What is the difference between "Knowledge" and "Experience" ?
The difference between knowledge and experience is simple but important:-
Knowledge is what you learn. Experience is what you live through.
Think of it this way:-
* Knowledge comes from books, training, videos, or someone explaining something.
Example:- You read about waterproofing techniques or learn methods in a course.
* Experience comes from actually doing the work and facing real situations.
Example:- Handle a leaking terrace, deal with unexpected cracks, choose materials on-site, and see what actually works over time.
A clearer comparison:-
* Knowledge tells you what should work
*Experience shows you what actually works
* Knowledge is theory
* Experience is practice
* Knowledge can be gained quickly
* Experience takes time, mistakes, and real-world exposure
In real life, the strongest professionals combine both. For example, in waterproofing or damp proofing, someone may know all the methods (knowledge), but only experience teaches how to handle tricky cases like hidden seepage or poor construction quality.
If we do the one Coat of Acrylic polymer mixed with cement coating over the inside vertical wall of AAC block, after dry condition of the coating plastering to be made mixed with acrylic polymer mixed with water in the ratio of 1:4. Then can we avoid the Shrinkage Crack ?
Yes. This method can definitely help in reducing shrinkage cracks over internal AAC Block walls, and technically it is a better system than direct plastering over dry AAC surface.
Proposed system works in two stages:-
Stage 1 — Polymer Cement Slurry Coat
(Acrylic polymer + cement coating over AAC wall)
This acts as:-
a) bonding bridge, b) pore sealer, c) water absorption controller, d) and crack reduction layer.
AAC blocks absorb water rapidly. The slurry coat reduces sudden suction from the plaster mortar, which is one of the major causes of shrinkage cracking.
Stage 2 — Polymer Modified Plaster
(Plaster mixed with acrylic polymer diluted with water 1:4).
This improves:-
a) adhesion, b) flexibility, c) tensile strength, d) and resistance against hairline shrinkage cracks.
So overall, method is technically sound.
Most of the reputed construction chemical companies said the 5 or 10 years warranty. But, how it is possible to say this without knowing the conditins of the construction ?
Very practical. In reality, no construction chemical company can scientifically guarantee 5–10 years in every situation without knowing:-
* substrate condition
* structural movement
* workmanship quality
* moisture exposure
* curing method
* weather conditions
* maintenance after application
So, when companies advertise “5-year” or “10-year” warranties, those warranties are usually conditional warranties, not unconditional promises.
Typical warranty conditions include:-
* Surface preparation must follow
* company specification
* Only approved primer/coating system used
* Required thickness achieved
* Application done by trained applicator
* No structural cracks beyond a limit
* Proper slope and drainage maintained
* No later damage from drilling, tiles, vibration, or settlement
* Periodic maintenance done
If any of these fail, the warranty may become void.
In practice, durability depends more on:-
* Correct diagnosis of the problem
* Surface preparation
* Applicator skill
* Product compatibility
* Structural condition
A mediocre product applied correctly often performs better than a premium product applied badly.
For example:-
** Waterproofing over an active structural crack may fail within months even with a “10-year warranty.”
** The same product on a stable, properly prepared roof may last much longer than 10 years.
Also, many warranties in this industry are:-
* “material replacement warranties” only
* not full leakage-compensation warranties
* sometimes prorated
* often limited to specific failure modes
Most of the renowned construction chemicals companies claims that they have a chemical, if we paint it over the Screed Concrete then it is not required to remove the screed. But my question is, if the screed shows cracks and mostly debonding from the mother slab, then ? Companies just hide this. Why ?
In many terrace waterproofing failures, the real issue is not the waterproofing chemical itself, it is the condition of the existing screed concrete.
If the screed has:-
* Hollow sound / debonding from mother slab
* Structural or shrinkage cracks
* Powdering or weak concrete
* Water trapped underneath
Improper slope or ponding
* Rust expansion from reinforcement below
then simply “painting” a coating over the screed is often only a temporary treatment.
The waterproofing layer can only perform properly when the substrate is sound and well bonded.
Here is the practical engineering reality:-
When existing screed can be retained
A coating-over-screed system may work if:-
* Screed is firmly bonded to slab
* No hollow patches
* Only minor hairline cracks
* Proper slope exists
* Moisture level is controlled
* Surface strength is adequate
In this condition, primers, crack fillers, membranes, PU/acrylic coatings, etc. can perform well.
