Get Quote
Home/CIPP Technology/CIPP vs Sliplining vs Pipe Bursting

CIPP vs Sliplining vs Pipe Bursting

Choosing among the three major trenchless rehabilitation methods

Comparison

CIPP vs Sliplining vs Pipe Bursting

Trenchless rehabilitation includes three major method families: CIPP (cured-in-place), sliplining (HDPE pull-in), and pipe bursting (replacement via fracturing). Each has distinct strengths. This guide helps engineers select the right method for each project.

CIPP vs Sliplining vs Pipe Bursting
Side by Side

Comparison Matrix

CriterionCIPPSlipliningPipe Bursting
Installation ConceptResin-cured liner inside hostSmaller HDPE pulled inside hostOld pipe fractured, new pulled in
Diameter ChangeSlight reductionSignificant reductionMaintained or upsized
Hydraulic CapacitySlight reduction (offset by smooth interior)Reduced significantlyMaintained or improved
Host Pipe ConditionSeverely damaged OKMostly intact requiredAny condition
Live-flow InstallationSpiral-wound: yes; others: limitedNoNo
ExcavationManhole onlyPit at each endPit at each end
Service Life50 years50-100 years (HDPE)50-100 years (HDPE)
Best ForMost rehabilitation scenariosInert pipe with ample roomSevere damage, capacity expansion
Engineering Verdict

Which method to choose?

CIPP is the most versatile method, suitable for the broadest range of host pipe conditions and operational scenarios. Sliplining offers the longest service life with high-density polyethylene but reduces hydraulic capacity. Pipe bursting is the only true replacement method among trenchless options, ideal when full diameter retention or upsizing is required. Most major rehabilitation programs use all three — selecting per-project based on conditions.

Need help choosing the right method?

Send your project specs and let our engineers recommend the optimal rehabilitation approach.

Talk to Engineering