Mudjacking vs Foam Jacking
When it comes to lifting and leveling concrete slabs, two common methods are mudjacking and foam jacking. Each concrete jacking method has its own advantages and disadvantages, and choosing the right one depends on various factors such as the type of project, budget, and specific needs. In this article, we will explore the differences between mudjacking and foam jacking to help you make an informed decision.
What is Mudjacking?
Mudjacking, also known as slabjacking, involves pumping a slurry mixture of sand, cement, and water beneath a sunken concrete slab to raise it back to its original level. This method has been used for decades and is a cost-effective solution for many concrete lifting projects.
What is Foam Jacking?
Foam jacking, also known as polyurethane foam injection, uses high-density foam injected through small holes to lift and stabilize concrete slabs. This modern technique offers a lightweight and durable solution for concrete lifting, making it ideal for larger slabs as well.
Pros and Cons of Mudjacking
Pros of Mudjacking
- Cost-Effective: Mudjacking is 20% less expensive than foam jacking on average due to lower material costs, although this can vary based on the contractor.
- Suitable for Smaller Slabs: Effective for smaller concrete slabs where weight and structural stress are less of a concern.
- Proven Method: Mudjacking has been around for decades, and is still an effective method for concrete raising.
- Good for Slabs with Significant Settlement: Suitable for slabs with significant settlement that may be close to the end of their lifespan, or for preparing the area for foam jacking. Foam is more expensive than mud, and mud usually settles fairly soon after the job. Mudjacking actually provides a great subbase for our foam jacking process.
Cons of Mudjacking
- Heavier Material: The slurry mixture used in mudjacking is much heavier (approximately 100 lbs per cubic foot) compared to foam jacking (4 lbs per cubic foot on average). This added weight can further stress already unstable soils.
- Larger & More Drill Holes: Mudjacking requires larger (1 & 5/8″) and more drill holes, which can be more invasive and less aesthetically pleasing once patched. If a repump is needed, more holes will be drilled.
- Longer Curing Time: The mudjacking slurry takes longer to cure compared to foam (3 days on average versus 15 minutes), leading to more downtime before the area can be used again.
- Potential for Washout: The mudjacking mixture can be washed away over time by water and critter infiltration, leading to the potential for future settlement issues.
- Less Effective for Larger Slabs: Due to its weight and material properties, mudjacking is less effective for lifting and stabilizing larger concrete slabs compared to foam jacking.
- More Invasive: The process of mudjacking can be more disruptive due to the need for larger equipment and the creation of larger holes.
- Shorter Lifespan & Shorter Warranty: Repairs made with mudjacking typically have a shorter lifespan, often requiring additional maintenance or reapplication within a few years. A mudjacking warranty is typically up to 3 years.
Pros and Cons of Foam Jacking
Pros of Foam Jacking
- Lightweight: Polyurethane concrete lifting foam is much lighter (approximately 2-4 lbs per cubic foot compared to 100 lbs per cubic foot for mudjacking slurry). This makes it ideal for use on already unstable soils. Adding minimal stress to an already aggravated base prevents further settlement, unlike the heavier mudjacking materials.
- Smaller and Fewer Drill Holes: Requires smaller (5/8″) and fewer drill holes, without the need for shock-absorbing plugs before patching. This results in a more aesthetically pleasing finish and less risk of patches popping out in the future. Additionally, if a re-pump is needed, foam jacking allows us to drill back through the original holes, unlike mudjacking, which requires new holes due to the foam plugs used. Our foam travels in a 6 foot diameter on average from the point of injection, covering a larger area than mudjacking.
- Permanent Adherence: Permanently adheres to the slab and adjacent concrete, significantly strengthening the slab.
- Reduces Surface Cracking: Drastically reduces the incidence of surface hairline cracking due to ground movement.
- Minimizes Tripping Hazards: Minimizes emerging tripping points at existing significant gaps and cracks where rebar is absent or failing.
- Fast Curing Time: Cures completely in about 15 minutes from the point of injection, allowing for immediate use of slabs, perfect for home and business owners who need quick turnaround times. In some cases, we can work in warehouses while operations continue.
- Moisture Resistant: Operational in various weather conditions. Our foam is hydrophobic and does not absorb water, ensuring effective and reliable results even in wet conditions. It will not sag, wash away or shrink after application with proper post-lift maintenance.