When screed SHOULD be removed
Removal becomes technically necessary when:-
* Large hollow areas exist
* Screed detached from mother slab
* Cracks are moving or wide
* Leakage originates below screed layer
* Screed thickness is inconsistent
* Old waterproofing trapped underneath
* Repeated failure history exists
Because once debonding exists, the screed itself moves independently from the slab. Any coating applied above it also moves and eventually fails.
This is why experienced applicators perform:-
* Hammer test
* Core cutting
* Moisture test
* Bond test before giving warranty.
Now the question, why do some companies avoid highlighting this ?
Reasons companies often avoid discussing screed removal
1. Removal increases project cost
Removing screed means:-
* Breaking work
* Debris removal
* Re-screeding
* Curing time
* Labour cost
* Longer shutdown
Customers often reject higher quotations.
2. Sales teams focus on “easy solution”
Marketing usually promotes:-
* “No dismantling”
* “Fast application”
* “Zero breaking”
* “Instant waterproofing”
These attract clients more easily.
3. Warranty language contains hidden conditions
Most warranties are conditional. They usually assume:-
* Sound substrate
* No structural movement
* Proper drainage
* Proper application procedure
But these conditions are not explained clearly during sales discussions.
4. Applicator quality varies
Even excellent products fail when:-
* Surface preparation is poor
* Hollow screed ignored
* Moisture trapped
* Wrong thickness applied
Waterproofing is more workmanship-dependent than product-dependent.
The important truth
* No waterproofing chemical can permanently stabilize a loose screed.
* A premium product over a failed substrate still becomes a failed system.
Experienced consultants therefore say:-
“Waterproofing system is only as strong as the substrate beneath it.”
Some Civil Engineers says me that, "we know the construction is poor. That is why we are doing the waterproofing and damp proofing treatment."
Give them answer with respectful, practical, and engineering based not emotional.
Because in reality, waterproofing does have value, but only within limits.
Waterproofing and damp proofing are important protective systems. I fully respect their role. But when we already know that the basic construction is defective, then chemicals alone cannot be considered a permanent engineering solution.
First, the structural and construction deficiencies should be identified and corrected as far as possible. After that, waterproofing can perform effectively as a protection layer.
From a technical point of view, this is the balanced reality:-
* Waterproofing is designed to resist moisture penetration.
* Damp proofing reduces moisture migration.
* But neither can permanently compensate for:-
a) weak concrete,
b) structural cracks,
c) improper slope,
d) poor compaction,
e) honeycombing,
f) bad joint treatment,
g) or continuous structural movement.
If the substrate itself is unstable or porous, the treatment life reduces drastically.
A good engineer should always ask,
“Why is water entering in the first place?” Because leakage is usually a symptom, not the root disease.
Waterproofing works best when construction quality is good.
When construction quality is poor, waterproofing becomes a maintenance cycle.
Chemicals can delay the problem, reduce the problem, or manage the problem. But they cannot always eliminate defects created during construction.
Waterproofing by itself usually does not repair structural defects in concrete. Its primary role is to reduce or prevent water ingress, moisture migration, seepage, and dampness. If concrete has existing defects such as honeycombing, voids, poor compaction, segregation, shrinkage cracks, cold joints, or reinforcement corrosion, those root causes generally need repair before waterproofing is applied.
A more complete sequence is often:-
A) Diagnosis:-
* Identify source of leakage or deterioration
* Determine whether it is structural, non-structural, or moisture-related
B) Rectification of defects:-
*Crack treatment
* Grouting where needed
* Repair mortar for damaged concrete
* Corrosion treatment if steel is affected
C) Selection of appropriate construction chemicals:-
* Acrylic polymers
* PU systems
* Epoxy systems
* Cementitious waterproofing compounds
* Sealants, etc.
D) Correct application methodology:-
* Surface preparation
* Proper ratios and curing
* Compatible layer systems
E) Maintenance:-
* Periodic inspection
“Waterproofing is not a substitute for repairing concrete defects; rather, it acts as a protective system against moisture and water penetration. Proper diagnosis, selection of suitable construction chemicals, and correct application methodology are essential for long-term durability of the structure.”
Even the best chemical system can fail if workmanship or substrate preparation is poor. In construction, diagnosis + material selection + application quality usually work together rather than any one item alone.
