Front. Mech. Eng.
2017, 12(4): 490–509
DOI 10.1007/s11465-017-0484-4
REVIEW ARTICLE
Kwok Siong TEH
Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract Direct-write additive manufacturing refers to a
rich and growing repertoire of well-established fabrication
techniques that builds solid objects directly from compu-
ter-generated solid models without elaborate intermediate
fabrication steps. At the macroscale, direct-write techni-
ques such as stereolithography, selective laser sintering,
fused deposition modeling ink-jet printing, and laminated
object manufacturing have significantly reduced concept-
to-product lead time, enabled complex geometries, and
importantly, has led to the renaissance in fabrication
known as the maker movement. The technological
premises of all direct-write additive manufacturing are
identical—converting computer generated three-dimen-
sional models into layers of two-dimensional planes or
slices, which are then reconstructed sequentially into three-
dimensional solid objects in a layer-by-layer format. The
key differences between the various additive manufactur-
ing techniques are the means of creating the finished layers
and the ancillary processes that accompany them. While
still at its infancy, direct-write additive manufacturing
techniques at the microscale have the potential to
significantly lower the barrier-of-entry—in terms of cost,
time and training—for the prototyping and fabrication of
MEMS parts that have larger dimensions, high aspect
ratios, and complex shapes. In recent years, significant
advancements in materials chemistry, laser technology,
heat and fluid modeling, and control systems have enabled
additive manufacturing to achieve higher resolutions at the
micrometer and nanometer length scales to be a viable
technology for MEMS fabrication. Compared to traditional
MEMS processes that rely heavily on expensive equip-
ment and time-consuming steps, direct-write additive
manufacturing techniques allow for rapid design-to-
prototype realization by limiting or circumventing the
need for cleanrooms, photolithography and extensive
training. With current direct-write additive manufacturing
Received November 6, 2016; accepted August 9, 2017
Kwok Siong TEH ( ) ✉
School of Engineering, San Francisco State University, San Francisco,
CA 94132, USA
E-mail: kwok.siong@gmail.com
technologies, it is possible to fabricate unsophisticated
micrometer scale structures at adequate resolutions and
precisions using materials that range from polymers,
metals, ceramics, to composites. In both academia and
industry, direct-write additive manufacturing offers extra-
ordinary promises to revolutionize research and develop-
ment in microfabrication and MEMS technologies.
Importantly, direct-write additive manufacturing could
appreciably augment current MEMS fabrication
technologies, enable faster design-to-product cycle,
empower new paradigms in MEMS designs, and critically,
encourage wider participation in MEMS research at
institutions or for individuals with limited or no access to
cleanroom facilities. This article aims to provide a limited
review of the current landscape of direct-write additive
manufacturing techniques that are potentially applicable
for MEMS microfabrication.
Keywords direct-write, additive manufacturing, micro-
fabrication, MEMS
1 Introduction
Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) has been
around since the 1970s [1] and is a technology character-
ized by its extensive embeddedness in modern life.
Modern MEMS include microgyroscope [2] used in a
cell phone, digital light processor [3] in a projector, inkjet
printer head [4], accelerometers [5,6] for automotive
airbags, lab on a chip DNA diagnosis tool [7–9],
automotive pressure sensor [10,11], radio frequency (RF)
MEMS [12], gas sensor [13], optoelectronics systems [14],
and drug delivery [15]. The most common fabrication
pathways for MEMS are characterized by planar fabrica-
tion techniques that include surface micromachining [16–
18], bulk micromachining [19–21], and LIGA [22–27].
These traditional MEMS fabrication techniques are pre-
mised on silicon fabrication technologies [28], which are
largely adopted from planar semiconductor integrated
circuits (IC) manufacturing technologies––ultra violet
(UV) photolithography, wet/dry reactive ion etching,
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
chemical vapor deposition, metal deposition, wafer bond-
ing, and packaging [28–33]. Each of these highly precise
and specialized processes is typically accomplished by
sophisticated equipment operated by highly trained
personnel in a class 1/100, dedicated MEMS cleanroom.
Oftentimes, patterning of MEMS devices necessitates
multiple photolithographic steps, each of which is defined
by a highly customized mask, making it both a critical and
costly procedure. In addition, the intractable challenges
and limitations of planar manufacturing in making high-
aspect ratio microstructures are becoming increasingly
apparent for larger and taller MEMS devices [34–37].
Aside from LIGA, wet etching, and deep reactive ion
etching [28], the most common means to achieve high-
aspect ratio 3D MEMS structures and cavities is via wafer
bonding [38–40]. By stacking and laminating several
wafers, cavities and through-thickness conduits can be
created via wafer bonding. Nevertheless, bonding process
depends critically on process parameters such as surface
preparation and temperature distribution, and could lead to
interfacial and bulk defects [41–43]. To date, MEMS
remain a high-barrier-of-entry technological field, making
it a viable research area only to well-funded research
institutions with cleanroom facilities, while limiting
research participation by researchers at smaller institutions
with so such facilities. While pay-per-use foundry services
exist [44,45], the prototyping lead time is typically long––
e.g., 2 months for the Multi-User MEMS Processes
(MUMPs), a commercial MEMS prototyping service
offered by MEMSCAP [44]––making rapid design itera-
tions virtually impossible and costly. Further, users are
bound by a set of, understandably, strict design rules in
order for the service to be catered to the widest spectrum of
users at a reasonable cost, a reality that impedes creativity.
The confluence of these challenges creates a ripe
opportunity for the MEMS community to explore alter-
native 3D microfabrication technologies that are at various
stages of research and development. In particular, recent
advancements in additive manufacturing have revolutio-
nized the product design process and significantly
shortened the design-prototype-product cycle as product
prototyping can now be completed via the click of a button
on a 3D printer, instead of having to go through the
traditionally long prototyping process that conventionally
involves special metal fabrication techniques, skilled
machinist, and logistics [46–48]. In light of these
developments, the primary objective of this short review
is to provide a survey of the most relevant mask-less,
direct-write additive manufacturing technologies that can
potentially be added to the MEMS microfabrication
toolbox.
2 MEMS: Materials and processes
While both MEMS and semiconductors contain electronic
491
circuits, the additional requirement for MEMS fabrication
is the incorporation of larger-scale, high-aspect ratio
microstructures that are subjected to dynamic motions,
mechanical stresses, and elastic deformations. For exam-
ple, some routine MEMS structures include pressure
sensing membranes [49,50] that are subjected to biaxial
stresses, internal sensing microscale cantilevers [51] that
are subjected to bending stress, and scanning micromirror
supports [52] that are subjected to torsional shear stress.
Similar to semiconductor IC fabrication, doped single
crystalline silicon or polycrystalline silicon (polysilicon)
have been the mainstay structural materials used in MEMS
microfabrication, as their material properties (strength,
conductivity, high resilience/no stress hysteresis), process
parameters (deposition, etching, bonding, packaging), and
robustness during fabrication are well established and can
be reliably predicted. From the perspective of production,
good process reproducibility, performance reliability and
low unit cost also acted to cement silicon’s undisputed
dominance in MEMS microfabrication. Other non-struc-
tural MEMS materials used include: (i) Insulation/
passivation: Silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, (ii) electrical
conduction: Aluminium, (iii) sacrificial material: Silicon
dioxide. Nevertheless, recent years have witnessed the
augmentation of the material repository to include,
importantly, silicon carbide [53–56], sapphire (crystalline
aluminium oxide) [57], diamond [58,59], silicon germa-
nium [60], metal nanocomposites [61], soft materials [62],
and ceramics (lead zirconate titanate, barium strontium
titanate, aluminium nitride) [63–66].
MEMS microfabrication leverages heavily semiconduc-
tor IC fabrication technologies, which include: Photolitho-
graphy, wet/dry etching, thin film deposition (chemical/
physical vapor deposition, thermal oxidation), back-end
process such as wafer dicing, wire bonding, hermetic
packaging, and testing [28]. Major MEMS fabrication
techniques include surface micromachining, bulk micro-
machining, and the LIGA technique. These days, due to
the advent of deep reactive ion etch, the lines between
surface and bulk micromachining have blurred. Surface
micromachining is an adaptation of the complementary
metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process that has been
the mainstay of the semiconductor industry. Surface
micromachining is fundamentally a thin film addition/
subtraction process that involves thin film deposition via
chemical/physical vapor deposition or thermal oxidation,
photolithographic patterning, and wet or dry etching to
produce the desired forms and shapes. Thin film deposition
on a silicon wafer typically takes place via one of three
routes: Physical vapor deposition (e.g., evaporation or
sputtering of various metals or non-metals), chemical
vapor deposition (e.g., silicon dioxide, silicon nitrides,
silicon carbides), or thermal oxidation of silicon. Once
deposition is completed, a photolithography step ensues,
where photoresist is first deposited via spin-coating, soft-
baked, and patterned by means of exposing the photoresist
492 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509
to UV light via a photomask. The exposed photoresist is
next soaked in a developer to remove uncrosslinked
photoresist, hard-baked, and is ready for the next step,
etching. In surface micromachining, anisotropic etch is
achieved using reactive ions, whereas isotropic etch can be
achieved either wet (e.g., hydrofluoric acid for silicon
dioxide) or dry (e.g., xenon difluoride for silicon or
metals). For bulk micromachining, anisotropic silicon
etching can be commonly achieved using potassium
hydroxide (KOH), ethylenediamine pyrocatechol (EDP),
tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), or deep reac-
tive ion (DRIE) process to create deep cavities, thru-vias,
or moulds [67]. Subsequently, the thin film deposition,
photholithography, and etching steps repeat, if necessary.
Finally, for high-aspect ratio microstructures made of
metal, the LIGA process is generally used. LIGA is a
German acronym for “Lithographie, Galvanoformung,
Abformung”, which stands for lithography, electroplating,
and molding [68]. The key feature of a LIGA process is the
use of (i) thick photoresist, (ii) x-ray or UV light for
exposure, (iii) electroplating process. The two major types
of LIGA processes, x-ray LIGA and UV LIGA, are
distinguished by the exposure source used in the photo-
lithography step. In x-ray LIGA, x-rays from a synchrotron
radiation source are used to expose thick photoresist such
as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), an x-ray sensitive
polymer [69]. For UV LIGA, a more accessible form of
LIGA that uses normal UV light, thick photoresist such as
SU-8 is normally used. Prior to the deposition of
photoresist, a conductive layer, such as nickel or copper,
is deposited on the wafer. Upon exposure of the photoresist
to the light source, the photoresist is removed by means of
a photoresist developer. Subsequently, nickel or copper is
electroplated in the empty cavities where exposed photo-
resist has been removed. Modern day LIGA process can
achieve an aspect ratio (height/width) of 100.
3 Additive direct-write microfabrication
processes
While the current MEMS fabrication processes are
relatively mature and well-established, there exists a
critical need for complementary MEMS fabrication
techniques that: (i) Can be fabricated at atmospheric
environment and outside of a cleanroom environment
without the photolithography steps, (ii) are less process-
intensive and cost-prohibitive for rapid and low-volume
prototyping, (iii) can produce more sophisticated and free-
standing 3D structures without the need for sacrificial
materials and elaborate etching processes. In addition, the
need for richer material choice other than silicon and
electroplated metals also call for alternative fabrication
technologies beyond surface micromachining, bulk micro-
machining, and LIGA processes. Collectively, these
requirements drive the development of microscale direct-
write microfabrication processes that are essentially
scaled-down additive manufacturing processes.
Presently, there exist myriads direct-write additive
manufacturing techniques that could potentially lend
themselves to microfabrication [70–175]. These techni-
ques are generally known as “3D printing” in layman’s
terms, though at the fundamental level, 3D printing is 2D
printing repeated layer by layer. We will review the basics
of these additive direct-write techniques and their
potentials for MEMS fabrication. The scope of this short
review will be limited to the following additive direct-write
microfabrication techniques that already have or will likely
have applications for MEMS: (i) Microstereolithography
(µSL) which includes projection microstereolithography
(PmSL), two-photo polymerization (TPP), and continuous
liquid phase production (CLIP) [70–103], (ii) additive laser
direct-write techniques, which encompasses laser micro-
sintering (LMS), laser-induced forward transfer process
(LIFT), and laser-assisted chemical vapor deposition
(LCVD) [104–142], (iii) ink-/extrusion-based printing,
with particular references to ink-jet printing, direct ink
writing (DIW), fused deposition modelling (FDM), multi-
jet modelling (MJM), electrohydrodynamic jet printing,
3D electrospinning, and aerosol jet printing [143–175].
Table 1 provides an overview of the basic capabilities of
these techniques. These direct write techniques are at
various stages of developments and each has specific
ranges of process capabilities and therefore differing
applicability towards MEMS. Other direct-write techni-
ques, including three-dimensional printing (3DP) and
focused ion-beam direct write (FIBDW) will not be
included in this discussion and readers are referred to
other excellent articles for these techniques [98,175–180].
At present, microfluidics system is the field in MEMS
that is most amenable to direct write microfabrication
using these techniques due to its (i) structural simplicity,
simple/monolithic fabrication and therefore ease of
assembly and packaging, (ii) being less demanding about
materials choice and able to adapt to the prevailing,
common direct-write materials such as polymer, (iii)
generally large dimensions (tens to hundreds of mm),
which is the fabrication sweet spot for many existing
direct-write techniques. Other MEMS structures such as
microcantilevers, microbridges, microcoils, free-standing
structures have been successfully attempted at the larger
(tens/hundreds of microns or millimeter) scale. When
viewed as a collective group of microfabrication techni-
ques, the aforementioned direct-write techniques still have
to overcome some universal bottlenecks and challenges
compared to conventional MEMS fabrication techniques,
such as: Lower resolution, higher surface roughness,
limited materials choice, need for post-fabrication proces-
sing, new packaging requirements, and compatibility with
current MEMS technologies. This short review will
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review 493

