Response to 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. 1105-1114, doi:10.1520/JTE20160526. ISSN 0090-3973

To discuss the problems of ISO 6892-1 and the TENSTANDWP4 final report, the following technical questions must be discussed clearly: (1) Does tension rate in elastic range impact the results of proof strength and do the stress rates in elastic range of machines with feedback function need to be controlled within the limits in Table 3? (2) To perform Method B for machines with feedback function, shall the speed to keep stress rate in elastic range within the limits in Table 3 or crosshead rate in the range of 0.00025/s~0.0025/s be used? (3) Are the two underlying reasons to recommend strain control method that higher values of proof strength and wider scatter range will be obtained with crosshead mode than with strain mode true? (4) Is crosshead control with 5 % Lc/min rate higher than the requirement of Method B and increase the proof strength value? (5) Does crosshead control with 5 % Lc/min rate get a significantly higher value of proof strength or Method A get a significantly lower value of proof strength comparing with the traditional method (Method B)? (6) Should crosshead control method or strain control method be recommended to measure proof strength for machines with feedback function? The above questions were discussed and the article of "Discussion on 'Analysis on the issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 report based on the data of confirm tests by 21 laboratories'" was responded to in this paper. Copyright © 2016 by ASTM International.