Amata Reports 67% Lower Repair Costs in 130-Bathroom Waterproofing Project

Amata 130-Bathroom Waterproofing Project: Completed in 15 days without removing existing tiles, the intervention also avoided an estimated 223 tonnes of demolition debris.

Repairing leaking bathrooms often requires dismantling finishes that remain otherwise usable. In a project covering 130 finished bathrooms, Amata applied its waterproofing treatment without removing existing tiles, completing the work in 15 days. According to the company, the intervention cost approximately 67% less than the estimated cost of full demolition and retiling.

For developers and facility managers, a leak in a completed building can trigger work well beyond waterproofing. Removing fixtures, breaking tiles and restoring finishes all add to repair costs. Moreover, when rooms remain occupied or handover deadlines approach, the time required to restore usability becomes equally important.

Silent Waterproofing Without Removing Existing Tiles

In the 130-bathroom project, Amata first investigated how water travelled through the existing floor assembly. Based on the findings, the team selected in-house formulations and determined their application sequence. The treatment addressed leakage through the existing tiled assembly. Ponding tests and subsequent inspections helped assess its performance.

Amata estimates the treatment cost at approximately 76.1 Lakh INR-Crore for all 130 bathrooms, compared with 2.34 INR-Crore for full demolition and retiling to comparable specifications. This translates into estimated savings of approximately 1.58 INR-Crore, or 67%.

The comparison excludes ceiling repairs common to both options, as well as potential delay and penalty costs. Amata estimates that the conventional alternative would have required four to six months, compared with 15 days for the intervention.

Lower Demolition Waste and Material Consumption

The project also demonstrates how the waterproofing solutions by Amata can help reduce demolition waste when existing finishes remain suitable for retention. Amata’s environmental assessment estimates that retaining the existing finishes avoided approximately 223 Tonnes of demolition debris and 62.7 Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. These figures compare the intervention with a modelled demolition and rebuilding alternative. The emissions assessment accounts for treatment materials and curing energy. However, the estimates rely on company-reported material quantities and emissions factors, rather than an independently verified carbon assessment.

The material footprint of construction and demolition makes this relevant beyond individual projects. UNEP and GlobalABC‘s 2025–2026 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction identifies the sector as responsible for nearly half of global material extraction. This highlights the importance of repair and refurbishment strategies that reduce demand for replacement materials and limit construction waste.

Applying Different Treatments to Different Defects

Amata also reports recovering more than 10,000 SqFt of basement space without excavation. The intervention combined ground treatment and waterproofing, with the team selecting and sequencing different formulations to address leakage under the site’s specific conditions.

In another residential project, the company addressed below-strength concrete columns using a treatment that combined polymer impregnation with a site-specific application method. Subsequent core testing assessed the intervention, while the columns retained their original dimensions. Project identities remain confidential, and the reported outcomes relate to the specific conditions and scope of each intervention.

The World Bank‘s July 2025 report, Towards Resilient and Prosperous Cities in India, estimates that over half of the urban infrastructure India will require by 2050 is yet to be built. For project teams, this reinforces the importance of planning for durability, maintenance access and repairability before finishes and subsequent construction make corrective work more difficult.

Diagnosis Before Repair

Amata demonstrates how effective waterproofing solutions can reduce repair costs and material waste through accurate defect diagnosis and targeted interventions. Site conditions, the cause of failure and execution constraints guide the choice of formulations and application methods. Trials, testing and observation help determine whether a treatment suits the specific requirements.

For developers and facility managers, repair costs extend beyond waterproofing to dismantling, replacement materials and operational downtime. The 130-bathroom project illustrates how silent waterproofing can reduce these costs when existing finishes remain suitable for retention.

Ultimately, diagnosing the defect before deciding what to remove can help project teams make more efficient repair decisions. Where technically appropriate, preserving completed construction can reduce both expenditure and material waste.

Also Read:

Zydex Takes Premium Paint Technology Beyond Premium Homes with NIVO, DRIO and DRIO Max

India’s Industrial Output Rises 6.7% in September, Lifting SME Supply Chains in Tier 2 and 3 Cities

Delhi-NCR Decongestion Push: Work on Key Road Infrastructure Projects to Start by 2027

---

Disclaimer: The information herein is based upon information obtained in good faith from sources believed to be reliable. All such information and opinions can be subject to change. Furthermore, The image featured in this article is for representation purposes only. It does not in any way represent the project. If you wish to remove or edit the article, please email editor@biltrax.com.