examine the fundamental working principles, capabilities,
current technological landscape, and limitations of these
direct write fabrication techniques as applied to MEMS.
3.1 Microstereolithography (mSL)
Microstereolithography (mSL), similar to stereolithogra-
phy, is a direct-write 3D fabrication technique premised on
photo-induced polymerization of a photopolymer by a
finely focused rastering or stationary laser beam. At the
heart of mSL is photolithography using a scanning UV or
near-IR laser spot (~1 mm diameter) as the photonic energy
source, instead of flood exposure as in conventional
photolithography. The photopolymerization process in
mSL occurs via one of two routes: (i) Single photon
polymerization at the UV wavelengths, or (ii) TPP or
multi-photon polymerization at the near IR range using
femtosecond lasers [70–72]. During the mSL process, 3D
microstructures are fabricated in a layer-by-layer manner
through (i) photopolymerization or (ii) photocrosslinking
of photosensitive monomers or oligomers (prepolymers).
The layer-by-layer construction of 3D objects from a
photopolymer was first demonstrated by Hideo Kodama
from the Nagoya Municipal Industrial Research Institute in
1981. Three years later, Charles Hull formally coined the
term “stereolithography” (stereo = solid, lithography =
printing) in a patent application and later founded 3D
Systems Inc., one of the leading additive manufacturing
companies. Building on stereolithography, Ikuta and
Hirowatari developed the mSL process in 1993 that was
capable of fabricating 3D microstructures with high aspect
ratios and curved surfaces [73].
A typical mSL set up (Fig. 1(a)) is consist of (i) a laser
beam source and laser scan head (rastering or stationary),
(ii) a liquid prepolymer bath, (iii) a height-adjustable
sample holder, and (iv) an x-y stage. The laser scan head,
sample holder, and x-y stage are controlled by a computer.
A computer software first deconstructs a user-input solid

Table 1 Summary of various direct-write fabrication techniques that are amenable to MEMS fabrication
Technique Minimum Layer Materials used Maximum Examples of References
line width thickness writing speed microstructures/
MEMS
Projection 0.5 mm 4 mm UV-curable photopolymer; 15–20 mm/h Microrods, suspended [74–76,86,96–100,102,119]
microstereolithography polymer-nanoparticle com- microbeams,
(PmSL) posites (e.g., silica, alumina, microcoils,
SiC, WC, PZT) microlenses,
micro-gripper,
microfluidics
Two-photon 50 nm 100 nm Photopolymers 10 mm/s Microrotors, microos- [71,81,85,99,101,103,116]
polymerization (TPP) cillator, microturbine,
microlenses
Continuous liquid 50 mm Continuous, UV-curable photopolymer 1000 mm/h Micropaddle with [89]
interface production layer-less (TMPTA, Sartomer undercut
(CLIP) (CN2920 & CN981))
Laser micro sintering 15 µm (metal) 1 mm Ag/Cu/Cr/Al/Mo/Ti/Ni 8 mm/h Microgears, [97,105–106,108–112]
(LMS) 50 mm (oxides) alloys, stainless steel 316L, Microsprings,
CoCr, tool steel, ceramics Free-standing walls,
(SiC), Nylon Microturbines
Laser-induced forward 0.5 mm 190 nm Ag, Au, Cr, Al, W, Cu, Ni, 1000 mm/s Microcantilevers, [114–116,119]
transfer (LIFT) Ge/Se, V microbridges
Laser-assisted chemical 0.5 mm 0.5 mm SiC, C, Al, B, BN, Mo 5 mm/s Microhelical springs, [119,131–132,142]
vapor deposition microsolenoids,
(LCVD) microcages
Ink-based printing 20 mm 20 mm UV curable ink 150 mm/s MEMS cantilever, RF [160,167]
antennas
Fused deposition 100 µm 32 mm Thermoplastic (ABS, PLA, 150 mm/s Microfluidics devices [146]
modelling (FDM) polypropylene)
Multi-jet modeling 25 mm 16 mm Thermoplastic (ABS, 150 mm/s Microfluidics devices [161,162]
(MJM) acrylonitrile)
3D electrospinning 2 µm 2 mm Polymers (PVDF, PVP, 90 mm/s Microgrids, [156–158]
PCL), polymer-nanotube microsupercapacitors
composite
Aerosol jet printing 10 µm 25 nm Ink (metallic, polymer, 200 mm/s Strain gage, gas [169,174–175]
semiconductor, sensors, antenna
nanoparticle)
494 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509

Fig. 1 (a) Set up of a projection microstereolithography system. (b) Micro matrix with suspended beam diameter of 5 mm. Scale bar: 200
mm. (c) High aspect-ratio micro rod array consists of 21  11 rods with the overall size of 2 mm  1 mm. Scale bar: 100 mm. The rod
diameter and height is of 30 mm and 1 mm, respectively. (d) Helical structures with the coil’s diameter of 500 mm and the filament’s
diameter of 130 mm. Scale bar: 200 mm. (e) 3D magnetic particle-polymer composite microfan with a diameter of 500 mm and height of
250 mm. (f)–(h) are silica nanoparticle-infused polymer (poly(hydroxyethylmethacrylate), pHEMA) nanocomposite. (f) Microfluidic chip.
Inset scale bar: 200 mm. (g) Micro-optical diffractive structure creating the optical projection pattern shown at the bottom (illuminated
with a green laser pointer). Scale bar: 100 mm. (h) Microlenses fabricated using greyscale lithography. Inset scale bar: 100 mm. (i) Metal-
coated photopolymer micro-grippers printed using microstereolithography, juxtaposed against a 20-pence British coin and (j) a sample
lateral displacement vs. applied potential at the micro-gripper tip. Figures are reprinted with permission from the following sources: (a)
and (d) from Ref. [77]; (b) and (c) from Ref. [74]; (e) from Ref. [78]; (f), (g), and (h) from Ref. [79]; (i) and (j) from Ref. [80]

