Source-linked AI summary
Evolution of 3D Printing Methods and Materials for Electrochemical Energy Storage
Vladimir Egorov, Umair Gulzar, Yan Zhang, Siobhán Breen, Colm O'Dwyer
TL;DR
3D-printed electrochemical energy-storage devices seek alternatives to typical form factors while reducing fabrication steps. This Perspective examines materials, electrodes, and printing methods, highlighting powder-bed processing for complex shapes with high geometrical accuracy and outlining requirements for future printable devices.
Problem
3D printing for electrochemical energy-storage devices must address typical form-factor constraints and the need to minimize multiple fabrication steps.
Method
The Perspective links materials, electrode, and printing innovations to requirements for printable energy-storage technology and future device fabrication.
Results
Powder-bed techniques provide both building material and in-process support, enabling complex shapes with high geometrical accuracy.
Takeaways & Limitations
Connecting materials and printing methods can support new energy-storage form factors and printable device components.
Takeaways & Limitations
Host printing materials remain limited across a range of printable electrochemical energy-storage devices.
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Additive manufacturing has revolutionized the building of materials direct from design, allowing high resolution rapid prototyping in complex 3D designs with many materials. 3D printing hasenabled high strength damage-tolerant structures, bioprinted artificial organs and tissues, ultralight metals, medicine, education, prosthetics, architecture, consumer electronics,and as a prototyping tool for engineers and hobbyists alike. 3D printing has emerged as a useful tool for complex electrode and material assembly method for batteries and supercapacitors in recent years. The field initially grew from extrusion-based methods such as fused deposition modelling, and evolved to photopolymerization printing of intricate composites, while supercapacitor technologies less sensitive to solvents more often involved material jetting processes. Underpinning every part of a 3D printable battery and many other devices is the printing method and the nature of the feed material. Material purity, printing fidelity, accuracy, complexity, and the ability to form conductive, ceramic, glassy, or solvent-stable plastics relies on the nature of the feed material or composite to such an extent, that the future of 3D printable batteries and electrochemical energy storage devices will depend on materials and printing methods that are co-operatively informed by the requirements of the device and how it is fabricated. In this Perspective, we address the materials and methods requirements in 3D printable batteries and supercapacitors and outline requirements for the future of the field by linking existing performance limitations to the requirements of printable energy storage materials, casing materials and the direct printing of electrodes and electrolytes. We also look to the future by taking inspiration from additive manufacturing, to posit links between materials and printing methods to allow new form factor cells.
1. Introduction
3D printing can reduce fabrication steps and enable complex, customized electrochemical energy-storage structures, but printable host materials impose major performance and manufacturing trade-offs. This Perspective links printing methods, materials, device components, and form factors while identifying requirements for viable printable batteries and supercapacitors.
- Scope and motivation: A single printing method is unlikely to suit every device component, while multi-material printing requires several material formulations and may require multiple printers.These constraints motivate coordinated selection of materials and printing methods.
- Scope and motivation: 3D printing is evaluated as a route to printable batteries and supercapacitors with customized, alternative form factors.The paper focuses on materials, electrodes, electrolytes, casings, and designs for printable electrochemical energy-storage devices.
- Printing methods: Powder-bed methods provide building material and in-process support, enabling complex shapes with high geometrical accuracy, but require time-consuming inert processing and can be expensive industrially.The cited passages identify a lower-cost option but do not specify it fully.
- Printing methods: Material extrusion and jetting can produce rough surfaces requiring additional finishing, whereas vat polymerization offers higher resolution and smoother, more accurate structures.In the FDM–SLA comparison, SLA produced more homogeneous, isotropic interfaces, while FDM showed anisotropy, porosity, and rough surfaces.
- Electrodes and architectures: Electrodeposition-based approaches provide high surface area, electronic conductivity, controlled morphology and thickness, greater active-material contact, and mechanical strength against volume expansion.These benefits support hierarchical three-dimensional electrode structures.
