Pipe bursting or CIPP lining

Two methods do almost all of the trenchless work on a house sewer line in Calgary. Pipe bursting pulls a new pipe through the old one and destroys the old one on the way. CIPP lining builds a new jointless pipe wall inside the old one and leaves it in place. Both are genuinely good. Both are sold as the obvious answer by people who happen to own the equipment for one of them.

Which one is right for your line is not a matter of opinion, and it is not a matter of which contractor is more persuasive. It is decided by what the existing pipe is doing, and the only way to know what the existing pipe is doing is to send a camera down it. That is the entire content of this page, and everything below is an expansion of one sentence.

It is also worth saying at the top that the honest answer is sometimes neither of them. A short run under bare ground is frequently cheaper to dig, and a line that needs to move or change grade cannot be fixed by either method no matter what it costs. Those cases have a section at the bottom rather than a footnote.

The rule that settles most of it

CIPP lining needs a host pipe that holds its shape, because the liner follows the host while it cures. Pipe bursting does not care whether there is a host left at all. That single difference settles the great majority of these decisions before anything else is considered.

Side by side

Four options, not two. The third is frequently the right one and the fourth is a dig. Every row below, limitations included, is the same definition the method's own page renders.

Method	Right when	What it cannot do	What the property looks like
Pipe bursting static bursting, pneumatic bursting, trenchless replacement	A line that is failing along its whole length, or one too deformed or collapsed to line.	It displaces soil sideways. Where another utility runs close and parallel, that has to be established by locates before anything is pulled, and sometimes the answer is that it cannot be done safely. It cannot correct a line that is in the wrong place or at the wrong grade — the new pipe follows the path of the old one. Two pits still have to be dug. This is trenchless, not excavation-free, and the pits are real holes in real ground. Existing connections along the run — a branch from a second building, a garage drain — are severed by the burst and have to be re-established separately.	Two pits rather than an open trench across the yard. Driveways, mature trees, patios and fences between the pits are generally left alone, which is usually the entire reason the method is chosen.
CIPP lining cured-in-place pipe, pipe lining, sewer relining	A structurally sound but leaking pipe — the classic case being clay with root intrusion at the joints and good pipe in between.	It cannot fix a collapsed pipe. There has to be a pipe left to line. It reproduces the geometry it is given. A bellied line stays bellied, and water will still stand in the same low spot afterwards. The liner takes up wall thickness, so the finished bore is slightly smaller than the original — normally irrelevant, occasionally not. Every branch connection along the lined section is covered by the liner and has to be reinstated afterwards, which is a separate operation. Not used on water services. Lining is a sewer method.	Usually the least invasive option available, often reached through an existing cleanout with little or no excavation. The line is out of service while the liner cures.
Spot repair sectional liner, point repair, sectional patch	One crack, one offset joint, or one root intrusion in an otherwise sound line.	It fixes one place. A line with defects at six joints does not want six patches — at some point the full-length answer is both cheaper and better. It does nothing for the joints it does not cover, so a deteriorating clay line will keep producing new defects.	Typically the smallest job on this list, and often reached through an existing cleanout.
Open-cut excavation traditional dig, trenching, dig and replace	A line that has to change grade or route, a collapse in a spot that cannot be reached from either end, a run too shallow or too congested to burst safely, and — often — a short run under ground with nothing on it, where digging is simply cheaper than mobilising trenchless equipment.	It takes out whatever is above the line — lawn, driveway, patio, mature tree roots — and reinstatement is often the largest part of the cost. It takes longer and leaves the property disturbed for longer.	An open trench along the line, and a restoration job afterwards that is frequently more expensive than the pipe work itself.

What actually tips it, finding by finding

Left column is what is on the screen. Right column is which way it points and why.