model into hundreds of single cross-sectional layers via a
process called slicing. The laser scan paths are then
calculated and programmed for each cross-sectional slice.
Next, as the laser spot scans across the adjustable platform
immersed in the photosensitive prepolymer, it polymerizes
the prepolymer on its scan path point-by-point and leaves
behind a solidified polymer pattern on the platform. The
platform is next lowered by a distance equal to the vertical
resolution of the stage, typically 0.1–0.2 mm but could be
as small as 0.1 mm [74], which essentially forms the
thickness of each build layer. The laser scanning process
repeats for the next layer. This process continues until the
object has been completely polymerized. Leading stereo-
lithography companies such as Formlabs uses the inverted
platform approach, where the sample holder is placed
upside down and is fully immersed in a shallow bath of
photopolymer initially. A laser spot is scanned upward
from below, toward the bottom of the UV-transparent
polymer bath. After each layer is scanned, the sample
holder is raised, followed by scanning of the next layer.
The finished product is removed from the sample holder
and soaked in a solution to remove any support structures
that were printed. Due to the point-by-point photopoly-
merization process, this process is time-consuming.
3.1.1 Projection microstereolithography (PmSL)
Stampfl et al. [75] improved mSL further by integrating a
dynamic mask into a mSL system to create an advanced
version of mSL known as projection microstereolithogra-
phy (PmSL). In PmSL, either a (i) digital micromirror
device (DMD) [74,75] or (ii) liquid crystal on silicon
(LCoS) chip [76] is used as dynamic mask and a UV light
modulator. In a fashion similar to mSL, sliced 2D images
are digitized as a bitmap image, which is then transmitted
to the chip to be projected onto the polymer bath. As
opposed to the point-by-point curing of photopolymers in
mSL, PmSL is capable of layer-by-layer curing as each
micromirror in the DMD chip can be individually
addressed and therefore simultaneously projects light to
different locations within the same layer of the polymer.
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
The switching time of the DMD is on the order of 20 ms
[74], significantly reduces fabrication time. The advantage
of using a dynamic mask includes: High display resolution,
high spatial resolution, fast switching speed, and therefore
more precise control of exposure time. All these features
combined to yield a high-resolution mSL system, capable
of producing a resolution of 5 mm [76] and parts having
between 1–10 µm of layer thicknesses [74], which makes it
amenable to microstructures and MEMS fabrication.
Figures 1(b)–1(d) show the capability of PµSL, demon-
strating the fabrication of suspended microbeams (dia-
meter from 5 µm down to 0.6 µm), free-standing vertical
micro rod array (rod diameter = 30 mm, height = 1000 mm,
aspect ratio = 1:33), micro coil array [74,77]. Figure 1(e)
illustrates a magnetic nanoparticle-infused photopolymer
nanocomposite microfan, demonstrating the possibility of
fabricating magnetic microparts using this PmSL [78]. At
the moment, the main challenge of this technique being
that only photopolymers can be used for direct writing.
Zheng et al. [76] did demonstrate the promise of directly
writing oxide (e.g., Al2O3) nanoparticle-laden photopoly-
mer, as well as a two-step fabrication process for hollow
metallic structures (e.g., Ni) via electroless plating or
atomic layer deposition on a photopolymer structure
directly written with PmSL. In 2017, Kotz et al. [79]
demonstrated the use of this technology to directly print
transparent fused silica glass microparts, by incorporating
fused silica nanoparticles into a poly(hydroxyethylmetha-
crylate) (pHEMA) matrix, as shown in Figs. 1(f)–1(h).
Figure 1(i) shows a MEMS micro-gripper fabricated with
PmSL, followed by a sputter-coating process to obtain a
thin layer of platinum for thermal actuation of the micro-
gripper [80]. Reasonable lateral displacements at the tip of
the grippers actuated at different applied potentials are
shown in Fig. 1(j).
3.1.2 Two-photon polymerization (TPP)
In general, the x-y resolution of parts made from mSL is
intimately tied to the laser spot size, which is around ten
micrometers [81]. To fabricate features down to the
nanometer length scale, instead of using short-wavelength,
deep UV (DUV, l = 193 nm) or extreme UV (EUV, l =
13.5 nm) as in current UV lithography technology, mSL
uses longer (UV-Vis to near-IR) wavelengths, but shorter-
pulsed (typically femtosecond-pulsed) laser beam to
initiate crosslinking [71]. Using a 150-femtosecond
titanium sapphire laser, Kawata et al. [82] demonstrated
a sub-diffraction-limit spatial resolution of 120 nm,
enabling the fabrication of a micro-bull that measures 10
µm long and 7 µm high. The non-linear absorption at these
wavelengths spatially confines non-zero exposure to the
focal volume (i.e., the volume where the laser is focused
on), known as voxel, while suppressing exposure to
adjacent volume. This enables free-standing structures to
495
be fabricated [83,84]. In addition, because of the non-linear
absorption at longer wavelengths, the incoming photons
can travel deeper into the material and be confined once
there, to fabricate microstructures of significantly higher
aspect ratios compared to the LIGA process. The
advantages of TPP compared to conventional single
photon deep/extreme UV lithography are substantial:
There is no need for vacuum, expensive optical lenses,
and special photopolymers to handle the damaging short-
wavelength UV lights. Maruo et al. [85] was able to
fabricate microturbines, microgears, and micromanipula-
tors using the TPP process. Using TPP, Nanoscribe GmbH
(Germany) was able to produce polymer structure at tens to
hundreds of nanometers at a minimum resolution of 120
nm and a maximum vertical writing speed up to 100 µm/s
[71,83]. Figures 2(a)–2(c) show compound objective
lenses fabricated by Nanoscribe Photonic Professional
GT 3D Printer, where each doublet lens system has a
diameter of 120 µm and a height of 128 µm [87]. At
present, photopolymers such as SU-8, Ormocere, AZ MIR
701, AZ 5214, AZ, 9260, and AZ 40XT have been used in
this technique and they produce reliable results [88].
3.1.3 Continuous liquid interface production (CLIP)
Aside from its materials choice being limited to photo-
polymers, two major challenges of mSL are (i) the long
fabrication time arising from the inherently slow nature of
point-by-point, serial processing in mSL, and (ii) the
presence of stepped interface between each print layers.
Recently, a new commercial PmSL process known as CLIP
[89] enables continuous, layerless production of 3D
microstructures (tens of mm) and mesostructures (up to
25 cm) at high speed––vertical extrusion speed of up to
500 mm/h (or 140 µm/s), as shown in Figs. 2(d)–2(e).
Figure 2(d) shows a micropaddle having a stem diameter of
50 mm, with undercuts fabricated directly without any
sacrificial layer or support structures. The key enabling
technology in CLIP is an oxygen-permeable window (100
µm thick Teflon AF2400), which creates an oxygen-rich
“dead zone” (20–30 mm) that inhibits photopolymerization
within this zone. Photopolymerization could only occur
above the dead zone, allowing for continuous replenish-
ment of prepolymer below the dead zone and at the
building surface. Instead of a layer-by-layer approach,
CLIP is able to produce continuous, homogenous
structures, as shown in Fig. 2(e). Materials that can be
printed via a CLIP process include soft elastic materials,
ceramics, and biological materials [89]. As a newly
developed stereolithography process, CLIP is capable of
rapidly printing mesoscale objects, and to some extent,
microscale structures in the tens and hundreds of
micrometers. It could be suitable as both a prototyping
and a mass production tool for predominately larger scale
polymer MEMS applications, such as microfluidics for
496 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509

Fig. 2 (a) A compound objective lens (blue) fabricated directly on an optical fiber (red) inserted within a 27-gauge needle. (b) Scanning
electron microscope images of a doublet lenses printed with a 90° piece cut out to provide a better view of the different lenses. Scale bar:
20 µm. (c) An Omnivision 5647 CMOS image sensor with doublet lenses (inset). The CMOS-chip has a pixel size of 1.4 µm 1.4 µm.
Reprinted with permission from Ref. [87]. (d)–(e) Microfabrication with the continuous liquid interface production (CLIP) technique. (d)
Micropaddles with stems 50 mm in diameter. (e) The CLIP process enables fast print speeds and layerless part construction. Reprinted with
permission from Ref. [89]

bioMEMS. For MEMS applications that require high
stiffness and good long-term reliability (e.g., acceler-
ometer), further improvements in materials systems other
than photopolymers, higher resolutions, lower-temperature
packaging process that does not degrade the material are
expected before this technique can become an integral
MEMS fabrication technique.
To date, mSL has been applied in a limited manner in the
fabrication of micromachines [93], microturbines [85],
microgears [85], micromanipulators [85], microfluidic
systems [94], and optical waveguides [95]. Some of the
key limitations are the direct write materials choice since
only photopolymers can be reliably used for fabrication
presently, compatibility and reliability of current materials
with traditional MEMS decives and packaging techniques,
and minimum resolution. While the resolution of mSL is
comparable to current MEMS fabrication needs, but
without the stringent process requirements such as
photomasks and cleanroom facilities, limited materials
choice will likely be the bottleneck that this technology
will have to surmount to be fully adopted in the MEMS
field.
3.2 Additive laser direct-write techniques
3.2.1 Laser micro sintering (LMS)
Selective laser sintering (SLS) is powder metallurgy
technique that was originally developed in the early
1980s by Deckard and Beaman to create casting patterns
out of plastic powder [104]. In a typical SLS system, a
high-energy laser beam (e.g., continuous wave CO2 or Nd:
YAG lasers, 400 W, focused down to a 50–300 μm spot
size [105]) scans the surface of a powder bed that is packed
with metal powders and selectively sinters or melts the top
layer of powders along its path. The sintering process fuses
the powders to form a solid part based on a predetermined
pattern generated from a computer-generated solid model.
After a single pass of laser beam, the bed is lowered and a
roller spreads an even layer of fresh powders over the
entire bed. During an SLS process, the part being made is
supported in a bed of powders and is lowered in a stepwise
manner. As such, an SLS process does not require support
structure while fabricating complex, overhanging struc-
tures. A variant of the SLS process is known as selective
laser melting (SLM) when the temperature is high enough
to melt the powders to form a liquid phase [106]. The
powders used are commonly metals (Ag, Al, Cu, Mo,
stainless steel) or polymers, however, ceramics (alumina,
silicon carbide and lead zirconate titanate (PZT)) can also
be processed using SLS [98,107].
Laser micro sintering (LMS) is a modified SLS process
to improve fabrication resolution down to 10 mm range and
was pioneered by the Laser Institute Mittelsachsen in 2003
[108]. The distinguishing features of the LMS process are
its use of (i) 1–2-micron or submicron-sized powder to
fabricate ceramic or metallic microscale components for
greater resolutions [109], and (ii) q-switched laser pulses
(e.g., Nd:YAG, 1064 nm wavelength, 180 ns pulse
duration, 25 mm laser spot size), which can yield
significantly higher intensity and fluency compared to
continuous wave lasers [106]. The present minimum
achievable resolutions for metal and oxide ceramics are
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
15 and 50 mm, respectively, at a minimum layer thickness
of 1 mm and up to an aspect ratio of 1:25 [98,106]. Metal
powder that can be employed in a LMS process include:
Al, Ag, Cu, Mo, Ti, W, nichrome 80/20, stainless steels
(316L), and WCu alloys. In addition, ceramic powders
such as alumina, silica, and silicon-rich silicon carbide can
also be sintered. Figure 3 illustrates several metal and
ceramic microcomponents fabricated with LMS. These
include (i) tungsten microcoil (coil diameter = 300 mm)
(Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), (ii) coiled tungsten ligament (Figs. 3
(c) and 3(d)), (iii) silicon-rich silicon carbide (SiSiC)
microturbine, and (iv) “nichrome 80/20” valve [98,109].
Other sub-millimeter microstructures that can be fabricated
with LMS include a micro sintered gearbox, a microturbine
for a turbo charger, and 60 mm-thick free-standing wall
[105]. As can be seen, the textures and surface finish of the
microstructures are relatively coarse (surface roughness
~ 35 mm), due to two reasons. First, local inconsistencies in
the compactness of powder bed, plus the fact that
compactness of powder decreases with smaller powder
size, result in limited heat conduction, reduced wetting
between particles, and lower sintered material density.
Second, the recoil pressure of the expanding plasma plume
during laser irradiation suppresses the eruption of a melt
pool, pushes the melt downward locally, and subsequently
causes undulation on the surface, a phenomenon known as
the condensing effect [105]. In addition, the smaller-sized
powders (typically < 2 mm), due to their larger surface
area-to-volume ratios, tend to (i) react more actively in the
presence of humidity and oxygen and bring about a
massive exothermic reaction, and (ii) form agglomerates
readily. To use even finer powders for fabricating smaller
parts, vacuum/oxygen-free, shielding environment, and
special powder handling measures are required to make
micro and nanoparts with good structural integrity and
high degree of densification. For microfabrication with
significantly smaller surface roughness, this technique still
requires improvements in terms of finer nanoparticle size,
better powder compacting mechanism, optimization of
laser-nanomaterial interaction, and the presence of oxida-
tion-shielding mechanism. With increasing ability in
fabricating micron-size parts, LMS is a promising
technique for the microfabrication of monolithic and
free-standing metal and ceramic MEMS components.
3.2.2 Laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT)
Laser induced forward transfer (LIFT) is a direct-write
laser additive technology that has promising potential as a
complementary technique to conventional planar MEMS
fabrication technologies. LIFT was first introduced by
Bohandy et al. [113] in 1986 and was further developed by
other workers into matrix-assisted pulsed laser evaporation
(MAPLE), a variant of LIFT [114–118]. A LIFT system
497
consists primarily of a pulsed UV laser source, a donor
substrate, and a receiving substrate, as shown in Fig. 4(a)
[114]. The donor substrate, also known as the “ribbon”, is
typically made up of a laser-transparent substrate (e.g., a
glass slide) coated with a 1–20 mm thick solid film (metal,
polymer, ceramic, or composite), complex fluids (ink or
high-viscosity nanopaste, sol-gel), or even cell cultures
[119]. The laser beam used are usually ultrashort pulsed
laser with t < 100 picoseconds––generally in the femto-
seconds (fs-LIFT)––so as to minimize the heat-affected
zone and the melt zone––which could otherwise cause
oxidation and irreversible phase changes [119]. During the
LIFT process, the donor substrate is irradiated by a pulsed
laser beam from the backside of the donor substrate. The
donor material absorbs the laser energy, which rapidly
elevates the local pressure and eventually causes the
ejection of a liquid microdroplet onto a receiver substrate
approximately between 25–75 mm away. The deposited
film generally is 30 mm in diameter, with a line width as
fine as 2 mm [120]. Figures 4(b)–4(e) show some basic
microstructures that can be fabricated via the LIFT process
using silver nanopaste [121]. As seen from Figs. 4(c)–4(e),
the LIFT technique is able to fabricate high-aspect ratio
structures by stacking 20 individual voxels to create a 75
mm tall microstructure (Fig. 4 (e)). This technique makes
possible the deposition of a wide range of mainly metals,
including: Chromium, tungsten, gold, nickel, aluminium,
copper, Ge/Se, vanadium, nichrome, and BaTiO 3
[116,119,120]. The minimum resolution for metal fs-
LIFT is as low as 0.5 µm and maximum writing speed is up
to 1000 mm/s. Birnbaum et al. [114] demonstrated the
fabrication of free-standing microbridges (Fig. 4(f)) and
microcantilevers (Fig. 4(g)), each about 460 nm thick,
using silver nanoink as the donor material, followed by
machining via a focused ion beam (FIB). The as-deposited
wet Ag ink was subsequently cured in air for one hour at
250 °C. To date, a good understanding of the influences of
parameters such as optimal laser pulses, laser-material
interaction, and film adhesion mechanism have greatly
improved the quality of films deposited via LIFT.
Massively parallel LIFT process has also been demon-
strated, where a DMD is used as a dynamic mask to shape
the laser beam, such that one single laser pulse can
generate an entire grid pattern [122]. The key limitations at
the moment include: (i) Low resolution and simple
geometry, (ii) shrinkage upon sintering when donor
material is ink or complex fluid, (iii) porosity of as-
deposited material, (iv) limited aspect ratio, as micro-
structures of high aspect ratios would require multiple
passes to fabricate. This said, compatibility of this
technique with a wide range of donor materials, atmo-
spheric-condition operation capability, and the stability
and accessibility of ultrashort-pulsed laser make this
technique suitable for MEMS fabrication.
498 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509

