(c) 555 astable oscillator circuit (scale bar 1 cm). (d) Oscillator output voltage.
the pins of the package are a layer or two (i.e., 100–200 mm)
below the top surface of the print, the Electrifi flows around
the pin to make contact. To further verify this, the interface
was imaged using a CT scanner (Zeiss Xradia 510 Versa)
[see Fig. 6(b) and (c)], showing close, conformal contact
between the Electrifi and the pin without any evident voids.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE II
L ITERATURE S URVEY OF C OMPOSITE F ILAMENT
E LECTRICAL C OMPONENT E MBEDDING
Fig. 7(a) shows a top view of an embedded 555 timer; the
designed component slot included slots for the individual pins
of the IC for alignment, and there was no evident shorting in
the print. A complete 555 astable oscillator was then printed
[see Fig. 7(b)], consisting of a total of five surface-mount
components (the 555 timer, two resistors, a capacitor, and
an LED). The 555 timer circuit requires 15 distinct electrical
contacts to be made to individual surface-mount pads without
shorting. Several of the connections also required electrical
traces to cross an embedded component [or instance, across
the back of the 555 timer IC in Fig. 7(b)], and the Electrifi was
found to adhere sufficiently well to the components to allow
these connections. Fig. 7(c) shows the circuit in operation, and
Fig. 7(d) shows the oscillator output waveform demonstrating
functionality.
IV. D ISCUSSION
This work presents the first multipart system made using
direct printing of filament onto embedded components.
LAZARUS AND TSANG: 3-D PRINTING STRUCTURAL ELECTRONICS WITH CONDUCTIVE FILAMENTS
Our demonstration of an oscillator, including a multipin
surface-mount IC, is also at a similar or greater level of
complexity to the most advanced systems in the literature for
thermoplastic printing, with up to ten components successfully
integrated and contacted. Table II shows a survey of notable
examples of electrical part embedding using FFF. Despite its
promise in reducing cost and improving accessibility of 3-D
printed structural electronics, component embedding using
FFF is relatively immature compared with other approaches.
Until relatively recently, the focus of most work in the area was
on filament conductivity and resulting LED demonstrators, and
before 2018, the authors were unable to find examples of
more complex systems using thermoplastic conductors. The
shift toward more complicated circuits likely resulted from
the increasing availability of higher performance conductors
such as Electrifi to the community, and our work is a notable
milestone toward achieving true structural electronics using
this approach.
V. C ONCLUSION
FFF is one of the most widely used 3-D printing tech-
nologies, and the low cost and accessibility of FFF make
it common in the consumer and hobbyist markets. This
work demonstrates for the first time the ability to integrate
numerous surface-mount components directly into the printing
process for filament-based printing. The process was both
characterized, and an oscillator circuit was demonstrated as
a representative complex circuit possible in the technology.
Enabling the hobbyists to easily add complex electronics to 3-
D printed parts, a technology previously limited to those with
access to specialized printers, could be revolutionary. It is now
feasible for even a nonspecialist to print structural electronics
in a university makerspace or potentially even in the comfort
of their own home.
We envision the use of this manufacturing technology to
enable more complex circuits to be implemented in FFF.
Filament-based electronics is still a relatively new technology,
and there remains a significant need to better understand the
resulting circuit performance. For future work, we therefore
suggest that there would be significant impact for follow
on investigations on functional circuit behavior for circuits
printed using conductive thermoplastics. Possible studies could
include noise analysis, thermal performance, reliability, current
carrying capacity, and RF characteristics.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. MacDonald et al., “3D printing for the rapid prototyping of
structural electronics,” IEEE Access, vol. 2, pp. 234–242, 2014,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2311810.
[2] A. Joe Lopes, E. MacDonald, and R. B. Wicker, “Integrating stereolitho-
graphy and direct print technologies for 3D structural electronics fabri-
cation,” Rapid Prototyping J., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 129–143, Mar. 2012,
doi: 10.1108/13552541211212113.
[3] H. Ota et al., “3D printed ‘Earable’ smart devices for real-time detection
of core body temperature,” ACS Sensors, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 990–997,
Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1021/acssensors.7b00247.
[4] J. P. Swensen, L. U. Odhner, B. Araki, and A. M. Dollar, “Printing
three-dimensional electrical traces in additive manufactured parts for
injection of low melting temperature metals,” J. Mech. Robot., vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 021004-1–021004-10, May 2015, doi: 10.1115/1.4029435.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1971
[5] M. Borges, “Conductive traces on 3D metal parts: Powder coating for
laser direct structuring applications,” Laser Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 4,
pp. 48–51, 2014, doi: 10.1002/latj.201400039.