Root masses entering at regular intervals, matching the joint spacing. Offset joints showing a step in the pipe wall. Often a long run of sound pipe between two bad joints.: The classic lining case, and the one where the two methods genuinely compete. Clay is the best trenchless host material there is: it is round, it holds its shape, and it breaks cleanly. It takes a liner well and it bursts predictably, so the camera decides which is cheaper rather than which is possible. With a sound barrel between bad joints, closing the joints is a smaller intervention than replacing the whole run — and it is what lets you keep the tree, which on an older Calgary street is usually the real objective. A structurally sound but leaking pipe — the classic case being clay with root intrusion at the joints and good pipe in between.
One offset joint, one crack or one root intrusion, with sound pipe on both sides of it and nothing else on the run.: Neither of the full-length methods. One crack, one offset joint, or one root intrusion in an otherwise sound line. A line with one defect and sound pipe either side of it — that is a spot repair or a lining job, and bursting the whole run is buying far more than the problem requires. Buying a full-length answer for a single defect is the most common way to overspend on this work, and it happens because full-length answers are what the equipment in the truck does.
Standing water sitting in a low spot with the pipe wall sound either side of it. Clean pipe with one specific defect, rather than a line failing all over.: This is where lining is plainly the wrong answer and the page has to say so. It reproduces the geometry it is given. A bellied line stays bellied, and water will still stand in the same low spot afterwards. A bellied ABS line is the clearest case there is of lining being the wrong answer: a liner follows the host, so it will faithfully reproduce the belly and the water will still sit in the same low spot afterwards. That is a bursting or a dig job. If a quote proposes lining a line the footage shows holding water, ask how the water is expected to leave.
An unmistakable oval or egg-shaped bore. Blistering and peeling of the inner wall. Often the camera simply cannot pass.: It cannot fix a collapsed pipe. There has to be a pipe left to line. A liner needs a host that holds its shape while the resin cures, and deformed Orangeburg does not. Finding Orangeburg on camera effectively makes the decision: burst it or dig it, and bursting is almost always cheaper. There is no judgement call here — the finding makes the decision, and the only live question afterwards is bursting against a dig.
A rough, tuberculated interior that snags the camera. Channelling along the invert where the bottom has worn away. The pipe can look intact from above and be gone underneath.: The genuinely conditional case, and the one that most often changes after the line is cleaned. Lining works only if enough sound wall remains to carry the liner while it cures, and heavy channelling can mean there is not. Descaling first is often required, and sometimes descaling is what reveals the pipe is past lining. A verdict given before descaling on a cast iron line is provisional and should be presented as one.
Branch connections entering the run — a second building, a garage drain, a basement addition tied in partway along.: Both methods have a consequence here and neither is free of it. Every branch connection along the lined section is covered by the liner and has to be reinstated afterwards, which is a separate operation. Existing connections along the run — a branch from a second building, a garage drain — are severed by the burst and have to be re-established separately. What matters commercially is that both of those are separate operations, so a quote that does not mention the branches has either missed them or left them out.
Long clean runs. A defect in PVC is usually one identifiable event at one location, not a line-wide condition.: Frequently no method at all. Where the camera shows PVC and a single blockage, the answer is usually a cleaning rather than a replacement. Plastic of this age has not run out of service life, and what has gone wrong is almost always one identifiable event rather than the pipe giving up. Grease, scale, sediment and root intrusion in a pipe that is structurally sound. Trenchless work exists to replace pipe that has failed, and modern plastic in a newer Calgary community mostly has not.

What both methods have in common, so neither gets credit for it

Both are preceded by a camera survey and both are followed by another one. A camera survey before and after. Lining a pipe you have not looked down is guesswork. The same applies to a burst: the finished line goes back on camera and you see the before and the after rather than a description of them.

Both require the line to be cleaned first. Roots, scale and sediment come out before a liner goes in and before a head is pulled through, which means a jetter or a cutter is part of the day on either route. That is a cost driver on both sides of this comparison and it is not a reason to pick one.

Neither can change where the pipe goes. It cannot correct a line that is in the wrong place or at the wrong grade — the new pipe follows the path of the old one. It reproduces the geometry it is given. A bellied line stays bellied, and water will still stand in the same low spot afterwards. If the line is in the wrong place, at the wrong grade, or running under something it should never have been run under, that is a design problem and trenchless methods do not solve design problems.