Fig. 3 (a)–(d) 3D microparts produced by an LMS process using q-switched laser pulses and in an oxygen-free, shield gas environment.
(a), (b) Bihelical tungsten coil, 300 mm in wire diameter. Scale bar: 700 µm. (c) Coiled tungsten ligament (35 mm width, 300 mm height).
Scale bar: 400 µm. (d) Top view of coiled tungsten ligament in (c). Scale bar: 200 µm. (e) Microturbine of SiSiC (diameter = 6 mm, blade
thickness = 500 mm). (f) Detail of a valve generated under ambient conditions from 10 mm sinter layers of a 10 mm grained nickel-
chromium alloy powder (nichrome 80/20). Reprinted with permission from Refs. [98,109]

3.2.3 Laser chemical vapor deposition (LCVD)
Laser chemical vapor deposition (LCVD) process is a
versatile additive laser direct-write microfabrication tech-
nique capable of depositing a wide range of materials and
produce parts with complex geometries [127–130]. LCVD,
together with laser chemical-assisted etching (LCAE), a
subtractive technology that is not discussed in this review,
are two high-resolution laser-materials processing techni-
ques [117,129]. A LCVD process typically occurs in a
vacuum chamber where a precursor gas is decomposed by
a scanning laser beam into its byproduct that subsequently
deposits on the substrate. There are two primary laser-
assisted mechanisms through which LCVD occurs: (i)
Pyrolytic LCVD, where the precursor gas does not absorb
the laser energy but is thermally decomposed by the laser
heat on the substrate surface, (ii) photolytic LCVD, in
which the photon energy is absorbed by the precursor
gas––cleaving the chemical bond and leaving behind
deposits on the substrate. The laser used in LCVD can be
focused down to 1 μm spot size. The precursor gases for
metal deposition are generally metal-organic precursors,
such as carbonyls, alkyls, halides, and oxyhalides, whereas
for semiconductor deposition, hydrides, alkyls, or alkyl
halides are typically used. A large group of materials––
including silicon carbide, carbon, alumina, boron, boron
nitride, molybdenum, titanium, tin, lead, platinum, zinc,
cadmium––have been successfully deposited on various
substrates such as silicon, tungsten, zirconia, alumina, and
graphite [117,131]. The resolution of solid deposited on
the substrate is determined by several parameters: (i) Laser
beam spot size, (ii) laser energy density, (iii) laser
wavelength, and (iv) substrate thermal properties. LCVD
can have resolution of 500 nm, deposition rate of up to 80–
100 µm/s [98], and at a writing speed of 0.1–5 mm/s
[119,132]. To date, LCVD has predominantly been used to
produce thin films and as a means for repairing metallic
interconnects. Microstructures that have been fabricated
via this method include carbon microhelical springs (Fig.
5) [133], microsolenoids [134], alumina 3D photonic
microparts [132], and microcages [135]. Growth of carbon
nanotubes has also been demonstrated by this method
[119,136]. The disadvantage of the LCVD process is its
long process time and need for vacuum, however, its
distinguishing feature as far as MEMS fabrication is
concerned, would be its ability to selectively deposit
materials on surfaces that are not planar [133,137]. To this
end, LCVD could be a versatile, niche technique for free-
form microfabrication.
3.3 Ink-based and extrusion-based printing
Ink-based, extrusion-based, or a hybrid of ink/extrusion-
based printings, broadly speaking, belong to a group of
layer-by-layer manufacturing techniques that collectively
represent various technologies that perform the following
tasks: (i) Deposition of liquid or semisolid droplets on a
surface, either directly from a liquid feedstock or via
melting of a solid feedstock, (ii) solidification of the
droplets via solvent evaporation, phase transformation,
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review 499

Fig. 4 (a) Schematic of a laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT) process. (b)–(e) Microstructures fabricated by a LIFT process, and cured
at 70 °C, 1 h. (b) A 5 mm-thick rectangular voxel crossing a 100 µm wide silicon channel. Scale bar: 50 µm. (c) Multilayer scaffold
structure. Scale bar: 20 µm. (d) A high aspect ratio micro pyramid (100 mm  100 mm  60 mm). Scale bar: 20 µm. (e) High aspect ratio
micro pillars made by stacking 20 individual voxels of 30 mm  30 mm area, each 3.75 mm thick. Scale bar: 40 µm. (f) FIB machined
microbridge, thickness = 460 nm. Inset depicts the machined area(s). (g) FIB machined cantilever, thickness = 460 nm. Dynamic
responses of (h) the microcantilever and (i) doubly clamped microbridge as measured by laser vibrometry. Reprinted with permission from
Refs. [114,115]

crystallization, or polymer cross-linking, and (iii) bonding 3.3.1 Ink-jet printing

of the deposited material within the present layer and with
previous layers [143,144]. This printing technology can be
classified into two broad categories, based on whether the
feedstock materials are (i) melted or (ii) not melted prior to
extrusion or dispensing. Techniques in the first category
(melted feedstock) include fused deposition modelling
(FDM), multi-jet modeling (MJM), precise extrusion
manufacturing (PEM), precision extrusion deposition
(PED), 3D fiber deposition [98], and melt electrospinning
[145]. Techniques in the second category (solution feed-
stock) include: Inkjet printing [146,147], direct ink writing
(DIW) [148–152], robocasting [153], 3D bioplotting,
extrusion freeform fabrication (EFF) [153], aqueous
based extrusion fabrication (ABEF) [154], electrohydro-
dynamic jetting [155,156], 3D electrospinning [157,158],
and aerosol jet printing [168]. Several of these techniques
that are of particular relevance to microfabrication will be
discussed below.
Figure 6(a) shows the printing of microelectronics
components using ink-jet printing [147]. The inks that
are used in the process shown contain both metallic (Ag
nanoparticle ink) and non-metallic (poly[(vinylidenefluor-
ide-co-trifluoroethylene)]) [P(VDF-TrFE)] components.
As demonstrated in the example, the ink could be in one
or more of the following forms: Photo-monomers,
colloidal suspension, nanoparticle-filled solution, or sol-
gel in organic or inorganic solvents. The simplest and most
prevalent ink-dispensing technique uses either a thermal
actuator or a piezoelectric actuator to expel the droplets
onto a surface. During inkjet printing, droplets can be
created either as discrete droplets when required (a drop-
on-demand (DoD) technique) or in a continuous stream (a
continuous inkjet (CIJ) technique) with the unused liquid
being recycled. Among the two, DoD is more applicable
for microfabrication as it allows for more control over the
500 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509

