Home Experts Corner WARNING: The Alleged Dangers Polyurethane Concrete Raising

WARNING: The Alleged Dangers Polyurethane Concrete Raising


Mudjacking has a lot of names. Some refer to it as concrete raising, concrete lifting, concrete leveling or even slabjacking. It’s a highly effective and affordable way to repair sinking concrete. Traditional mudjacking companies typically inject an organic-based mud slurry into the sinking slab which fills the voids and ultimately lifts and levels the sinking concrete.

Over the years, new ‘technologies’ have been introduced including polyurethane or, foam concrete raising. This new technology has been pitched as a ‘fast, effective’ way to repair concrete. However; according to some experts, it’s less effective to triditional mudjacking, and not enviornmentally friendly.

“Because the injected material [foam] reacts and reaches its maximum volume in increments shortly following injection, significant voids remain after treatment. This was found to be the case when a bridge approach slab near the Denver airport that had been so treated [with foam] continued to settle and was subsequently removed,” wrote Warner, James, Professional Engineer, Author of the Practical Handbook of Grouting: Soil; Rock; and Structures. N.p.: n.p., 2004. Print., emphasis added]

The foam grout was observed to have developed into pedestals at the drill holes, leaving a large portion of the total area untreated,” he added.

This manufacturer states Polyurethane foam is ‘Extremely flammable aerosol, may burst if heated, causes skin irritation, harmful if inhaled, may cause allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled, may cause serious respiratory irritation and is even suspected of causing cancer…



For more info, or to join in the discussion follow our Facebook page here.



  1. Any consumer reading this article is welcome to contact me directly at 303-521-6262 or email me at [email protected]. Sean and I traded several emails/exhanges on this topic and he obviously doesn’t understand either the mudjacking or polyurethane industries as a blog writer. He is welcome to his opinion of course, but after numerous requests he has failed to disclose “who” he works for, nor his background that makes him an “expert” on this topic. We all know anyone can post anything on the Internet, truthful or not. And in this case, it’s obvious that he is being irresponsible and biased in his posts. I welcome an open dialogue with him to educate him about our products and our industry.

  2. The above article is qouting a professional engineer who had witnessed a poly foam job at the Denver Airport. At Concrete Chiropractor we have been raising concrete for 18 years and had considered poly foam when it first came on the market. We could have easily added it to our existing service. However, we rejected it based on some of the concerns mentioned in this news article, along with the poly product being rejected at concrete recycling facilities upon removal.

    We use a natural, lab tested material and have had minimal failures in the last 18 years. We looked at both products objectively and feel that the only true benefit of using poly foam is for the chemical manufacturer that supplies the product. We saw no benefit to the consumer. We urge all consumers to compare the products, read the MSDS sheets and use whatever product they are comforatable with.

    Also, here is another link that give validation to the dangers mentioned in the above article. Polyfoam flamabilty and toxicity results in lawsuits : https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/10-lawsuits-filed-over-2010-vancouver-chemical-fire-1.1167017

Comments are closed.