And neither is excavation-free. Two pits still have to be dug. This is trenchless, not excavation-free, and the pits are real holes in real ground. Lining is usually the lighter of the two on this count — Usually the least invasive option available, often reached through an existing cleanout with little or no excavation. The line is out of service while the liner cures. — but "no digging" is marketing rather than description, and the pit at the house end is regularly the part people were not expecting.

When the answer is a dig

Digging the line up. It is frequently the right answer, and often the cheaper one — a short run under bare lawn can cost less to open than it does to mobilise trenchless equipment for.

A line that has to change grade or route, a collapse in a spot that cannot be reached from either end, a run too shallow or too congested to burst safely, and — often — a short run under ground with nothing on it, where digging is simply cheaper than mobilising trenchless equipment. That last case is worth reading twice, because it is the one most often argued away: mobilising trenchless equipment has a cost of its own, and on a short shallow run across ground with nothing on it, that cost is not recovered.

The case against is equally plain and is why the method exists at all. It takes out whatever is above the line — lawn, driveway, patio, mature tree roots — and reinstatement is often the largest part of the cost. A long run under a finished yard, a driveway or mature trees, where the reinstatement cost dwarfs everything else and trenchless exists precisely to avoid it.

So the sequence is not "trenchless or dig". It is: look at the line, establish what the pipe is and where it has failed, and then pick the smallest intervention that actually fixes it. Sometimes that is a cleaning. Often it is a patch. Frequently it is a liner or a burst. And sometimes it is a shovel, and you should expect a trenchless company to be able to say so out loud.

Each method in full

Pipe Bursting

The whole line replaced without opening the yard.

CIPP Lining

A new jointless pipe cured inside the old one.

Sewer Camera Inspection

See the problem before you pay to fix it.

Questions about choosing between the two

The ones that come up on this work specifically. The general questions are answered on the FAQ page.

Which is better, pipe bursting or CIPP lining?

Neither, in the abstract. The host pipe decides. Lining needs a pipe that still holds its shape for the liner to cure against; bursting does not need one left at all. A camera survey settles it in an afternoon, and any answer given before that survey is a guess about your pipe.

Can a collapsed sewer line be lined?

No. It cannot fix a collapsed pipe. There has to be a pipe left to line. A collapse is therefore a replacement, by bursting or by digging, and the choice between those two comes down to the length of the run, what is on the surface above it and what else is buried alongside it.

Will lining fix a sagging or bellied sewer line?

No, and this is the single most common misunderstanding about the method. It reproduces the geometry it is given. A bellied line stays bellied, and water will still stand in the same low spot afterwards. The liner reproduces the geometry it is given, so the low spot survives the job and the water keeps standing in it. A belly is a replacement conversation or a management conversation.

Does pipe bursting damage other buried utilities?

It can, and that is why locates come first. It displaces soil sideways. Where another utility runs close and parallel, that has to be established by locates before anything is pulled, and sometimes the answer is that it cannot be done safely. On a congested run the honest answer is sometimes that the line has to be dug rather than burst, and that is established before anything is pulled rather than during.

Is there a case where neither method is right?

Yes, two of them. A line that has to change route or grade cannot be fixed by either — both follow the path they are given. And a short, shallow run across ground with nothing on it is usually cheaper to dig than to mobilise trenchless equipment for.

Do I need the whole line done, or just the bad part?

Often just the bad part. One crack, one offset joint, or one root intrusion in an otherwise sound line. A line that is failing generally. Patching a worn-out pipe is money spent on the next failure rather than on this one. The line between those two cases is how many defects the footage shows and whether they repeat at a regular spacing, which is a question the camera answers and a quote should not.

Also asked on every job

Answered in full, once, on the page each one belongs to — rather than repeated on every page of this site.

Every question we are asked, and where each is answered

The footage decides, not the sales pitch

If somebody has already put a camera down your line, bring the recording. We would rather read it and tell you the last verdict was right.

(825) 479-1103 Book a camera inspection