Air-tightness Paper Intro - 364 Air-tightness is an integral component in the development of sustainable construction throughout Europe as it plays a key

role in building energy performance, thermal comfort and the indoor air uality of d!ellings "Energy #aving $rust, %&&'( "#innott ) *yer, %&+%( In recognition of this fact the ,- introduced legislation in the form of .uilding /egulations Part 0+A !hich deals in part, !ith the governing of air permeability and pressure testing of ne! d!ellings1 "23 4overnment, %&+&( $he document serves t!o purposes !ithin the conte5t of airtightness in ne! build d!ellings1 Initially it dictates the minimum levels of air permeability compliance re uired by all ne! housing developments1 $his is set at a relatively fle5ible +& m36h6m% at '&Pa1 7hen placed !ithin the conte5t of g and passivehaus levels of airtightness, and lays out a frame!ork of testing and commissioning !hich aims to enforce these set levels of compliance1 $here is a great deal of research surrounding the appropriate levels of air-tightness in relation to a number of variables such as mechanical ventilation, the si8e of a d!elling, the construction methods used and 911 $here is far less information on ho! these regulations are then enforced $he premise of this paper is that the current regulations have too many holes and not enough failsafes : no one is responsible, !ho !atches the !atchers1 The case study abhorrent the levels of compliance re uired and ho! those ambitions are achieved is essential in ensuring that In the ,- the housebuilding industry is goverened by

$herefore strict levels of regulations are re uired in order to ensure that airtightness becomes and remains a priority if the ,- is serious about achieveing the environmental goals set !ithin the domestic construction sector1 In England,

$he importance of airtightness in d!ellings is not really the matter in uestion, !hat !e are looking at is the manner in !hich airtightness in d!elling construction is regulated and legislated1 $his is done solely through Part 0A of the building regs9

.ackground $he current regulations are as follo!s9introduce the %&&6 regulations, and then ho! they evolved into the %&+& regs1

0it revie! : ho! has air tightness evolved, !hat component of heat is lost through ventilation "essentially backing up ho! important airtightnes is1 3;2/ and its use !idely in industry and the direct "re uirement for lo! airtightness values : usless above 3 : get reference( impact of a leaky building in essentially making the e uipment usless1

#tructure< Airtightness paper is saying *ouble check !hat the building regs say : 7e !ere on site, and sa! the building fail, prompting the re uirement to test another property, !hich didn=t happen have seen that the remedial !ork isn=t done, thus there is a failing Comment on the quality of the remedial measures in a house which has been designed to such a high level of performance, why, at this stage are we relying on spray foam in gaps left by plumbers and electricians. Spray foam which will inevitably degrade or shift This is what happened we know the percentage which should have been tested, and witnessed a failure in 3 of the 4 houses that were tested therefore it should have been 7, not 4 houses that were tested and they weren't done. The premise of the conclusion, based on this kind of practice there needs to be potentially an independent person present when the test happens to ensure that things are done to the book. The airtightness people are stuck between a rock and a hard place, because if they fail a plot (and the evidence suggests that the ma ority of plots will fail strict airtightness requirements ! st time" they they have to test a new house, and will inevitably have to charge the contractor more money for the additional tests. #lso they will have to insist that the contractor implements the remedial measures throughout the development. #ny tester who cuts corners and simply retests houses once remedial measures

have been put in place will then be looked on in favour by the contractors who obviously don$t want to spend more money and time dealing with these matters. The building control officer needs to be on site during the pressure testing stage to enforce the regulations as an indpendant observer. nd if the houses !" fail, then ## houses must be tested, not $ust an additional house %strict penalties should force better building practice& because we have also evidenced from our own tests that these are the results coming back and the houses are not passing. 'f we are serious about delivering airtightness in the (), then it is the only way we are going to do it. lternatively the solution might be on a sliding scale * house fails then obviously give the contractor the opportunity to implement the remedial measures throughout the site, then pick two more houses at random and test them, if either of those fail, then 4 will be tested etc. "ne e+emplar scheme we have shown that this is happeneing, it is because of the way the industry is working at the moment and the way its being legislated. The final conclusion is actually positive as it places us in a position where the architects have to take risks with their specification %clarify,,& and $ust rely on patch and fill at the end of the pro$ect and will specify better solutions and the contractor will be much more stringent on site. 'f they have to think about the cost of having to pay for every single house to be tested and then also modifications to be made %may be large modifications not $ust spraying foam&.

The conclusion -ow do we ensure that building regas are actually being adhered to, 's testing $ust one other house enough, The authors believe based on the evidence here that failing one house and then testing another %even though this didn.t happen& "n / houses, putting the real values back itto 0 1 we can see that because it wasn.t properly regulated we end up with this gap. 'magine that over the whole new build housing stock therefore it calls into 2uestion the whole process. 3uilding control officer doesn.t need to double check air tightness,

' know from my evidence %what ' saw on site& that they house have tested another house. The house failed the initial airtightness test. The evidence of fi+es in some houses and not others blatently shows that there was no blanket remedial work done to the houses.

'ntro 7hat is Airthightness in the domenstic setting 7hat are the regulations in the ,3ackground >o mention of it in the

2ouses that !ere tested by .#/IA initially failed their target of Evidence !ould serve to sho! that in Phase + the similar thing happened !ith the houses originally tested sho!ing a catagorical step change in performance above the rest of the phase1 ,ltimatly it is no good having regulations that aren=t being follo!ed and thus the Part 0 need to come up !ith a !ay of verifying that these houses have indeed been tested1

$hese are the rules9here is !hat I sa! "evidence of the rules being broken(9and here is evidence to back up !hat I sa!9so ho! are the rules gonna be backed up to ensure this does not happen again9

http<66!!!1planningportal1gov1uk6uploads6br6A*?0+A?!m1pdf '1%+ If satisfactory performance is not achieved then remedial measures should be carried out on the d!elling and a ne! test carried out until the d!elling achieves the

criteria set out in paragraph '1%&1 In addition, a further d!elling of the same d!elling type should be tested, thereby increasing the overall sample si8e1 '1%% In addition to the remedial !ork on a d!elling that failed the initial test, other d!ellings of the same d!elling type that have not been tested should be e5amined, and !here appropriate similar remedial measures should be applied1

0ack of compliance in general http<66!!!1sciencedirect1com6science6article6pii6#&3&+4%+'+%&&%+'@ 3y study supports this, so !hat is a better strategy to help

The volume of pressure testing required will roughly double. A pressure test should be carried out on three units of each dwelling type or 50% of the instances of the dwelling type, whichever is the smaller. In addition, a confidence factor will apply to dwellings not pressure tested. here a dwelling has been pressure tested, the measured value is used in the calculation of the !"#. here the dwelling has not been pressure tested, the value used in the !"# calculation is the average of the measured values for dwellings of the same type but with the addition of a confidence factor of $.0 m%&'h.m$( at 50 pa. This means in effect that the design air permeability must be at most ).0 in order to meet the ma*imum allowable value of +0.0 at completion of the dwelling. A value of +5.0 can still be used in small developments.
http<66!!!1nesltd1co1uk6ne!s6+&-key-changes-building-regulations-part-l+a-%&+&

http://www.tace.co.uk/download/Part_L_2010_OLYMPIA.pdf