Mudjacking vs. Polyurethane Foam Debate

polyurethane, mudjackingMudjacking vs. Polyurethane Foam, there’s the big question. Which one should you use and why? Well, here are some arguments for and against both, so let’s see which one wins:



Traditional mud jacking can achieve compressive strengths of 2,400 PSI by adding cement or combining cement with lime or sand. 


Traditional mud weighs 100-150 pounds per cubic foot, which is very heavy compared to Polyurethane Foam.

Polyurethane Foam


Polyurethane Foam weighs 3-4 pounds per cubic foot, which is much lighter than mud, making it much less likely to overburden unstable soil. 

Polyurethane will make the end results far more attractive, especially when it comes to the residential market, as there is a smaller injection hole from this process. 

US Departments of Transportation are opting for polyurethane concrete lifting for sagging bridge approaches or for removing dips in highways; this is because of the material’s lightweight characteristics that do not overburden the soil.


Polyurethane has a compressive strength of around 80 to 100 PSI, and for many, it is preferable to pump a higher compressive strength material than the existing sub-base.


While many are in favor of mudjacking, especially when weight is not a concern, there is no doubt that polyurethane foam is a lighter, safer, and long-lasting option that doesn’t post a risk to creating further problems due to weight.