[6] J. A. Paulsen, M. Renn, K. Christenson, and R. Plourde, “Printing
conformal electronics on 3D structures with aerosol jet technology,”
in Proc. Future Instrum. Int. Workshop (FIIW) Proc., Gatlinburg, TN,
USA, Oct. 2012, pp. 1–4.
[7] J. Li et al., “Hybrid additive manufacturing of 3D electronic systems,”
J. Micromech. Microeng., vol. 26, no. 10, 2016, Art. no. 105005,
doi: 10.1088/0960-1317/26/10/105005.
[8] G. T. Carranza, U. Robles, C. L. Valle, J. J. Gutierrez, and
R. C. Rumpf, “Design and hybrid additive manufacturing of
3-D/volumetric electrical circuits,” IEEE Trans. Compon., Packag.,
Manuf. Technol., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1176–1183, Dec. 2019, doi:
10.1109/TCPMT.2019.2892389.
[9] R. D. Sochol et al., “3D printed microfluidics and microelec-
tronics,” Microelectron. Eng., vol. 189, pp. 52–68, Apr. 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.mee.2017.12.010.
[10] H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, and G. Chryssolouris, “Additive manu-
facturing methods and modelling approaches: A critical review,” Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 83, nos. 1–4, pp. 389–405, Mar. 2016,
doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2.
[11] T. Barrett et al., “A review of university maker spaces,” in Proc. ASEE
Annu. Conf. Expo. Proc., Seattle, WA, USA, 2015, pp. 1–5.
[12] I. Mohomed and P. Dutta, “THE age of DIY and dawn of the maker
movement,” GetMobile: Mobile Comput. Commun., vol. 18, no. 4,
pp. 41–43, Jan. 2015.
[13] X. Wang, M. Jiang, Z. Zhou, J. Gou, and D. Hui, “3D printing of
polymer matrix composites: A review and prospective,” Compos. B,
Eng., vol. 110, pp. 442–458, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.
2016.11.034.
[14] S. J. Leigh, R. J. Bradley, C. P. Purssell, D. R. Billson, and
D. A. Hutchins, “A simple, low-cost conductive composite material for
3D printing of electronic sensors,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 11, Nov. 2012,
Art. no. e49365, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049365.
[15] H. Watschke, K. Hilbig, and T. Vietor, “Design and characteriza-
tion of electrically conductive structures additively manufactured by
material extrusion,” Appl. Sci., vol. 9, no. 4, p. 779, Feb. 2019,
doi: 10.3390/app9040779.
[16] M. Sajid, J. Z. Gul, S. W. Kim, H. B. Kim, K. H. Na, and
K. H. Choi, “Development of 3D-printed embedded temperature sen-
sor for both terrestrial and aquatic environmental monitoring robots,”
3D Printing Additive Manuf., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 160–169, Jun. 2018,
doi: 10.1089/3dp.2017.0092.
[17] S. Lathers, M. Mousa, and J. La Belle, “Additive manufacturing
fused filament fabrication three-dimensional printed pressure sensor
for prosthetics with low elastic modulus and high filler ratio filament
composites,” 3D Printing Additive Manuf., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 30–40,
Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1089/3dp.2016.0051.
[18] S. B. Walker and J. A. Lewis, “Reactive silver inks for patterning
high-conductivity features at mild temperatures,” J. Amer. Chem. Soc.,
vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 1419–1421, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1021/ja209267c.
[19] P. F. Flowers, C. Reyes, S. Ye, M. J. Kim, and B. J. Wiley, “3D
printing electronic components and circuits with conductive thermo-
plastic filament,” Additive Manuf., vol. 18, pp. 156–163, Dec. 2017,
doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2017.10.002.
[20] K. Angel, H. H. Tsang, S. S. Bedair, G. L. Smith, and N. Lazarus,
“Selective electroplating of 3D printed parts,” Additive Manuf., vol. 20,
pp. 164–172, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.01.006.
[21] N. Lazarus, S. S. Bedair, S. H. Hawasli, M. J. Kim, B. J. Wiley,
and G. L. Smith, “Selective electroplating for 3D-printed electronics,”
Adv. Mater. Technol., vol. 4, no. 8, Aug. 2019, Art. no. 1900126,
doi: 10.1002/admt.201900126.
[22] E. Vaneckova et al., “Copper electroplating of 3D printed composite
electrodes,” J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 858, Feb. 2020, Art. no. 113763,
doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2019.113763.
[23] J. Li, Y. Wang, G. Xiang, H. Liu, and J. He, “Hybrid additive man-
ufacturing method for selective plating of freeform circuitry on 3D
printed plastic structure,” Adv. Mater. Technol., vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2019,
Art. no. 1800529, doi: 10.1002/admt.201800529.
