5 Reasons to Avoid Polyurethane Concrete Lifting

2 Mins read

There are 5 reasons to avoid foam for concrete leveling.

Home and business owners can either mudjack or raise their concrete to combat sagging, sinking, and unlevel concrete. There are differences between each method, along with some important reasons not to use polyurethane to lift concrete.

There can be voids between the concrete and the supportive soil. The concrete will often crack or fall as it succumbs to the pressures of gravity and foot traffic. Contractors can fix the problem by drilling a hole in the concrete and injecting a filling material to eliminate the gaps. Mudjacking is a process in which sand is delivered through the use offillers.

Mudjacking is the injection of a natural sand mix into the voids below failing concrete. Mudjacking is a very effective strategy for filling voids in this space that are often filled with pockets of different densities.

Similar steps and tools can be used to fill underlying gaps and add support to the area below the concrete. PCL uses a synthetic, man-made foam that expands and hardens after it is injected, which distinguishes it from mudjacking.

Mudjacking uses a natural substance that doesn’t contain any potentially harmful man-made chemicals. This is one of the many reasons that it is better than PCL.

Why NOT Use Polyurethane Concrete Lifting?

1. It has limitations.

There are several limitations to polyurethane, the greatest of which is a lack of complete filling. It will leave gaps beneath the structure which could lead to renewed sinking or crumbling.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t suitable applications for lifting and supporting concrete slabs. spray foam injections can be beneficial in instances where continued use of a failing concrete surface is more important than filling all the holes in the ground. If long-termDurability is a priority, you should probably look at other options.

2. It comes with safety hazards.

There are potentially harmful substances in the injections that could harm people and the environment. Mudjacking uses a sand slurry that won’t harm laborers or homeowners.

3. It doesn’t offer long-term stability.

Mudjacking provides better long-term stability and support than foam injections. Mudjacking provides more long-term support for the concrete because it uses a natural sand slurry that won’t harden over time, and it also fills more voids.

4. It doesn’t provide optimal strength concrete repairs.

The strength of the material is between 80 and 100 PSI. It is better to pump in a higher strength material than it is to pump in a lower strength material. Adding cement or combining cement with sand or lime can increase the strength of mud jacking.

5. It costs more.

Mudjacking can cost as much as four or five times as much as the raising of concrete. The materials cost more. You are likely to spend between $2,500 and $3,000 for PCL.

Over the years, AAA Concrete Raising has been involved in many concrete raising projects, and we have not encountered many instances where PCL is better than natural sand. There are benefits to using traditional mudjacking to accomplish the same goal as using foam injections. There are a lot of considerations when raising and stabilizing concrete. Mudjacking over PCL is recommended by many knowledgeable experts.

Over the course of two decades, the Denver metro area has been served by a concrete raising business. Quality service that stands up to Father Time is what we have been known for. If you want to protect your investment, contact our experts to inspect and correct your concrete.

If you want to learn more, be sure to read our website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.