Fig. 5 (a) A selection of the different carbon micro-springs fabricated using LCVD. Scale bar: 1 mm. (b) Modulus of elasticity of
LCVD-deposited carbon as a function of laser power (LP) and ethylene pressure. (c), (d) SEM photos of two springs deposited at 400 mW
laser power and 50 kPa ethylene. (c) Spring deposited at a translation speed of 0.5 mm/s and having a deposition rate of 6.75 mm/s and a
wire diameter of 67 mm. Scale bar: 100 mm. (d) Spring deposited at a translation speed of 1.0 mm/s and having a deposition rate of 7.18 mm/
s and a wire diameter of 75 mm. Scale bar: 200 mm. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [133]

dispensing of the material (in the form of discrete droplets
with predetermined volume), and importantly, the volume
dispensed. Currently, commercial inkjet printers such as
Fuji Dimatix material printer are able to print at high
micrometer scales. Figure 6(b) shows an ink-printed
microbattery interdigitated fingers. Inorganic inks made
of LiFePO4 (LFP) and Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) are printed with a
30 µm nozzle onto Au electrodes on a glass substrate. The
printed line width is between 30–50 µm. The as-printed
battery demonstrates a high areal energy density of 9.7
J/cm2 at a power density of 2.7 mW/cm2 [148]. Using ink-
based printing, Lessing et al. [160] fabricated a cantilever-
based MEMS deflection sensor by printing reactive carbon
ink on omniphobic, C10F-treated Canson Vellum paper
using a Fuji Dimatix material printer. The line width of the
carbon ink electrodes is approximately 800 µm. Figures 6
(c)–6(e) show the work by Lewis et al. [152] in the field of
direct ink writing (DIW), a laser-assisted ink-jet printing
technique. In this work, silver nanoparticle ink is being
dispensed by a syringe pump onto a receiver substrate, and
is immediately irradiated by an 808-nm IR laser (100 µm
spot size). The laser annealing process solidifies and
densifies the silver nanoparticles. Diameters of printed
silver wire vary from < 1 to 20 µm depending on the
nozzle diameter, extrusion pressure, and printing speed.
Silver lines (3–5 µm diameter) and silver helical coils (500
µm coil diameter) have been demonstrated with this
method at a writing speed of 500 µm/s on polyethylene
terapthalate (PET) substrate. Mechanical testing of the
coils demonstrated high linear elastic strain of up to 50%.
The success of these ink-jet printing technologies
[148,152] are significant to the field of MEMS as they
demonstrate the possibility of using ink-based direct write
technique to fabricate both mechanically robust free-
standing microstructures (and with overhangs) and the
energy source (microbattery) that power these microstruc-
tures.
3.3.2 Fused deposition modelling and multi-jet modelling
Extrusion-based additive manufacturing is most promi-
nently represented by fused deposition modelling (FDM)
and multi-jet modelling (MJM), both of which have been
the most well-developed commercially among the additive
fabrication technologies. Working in similar fashion as ink
jet printing, except with an extrusion system that heats and
melts the print materials that are usually thermoplastics
such as polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS), FDM has become prevalent at the
macroscale for rapid prototyping and production purposes.
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review 501

Fig. 6 (a1)–(a6) Process flow for manufacturing all inkjet-printed piezoelectric polymer actuators. Electrodes and piezoelectric P(VDF-
TrFE) layers are printed and sintered/tempered subsequently. (a7) Cross-sectional SEM image of layer sandwich. (a8) Cantilever and (a9)
membrane samples mounted. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [147]. (b) Direct ink writing (DIW) techniques developed by Lewis
et al. [152] showing an SEM image of lithium-ion microbatteries printed from LiFePO4 (LFP) and Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) inks, respectively. (c)
Free-form ink printing of hemispherical spiral from silver paste and immediately post-annealed by IR laser. Reprinted with permission
from [149]. (d1)–(d7) 500 µm diameter helical coil going through large extension (strain = 150% in tension) and compression (strain =
–50%). (e) A force-extension curve for an 800-mm-tall helix exhibits a linear-elastic behavior up to 50% strain. Reprinted with permission
from Ref. [152]
502 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509

Fig. 7 (a) Microfluidics components printed from a ProJet 3000HD 3D printer (3D Systems) based on the extrusion-based fused
deposition modeling process. (a1) Fluidic capacitor, (a2) fluidic diode, (a3) fluidic transistor, and (a4) fluidic enhanced gain transistors.
Reprinted with permission from Ref. [162]. (b1) Molds for microelectronics components that are printed using ProJet 3000HD 3D printer.
Once printed, the inner conduits are filled with conductive silver paste to create an embedded conductive structure. (b2) Microelectronics
components after the liquid metal paste filling and curing, including a resistor, an inductor, a capacitor, and an LC tank. (b3) An exposed 4-
turn solenoid coil. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [146]

A variety of resolutions exists for FDM, however, due to
the viscoelastic properties of polymer melts, it is difficult to
produce resolutions that are less than 16 mm––the
minimum layer thickness for a state-of-the-art commercial
FDM printer such as Stratasys Objet Eden 260VS printer.
In the x-y plane, FDM printers are capable of 100 mm
minimum resolution. There has been a concerted effort to
improve the minimal resolution of the extruded part. Due
to the viscoelastic behaviour of molten thermoplastic,
practical size of the extrusion nozzle is generally above 0.2
mm so as to avoid clogging and excessive pressure
required to dispense. As for MJM, a layer-by-layer inkjet
deposition technique that is followed by a photocuring
process, the minimum achievable layer thickness is
currently at 16 µm for ProJet 3500HD Plus [161]. As far
as microfabrication is concerned, FDM and MJM are used
predominantly in creating microfluidics channels and
components, and moulds for microelectronics components
[146,162], as shown in Fig. 7, due to the limit on resolution
and materials compatibility. Improvements are still needed
in this technique to make it feasible for microfabrication
for conventional MEMS devices as it becomes increas-
ingly difficult to achieve uniformity and consistency in
feature size as the dimension becomes smaller.
3.3.3 Electrohydrodynamic printing, 3D electrospinning
and aerosol jet printing
Several nascent ink/extrusion-based or hybrid printing
technologies that have the potential to be applied toward
micro and mesoscale 3D and MEMS construction include
electrohydrodynamic (EHD) jet printing [156], 3D elec-
trospinning [157,158], and aerosol jet printing [159]
techniques, as shown in Fig. 8. Electrohydrodynamic jet
printing and electrospinning are in fact the same type of
process, in that both are fundamentally electrostatic-based
jet or droplet printing system. An EHD jet printing or
electrospinning set up typically consists of (i) high voltage
source (with or without a pulse modulator), (ii) syringe
pump, (iii) ground collector. During EHD jet printing or
electrospinning, high voltage (on the order of 1–20 kV) is
applied to a polymer or conductive ink solution, which are
dispensed from a syringe pump and accelerated toward the
ground collector. The solution could form a fiber or a series
of droplets, depending on if the voltage is continuous or
pulsed. Among the two, electrospinning has existed for a
long time (since 1930s) and is a technique used in the
fabrication of non-woven polymeric fabrics where high
voltage is used to draw polymer solution into randomly
aligned and non-woven nano/microscale polymer fibers on
the ground collector. Due to residual like charges on the
electrospun fibers, strong electrostatic repulsion between
fibers made it impossible to fabricate 3D structures using
electrospinning. Recent advances in the field enable
complete removal of these charges on the fibers and
allow the fabrication of polymeric or polymer-nanoparticle
composite three-dimensional micro and mesoscale struc-
tures as shown in Fig. 8 [156,157]. At the moment, 3D
microstructures fabricated from these techniques are
limited to relatively simple geometries due to the fiber-
by-fiber stacking mechanism. Free-standing structures
(without overhangs) can be fabricated, however, materials
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review 503