[24] (2019). Electrifi FAQs. [Online]. Available: https://Multi3Dllc.com/faqs
[25] M. J. Kim et al., “One-step electrodeposition of copper on conductive
3D printed objects,” Additive Manuf., vol. 27, pp. 318–326, May 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.016.
1972 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, PACKAGING AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
[26] C. Cao et al., “Methodology for the additive manufacture of embedded
conductive paths connecting microelectromechanical sensors using con-
ductive and flexible filaments with extrusion devices,” Rapid Prototyping
J., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 349–359, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1108/RPJ-03-2019-
0058.
[27] M. Ibrahim, Y. Mogan, S. N. S. Jamry, and R. Periyasamy, “Resistivity
study on conductive composite filament for freeform fabrication of
functionality embedded products,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 11,
no. 10, 6525-6530, 2016.
[28] A. D. Valentine et al., “Hybrid 3D printing of soft electron-
ics,” Adv. Mater., vol. 29, no. 40, Oct. 2017, Art. no. 1703817,
doi: 10.1002/adma.201703817.
[29] N. Grimmelsmann, Y. Martens, P. Schäl, H. Meissner, and A. Ehrmann,
“Mechanical and electrical contacting of electronic components on tex-
tiles by 3D printing,” Procedia Technol., vol. 26, pp. 66–71, Dec. 2016,
doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2016.08.010.
[30] S. W. Kwok, K. Goh, Z. Tan, S. Tan, and W. Tjiu, “Electrically
conductive filament for 3D-printed circuits and systems,” Appl. Mater.
Today, vol. 9, pp. 167–175, Dec. 2017.
[31] J. O. Thostenson et al., “Integrated flexible conversion circuit between
a flexible photovoltaic and supercapacitors for powering wearable sen-
sors,” J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 165, pp. B3122–B3129, Apr. 2018,
doi: 10.1149/2.0141808jcs.
[32] Z. Lei et al., “Fabrication of highly electrical conductive composite
filaments for 3D-printing circuits,” J. Mater. Sci., vol. 53, no. 20,
pp. 14495–14505, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10853-018-2645-1.
[33] B. Podsiadly, A. Skalski, B. Walpuski, P. Walter, and M. Sloma, “Elec-
trically conductive acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)/copper com-
posite filament for fused deposition modeling,” Proc. SPIE, vol. 10808,
Oct. 2018, Art. no. 1080856, doi: 10.1117/12.2501546.
[34] K. Kutuniva, J. Mäkikangas, A. Mustakangas, T. Rautio, J. Kumpula,
and K. Mäntyjärvi, “DFAM based multi-material 3D printing using con-
ductive and flexible filaments,” Key Eng. Mater., vol. 786, pp. 364–370,
Oct. 2018, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.786.364.
[35] Z. Lei et al., “Novel electrically conductive composite filaments
based on Ag/saturated polyester/polyvinyl butyral for 3D-printing cir-
cuits,” Composites Sci. Technol., vol. 180, pp. 44–50, Aug. 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.05.003.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ETH BIBLIOTHEK ZURICH. Downloaded on December 13,2023 at 23:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Nathan Lazarus received the B.S. degree in electri-
cal engineering from the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, in 2007, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical and computer engineering
from Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
in 2010 and 2012, respectively.
In 2012, he joined the U.S. Army Research Lab-
oratory, Adelphi, MD, USA, where he is currently
a Staff Researcher with the Sensors and Electron
Devices Directorate. He has also served as a Part-
Time Faculty Member for several semesters with
George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, lecturing on microme-
chanical systems design. He has authored or coauthored 46 refereed journal
publications and holds 15 patents received or pending. His research interests
include micromechanical power devices, stretchable electronics, and additive
manufacturing.
Dr. Lazarus’s awards and honors include ARL’s Honorary Award for Engi-
neering and the Rookie of the Year Excellence in Federal Career Award (Gold)
from the Baltimore Federal Executive Board. In 2019, he was selected for the
Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) and
the highest honor given by the U.S. government for researchers beginning
their independent research careers.
Harvey H. Tsang received the B.S. degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Texas
at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA, in 2009, and the
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
from the University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso,
TX, in 2011 and 2016, respectively.
From 2010 to 2016, he was conducting research
with 3-D printers for electronics at nScrypt and
Sciperio Inc., Orlando, FL, USA. Since 2016, he
has been an Electronics Engineer with the Army
Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD, USA, where
his research interests include flexible hybrid electronics, 3-D printed radio
frequency devices in extreme environments, photonic sintering of conductive
composites, and multifunctionalization of 3-D printed materials.