Ashton Petersen

As part of my last post, I looked at how the Acceleration Consortium uses approachable language and engaging visuals to introduce self-driving laboratories to the public. I noted that a strength of the website was its ability to explain how AI labs operate in simple terms. However, that simplified explanation of this engineering system was only made possible because someone took the time to untangle and understand the detailed technical documents that engineers used to make, evaluate, and reproduce AI systems in the first place. One of the most important documents that enables this is the technical report, a genre I became familiar with during my materials science internship. Today, to better understand how it works, I analyzed a NIST report on mechanical-property testing for additively manufactured metals to see how engineers organize and communicate technical information (Slotwinski et al., 2012).

Content and Authors

The report looks at the ASTM and ISO standards which are commonly applied when measuring the mechanical properties of metals. The paper organizes these tests into two main groups, that of deformation tests, such as tension and hardness, and failure tests, such as fatigue and fracture toughness. The authors discuss that this analysis is important since 3D-printed metals can behave differently from traditionally manufactured ones, as their performance can be affected by build direction, powder quality, residual stresses, and the like. Additionally, the authors state that the current standards cannot be treated as perfect, arguing that they should only be treated as a starting point for future guidelines, and they point out where more research is needed.

Audience and Purpose

Coming from NIST, the report is primarily written for people familiar with the technical ins-and-outs of materials testing and research. This would include engineers, manufacturers, researchers, and any other individuals concerned with additive manufacturing. This idea is furthered by the report’s repeated use of ASTM and ISO codes, therein assuming that readers are already familiar with the many technical ideas being discussed. like fatigue, fracture toughness, etc. Another indication of this is the report’s aim in guiding professionals on understanding existing testing standards relating to 3D printing, rather than attempting to introduce the topic to a more general audience.

Images and Symbols

The report uses few traditional visuals because it reviews existing standards rather than presenting new experimental data. Due to this, the report uses tools like headings, citations, units, abbreviations, and the like far more than visual aids. This makes sense, as engineers reading the report will likely already know these standards and be able to follow the report easily. However, this also means that readers outside the field may have a harder time interpreting how the many tests mentioned in the report are carried out.

Form, Language, and Tone

The report is organized in a straightforward way. It begins by providing background information and outlining the scope of what will be covered before moving into the more technical discussions around deformation and failure testing. The report subsequently ends with conclusions, definitions, and references. Having this structure makes it easier for readers to quickly search the document for relevant information while also keeping the discussion focused on metals and major ASTM and ISO standards. The report is also careful to be precise in explaining any standards or current problems facing additive manufacturing. Striking such a cautious tone is prudent here, as overstating conclusions in a report by a reputable agency which people look to for guidance could be costly in numerous ways.

Rhetorical Appeals

The report leans most heavily on ethos and logos. With the report being published by such an eminently credible organization like NIST, the document immediately carries a sense of veracity, while the use of established testing standards shows that the authors understand the field. The authors further this sense of trust and humility by clearly defining the report’s limits, citing sources, and being honest about where existing knowledge follows short. The logical appeal comes from the way the authors organize mechanical properties into clear categories and explain why certain tests may or may not work for printed metals. The report is relatively indirect in any use of pathos. In lieu of using any emotional stories, the report’s references to aerospace and biomedical applications remind readers that material failure can have serious consequences, creating a sense of urgency around reliability and safety and proper materials testing and standards for use.

What This Example Shows About the Genre

This document demonstrates that a technical report is more than a collection of facts. It is an argument about what evidence matters, how that evidence should be organized, and what actions should follow. The authors’ decision to focus on metals and recognized international standards shapes the conclusions they reach.

The genre values precision, traceability, organization, and restraint. Writers establish authority through their evidence and methods rather than through personal experience. At the same time, the report’s neutral tone can make human choices appear completely objective. The authors still decide which standards, materials, and problems deserve attention.

To me, this report serves as an example of an engineering analysis done right in that it shows that engineering is about more than running experiments or doing calculations. The report emphasizes that we engineers also must explain what we found in a way that other professionals can understand and use. In this way, a strong technical report builds trust by staying focused, supporting its claims, and being honest about uncertainty.

Reference

Slotwinski, J. A., Cooke, A. L., & Moylan, S. P. (2012). Mechanical properties

testing for metal parts made via additive manufacturing: A review of the

state of the art of mechanical property testing (NISTIR 7847). National

Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7847