Fig. 8 (a) Schematic setup of the 3D electrospinning process and a close-up schematic of stacked 2 µm-fibers made of polyvinylidene
difluoride (PVDF). (b) SEM image of a 10-layer, 3D grid structure constructed on a paper substrate, fabricated at a writing speed of 10
mm/s. (c) SEM image showing the magnified image of the crossover area (white box) of the grid in (b). (d) An optical photo showing a
whole grid structure held by a tweezer after being physically detached from the paper substrate. Reprinted with permission from Ref.
[157]. (e), (f) Multilayered 3D grid structure fabricated by an electrohydrodynamic jet printing technique using polycaprolactone (PCL).
Reprinted with permission from Ref. [156]. (g) An aerosol jet printing system. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [159]
504 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509
choice is limited to polymer or polymer-nanocomposites at
the moment. These techniques could be used to comple-
ment conventional MEMS fabrication in the localized
deposition of dielectric materials and soft, polymeric or
polymer nanocomposite materials, at highly targeted
locations where a ground could be established. The
challenge remains that high electrostatic potential and/or
elevated temperature (melting temperature of polymer)
have to be maintained during the process.
Finally, a relatively new commercial inkjet printing
technology, aerosol jet printing (AJP), aerosol (nanopar-
ticle ink) jet is focused and directed toward a receiving
substrate to form a dot or a line, which if repeatedly many
times, allows the building up of a microstructure. AJP was
also known as maskless mesoscale materials deposition
(M3D) and was formerly developed by Optomec [169]. A
commercial AJP printer can print line width down to 10
µm resolution at a speed of up to 200 mm/s. Figure 8(g)
illustrates an AJP system. In an AJP system, an ultrasonic
or pneumatic atomizer (1.6–2.4 MHz typically) atomizes
the precursor ink into droplets of 1–5 µm in diameter. The
particle is next carried by a sheath gas (e.g., nitrogen gas at
80 psi≈552 kPa), which also focuses the particle to the
center of the jet flow. To date, AJP has been used in the
fabrication of solar cells [170,171], passive electronics
[172], strain sensors [173], and antenna [174]. There has so
far been limited report on an RF MEMS cantilever
fabrication based on this technique [175]. Research and
development in extrusion- and ink-based technology have
seen exponential growth in recent years due to the
unprecedented interest in “3D printing,” however, more
technological advancements are required to make it a truly
viable technique at the microscale level for fabricating
functional, non-microfluidics MEMS. Hence, the field of
extrusion- and ink-based additive manufacturing offers
plenty of research opportunities for the MEMS commu-
nity.
4 Conclusions
The emergence of direct-write additive manufacturing
technologies and the rapid-paced development of such
technologies for use in the micro and nanoscale length
scales are offering the MEMS community a great
opportunity to venture out of the traditional microfabrica-
tion technologies. While most direct-write additive
manufacturing technologies described in this short review
are still at their infant developmental stages to be true
microfabrication techniques, several techniques, such as
two-photon microstereolithography, laser micro sintering,
and laser-induced forward transfer processes are showing
great promises as viable microfabrication technologies. It
would benefit the MEMS community considerably to
partner with researchers and developers of direct-write
additive manufacturing technologies to further research in
direct-write MEMS fabrication technologies. Seeing how
macroscale additive manufacturing has revolutionized
product design practices in the industry, reduced concept-
to-production lead time, and enabled more creativity in
design work, it is easy to imagine how direct-write
microfabrication could benefit the MEMS community.
Importantly, direct-write additive manufacturing could
remarkably expand MEMS fabrication technologies,
accelerate design-to-product cycle, enable more creativity
in MEMS designs, and critically, empower wider partici-
pation in MEMS research by lowering the barrier-of-entry
into the field.
Conflict of interest The author declares that he does not have conflict of
interests nor financial interests in the work presented herein.
References
1. Frazier A B, Warrington R O, Friedrich C. The miniaturization
technologies: Past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 1995, 42(5): 423–430
2. Yazdi N, Ayazi F, Najafi K. Micromachined inertial sensors.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998, 86(8): 1640–1659
3. Gessner T, Doetzel W, Billep D, et al. Silicon mirror arrays
fabricated by using bulk and surface micromachining. Proceedings
of the SPIE, Miniaturized Systems with Micro-Optics and
Micromechanics II, 1997, 3008: 296–305
4. Tsung Pan A I. US Patent 4894664, 1990-01-16
5. Lemkin M, Boser B E. A three-axis micromachined accelerometer
with a CMOS position-sense interface and digital offset-trim
electronics. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 1999, 34(4):
456–468
6. Takao H, Fukumoto H, Ishida M. A CMOS integrated three-axis
accelerometer fabricated with commercial submicrometer CMOS
technology and bulk-micromachining. IEEE Transactions on
Electron Devices, 2001, 48(9): 1961–1968
7. Voldman J, Gray M L, Schmidt M A. Microfabrication in biology
and medicine. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 1999, 1
(1): 401–425
8. Unger M A, Chou H P, Thorsen T, et al. Monolithic
microfabricated valves and pumps by multilayer soft lithography.
Science, 2000, 288(5463): 113–116
9. McGlennen R C. Miniaturization technologies for molecular
diagnostics. Clinical Chemistry, 2001, 47(3): 393–402
10. Eaton W P, Smith J H. Micromachined pressure sensors: Review
and recent developments. Smart Materials and Structures, 1997, 6
(5): 530–539
11. Eddy D S, Sparks D R. Application of MEMS technology in
automotive sensors and actuators. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998,
86(8): 1747–1755
12. Lucyszyn S. Review of radio frequency microelectromechanical
systems technology. IEE Proceedings. Science Measurement and
Technology, 2004, 151(2): 93–103
13. Briand D, van der Schoot B, de Rooij N F, et al. A low-power
micromachined MOSFET gas sensor. Journal of Microelectrome-
chanical Systems, 2000, 9(3): 303–308
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
14. Wu M C. Micromachining for optical and optoelectronic systems.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 1997, 85(11): 1833–1856
15. McAllister D V, Allen M G, Prausnitz M R. Microfabricated
microneedles for gene and drug delivery. Annual Review of
Biomedical Engineering, 2000, 2(1): 289–313
16. Bustillo J M, Howe R T, Muller R S. Surface micromachining for
microelectromechanical systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998,
86(8): 1552–1574
17. Howe R T. Surface micromachining for microsensors and
microactuators. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology. B,
Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures: Processing, Measure-
ment, and Phenomena: An Official Journal of the American
Vacuum Society, 1988, 6(6): 1809–1813
18. Kovacs G T, Petersen K, Albin M. Peer reviewed: Silicon
micromachining: Sensors to systems. Analytical Chemistry, 1996,
68(13): 407A–412A
19. Hoffmann M, Voges E. Bulk silicon micromachining for MEMS in
optical communication systems. Journal of Micromechanics and
Microengineering, 2002, 12(4): 349–360
20. Kovacs G T, Maluf N I, Petersen K E. Bulk micromachining of
silicon. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998, 86(8): 1536–1551
21. Burrer Chr, Esteve J. A novel resonant silicon accelerometer in
bulk-micromachining technology. Sensors and Actuators. A,
Physical, 1995, 46(1–3): 185–189
22. Hormes J, Göttert J, Lian K, et al. Materials for LiGA and LiGA-
based microsystems. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics
Research. Section B, Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms,
2003, 199: 332–341
23. Katoh T, Nishi N, Fukagawa M, et al. Direct writing for three-
dimensional microfabrication using synchrotron radiation etching.
Sensors and Actuators. A, Physical, 2001, 89(1–2): 10–15
24. Kupka R K, Bouamrane F, Cremers C, et al. Microfabrication:
LIGA-X and applications. Applied Surface Science, 2000, 164(1–
4): 97–110
25. Cheng Y, Shew B Y, Chyu M K, et al. Ultra-deep LIGA process
and its applications. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics
Research. Section A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and
Associated Equipment, 2001, 467–468: 1192–1197
26. Malek C K, Saile V. Applications of LIGA technology to precision
manufacturing of high-aspect-ratio micro-components and
-systems: A review. Microelectronics Journal, 2004, 35(2): 131–
143
27. del Campo A, Greiner C. SU-8: A photoresist for high-aspect-ratio
and 3D submicron lithography. Journal of Micromechanics and
Microengineering, 2007, 17(6): R81–R95
28. Madou M J. Manufacturing Techniques for Microfabrication and
Nanotechnology. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011
29. Jansen H, Gardeniers H, de Boer M, et al. A survey on the reactive
ion etching of silicon in microtechnology. Journal of Micro-
mechanics and Microengineering, 1996, 6(1): 14–28
30. Sterner M, Roxhed N, Stemme G, et al. Electrochemically assisted
maskless selective removal of metal layers for three-dimensional
micromachined SOI RF MEMS transmission lines and devices.
Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 2011, 20(4): 899–908
31. Zahedinejad M, Farimani S D, Khaje M, et al. Deep and vertical
silicon bulk micromachining using metal assisted chemical
505
etching. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2013,
23(5): 055015
32. Kim S M, Khang D Y. Bulk micromachining of Si by metal-
assisted chemical etching. Small, 2014, 10(18): 3761–3766
33. Zhang M L, Peng K Q, Fan X, et al. Preparation of large-area
uniform silicon nanowires arrays through metal-assisted chemical
etching. Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2008, 112(12): 4444–
4450
34. Saif M T, MacDonald N C. Design considerations for large
MEMS. Proceedings of the SPIE: Smart Structures and Materials:
Smart Electronics, 1995, 2448: 93–104
35. Chu P B, Lee S S, Park S. MEMS: The path to large optical
crossconnects. IEEE Communications Magazine, 2002, 40(3): 80–
87
36. Samuelson S R, Xie H. A large piston displacement MEMS mirror
with electrothermal ladder actuator arrays for ultra-low tilt
applications. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 2014,
23(1): 39–49
37. Lv X, Wei W, Mao X, et al. A novel MEMS electromagnetic
actuator with large displacement. Sensors and Actuators. A,
Physical, 2015, 221: 22–28
38. Reddy J, Pratap R. Si-gold-glass hybrid wafer bond for 3D-MEMS
and wafer level packaging. Journal of Micromechanics and
Microengineering, 2016, 27(1): 015005
39. Ko C T, Chen K N. Low temperature bonding technology for 3D
integration. Microelectronics and Reliability, 2012, 52(2): 302–311
40. Dragoi V, Pabo E, Burggraf J, et al. CMOS: Compatible wafer
bonding for MEMS and wafer-level 3D integration. Microsystem
Technologies, 2012, 18(7–8): 1065–1075
41. Halder S, Stiers K, Miller A, et al. Metrology and inspection
challenges for manufacturing 3D stacked IC’s. In: Proceedings of
ASMC 2013 SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing
Conference. IEEE, 2013, 75–79
42. Ishida H, Sood S, Rosenthal C, et al. Temporary bonding/de-
bonding and permanent wafer bonding solutions for 3D integra-
tion. In: Proceedings of 2nd IEEE CPMT Symposium Japan. IEEE,
2012, 1–4
43. Alam A U, Howlader M M, Deen M J. Oxygen plasma and
humidity dependent surface analysis of silicon, silicon dioxide and
glass for direct wafer bonding. ECS Journal of Solid State Science
and Technology, 2013, 2(12): 515–523
44. PolyMUMPs. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.memscap.com/
products/mumps, 2016-9-15
45. MEMS Foundry Services. 2016. Available from http://www.
tronicsgroup.com/MEMS-Foundry-Services, 2016-9-15
