Today, as the current standard tensile test for metallic materials ISO 6892-1 standard are used. The English version of the standard in 2009 and the Turkish version in 2011 were published. The English version was renewed in 2016. In this study, we aimed to summarize the major changes made in this standard. In this way, it is aimed to be transmitted detailed and accurate information for related person.

1. 3rd Iron and Steel Symposium(UDCS’17)3-5April 2017 Karabuk-TURKEY
163
The Changes in ISO 6892-1:2016 Metallic Materials
Tensile Testing Standard
Bülent Aydemir*
*
TUBITAK UME, Tubitak gebze yerleşkesi, Gebze/Kocaeli/TURKEY, bulent.aydemir@tubitak.gov.tr
Abstract— Today, as the current standard tensile test for metallic
materials ISO 6892-1 standard are used. The English version of
the standard in 2009 and the Turkish version in 2011 were
published. The English version was renewed in 2016. In this study,
we aimed to summarize the major changes made in this standard.
In this way, it is aimed to be transmitted detailed and accurate
information for related person.
Keywords— ISO 6892-1, Tensile test, Metallic materials
I. INTRODUCTION
Along with the developing technology, tensile testing
practice and calculation differences in results bring about
changes in standards. When you search at the changes in the
standard of tensile testing in metallic materials in our country;
TS 138 EN 10002-1(1996, 2004) and TS EN ISO 6892-1(2011)
are published. The English version of the standard is published
in ISO 6892-1(2009), and it is published as TS EN ISO 6892-
1(2011) by the Turkish standard TSE. In 2016, ISO 6892-
1(2016) was revised and published, but Turkish has not been
published yet [1-3].
In the metal industry, at room temperature, the tensile test
standard comes out against ISO 6892-1(2016) and ASTM
E8/8M(2016). ASTM standards are used in America, whereas,
ISO standards are used in Europe. Japanese Industrial
Standards (JIS) and GBT (Chinese Standards) in Asia have
adopted the ISO 6892-1 standard.
The tensile test for metallic materials at ISO 6892-1 ambient
temperatures is a very detailed standard. This standard
describes the method to be applied in the experiment, the
calculations used, the results to be reported, as well as the
equipment to be used for the test. The changes in this standard
are likely to affect everyone in the metal industry.
This study has highlighted important changes between the
ISO 6892-1(2016) standard and the previous ISO 6892-1(2009)
standard [1,2]. On this study, it is aimed to give detailed and
accurate information to the persons who are related to the
emphasis of differences of this standard which is used in metal
industry.
II. THE CHANGES OF ISO 6892-1:2016
Its summary is given below those changes between 2016 to
2009 version of ISO 6892-1 tensile testing method of test at
room temperature of metallic materials
A. New terms and definitions
The 2016 version of standard is added the following term
and definitions.
Item 3.12 computer-controlled tensile testing machine:
machine for which the control and monitoring of the test, the
measurements, and the data processing are undertaken by
computer.
Item 3.13 modulus of elasticity (E): quotient of change of
stress ΔR and change of percentage extension Δe in the range
of evaluation, multiplied by 100 %.
%100.
e
R
E



Item 3.14 default value: lower or upper value for stress
respectively strain which is used for the description of the range
where the modulus of elasticity is calculated
Item 3.15 coefficient of correlation (R2
): additional result of
the linear regression which describes the quality of the stress-
strain curve in the evaluation range
Item 3.16 standard deviation of the slope (Sm): additional
result of the linear regression which describes the difference of
the stress values from the best fit line for the given extension
values in the evaluation range
Item 3.17 relative standard deviation of the slope (Sm(rel)):
quotient of the standard deviation of the slope and the slope in
the evaluation range, multiplied by 100 %.
%100.)(
E
S
S m
relm 
The symbols of item 4 in the standard are added the new term
defined in item 3 [1,3].
B. The changes in test speeds
Test speeds or test rates in heading 10.3 of ISO 6892-1:2016
standard have been changed and the speeds are explained in
more detail as Method A1, A2 and B, respectively. The
extension speed of the method in the 2009 version of the ISO
6892-1 standard was defined as two methods in the 2016
version. It is expressed as Method A1 (Closed loop strain
control) and Method A2 (Open loop strain control).
Closed loop strain control, method A1, is the strain rate
control based on the feedback of the data obtained from the
instrument's extensometer. The application for this method is
given by the tolerances of the required 4 step speed standard.
The standard speed steps are schematically shown in figure 1
[5-7]. The other method, Method A2, open loop strain control,

