Login
From 2006 till 2012, the 2005 energy performance (EP) regulation (RT 2005) did not entail any obligation to justify the envelope airtightness level. As a consequence, asking for the certification of airtightness quality management approaches was a voluntary request from constructors. Thus, they might be allowed to take into account a better-than-default value into the thermal calculation. Since 2012, French 2012 EP regulation (RT 2012) requires building airtightness level to be justified, with two ways of justification. Either the constructor performs systematic measurements on each building, or the constructor proves that a certified quality management approach is implemented. Thus, since 2012, the number of requests for airtightness quality management certification has significantly increased.
In order to evaluate the airtightness quality management approaches, the French State has created a specific national committee. It aims at authorizing constructors to justify their buildings airtightness level through a quality management approach. The CETE de Lyon is in charge of this committee.
This paper will present and analyze the evolution of the committee processes and statistics, concurrently with the French EP regulation. The first part will focus on an assessment of the committee validation process. It will also present the evolution of the number of requests and certifications, since 2006. Results show that compared to each previous year (2006-2011), the number of RT 2012 requests in 2012, has been multiplied by 4. Moreover, the number of RT 2012 certifications is, by June 2013, higher than the whole RT 2005 certifications delivered over 6 years. The second part will present the control process implemented by the committee on certified constructors. First, it will present the self-declared airtightness values that are presented by constructors in their yearly renewal files. Then, it will focus on results of the control campaign set up by the committee. Results show that the majority of measured dwellings meet the required airtightness level. Nevertheless, results of that control campaign show that approved constructors do not entirely implement their quality management approach.
The paper concludes with the committee process improvements. These improvements must meet the increasing number of requests, without losing quality reputation of these approaches. The State will continue to inspect certified constructors in two ways. Yearly files analysis will focus more on the actual implementation of airtightness quality approach. The control campaign will be maintained because of its impact on constructors. A question is now set on the need to externalize this quality management approach committee because of the number of requests. The process could be the same as the airtightness measurement qualification made in France, a few years ago.