46. Berman B. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business
Horizons, 2012, 55(2): 155–162
47. Petrick I J, Simpson T W. 3D printing disrupts manufacturing:
How economies of one create new rules of competition. Research
Technology Management, 2013, 56(6): 12–16
48. Gebler M, Schoot Uiterkamp A J M, Visser C. A global
sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy
Policy, 2014, 74: 158–167
49. Kumar S S, Pant B D. Design principles and considerations for the
‘ideal’ silicon piezoresistive pressure sensor: A focused review.
Microsystem Technologies, 2014, 20(7): 1213–1247
506 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509
50. Narducci M, Yu-Chia L, Fang W, et al. CMOS MEMS capacitive
absolute pressure sensor. Journal of Micromechanics and Micro-
engineering, 2013, 23(5): 055007
51. Littrell R, Grosh K. Modeling and characterization of cantilever-
based MEMS piezoelectric sensors and actuators. Journal of
Microelectromechanical Systems, 2012, 21(2): 406–413
52. Hu F, Yao J, Qiu C, et al. A MEMS micromirror driven by
electrostatic force. Journal of Electrostatics, 2010, 68(3): 237–242
53. Wright N G, Horsfall A B. SiC sensors: A review. Journal of
Physics. D, Applied Physics, 2007, 40(20): 6345–6354
54. Sarro P M. Silicon carbide as a new MEMS technology. Sensors
and Actuators. A, Physical, 2000, 82(1–3): 210–218
55. Wu C H, Zorman C A, Mehregany M. Fabrication and testing of
bulk micromachined silicon carbide piezoresistive pressure sensors
for high temperature applications. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2006, 6
(2): 316–324
56. Mehregany M, Zorman C A, Rajan N, et al. Silicon carbide MEMS
for harsh environments. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998, 86(8):
1594–1609
57. Tejada F, Andreou A G, Wickenden D K, et al. Surface
micromachining in silicon on sapphire CMOS technology. In:
Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Circuits and
Systems. ISCAS ‘04. Vancouver: IEEE, 2004, 920–923
58. Wang J, Butler J E, Feygelson T, et al. 1.51-GHz nanocrystalline
diamond micromechanical disk resonator with material-mis-
matched isolating support. In: Proceedings of 17th IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, MEMS
2004. Maastricht: IEEE, 2004, 641–644
59. Naing T L, Beyazoglu T, Wu L, et al. 2.97-GHz CVD diamond
ring resonator with Q > 40,000. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE
International Frequency Control Symposium. Baltimore: IEEE,
2012, 1–6
60. Franke A E, Heck J M, King T J, et al. Polycrystalline silicon-
germanium films for integrated microsystems. Journal of Micro-
electromechanical Systems, 2003, 12(2): 160–171
61. Teh K S, Cheng Y T, Lin L. MEMS fabrication based on nickel-
nanocomposite: Film deposition and characterization. Journal of
Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2005, 15(12): 2205–2215
62. Meng E, Tai Y C. A parylene MEMS flow sensing array. In:
Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Transducers,
Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems. Boston: IEEE,
2003, 686–689
63. Mescher M, Abe T, Brunett B, et al. Piezoelectric lead-zirconate-
titanate actuator films for microelectromechanical systems applica-
tions. In: Proceedings of IEEE Micro Electro Mechanical Systems.
MEMS ’95. Amsterdam: IEEE, 1995, 261
64. Bastani Y, Bassiri-Gharb N. Processing optimization of lead
magnesium niobite-lead titanate thin films for piezoelectric MEMS
application. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2012, 95(4):
1269–1275
65. Polcawich R G, Pulskamp J S. Lead zirconate titanate (PZT) for
M/NEMS. In: Bhugra H, Piazza G, eds. Piezoelectric MEMS
Resonators. Microsystems and Nanosystems. Cham: Springer,
2017, 39–71
66. Wang G, Polley T, Hunt A, et al. A high performance tunable RF
MEMS switch using barium strontium titanate (BST) dielectrics
for reconfigurable antennas and phased arrays. IEEE Antennas and
Wireless Propagation Letters, 2005, 4(1): 217–220
67. Marvell Nanofabrication Laboratory Lab Manual. Chapter 1.10:
Miscellaneous Etchants. 2016. Retrieved from http://nanolab.
berkeley.edu/labmanual/chap1/1.10miscetch.pdf, 2016-8-30
68. Nguyen N T, Huang X, Chuan T K. MEMS-micropumps: A
review. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2002, 124(2): 384–392
69. Malek C K, Saile V. Applications of LIGA technology to precision
manufacturing of high-aspect-ratio micro-components and
-systems: A review. Microelectronics Journal, 2004, 35(2): 131–
143
70. Bertsch A, Jiguet S, Bernhard P, et al. Microstereolithography: A
review. In: Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 758: LL1–1
71. Sun H B, Kawata S. Two-photon photopolymerization and 3D
lithographic microfabrication. In: NMR3D AnalysisPhotopoly-
merization. Apvances in Polymer Science. Volume 170. Berlin:
Springer, 2004, 169–273
72. Pao Y H, Rentzepis P M. Laser-induced production of free radicals
in organic compounds. Applied Physics Letters, 1965, 6(5): 93–95
73. Ikuta K, Hirowatari K. Real three dimensional micro fabrication
using stereo lithography and metal molding. In: Proceedings of An
Investigation of Micro Structures, Sensors, Actuators, Machines
and Systems. Micro Electro Mechanical Systems, MEMS ’93. Fort
Lauderdale: IEEE, 1993, 42–47
74. Sun C, Fang N, Wu D M, et al. Projection micro-stereolithography
using digital micro-mirror dynamic mask. Sensors and Actuators.
A, Physical, 2005, 121(1): 113–120
75. Stampfl J, Fouad H, Seidler S, et al. Fabrication and moulding of
cellular materials by rapid prototyping. International Journal of
Materials & Product Technology, 2004, 21(4): 285–296
76. Zheng X, Lee H, Weisgraber T H, et al. Ultralight, ultrastiff
mechanical metamaterials. Science, 2014, 344(6190): 1373–1377
77. Farahani R D, Chizari K, Therriault D. Three-dimensional printing
of freeform helical microstructures: A review. Nanoscale, 2014, 6
(18): 10470–10485
78. Kobayashi K, Ikuta K. Three-dimensional magnetic microstruc-
tures fabricated by microstereolithography. Applied Physics
Letters, 2008, 92(26): 262505
79. Kotz F, Arnold K, Bauer W, et al. Three-dimensional printing of
transparent fused silica glass. Nature, 2017, 544(7650): 337–339
80. Alblalaihid K, Overton J, Lawes S, et al. A 3D-printed polymer
micro-gripper with self-defined electrical tracks and thermal
actuator. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering,
2017, 27(4): 045019
81. Xu G, Zhao W, Tang Y, et al. Novel stereolithography system for
small size objects. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2006, 12(1): 12–17
82. Kawata S, Sun H B, Tanaka T, et al. Finer features for functional
microdevices. Nature, 2001, 412(6848): 697–698
83. Mueller P, Thiel M, Wegener M. 3D direct laser writing using a
405 nm diode laser. Optics Letters, 2014, 39(24): 6847–6850
84. Sochol R D, Heo Y J, Iwanaga S, et al. Cells on arrays of
microsprings: An approach to achieve tri-axial control of substrate
stiffness. In: Proceedings of IEEE 26th International Conference
on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS). Taipei: IEEE,
2013, 90–93
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
85. Maruo S, Ikuta K, Korogi H. Force-controllable, optically driven
micromachines fabricated by single-step two-photon microster-
eolithography. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 2003,
12(5): 533–539
86. Choi J W, Wicker R B, Cho S H, et al. Cure depth control for
complex 3D microstructure fabrication in dynamic mask projection
microstereolithography. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2009, 15(1):
59–70
87. Gissibl T, Thiele S, Herkommer A, et al. Two-photon direct laser
writing of ultracompact multi-lens objectives. Nature Photonics,
2016, 10(8): 554–560
88. Nanoscribe GmBH. 2017. Retrieved from http://www.nanoscribe.
de, 2017-7-15
89. Tumbleston J R, Shirvanyants D, Ermoshkin N, et al. Continuous
liquid interface production of 3D objects. Science, 2015, 347
(6228): 1349–1352
90. Thiel M, Hermatschweiler M. Three-dimensional laser lithogra-
phy. Optik & Photonik, 2011, 6(4): 36–39
91. Göring G, Dietrich P I, Blaicher M, et al. Tailored probes for
atomic force microscopy fabricated by two-photon polymerization.
Applied Physics Letters, 2016, 109(6): 063101
92. Xiong W, Zhou Y S, He X N, et al. Simultaneous additive and
subtractive three-dimensional nanofabrication using integrated
two-photon polymerization and multiphoton ablation. Light,
Science & Applications, 2012, 1(4): e6
93. Varadan V K, Jiang X, Varadan V V. Microstereolithography and
Other Fabrication Techniques for 3D MEMS. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 2001
94. Ikuta K, Ogata T, Tsubio M, et al. Development of mass productive
micro stereo lithography (Mass-IH Process). In: Proceedings of the
Ninth Annual International Workshop on Micro Electro Mechani-
cal Systems, MEMS ’96. An Investigation of Micro Structures,
Sensors, Actuators, Machines and Systems. San Diego: IEEE,
1996, 301–306
95. Neumann J, Wieking K S, Kip D. Direct laser writing of surface
reliefs in dry, self-developing photopolymer films. Applied Optics,
1999, 38(25): 5418–5421
96. Bártolo P J. Stereolithography: Materials, Processes and Applica-
tions. New York: Springer, 2011
97. Lifton V A, Lifton G, Simon S. Options for additive rapid
prototyping methods (3D printing) in MEMS technology. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 2014, 20(5): 403–412
98. Vaezi M, Seitz H, Yang S. A review on 3D micro-additive
manufacturing technologies. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 2013, 67(5–8): 1721–1754
99. Gibson I, Rosen D W, Stucker B. Additive Manufacturing
Technologies. New York: Springer, 2010
100. Lee J W, Lee I H, Cho D W. Development of micro-
stereolithography technology using metal powder. Microelectronic
Engineering, 2006, 83(4–9): 1253–1256
101. Lee K S, Kim R H, Yang D Y, et al. Advances in 3D nano/
microfabrication using two-photon initiated polymerization. Pro-
gress in Polymer Science, 2008, 33(6): 631–681
102. EnvisionTec Perfactory 3D Printer. 2017. Retrieved from https://
envisiontec.com/3d-printers/perfactory-family/, 2017-7-15
103. Kawata S, Sun H B, Tanaka T, et al. Finer features for functional
507
microdevices. Nature, 2001, 412(6848): 697–698
104. Abe F, Osakada K, Shiomi M, et al. The manufacturing of hard
tools from metallic powders by selective laser melting. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 2001, 111(1–3): 210–213
105. Exner H, Streek A. High resolution laser micro sintering/melting
using q-switched and high brilliant laser radiation. Proceedings of
the SPIE, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2015,
9353: 93530P
106. Exner H, Horn M, Streek A, et al. Laser micro sintering: A new
method to generate metal and ceramic parts of high resolution with
sub-micrometer powder. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 2008, 3
(1): 3–11
107. Petsch T, Regenfuß P, Ebert R, et al. Industrial laser micro
sintering. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on
Applications of Lasers and Electro-Optics 2004. Erlangen, 2004
108. Exner H, Regenfuss P, Hartwig L, et al. Selective laser micro
sintering with a novel process. Proceedings of SPIE, Fourth
International Symposium on Laser Precision Microfabrication,
2003, 5063: 145–151
109. Regenfuss P, Streek A, Hartwig L, et al. Principles of laser micro
sintering. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2007, 13(4): 204–212
110. Hong S, Yeo J, Kim G, et al. Nonvacuum, maskless fabrication of a
flexible metal grid transparent conductor by low-temperature
selective laser sintering of nanoparticle ink. ACS Nano, 2013, 7(6):
5024–5031
111. Liu Y K, Lee M T. Laser direct synthesis and patterning of silver
nano/microstructures on a polymer substrate. ACS Applied
Materials & Interfaces, 2014, 6(16): 14576–14582
112. Kwon J, Cho H, Eom H, et al. Low-temperature oxidation-free
selective laser sintering of Cu nanoparticle paste on a polymer
substrate for the flexible touch panel applications. ACS Applied
Materials & Interfaces, 2016, 8(18): 11575–11582
113. Bohandy J, Kim B F, Adrian F J. Metal deposition from a
supported metal film using an excimer laser. Journal of Applied
Physics, 1986, 60(4): 1538–1539
