Polyurethane vs Mudjacking: Which is Better?

Sunken concrete is a widespread issue for municipalities, industrial sites, and commercial properties. Over time, settled concrete can create tripping hazards, disrupt operations, and even lead to costly foundation repair if left unaddressed. Traditional methods have been used for decades to solve this problem, but not all solutions are created equal.

For years, mud jacking has been the go-to concrete repair method, but it comes with several disadvantages like long drying time, large injection hole sizes, and the risk of the slab sinking again due to the heavy mudjacking slurry injected beneath it. On the other hand, polyurethane concrete lifting offers a faster, lighter, and more durable alternative, but some property owners hesitate due to its higher upfront cost compared to mudjacking.

To determine the better solution, it’s crucial to compare mudjacking and polyurethane injection side by side. In this guide, we’ll break down the differences between mudjacking and polyurethane, analyze cost, durability, and efficiency, and help you decide which method suits your project best.

Key Takeaways

• Polyurethane foam lasts longer than mudjacking – Foam remains stable for decades, while mudjacking slurry can erode over time, leading to repeated settlement and costly repairs.
• Foam injection is lighter and reduces soil stress – Mudjacking adds significant weight (up to 100 lbs per cubic foot), increasing the risk of future sinking, while polyurethane foam adds only 2–4 lbs per cubic foot.
• Polyurethane cures in minutes, while mudjacking takes days – Foam sets within 15 minutes, allowing for immediate use, whereas mudjacking requires at least 24 hours of curing time.
• Smaller drill holes preserve concrete integrity – Polyurethane injection requires only 5/8-inch holes, while mudjacking needs larger 1–2-inch holes, potentially weakening the slab over time.
• Higher upfront cost, but lower long-term expenses – Polyurethane costs more than mudjacking initially but eliminates the need for repeat repairs, making it the more cost-effective solution over time.
• Polyurethane foam is water-resistant and eco-friendly – Unlike mudjacking, which absorbs moisture and can wash away, polyurethane foam remains stable, preventing future settlement and reducing environmental impact.

Understanding Concrete Lifting: Mudjacking vs. Polyurethane Foam Injection

Concrete lifting, also known as slab lifting services, is a repair method used to stabilize concrete slabs and restore them to their original level. This process prevents structural damage, eliminates tripping hazards, and extends the lifespan of common concrete surfaces.

There are two main methods used in concrete raising services:

• Mudjacking – A process where a mudjacking mixture of cement, soil, and water is injected under the slab to push it back into place.
• Polyurethane Foam Injection – A modern method that uses expanding foam to fill voids and raise the slab with minimal disruption.

Both methods raise the concrete, but they differ in application, longevity, and cost. Understanding these differences is crucial for selecting the best approach for industrial and large-scale projects.

What is Mudjacking? Process, Benefits, and Drawbacks

Mudjacking is one of the oldest methods used in concrete repair. It works by injecting a mudjacking slurry under a concrete structure to raise the concrete back to its original position. This method has been widely used for driveway leveling, foundation repair, and sidewalk repairs.

How Mudjacking Works

Mudjacking involves drilling large injection holes (typically 1-2 inches in diameter) into the damaged concrete slab. Through these holes, a mudjacking mixture of water, cement, and soil is pumped underneath.

As the slurry fills voids beneath the slab, it raises and stabilizes the surface. While mudjacking typically provides an effective short-term fix, the mudjacking materials can erode over time, leading to re-settling.

Pros and Cons of Mudjacking

One of the main advantages of mudjacking is that it is cheaper per cubic foot compared to polyurethane. However, it also has several disadvantages like long drying time and increased risks of future settling due to the weight of the mudjacking slurry. Mudjacking requires larger holes to be drilled into the concrete, which can weaken the slab.

Additionally, because mudjacking uses a heavy material, it may not be ideal for large-scale infrastructure projects where additional weight can lead to further instability.

Polyurethane Foam Injection: A Modern Approach to Concrete Lifting

Polyurethane concrete lifting is a more advanced alternative to mudjacking and polyurethane injection techniques. Instead of a mudjacking slurry, this method uses a lightweight, high-density poly level foam that expands under the slab to create a stable base.

How Polyurethane Injection Works

This process starts with smaller injection hole sizes (5/8 inches) drilled into the concrete slab. Through these holes, a two-part polyurethane injection mixture is pumped beneath the surface. The expanding foam fills empty spaces, lifts the slab, and stabilizes it permanently. The foam cures within 15 minutes, making it one of the fastest solutions available.

Feature of Polyurethane Concrete Lifting

A key feature of polyurethane lifting is its lightweight composition, which prevents future settling. Additionally, foam used in this method is hydrophobic, meaning it won’t absorb water or break down over time. Unlike mudjacking, which requires 24+ hours to cure, foam to raise a slab can set almost immediately, allowing for minimal downtime in high-traffic areas.

While polyurethane concrete raising is more expensive than mudjacking, its longevity and minimal maintenance needs often result in cost savings in the long run.

Mudjacking vs Foam Jacking: Key Differences and Performance Comparison

Both methods are widely used in concrete lifting vs replacement scenarios, but their differences significantly impact their effectiveness for industrial, municipal, and large-scale projects.

Strength and Durability: Foam vs Mudjacking Over Time

While both methods raise the concrete, foam jacking lasts significantly longer than mud jacking because the material doesn’t degrade. Mudjacking slurry is susceptible to erosion, meaning repeated repairs may be needed. In contrast, polyurethane foam remains intact for decades.

Weight and Load Impact on Concrete Slabs

Mudjacking materials are heavy, and the added weight can cause the slab to sink again. Polyjacking uses a much lighter expanding foam, preventing future settlement issues. Mudjacking typically adds up to 100 pounds per cubic foot, while polyurethane adds only 2-4 pounds, making it a superior choice for larger structures.

Speed of Application and Curing Time

A major disadvantage of mudjacking is that it requires a full day for mudjacking to cure, delaying use of the repaired surface. Foam cures in 15 minutes, allowing traffic and equipment to resume operations almost immediately.

Concrete Lifting Cost: Polyurethane Concrete Lifting Cost vs. Mudjacking

The cost of mudjacking is lower compared to polyurethane, with mudjacking being cheaper per cubic foot. However, polyurethane concrete leveling provides better long-term savings since it doesn’t require repeated repairs. Concrete raising services using foam raising are often the preferred choice for municipalities and industrial projects because they require fewer maintenance costs over time.

Choosing Between Mudjacking or Polyurethane: Best Applications for Each Method

Choosing between mudjacking and polyurethane injection depends on project requirements. Mudjacking works well for low-traffic areas where budget constraints are a concern, while polyurethane concrete leveling is ideal for large-scale projects requiring durability and minimal downtime.

Industrial sites, highways, and heavy-use areas benefit more from polyurethane concrete raising due to its strength and longevity.

Caring for Lifted Concrete: Ensuring Longevity and Performance

To maintain lifted concrete, it’s crucial to follow proper care techniques. Sealing cracks, avoiding excessive weight loads, and scheduling inspections with expert concrete raising professionals can extend the lifespan of the repair. Regular maintenance ensures that common concrete structures remain stable and safe for years to come.

Final Thoughts

When comparing mudjacking vs foam jacking, polyurethane concrete lifting offers superior durability, faster curing, and better long-term stability. While mudjacking is cheaper, it often leads to recurring repairs. For lasting results, polylift concrete leveling provides the best investment for municipalities, commercial properties, and industrial applications. For professional slab lifting services, trust Superior Polylift to provide expert solutions. Contact us today to learn more about polyurethane concrete raising and industrial-scale concrete repair solutions!