Since January 1st 2013, the French energy performance (EP) regulation requires building airtightness level to be justified to a lower-than-required value. These requirements represent an important change in the airtightness market. As a consequence, it is the State’s responsibility to accompany this market evolution and to supervise the implementation of the quality in building airtightness. French regulation allows two ways to justify the airtightness value for the building envelope. Either the constructor performs systematic measurement on each building, or the constructor proves that a certified quality management approach is implemented.
The French State has created a specific national committee in order to evaluate the airtightness quality management schemes. The aim is to authorize constructors to justify the airtightness level of their buildings through a quality management approach. The CETE de Lyon is in charge of this committee.
In this framework, each constructor that has been certified by the committee must provide a yearly specific file. With this file, the constructor must prove the actual and yearlong application of its approach. Moreover, the committee implemented a first control campaign. It started in 2011 and ended at the end of 2012. This campaign had two goals. First, it aimed at checking the effective implementation of the quality management approach, on some buildings selected by the committee. Then, the committee wished to check the actual airtightness value of some buildings selected by the committee.
This paper will present a synthesis of the results and the lessons learnt from this control campaign. The first part will be dedicated to the analysis of the airtightness test results and to the difficulties encountered by civil servants while carrying out the control test. The second part will be dedicated to the analysis of the reality of airtightness quality management approach implementation.
The main results are 1) 75% of constructors comply with the required airtightness values, 2) but rarely, constructors fully comply with the quality management approach, 3) and constructors positively welcome the State control campaign.
The paper concludes with a synthesis of this campaign presented by a double label. The double label presents constructors results regarding levels measured and the analysis of their quality approach implementation. Finally, the paper ends with improvement proposals for the next control campaign. The State will continue to control certified constructors in two ways. Yearly file analysis will focus more on the reality of airtightness quality approach implementation. The control campaign will be maintained and will focus only on some certified constructors.