ᐅ Is a waterproof concrete shell (often called a "watertight basin") a good or bad choice?

Hello fellow home builders,

we asked our supplier to optionally include a waterproof concrete basement ("white tank") in the offer. Now we have received the offer, and it includes an "orange tank" instead. My question is: what exactly is the difference between the white tank and the orange tank, and is the orange tank recommended? Has anyone had experience with this? I also read that steel fiber reinforced concrete is used with the orange tank. Is that always the case, and what are the advantages or disadvantages of this?

Thanks for your help.
Best regards, Thomas

"White tank" is a technical term, while "orange tank" is a brand name used by a manufacturer to refer to a white tank.

Thomas88 schrieb:

We asked our supplier to include a waterproof concrete basement option in the offer. Now we have received the offer, and it includes an orange waterproofing system. My question is, what exactly is the difference compared to the white waterproofing system?

The term "white waterproofing system" is a common generic expression, while "orange waterproofing system" is a trademarked brand name from a specific provider. The concrete used inside is standard waterproof concrete, and the brand name is just a marketing label. There are many ways to achieve the goal; in the end, it comes down to meeting measurable quality standards. Every supplier has their own formula for this type of waterproof concrete wall – in this case, the provider simply trademarked their recipe. The line between genuine competition and marketing hype is always blurred; you have to check the technical datasheet to understand the consistency of this boundary. I am not familiar with this particular formula; it is not necessarily better or worse – but the supplier clearly wants you to believe you are getting something exclusive that no one else can offer.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Hello,

Everything that a waterproof concrete structure (commonly called a “white tank”) must meet is regulated by the WU guidelines. In my opinion, fiber-reinforced concrete is not covered there and, as far as I know, is still not generally accepted as standard practice. Personally, I would not want to take that risk.

A building does not become watertight (only) because of its concrete, but primarily through the handling of cracks. This is now more or less well regulated for conventionally reinforced components. However, with fibers, several issues still arise:
- Are the fibers properly aligned within the component?
- Are the fibers sufficiently distributed across the cross-section?
- Does the supplier even provide the correct fibers?
- Is the construction method itself even normatively regulated as a waterproof structure?

If a construction defect occurs (e.g., clustering of fibers, causing areas with a reduced fiber content), cracks cannot be reliably bridged and may develop into separation cracks -> separation cracks lead to water infiltration.

It is crucial to consider the question: “How will I use my basement?”
If it is only going to be used occasionally or for minor purposes, a single crack that is subsequently sealed might be acceptable.

But to sum up — I would (still) avoid it. In the construction industry (for example, in multi-story residential buildings where many waterproof underground garages are built each year), fiber-reinforced waterproof concrete is not used at all. So why should it suddenly be suitable for a single-family house where “laypeople” are the clients? Wouldn’t the industry need to establish it first before trust in this method can grow?

Best regards,
Jann

Jann St schrieb:

There are still some ongoing issues with fibers:
- Is the fiber correctly aligned within the component?
- Are the fibers sufficiently distributed across the cross-section of the component?
- Does the supplier even provide the right type of fibers?
- Is the construction method regulated as a waterproof concrete (WU) element according to standards at all?

The idea of adding fiber clusters on top of gravel pockets is indeed not very reassuring.

Jann St schrieb:

But to summarize – I would (for now) stay away from it. In the construction industry (for example, in multi-story residential buildings where many waterproof underground garages are built annually) it is absolutely not used. So why should it suddenly be suitable for a single-family home where the clients are "laypersons"? Shouldn't the industry establish this first so that trust in the construction method can grow?

Well, while the major contractors prefer concrete brewed according to strict purity rules, the lay client hopes for the healing effect of homeopathic additives as aggregates ;-)
If I understand correctly, the supplier here does not have a patent on a brilliant improvement, but rather a trademark protection on the idea of being allowed to call a (only possibly equivalent) waterproof concrete “orange.”

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/