RV: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards

From: Voja Petrovic <vpetrovic_at_aimme.es>
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 17:26:52 EET

Hello to everyone and best wishes for 2009!


I belong to AIMME, a RTD Institute situated in Valencia, Spain. Our Product
Engineering department has a long tradition of activities with additive
technologies (SLA, FDM, DLP, Laser Cusing and, promptly we will incorporate
EBM). Inspired by this subject, we had a debate on which is the most
adequate term.


Based on experience we have had with our customers and partners on basis of
which we think that the most appropriate term would be DIRECT ADDITIVE


Why is so?


DIRECT: the part is fabricated directly from the electronic file, without
steps such as mould making, CNC programming or similar.

ADDITIVE: We may say that there are three types of manufacturing processes:
subtractive processes, which includes milling, drilling, grinding, etc;
forming processes, such as stamping, deep drawing, bending, etc and additive
processes where we can include additive fabrication.


We think that ‘3D Printing’ may cause some misinterpretation. First of all,
if we can say that the concept of FDM is a kind of printing, for SLM or EBM,
we couldn’t completely agree. On the other hand, people not familiarized
with additive technologies can take it as something not so serious. We have
already had bad experience with this term as well as with ‘Rapid
Prototyping’. Our possible clients sometimes underestimate the properties of
parts obtained by additive technologies, believing that they can only serve
as prototypes. For example, metallic parts done by laser of EBM are
completely functional and ready-to-use with full mechanical properties. Yet,
although the most ‘picturesque’ term that anyone could understand, most of
the people cannot imagine that something ‘printed’ can withstand serious
functional loads in-use.


Additionaly, we believe that the term ‘LAYER’ is a bit restrictive. We agree
that the most of actual technologies are layer-by-layer processes. Yet, in
the imminent future there may be serious attempts to change this concept in
order to increase productivity or machine performance. That is why it is not
a good idea to limit ourselves to the layer concept. Also, the term ‘RAPID’
is a bit tricky and, in our opinion, a question for a much wider debate.


Warm greetings from AIMME Product Engineering Dept!



Vojislav Petrovic
Unidad de Ingeniería de Producto
Parque Tecnológico, Avda. Leonardo Da Vinci, 38
Tel. +34 96 131 85 59 - Fax +34 96 136 61 45
www.aimme.es - vpetrovic@aimme.es



De: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] En nombre de
Terry Wohlers
Enviado el: lunes, 12 de enero de 2009 0:57
Para: RP-ML
Asunto: *SPAM*: 09.8/4.0 - Fw: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards


In keeping with the rules of the rp-ml, I am reporting the results of the
input on terminology. Twenty-five individuals provided their thoughts,
either by sending them to this list or to me privately. I asked for
clarification on a few of them. The 25 responses represent nine countries
around the world. Sixteen are from North America, six from Europe, and one
each from the Middle East and Asia. The following 13 unique terms were
offered. The number at the left represents the frequency of each term.


10 - 3D printing

2 - additive fabrication

2 - layered manufacturing

2 - additive manufacturing

2 - rapid manufacturing

1 - layered freeforming
1 - part growing

1 - freeform fabrication

1 - layer-based manufacturing

1 - RP

1 - rapid additive manufacturing

1 - grown parts


As you can see, our industry is not in total agreement when it comes to
terminology. It's all over the place. One conclusion, however, is that
"rapid prototyping" is not going to be the catch-all term in the future. It
barely made the list. Forty percent favored "3D printing," with all others
carrying little weight.


If you have not yet provided an opinion, it's not too late. Send your
preference to the list or to me, and if I receive several, I will do a
second round of reporting.


I hope this exercise has reopened the discussion and caused some of us to
think more deeply about the terminology we use to communicate to the world.
I believe it shows that we may face some terminology challenges this week at
the ASTM meeting. I look forward to continuing this discussion in


Thank you for your contributions!








----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Wohlers <mailto:tw@wohlersassociates.com>

To: RP-ML <mailto:rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi>

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:15 AM

Subject: [rp-ml] International Terminology Standards




First, I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and hope that it is filled
with peace and happiness.


Next week, ASTM is hosting an organizational meeting to discuss industry
standards and I hope you can attend. Details are at
http://wohlersassociates.com/astm.html. The use of terminology will be a
part of these discussions. Over the past several years, I've put a lot of
thought into the terms that we use in our industry and have come to the
conclusion that there's no right or wrong terms, although some are better
than others at communicating our thoughts. In preparation for next week's
meeting, I'd like to initiate some discussion on the subject. I will share
ideas, and hopefully some consensus, from the members of this list.


For many years, "rapid prototyping (RP)" has been a popular term, and
rightly so because prototyping has been the most popular application of
additive fabrication (AF) technology. However, it is one of many
applications as AF expands into new areas and industries. Consequently, a
growing number of people are using terms such as "additive fabrication" or
"additive manufacturing" when referring to the group of processes (e.g.,
fused deposition modeling, 3DP from Z Corp., laser sintering, etc.) that
build parts layer by layer. Stratasys and 3D Systems have adopted the term
"additive fabrication" as a catch-all term, although I cannot say whether it
has become an official corporate standard at either company. Maybe. The
mainstream press—when our industry is lucky enough to get included in
it—uses "3D printing" most frequently. Among industry insiders, 3D printing
refers to a group of AF processes that are relatively low cost, easy to use,
and office friendly. Some think of the process from Z Corp. when hearing
this term. Others may think of PolyJet from Objet Geometries.


AF processes are being used for a range of applications including concept
design and modeling, fit and function testing, patterns for castings, and
mold and die tooling. They are also used for fixture and assembly tools,
custom and replacement part manufacturing, special edition products,
short-run production, and series manufacturing. Prototyping is one of many
applications and that's why "RP" is no longer suitable in most instances as
a catch-all term. In fact, many companies resist the idea of using a
prototyping method for part manufacturing, so using this term could stifle
AF's transition to manufacturing applications.


The term "additive manufacturing" is fine, although because manufacturing is
an application and not a technology, I believe it is plagued with problems,
similar to "rapid prototyping." Consider, for example, this sentence: "My
company is using additive manufacturing for manufacturing." It's confusing.
Now, consider this: "My company is using solid freeform fabrication for
manufacturing." Much cleaner. I'm not suggesting that we use "solid freeform
fabrication;" I'm using it here to illustrate a point. I believe it works
much better when the catch-all term does not include the name of an
application. That way it can be used cleanly for all applications of the


Since 2005 I've used the catch-all term "additive fabrication" in our
company's publications, presentations, and communications. It's not perfect,
but it works. In the future, I truly believe that "3D printing" will become
the most popular term. When I'm describing AF technology to a relative or
someone I'm seated next to on an airplane, I use 3D printing because there's
a better chance that he/she will understand what I'm saying. It's simple and
easy to say. I prefer it over alternatives, but 3D printing currently means
something else to many people in our industry. This is likely to change. An
estimated 74% of all systems sold in 2007 were classified as a 3D printer
and each year this percentage increases.


If we were to let nature take its course, which term do you think would
become the most popular in 5-7 years? In other words, which catch-all term
do you feel has the greatest chance for success as AF works its way more
deeply into both technical and consumer markets. Answering this question
will help guide our thinking next week.



Terry Wohlers
Wohlers Associates, Inc.
OakRidge Business Park
1511 River Oak Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA
Fax 970-225-2027
 <mailto:tw@wohlersassociates.com> tw@wohlersassociates.com
 <http://wohlersassociates.com> http://wohlersassociates.com



Received on Mon Jan 12 17:26:15 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 08:26:36 EET