- Electrodes and architectures: Electrohydrodynamic redox printing reaches resolution as low as 250 nm and feature sizes below 400 nm without post-processing, with multi-material and local-chemistry control.The method is described as ink-free and offers exceptionally high resolution relative to traditional approaches.
- Materials and performance: Porosity, solvent or thermal treatment, filler loading, and resin chemistry alter electrochemical and physical performance, making feed-material selection central to reproducibility and device design.The paper maps materials to applications and printing methods and identifies host-material limitations as a primary barrier to viable printed energy-storage devices.
- Materials and performance: Printable composites face coupled trade-offs: increasing inorganic or graphite loading improves electronic conductivity but can reduce ductility, while ionic conductivity in PLA-based prints remains limited.High graphite loading can provide substantial capacity, but capacity decreases at higher current densities and poor C-rate performance is commonly reported.
4. Performance Comparison of 3D Printed Cells
Reported performance varies across 3D-printed batteries and supercapacitors, with results depending on printing method, materials, device architecture, and performance metric. Full-cell demonstrations and structured electrodes show promising capacities, energy densities, power densities, and cycling stability, while conductivity and multicomponent fabrication remain challenges.
- Li-ion batteries: Most reported 3D-printed Li-ion systems are half cells, although recent material-jetting studies demonstrate full cells with competitive lithium-storage performance.
- Li-ion batteries: 400-500 μAh cm-2 areal capacity was obtained from a 3D-printed cell cycled between 0.1 and 10 C.
- Li-ion batteries: 3× higher areal energy density than a commercial planar thin-film battery was reported for a 3D-printed full cell.
- Li-ion batteries: 9.7 J cm−2 areal energy density at 2.7 mW cm−2 power density was reported for an inkjet-printed full cell.
- Li-ion batteries: 300 mAh cm−2 areal capacity was maintained for up to 100 cycles in an inkjet-printed full cell using an ionogel electrolyte.
- Supercapacitors: Inkjet printing supports multimaterial thin films, complex geometries, high mass loading, and registry between cathode, electrolyte, and anode prints.
- Supercapacitors: Areal capacitance of 2.1 F cm−2 with 90% retention after 10,000 cycles was reported, alongside 0.0244 mWh cm−2 energy density and 0.64 mW cm−2 power density.
- Supercapacitors: Supercapacitor performance benefits from controlled porosity and exposed active surfaces that support ion diffusion, electrolyte penetration, charge transfer, and mass transport.
5. Outlook and future directions
Future 3D-printed energy-storage devices require coordinated choices of feed materials, printing methods, electrode designs, electrolytes, and cell architectures. The perspective emphasizes reproducibility, complete printable cells, multimaterial and mixed-method fabrication, and application-specific form factors.
- Outlook and future directions: Materials, electrodes, and printing methods must be developed cooperatively for 3D-printed batteries and supercapacitors.
- Application-specific form factors: Customizing cell shape through additive manufacturing and CAD is proposed to match batteries or capacitors to their eventual use.
- Outlook and future directions: Material and assembly knowledge specific to additive manufacturing is urgently needed for miniaturized integrated power sources, sensors, electronics, wearables, and mobile technologies.
- Reproducibility: Printable casings and current collectors should be tested in complete cells rather than relying only on stable systems within individual laboratories.
- Reproducibility: A freely accessible standard cell design and volume could provide a common basis for cell-to-cell performance comparison.
- Mixed-method approaches: Mixed-method additive manufacturing could combine distinct processing strategies and support production-line fabrication of alternative-form-factor full cells.
- Mixed-method approaches: Multi-nozzle printing can program composition, function, and structure at the voxel scale while switching among up to eight materials.
- Materials and electrolytes: Printed glass, ceramics, and elevated-temperature electrolyte fabrication may expand options for dense, solid-state, and Li-polymer devices.