ABSTRACT
The usage of the rapid load test (RLT) as a replacement of a static load test (SLT) might have economic benefits. However, it should be proven that this alternative is justified.
Since a RLT requires a more complex interpretation then the SLT, the interpretation rules for the RLT must be evaluated. This paper focuses on the available empirical data for the validation of interpretation methods. Data from literature are presented. This reveals that the interpretation for tests in clay is indeed problematic. For piles in sand the installation method seems to play a role.
