It restores concrete, prevents replacement cost disruptions, reduces trip hazards, and provides stability at a lower cost.

Polyjacking and mudjacking can both be effective solutions for sinking concrete, but they have key differences. Polyjacking, which uses expanding polyurethane foam, is often considered a better option because the foam is significantly lighter than the cementitious material used for mudjacking. This reduced weight puts less pressure on the underlying soil and lowers the risk of future sinking. Polyjacking is suitable for any sinking concrete slab, while mudjacking is typically only recommended for non-structural concrete, such as sidewalks, patios, pool decks, and driveways. The primary drawback of polyjacking is its cost, which can be up to four times higher than mudjacking—as much as $25 per square foot compared to a maximum of about $6 per square foot for mudjacking.

Mudjacking can be an expensive foundation repair process, but in many cases, it’s well worth the investment. This is especially true if you’re lifting a portion of sunken foundation slab back into place. In that case, mudjacking can help avoid major structural damage and even home collapse by restoring the integrity of your structure with minimally invasive procedures. Mudjacking a concrete patio, walkway, or sidewalk can be worthwhile because it removes tripping hazards and makes your outdoor area more aesthetically appealing.

Polyjacking can be a permanent solution to sunken concrete if you also address the underlying issue—like poor drainage—at the same time. The polyurethane material itself can last as long as or even outlast the concrete you’re lifting it with. Your sunken concrete issue will likely return if you don’t couple polyjacking with proper drainage to prevent future soil movement and sinking.