Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing

bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?

Maybe this is an odd question, but so far I don't understand why we have two standard methods for testing
bending/flexural strength of fine ceramic, (3-points- and 4 points-bending tests) though they are very quite similar.

For example, according to Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) R1601, we apply the same way for preparing the
specimens (length, width, height, rounded side) for the 2 methods. In addition, as far as I know the measured results
of the 2 tests are also not much different from each others.

Is there any reason for separating them into 2 different methods?