Mudjacking vs. Polyurethane Concrete Raising

If you operate or own an apartment or business complex, you have probably realized that replacing settled concrete slabs proves to be more expensive compared to raising and/or repairing it. Nevertheless, you might be in doubt whether you should use traditional technique of raising concrete called “mudjacking” or the newer method using polyurethane. We have asked the professionals from Acme Concrete Raising & Repair to tell us more about these two techniques and recommend the better solution to the problem. Here is what we found out!

Mudjacking is the older, more traditional technique used to correct sunken concrete. Once a series of large 1-2 inch holes are drilled in the concrete slabs, a slurry is pumped through the holes under pressure to beneath the concrete. The slurry lifts, or floats the slabs to the desired level. Finally, the holes are patched up. There are two main reasons certain people prefer mudjacking. First of all, since “mud” is used to raise the slabs, people incorrectly assume it’s cheaper compared to polyurethane. The second reason is that many people do not understand how polyurethane “foam” could be strong enough to raise and support concrete slabs. The fact is that polyurethane is a very versatile material, and has been specially formulated for the concrete raising industry. At many projects, foam injection bids come in cheaper than mudjacking bids. One of the reasons for this is due to efficiency and labor savings. Also, polyurethane concrete raising foams are so strong, they are required by some governmental organizations for road repair projects.

Although mudjacking can be a good choice for concrete raising, it does have some disadvantages. One of the most obvious disadvantages of this technique is the fact that the slurry mixture does not uniformly fill every void because it’s very thick. Furthermore, it does not stabilize the underlying soil. In fact, the heavier slurry mixture can burden underlying soil and cause more settling, meaning the concrete slabs would, in time sink again. Basically, mudjacking presents only a temporary fix. Lastly, the slurry mixture, in general, requires too much time to become stable for traffic.

So, we have learned that the concrete slabs sink due to the instability of the underlying soil. Generally, it means that putting weight on such soil with heavy slurry mixture is likely to make it sink again, eventually. And, that’s where polyurethane wins the battle; it’s a much lighter material. In addition, it’s capable of spreading uniformly and evenly into any void, so there’s no need to drill too many holes. As a result, the surface doesn’t look like it’s undergone heavy repair even though the important job is finished. Also, polyurethane jacking requires less time to stabilize enough for traffic compared to mudjacking. Typically, mudjacking takes a few days to cure, while with polyurethane jacking the traffic can resume in less than an hour. When it comes to the compression strength, 100 PSI is enough for most any purpose. In fact, polyurethane is very often used for fixing dips and sags in highways and bridges; therefore its compression strength is rather substantial.

What about the prices? Mudjacking is sometimes cheaper than polyurethane jacking, but that is not by any means the norm. Even for projects where mudjacking is the cheaper fix up front, it can work out more expensive in the end if it has to be lifted again due to failure. With polyurethane concrete lifting, the chances of the repetitive concrete sinking are lower when compared to mudjacking. Lastly, polyurethane jacking assures a neat finish, which is something you cannot get with a mudjacking fix.