2. 3rd Iron and Steel Symposium(UDCS’17)3-5April 2017 Karabuk-TURKEY
164
involves the control of the estimated strain rate over the parallel
length, (e*
Lc), which is achieved by using the crosshead
separation speed (vc) calculated by multiplying the required
strain rate by the parallel length. For a better understanding of
this, we can give an example as follows. For a sample with a
parallel length of 80 mm, the required crosshead speed (for the
2nd
and 4th
range velocities given in figure 1) should be:

 Lccc eLv .
Stress rate control is defined in Method B as standard. This
definition doesn’t change from the previous version. The
tensile stress rate (Ŕ) varies according to the modulus of
elasticity of the material being applied. These values are given
in Table 1 below.
Fig. 1. Recommended speed ranges according to ISO 6892-1:
2016 standard
In the 2016 version of the standard, the recommended speed
values in Figure 1 are detailed. Speed steps 1,2,3,4,5 for method
A1; 5.6 speed steps for method A2; For the method B, 7 speed
stages can be used.
C. Other changes
The 8th heading of the standard was changed to the
"Marking the original gauge length" in the 2009 version, while
the "Original gauge length and extensometer gauge length" was
changed in the 2016 version. In addition to, the headings of
choice of the original gauge length, marking the original gauge
length and choice of the extensometer gauge length have been
added.
Appendix G, as a new part of the standard, is added specifies
the determination of the modulus of elasticity. In the 2016
version, the names of the other suffixes have changed due to
the addition of Annex G chapter, but the sections remained the
same.
Important information is given in Annex G. For example, it
is stated that the material testing machine has class 1 or better
class according to ISO 7500-1 standard. The extensometer
system is required to have class 0.5 or better class according to
ISO 9513 standard. It is defined that the sample sizes are
measured with a calibrated device with better accuracy than ±
0.5 %. It has also been disclosed that it is important that the
material testing machine is made according to ASTM E1012 or
ISO 23788 in the measurement of the alignment.
In addition, when determining the minimum data sampling
frequency (f), the following formula is proposed:
12
..
RR
eEN
f



Where N is the number of measured values, E is the elastic
modulus, ė is the test speed, and R1, and R2 are the tensile values
that the data sampling frequency is determined. For example, if
R1 = 10 MPa, R2 = 50 MPa for steel, and the test speed is
0.00007 s-1
, the data sampling frequency shall be greater than
18 Hz.
Furthermore, methods of calculating elastic modulus and
calculation of elastic modulus uncertainty are described in
detail.
Apart from these, the bibliography has increased 41 to 58 by
the additional resources given in the Annex G section [1, 3].
III. THE EFFECTS OF TENSILE TEST SPEEDS (RATES) CHANGES
Testing laboratories should plan to use either Method A1 or
Method A2 according to ISO 6892-1. The method A1 and
Method A2 provide better test applications and more
comparable results. For this reason, it is important to provide
Method A1 when purchasing a new tester or improving your
existing machine, and increasing the efficiency of controlling
the tester, based on the extensometer feedback (Fig. 2).
Alternatively, if your current testing machine can not apply
Method A1, using it at a fixed crosshead speed according to
Method A2 will provide minimal change in results and increase
comparability [5-7].

3. 3rd Iron and Steel Symposium(UDCS’17)3-5April 2017 Karabuk-TURKEY
165
Fig. 2. Graphic representation of extensometer feedback loop
of method A1
The advantage of the methods A1 and A2 is to reduce the
uncertainty of the measurement results of the test results by
reducing the test speeds by minimizing the moment when the
parameters sensitive to strain rate are determined. Figure 3
graphically shows the test speeds according to methods A1 and
A2 and the test parameters that these speeds affect [5].
Fig. 3. ISO6892-1: 2016 Graphic representation of the required
test results with the speeds of method A1 and A2
Fig. 4. Stress-strain graphic of Method A1 and its speeds
chancing
Fig. 5. Stress-strain graphic of Method A2 and its speeds
chancing
The test chart of the method according to ISO 6892-1 and
the closed loop strain control (method A1) is given in figure 4.
In here, the horizontal axis strain (%) shows the vertical axis
stress (MPa) value. The strain rate (mm / mm / min) graph is
shown by the dashed line between ± 20 % tape lines. The
crosshead speed is marked with a large arrow in the graph. The
test chart for the same sample according to ISO 6892-1 method
A2 and the estimated strain (crosshead speed) control is given
in figure 5. In here, it is seen that the strain rate (mm / mm /
min) graph is inserted between ± 20 % band lines after more
strain than figure 4.
Method B stretch rate control has the advantage that it is a
simpler control method and can be used in most test machines.
However, the disadvantages of the test period extension (fig. 6)
are that additional calculations are required for the rigidity of
the machine and that different results can be obtained from the
machine if the machine is not set. During method B testing,
there are many sources of uncertainty and error. Most metallic
materials are sensitive to stress ratio; so, the mechanical
properties vary depending on the test speed.
Stiffness varies according to each machine, and is an
effective parameter on the test results. Figure 6 gives the stress-
percent strain graph for two machines with different stiffness.
For two test rigs, one rigid and the other less rigid, the results
are the same on the average at the same test speed when testing
the same material. To further exaggerate this situation, if the
very rigid system is much faster and the less rigid system is
tested slower, a difference of more than 10 % can be obtained
between the results obtained from the same material [3,5-9].

