{"id":40676,"date":"2020-07-31T11:54:01","date_gmt":"2020-07-31T15:54:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shapeways.com\/blog\/?p=40676"},"modified":"2020-07-31T11:54:02","modified_gmt":"2020-07-31T15:54:02","slug":"whats-in-a-technology-name","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shapeways.com\/blog\/whats-in-a-technology-name","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s In A Technology Name?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The good news is that a technology by any other name might perform as sweet, to riff off of Juliet\u2019s centuries-old question — but we still have to ask: what\u2019s in a name?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This question comes up all the time when\ntalking about manufacturing processes used today, especially those newer to\nshop floors like 3D printing. (Or is that additive manufacturing…or rapid\nprototyping?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start at the beginning. This technology suite traces its current roots back to the 1980s when processes like stereolithography (SLA) and fused deposition modeling (FDM) were being developed. These technologies found their initial usage in prototyping<\/a> applications, achieving faster results than traditional processes. As these and other layer-by-layer approaches developed and matured over the last few decades, applications evolved as well, including into end-use production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout this briefly laid out history, we\nsee several stages of evolution in both process and usage. At each stage, a\ndifferent name has been appropriate, growing along with the fledgling industry\nsurrounding these technologies. Now that we\u2019re in 2020, though, and have four\ndecades of experience in this maturing manufacturing area, we\u2019re able to take a\nstep back and look at what the best terminology is to use today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3D\nPrinting or Additive Manufacturing?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A question that comes up a lot is simple:\n\u201cWhat\u2019s the difference between 3D printing and additive manufacturing?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the simplest level of response, these terms\nare often used interchangeably. Use either phrasing and anyone in the industry\nwill understand what you mean. But of course, there are ways to be more\naccurate in discussing these processes, and more precise in nomenclature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3D printing is the process of actually\nbuilding up a part, as a step in the overall additive manufacturing workflow.\nAdditive manufacturing itself can be seen to encompass the total process: CAD\ndesign to slicing to 3D printing to post-processing to finished product. Rapid\nprototyping would then be an application, rather than referring to the process\nitself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s one way of looking at it, and\nunderstanding what is meant when any of these terms are bandied about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another way is in terms of the user. Additive\nmanufacturing is recognized as a more industrial term, and tends to encompass\nexpensive professional machinery being used in applications from prototyping to\nend-use product production. 3D printing can refer to the process of\nlayer-by-layer building of an object, or more generally to refer to any usage\nof this technology, from hobbyists using inexpensive desktop systems to\nprofessionals using industrial equipment. Rapid prototyping was one of the\nfirst terms used for these technologies, which in the 1980s were geared toward\nthe rapid production of prototypes and for a few decades so dominated usage\nthat this application was synonymous with the tech itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These conversations are ongoing, and opinions among experts are still fairly varied. When, for example, in working to understand viewpoints on the terminology of technology<\/a>, I turned to industry professionals, responses extended from ease of understanding to familiarity of phrasing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That conversation was perhaps best summed up by industry veteran Rachel Park, long-time journalist and currently a principal at PYL Associates<\/a>, who said of 3D printing (3DP) and additive manufacturing (AM):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c3DP versus AM will not be resolved any time\nsoon, and like many others here, I often use them interchangeably depending on\napplication, audience and process being used. On that \u2013 I have noticed that\nprocess names (re the 7 categories identified by ASTM) are being used more\nfrequently, to differentiate capabilities and applications for manufacturing \/\nproduction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3D\nPrinting Technologies<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

That leads into an important conversation in\nits own right, as the different 3D printing processes each have their own\nterminology to take into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Industry expert Terry Wohlers, Founder of independent consulting firm Wohlers Associates, which puts out the annual Wohlers Report, recently discussed<\/a> the importance of terminology through the lens of industry standard phrasing. He brings up several key points in this Wohlers Talk piece, chief among them the very availability of industry standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ASTM International, which defines standards in\na number of industries including additive manufacturing, has been publishing\nterms for AM to serve as recognized standards. The first version, as Wohlers\npoints out, was published in 2009 as the ASTM F2792 Standard Terminology for\nAdditive Manufacturing Technologies defined 26 terms. That work was\nfoundational for the current ISO\/ASTM 52900 Standard Terminology for Additive\nManufacturing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As laid out from that standard in Wohlers\nTalk, the presently recognized seven AM processes include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n