- Ideal for Larger Slabs: The lightweight and expansive properties make it ideal for lifting larger slabs.
- High Weight Capacity: Our foam boasts impressive compressive strength, with a capacity of up to 25,000 lbs per square foot, adaptable with additional foam applications.
- Less Invasive and More Efficient: Less invasive than mudjacking and more efficient in application and effectiveness.
- Longer-Lasting Repair: Provides a longer-lasting repair with an average of 5-year warranty, (ours is 10! – read our guarantee), compared to a maximum of 3 years for mudjacking.
- Extended Reach: Foam jacking equipment is attached to a hose that can extend up to hundreds of feet, making it feasible to access difficult-to-reach job sites. You can visit our frequently asked questions page to read more about our process.
Cons of Foam Jacking
- Higher Cost: Foam jacking is generally more expensive than mudjacking due to the cost of materials and the specialized equipment required. This can make it a less attractive option for budget-conscious projects. How much does polyurethane concrete lifting cost?
- Potential for UV Degradation: The polyurethane foam used in foam jacking can degrade if exposed to ultraviolet (UV) rays. It’s crucial to ensure the foam is not exposed to sunlight post-lift, as UV exposure can deteriorate the foam and reduce its lifespan. With proper post-lift maintenance, this is nothing to worry about. Read our essential guide to care for lifted concrete to learn more.
- Specialized Equipment and Expertise Required: Foam jacking requires specialized equipment, licenses and trained technicians to perform the job correctly. This can limit the availability of service providers and potentially increase wait times for scheduling repairs.
Limited Availability: Foam jacking services may not be available in all regions, especially in rural or less populated areas, making it harder for some property owners to access this method of concrete lifting.
Mudjacking vs Foam Jacking: Cost Comparison
The cost of mudjacking vs foam jacking can vary significantly. Mudjacking is generally more affordable upfront, but foam jacking offers longer-lasting results and less disruption, making it cost-effective in the long run.
Polyurethane vs Mudjacking
Polyurethane foam, used in foam jacking, provides a modern alternative to traditional mudjacking. It is more efficient and less invasive, making it a preferred choice for many property owners.
Mudjacking vs Slabjacking
Slabjacking, another term for mudjacking, involves a similar process. However, the materials and techniques may vary slightly, impacting the cost and effectiveness.
Mudjacking vs Poly Leveling
Poly leveling, similar to foam jacking, uses a polyurethane foam to lift and stabilize concrete. This method is faster and less messy compared to traditional mudjacking.
Mudjacking or Polyurethane: Which to Choose?
Choosing between mudjacking and polyurethane foam depends on your specific needs and budget. While mudjacking is cheaper, polyurethane foam offers durability and efficiency, especially for larger slabs.
Polyurethane Concrete Lifting vs Mudjacking
Comparing polyurethane concrete lifting with mudjacking reveals several benefits of foam, including quicker application and longer-lasting results.
Poly Mudjacking: A Hybrid Approach
Poly mudjacking combines elements of both traditional mudjacking and foam jacking, offering a balanced solution for various concrete lifting needs.
10-YEAR WARRANTY!
One of the main reasons to choose polyurethane concrete lifting over mud jacking is the fact that it is definitely the more permanent fix. When lifting concrete with foam filling, we are filling in all voids and airspaces beneath your concrete slab with the polyurethane concrete lifting, levelling, void filling and stabilizing foam systems. This will help stop any existing & future water infiltration and keeps critters out in order to keep preventing future settlement. You definitely won’t get that with a mud mixture!
We are so confident in our lifting process and product that we offer a 10-year, non-transferable, limited-warranty with a lifetime warranty on the material! If your concrete slab were to settle 1/2 of an inch within this duration, we would come back and re-pump, using as many of the initial injection points as possible. To date, we have had less than 1% of our customers requiring a re-pump. We are so confident in our lifting process and product that we offer a 10-year, non-transferable, limited-warranty with a lifetime warranty on the material! If your concrete slab were to settle 1/2 of an inch within this duration, we would come back and re-pump, using as many of the initial injection points as possible. To date, we have had less than 1% of our customers requiring a re-pump.
Conclusion
The choice between mudjacking and foam jacking ultimately depends on your project requirements, budget, and long-term goals. Both methods have their advantages, and understanding these can help you make an informed decision.