4. 3rd Iron and Steel Symposium(UDCS’17)3-5April 2017 Karabuk-TURKEY
166
Fig. 6. Test Machine Rigidity Comparison - two tests were
performed with the same material and at the same crosshead
speed but with two different machines
In the figure given in Figure 7, the test time is given for the
aluminium sample according to different test speeds. As can be
seen, the test carried out in method A1 according to ISO 6892-
1 in the closed loop strain control provides a time saving of
35 % compared to the method A2 and method B control [3, 5-
7].
Fig. 7. Comparison of test times for aluminium samples at
different speeds
IV.CONCLUSIONS
In this study, significant changes were summarized between
the ISO 6892-1 (2016) standard and the previous ISO 6892-1
(2009) standard. In this respect, it is aimed to help the
understanding of this standard which is used in many testing
laboratory in this sector. In addition, the results of the most
important of these changes on the tensile test speed selection
are summarized.
For the purpose of using methods A1 and A2 in ISO 6892-1,
the explanation is as follows: "It is intended to reduce the
measurement uncertainty associated with the change in the test
speed and the test results at which the speed-sensitive
parameters A1 and A2 are to be determined." In addition, - it is
desirable to document the shape of the curve in the test speed
and to document the speed of the test. In addition, the similarity
of test speeds in the reproducibility and reproducibility of the
yield strength results is also important.
A summary table of the test speed methods defined in ISO
6892-1 is given in Table 2 [5]. Inhere the control types and the
feedback sources for the control are given for different
methods. Time-to-install time was measured as the test time,
and the reproducibility values of the test results were given as
comparability. Different test speeds are the most important
affect test time. The aim is that Method A1 provides this for
accurate and reproducible results in the shortest test run.
Table 2. Summary table of test speed methods defined in ISO
6892-1 standard
ISO 6892-1:2016
Method Method A1 Method A2 Method B
Control Type Strain control
Crosshead
control
Stress control
Feedback
source
Extensometer Displacement Loadcell
Setup time Low Medium/High Low/Medium
Test speed Fast Slow Medium
Comparability High High Low/Medium
REFERENCES
[1] ISO 6892-1, (2016), Metallic materials -- Tensile testing -- Part 1:
Method of test at room temperature
[2] ISO 6892-1, (2009), Metallic materials -- Tensile testing -- Part 1:
Method of test at room temperature
[3] B. Aydemir, ISO 6892-1:2016 Metalik Malzemelerin Çekme Deneyi
Standardındaki Değişiklikler ve Etkileri, 2017, Metal Dünyası,
Sayı:283, S.68-72
[4] B. Aydemir, Metalik Malzemelerin Çekme Deney Standardı EN ISO
6892-1’in Getirdiği Değişiklikler, 2013, Makine Teknolojileri
Elektronik Dergisi Cilt: 10, No: 3, 2013 (61-70)
[5] http://www.instron.com.tr/tr-tr/testing-solutions/by-
material/metals/tension/iso-6892-12016
[6] Understanding the New ISO 6892-1:2016 and the Most Notable
Changes: An Interview with Matthew Spiret,
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=13017
[7] Updates to metals standards 2015, www.instron.com
[8] B. Aydemir, H. Taşcan, C. Camyurdu, Çekme deneyinde farklı uzama
ölçme yöntemlerinin etkilerinin incelenmesi, 2015, Metal Dünyası, Sayı
266, S.44-50, İstanbul
[9] B. Aydemir, Malzeme Deneylerinde (Çekme deneyi) Ölçüm
Belirsizliğinin Hesaplanması Eğitim Dokümanı - G2KV-110, 2015,
G2KV-110, Nisan 2015, TÜBİTAK UME