114. Birnbaum A J, Auyeung R C, Wahl K J, et al. Laser printed micron-
scale free standing laminate composites: Process and properties.
Journal of Applied Physics, 2010, 108(8): 083526
115. Wang J, Auyeung R C, Kim H, et al. Three-dimensional printing of
interconnects by laser direct-write of silver nanopastes. Advanced
Materials, 2010, 22(40): 4462–4466
116. Visser C W, Pohl R, Sun C, et al. Toward 3D printing of pure
metals by laser-induced forward transfer. Advanced Materials,
2015, 27(27): 4087–4092
117. Piqué A, Chrisey D B. Direct-Write Technologies for Rapid
Prototyping Applications: Sensors, Electronics, and Integrated
Power Sources. New York: Academic Press, 2001
118. Piqué A, Chrisey D B, Auyeung R C, et al. A novel laser transfer
process for direct writing of electronic and sensor materials.
Applied Physics. A, Materials Science & Processing, 1999, 69(1):
S279–S284
119. Piqué A, Auyeung R C, Kim H, et al. Laser 3D micro-
manufacturing. Journal of Physics. D, Applied Physics, 2016, 49
(22): 223001
120. Chrisey D B, Pique A, Fitz-Gerald J, et al. New approach to laser
direct writing active and passive mesoscopic circuit elements.
508 Front. Mech. Eng. 2017, 12(4): 490–509
Applied Surface Science, 2000, 154–155: 593–600
121. Birnbaum A J, Kim H, Charipar N A, et al. Laser printing of multi-
layered polymer/metal heterostructures for electronic and MEMS
devices. Applied Physics. A, Materials Science & Processing,
2010, 99(4): 711–716
122. Piqué A, Kim H, Auyeung R C, et al. Laser forward transfer of
functional materials for digital fabrication of microelectronics.
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 2013, 57(4): 40404
123. Kim H, Duocastella M, Charipar K M, et al. Laser printing of
conformal and multi-level 3D interconnects. Applied Physics. A,
Materials Science & Processing, 2013, 113(1): 5–8
124. Auyeung R C, Kim H, Birnbaum A J, et al. Laser decal transfer of
freestanding microcantilevers and microbridges. Applied Physics.
A, Materials Science & Processing, 2009, 97(3): 513–519
125. Piqué A, Auyeung R, Metkus K, et al. Laser decal transfer of
electronic materials with thin film characteristics. Proceedings of
SPIE, 2008, 6879: 687911
126. Delaporte P, Alloncle A P. Laser-induced forward transfer: A high
resolution additive manufacturing technology. Optics & Laser
Technology, 2016, 78: 33–41
127. Zhang S, Tu R, Goto T. High-speed epitaxial growth of -SiC film
on Si (111) single crystal by laser chemical vapor deposition.
Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2012, 95(9): 2782–2784
128. Zhang S, Xu Q, Tu R, et al. Growth mechanism and defects
of < 111 > -oriented-SiC films deposited by laser chemical vapor
deposition. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2015, 98(1):
236–241
129. Ehrlich D J, Tsao J Y. Laser Microfabrication: Thin Film Processes
and Lithography. Boston: Academic Press, 1989
130. Shen B, Izquierdo R, Meunier M. Laser fabrication of three-
dimensional microstructures, cavities, and columns. Proceedings
of SPIE, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1994, 91–
98
131. Duty C, Jean D, Lackey W J. Laser chemical vapour deposition:
Materials, modelling, and process control. International Materials
Reviews, 2013, 271–287
132. Wanke M C, Lehmann O, Müller K, et al. Laser rapid prototyping
of photonic band-gap microstructures. Science, 1997, 275(5304):
1284–1286
133. Williams K L, Köhler J, Boman M. Fabrication and mechanical
characterization of LCVD-deposited carbon micro-springs. Sen-
sors and Actuators. A, Physical, 2006, 130–131: 358–364
134. Williams K, Maxwell J, Larsson K, et al. Freeform fabrication of
functional microsolenoids, electromagnets and helical springs
using high-pressure laser chemical vapor deposition. In: Proceed-
ings of Twelfth IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro
Mechanical Systems. MEMS ‘99. Orlando: IEEE, 1999, 232–237
135. Stuke M, Mueller K, Mueller T, et al. Laser-direct-write creation of
three-dimensional OREST microcages for contact-free trapping,
handling and transfer of small polarizable neutral objects in
solution. Applied Physics. A, Materials Science & Processing,
2005, 81(5): 915–922
136. van de Burgt Y B. Laser-assisted growth of carbon nanotubes.
Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Eindhoven: Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven, 2014
137. Maeda S, Minami K, Esashi M. Excimerlaser induced CVD and its
application to selective non-planar metallization. Journal of
Micromechanics and Microengineering, 1995, 5(3): 237–242
138. Williams K L. Laser-assisted CVD fabrication and characterization
of carbon and tungsten microhelices for microthrusters. Disserta-
tion for the Doctoral Degree. Sweden: Uppsala University, 2006
139. Williams K L, Eriksson A B, Thorslund R, et al. The electrothermal
feasibility of carbon microcoil heaters for cold/hot gas micro-
thrusters. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2006,
16(7): 1154–1161
140. Williams K L, Köhler J, Boman M. Fabrication and mechanical
characterization of LCVD-deposited carbon micro-springs. Sen-
sors and Actuators. A, Physical, 2006, 130–131: 358–364
141. Lehmann O, Stuke M. Laser-driven movement of three-dimen-
sional microstructures generated by laser rapid prototyping.
Science, 1995, 270(5242): 1644–1645
142. Holmes A S. Laser fabrication and assembly processes for MEMS.
Proceedings of the SPIE, Laser Applications in Microelectronic
and Optoelectronic Manufacturing VI, 2001, 4274: 297–306
143. Fuller S B, Wilhelm E J, Jacobson J M. Ink-jet printed nanoparticle
microelectromechanical systems. Journal of Microelectromecha-
nical Systems, 2002, 11(1): 54–60
144. O’Donnell J, Kim M, Yoon H S. A review on electromechanical
devices fabricated by additive manufacturing. Journal of Manu-
facturing Science and Engineering, 2016, 139(1): 010801
145. Brown T D, Dalton P D, Hutmacher D W. Direct writing by way of
melt electrospinning. Advanced Materials, 2011, 23(47): 5651–
5657
146. Wu S Y, Yang C, Hsu W, et al. 3D-printed microelectronics for
integrated circuitry and passive wireless sensors. Microsystems &
Nanoengineering, 2015, 1: 15013
147. Pabst O, Perelaer J, Beckert E, et al. All inkjet-printed piezoelectric
polymer actuators: Characterization and applications for micro-
pumps in lab-on-a-chip systems. Organic Electronics, 2013, 14
(12): 3423–3429
148. Sun K, Wei T S, Ahn B Y, et al. 3D Printing of interdigitated Li-ion
microbattery architectures. Advanced Materials, 2013, 25(33):
4539–4543
149. Raney J R, Lewis J A. Printing mesoscale architectures. MRS
Bulletin, 2015, 40(11): 943–950
150. Compton B G, Lewis J A. 3D-printing of lightweight cellular
composites. Advanced Materials, 2014, 26(34): 5930–5935
151. Lind J U, Busbee T A, Valentine A D, et al. Instrumented cardiac
microphysiological devices via multimaterial three-dimensional
printing. Nature Materials, 2016, 16(3): 303–308
152. Skylar-Scott M A, Gunasekaran S, Lewis J A. Laser-assisted direct
ink writing of planar and 3D metal architectures. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
2016, 113(22): 6137–6142
153. Travitzky N, Bonet A, Dermeik B, et al. Additive manufacturing of
ceramic-based materials. Advanced Engineering Materials, 2014,
16(6): 729–754
154. Mason M S, Huang T, Landers R G, et al. Aqueous-based
extrusion of high solids loading ceramic pastes: Process modeling
and control. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2009,
209(6): 2946–2957
155. Huang Y, Bu N, Duan Y, et al. Electrohydrodynamic direct-
 Kwok Siong TEH. Additive direct-write microfabrication for MEMS: A review
writing. Nanoscale, 2013, 5(24): 12007–12017
156. Onses M S, Sutanto E, Ferreira P M, et al. Mechanisms,
capabilities, and applications of high-resolution electrohydrody-
namic jet printing. Small, 2015, 11(34): 4237–4266
157. Luo G, Teh K S, Liu Y, et al. Direct-write, self-aligned
electrospinning on paper for controllable fabrication of three-
dimensional structures. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces,
2015, 7(50): 27765–27770
158. Luo G, Teh K S, Zang X, et al. High aspect-ratio 3D
microstructures via near-field electrospinning for energy storage
applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE 29th International Con-
ference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS). Shanghai:
IEEE, 2016, 29–32
159. Hoey J M, Lutfurakhmanov A, Schulz D L, et al. A review on
aerosol-based direct-write and its applications for microelectronics.
Journal of Nanotechnology, 2012, 2012(2012): 324380
160. Lessing J, Glavan A C, Walker S B, et al. Inkjet printing of
conductive inks with high lateral resolution on omniphobic “RF
paper” for paper-based electronics and MEMS. Advanced
Materials, 2014, 26(27): 4677–4682
161. Waheed S, Cabot J M, Macdonald N P, et al. 3D printed
microfluidic devices: Enablers and barriers. Lab on a Chip, 2016,
16(11): 1993–2013
162. Sochol R D, Sweet E, Glick C C, et al. 3D printed microfluidic
circuitry via multijet-based additive manufacturing. Lab on a Chip,
2016, 16(4): 668–678
163. Ko S H, Pan H, Grigoropoulos C P, et al. All-inkjet-printed flexible
electronics fabrication on a polymer substrate by low-temperature
high-resolution selective laser sintering of metal nanoparticles.
Nanotechnology, 2007, 18(34): 345202
164. Lee K J, Jun B H, Kim T H, et al. Direct synthesis and inkjetting of
silver nanocrystals toward printed electronics. Nanotechnology,
2006, 17(9): 2424–2428
165. Ko S H, Chung J, Hotz N, et al. Metal nanoparticle direct inkjet
printing for low-temperature 3D micro metal structure fabrication.
Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 2010, 20(12):
125010
166. Kong Y L, Tamargo I A, Kim H, et al. 3D printed quantum dot
light-emitting diodes. Nano Letters, 2014, 14(12): 7017–7023
167. EcoPlex Inc. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.eoplex.com/,
2017-3-10
509
168. Zhang Y, Liu C, Whalley D. Direct-write techniques for maskless
production of microelectronics: A review of current state-of-the-art
technologies. In: Proceedings of International Conference on
Electronic Packaging Technology & High Density Packaging.
ICEPT-HDP ‘09. Beijing: IEEE, 2009, 497–503
169. Optomec Aerosol Jet Printer. 2017. Retrieved from https://www.
optomec.com, 2017-5-21
170. Mette A, Richter P L, Hörteis M, et al. Metal aerosol jet printing for
solar cell metallization. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and
Applications, 2007, 15(7): 621–627
171. Yang C, Zhou E, Miyanishi S, et al. Preparation of active layers in
polymer solar cells by aerosol jet printing. ACS Applied Materials
& Interfaces, 2011, 3(10): 4053–4058
172. Macdonald E, Salas R, Espalin D, et al. 3D printing for the rapid
prototyping of structural electronics. IEEE Access: Practical
Innovations, Open Solutions, 2014, 2: 234–242
173. Andò B, Baglio S, La Malfa S, et al. All inkjet printed system for
strain measurement. Sensors, 2012, 25(35): 215–217
174. Rahman T, Renaud L, Heo D, et al. Aerosol based direct-write
micro-additive fabrication method for sub-mm 3D metal-dielectric
structures. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering,
2015, 25(10): 107002
175. Numan-Al-Mobin A M, Shankar R, Cross W M, et al. Direct-write
printing of an RF-MEMS cantilever. In: Proceedings of IEEE
Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium
(APSURSI). Memphis: IEEE, 2014, 15–16
176. Sachs E, Cima M, Williams P, et al. Three dimensional printing:
Rapid tooling and prototypes directly from a CAD model. Journal
of Engineering for Industry, 1992, 114(4): 481–488
177. Ainsley C, Reis N, Derby B. Freeform fabrication by controlled
droplet deposition of powder filled melts. Journal of Materials
Science, 2002, 37(15): 3155–3161
178. Chua C K, Leong K F, Lim C S. Rapid Prototyping: Principles and
Applications. 3rd ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Pte. Ltd., 2010
179. Guo D, Wu X, Lei J, et al. Fabrication of micro/nanoelectrode
using focused-ion-beam chemical vapor deposition, and its
application to micro-ECDM. Procedia CIRP, 2016, 42: 733–736
180. Hon K K, Li L, Hutchings I M. Direct writing technology
—Advances and developments. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2008, 57(2): 601–620