TY - CONF A1 - Klingelhöffer, Hellmuth T1 - Investigations on the tensile testing procedure conducted within the European project TENSTAND N2 - The current presentation shows the intention of the former European TENSTAND project on computer controlled tensile testing of metals. The history of the tensile testing standards is explained. Some test results of the TENSTAND project are shown. The presentation is focused on criticism of Chinese delegates in ISO TC 164 SC1 WG4 who stated that the TENSTAND project which was finished about 10 years ago came to wrong conclusions and were misleading. This presentation points out misunderstandings of the Chinese delegation in the test program and the results of the TENSTAND project and the former development of the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1. Some tests of the TENSTAND project were newly evaluated using the original test data. The evaluation showed again that the conclusions of the TENSTAND project are correct. T2 - Committee meeting of ISO TC 164 SC1 WG4 CY - Teddington, UK DA - 06.09.2015 KW - European TENSTAND project KW - ISO 6892-1 KW - Strain controlled tensile testing KW - Stress rate PY - 2015 AN - OPUS4-38227 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Klingelhoeffer, Hellmuth A1 - Aegerter, J. A1 - Scherm, T. A1 - Schenuit, E. A1 - Sotheran, S. A1 - Loveday, M. A1 - Bosch, P. A1 - Bloching, H. A1 - Olbricht, Jürgen A1 - McEnteggart, I. T1 - Discussion on "Analysis on the issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 report based on the data of confirm tests by 21 laboratories" N2 - The authors, Li et al., of the paper entitled “Analysis on the Issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 Report Based on Data to Confirm Tests by 21 Laboratories” (J. Test. Eval. DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150479 (online only)) have expressed views that the authors of this rebuttal believe to be based on fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1:2009, ISO 6892-1:2016, and its former versions, thus leading to erroneous conclusions. This refutation is intended to clarify the understanding of ISO 6892-1 and to address the misunderstandings and the misinterpretations of the authors of the paper. The present standard ISO 6892-1:2016 has a long history dating back to the 1970s. At that time, the tensile testing procedure was standardized on the National and International scale in parallel. To understand the present standard, the knowledge of the history helps to understand the background of details of the testing procedure implemented today. The history of the tensile testing standard has been discussed extensively during the annual international standardization meeting of ISO committee TC 164 SC1 for the last few years, at which some of the authors of the Li et al. paper attended. The authors continue to disagree with facts that were agreed by the consortium of the European research project TENSTAND and by the present international experts involved in ISO TC 164 SC1. It appears that the principal objective of the authors regarding their present publication was to increase the testing speed during tensile testing. However, the international standardization community has previously declined similar proposals by some of the authors. Many arguments presented by Li et al. were thus refuted. The conclusions of their paper are misleading and the international standardization community for tensile testing refused to revise the present standard, ISO 6892-1 (2016), according the authors’ proposals. KW - Tensile testing procedure KW - ISO 6892-1 KW - TENSTAND WP4 Final Report PY - 2017 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20160526 SN - 0090-3973 SN - 1945-7553 VL - 45 IS - 3 SP - 1105 EP - 1114 PB - ASTM International CY - West Conshohocken, PA, USA AN - OPUS4-40267 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Klingelhöffer, Hellmuth A1 - Aegerter, J. A1 - Scherm, T. A1 - Schenuit, E. A1 - Sotheran, S. A1 - Loveday, M. A1 - Bosch, P. A1 - Bloching, H. A1 - Olbricht, Jürgen A1 - McEnteggart, I. T1 - Discussion on “Analysis on the issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 report based on the data of confirm tests by 21 laboratories” by H. Li, X. Zhou, J. Shen, and D. Luo. The regular article was published in journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2017, pp. 723–731, doi:10.1520/ JTE20150479. ISSN 0090-3973 N2 - The authors, Li et al., of the paper entitled “Analysis on the Issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 Report Based on Data to Confirm Tests by 21 Laboratories” (J. Test. Eval. DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150479 (online only)) have expressed views that the authors of this rebuttal believe to be based on fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1:2009, ISO 6892-1:2016, and its former versions, thus leading to erroneous conclusions. This refutation is intended to clarify the understanding of ISO 6892-1 and to address the misunderstandings and the misinterpretations of the authors of the paper. The present standard ISO 6892-1:2016 has a long history dating back to the 1970s. At that time, the tensile testing procedure was standardized on the National and International scale in parallel. To understand the present standard, the knowledge of the history helps to understand the background of details of the testing procedure implemented today. The history of the tensile testing standard has been discussed extensively during the annual international standardization meeting of ISO committee TC 164 SC1 for the last few years, at which some of the authors of the Li et al. paper attended. The authors continue to disagree with facts that were agreed by the consortium of the European research project TENSTAND and by the present international experts involved in ISO TC 164 SC1. It appears that the principal objective of the authors regarding their present publication was to increase the testing speed during tensile testing. However, the international standardization community has previously declined similar proposals by some of the authors. Many Arguments presented by Li et al. were thus refuted. The conclusions of their paper are misleading and the international standardization community for tensile testing refused to revise the present standard, ISO 6892-1 (2016), according the authors’ proposals. KW - Tnsile testing KW - ISO 6892-1 KW - TENSTAND WP4 Report PY - 2017 UR - www.astm.org U6 - https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20160526 SN - 0090-3973 VL - 45 IS - 3 SP - 1105 EP - 1114 PB - ASTM CY - West Conshohocken, PA, USA AN - OPUS4-46690 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -