Aggregate piers or rigid inclusions?
When evaluating ground improvement options, two commonly used systems are aggregate piers and rigid inclusions. While both are designed to improve weak soils and support structures, they function very differently and are suited to different subsurface conditions.
Aggregate piers—also known as stone columns—are constructed by drilling or displacing soil and then installing compacted lifts of aggregate. The installation process densifies the surrounding soils and creates a composite ground system where both the stone and the native soils share load. Load transfer occurs through a combination of increased stiffness, lateral confinement, and frictional resistance. Aggregate piers are particularly effective in improving settlement performance and increasing bearing capacity in cohesive and loose granular soils.
Rigid inclusions, by contrast, are high-stiffness elements typically constructed of grout or concrete. These inclusions do not rely on densifying the surrounding soil. Instead, they act as stiff columns that transfer structural loads through weak soils to deeper, more competent bearing strata. A load transfer platform is typically constructed above the inclusions to distribute loads from the structure to the inclusions. This creates a system where the majority of the load is carried by the rigid elements rather than the surrounding soil.
Understanding the differences in how these systems interact with the soil is critical when selecting the right ground improvement solution.
Aggregate piers rely on confinement from the surrounding soils to achieve compaction and stiffness. In very soft soils—such as highly organic clays or very loose, saturated silts—this confinement is limited or nonexistent. As a result, the stone cannot be effectively compacted, and the pier may “bulge” rather than develop the intended strength and stiffness. This significantly reduces performance and can lead to excessive settlement. In these conditions, aggregate piers are generally not appropriate.
Depth is another key consideration. For sites with very deep soft soil profiles, aggregate piers become less efficient because their stiffness is relatively low compared to rigid inclusions. Even when installed successfully, aggregate piers distribute loads across a soil matrix that remains compressible at depth. This can result in long-term settlements that may not meet project tolerances.
Rigid inclusions, on the other hand, provide a much stiffer system. Their higher modulus allows them to transfer loads through deep weak layers to stronger soils below. This makes them well-suited for sites with thick deposits of soft or compressible soils where settlement control is critical. Because they do not depend on soil densification, rigid inclusions are less sensitive to the presence of very soft or variable soils.
That said, aggregate piers remain an excellent ground improvement solution in the right conditions. Where soils provide adequate confinement and soft layers are not excessively deep, aggregate piers offer a cost-effective and efficient method to improve bearing capacity, reduce settlement, and accelerate construction. They also provide drainage benefits and can be installed rapidly with minimal vibration.
Selecting between aggregate piers and rigid inclusions ultimately comes down to soil conditions, loading requirements, and performance criteria. When used appropriately, aggregate piers are a highly effective and economical solution that continues to deliver strong results across a wide range of projects.
Need a ground improvement solution tailored to your site?
Contact us to speak with our engineering team and explore how aggregate piers can support your building or parking garage.