Comparing UV and Ambient Pull-in-Place Liner Installation Efficiency

In the world of pipe rehabilitation and repair, choosing the right method and equipment can make a significant difference in both project cost, efficiency, margins and profits. Today, we delve into a comparative analysis of UV and Ambient pull-in-place liners, drawing insights from a real-world scenario involving a contractor who experienced a UV system failure during an installation project. We’ll explore the various aspects of these two liner installation methods, including setup time, curing, labor, material costs, and more.

The Scenario

A contractor encountered a UV system failure during an installation project that required them to switch to an Ambient pull-in-place liner. To ensure an accurate comparison, both liners were installed in the same pipeline under similar conditions, and all other factors were kept constant. Let’s take a closer look at the data obtained from this scenario.

UV Cure vs. Ambient Cure Table

Installation Setup Time

  1. UV Pull-in-Place: The UV system required 3 hours of setup, which included pop-up tent site setup, bladder preparation, material wetting, liner taping, and other necessary preparations for a 30′ UV liner followed by a 4′ UV liner.
  2. Ambient Pull-in-Place: In contrast, the Ambient system required 1.5 hours for setup, involving measuring, bladder construction, material wetting, and liner taping for the installation of a 34′ seamless liner.

Inflation and Deflation Cycles

  1. UV Pull-in-Place: The UV system required multiple stages of inflation and deflation cycles, totaling 25 minutes.
  2. Ambient Pull-in-Place: The Ambient system by Internal Pipe Technologies involved three inflation and deflation cycles but only took a total of 5 minutes. Afterward, the air was regulated and left as is to cure.

Cure Time

  1. UV Pull-in-Place: The UV system needed 10 to 15 minutes for curing.
  2. Ambient Pull-in-Place: The Ambient system had a longer curing time of 5 hours, but no labor was billed to the site during this period, allowing technicians to multitask or work on other installations.

Bladder Extraction

Both UV and Ambient systems require approximately 30 minutes for bladder extraction.

Bladder Depreciation

  1. UV Pull-in-Place: The cost was not accounted for but UV Bladders have a short shelf life and a second bladder is required on-site.
  2. Ambient Pull-in-Place: N/A

Total Labor

  1. UV Pull-in-Place: The total labor required for the UV liner installation project amounted to 5.7 hours.
  2. Ambient Pull-in-Place: In contrast, the Ambient liner installation project required significantly less labor, totaling 2.2 hours.

Material Costs

  1. UV Pull-in-Place: Material costs for the UV system came to approximately $1,560.00.
  2. Ambient Pull-in-Place: The material costs for the Ambient system were notably lower at $550.00.


In this comparative analysis, we’ve examined the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of UV and Ambient pull-in-place liners based on real-world data. The results clearly demonstrate that the Ambient system had several advantages over the UV system in this particular scenario. It required less setup time and incurred lower material costs. Moreover, the labor hours for the Ambient liner installation were significantly lower. During the cure, the crew actually went to complete another job.

However, it’s essential to note that the choice between UV and Ambient liners may vary depending on the specific project requirements, budget constraints, and equipment availability. Factors such as bladder durability and depreciation also play a crucial role in long-term cost considerations.

Ultimately, this comparative analysis highlights the importance of evaluating different liner installation methods and equipment based on individual project needs to make informed decisions that maximize efficiency and minimize costs.

Looking to Grow Your Business? Join the Pipe Lining Industry!

Get a Free Quote