INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 183
www.rsisinternational.org
A Study on the Impact of the National Technical Regulation on Fire Safety
for Buildings and Structures on Airport Construction Projects in Vietnam
Mai Danh Giang
Faculty of Fire Fighting and Rescue, The University of Fire Prevention and Fighting, Vietnam
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.15020000016
Received: 12 February 2026; Accepted: 17 February 2026; Published: 03 March 2026
ABSTRACT
In the context of Vietnam’s accelerated development of aviation infrastructure, airport construction projects-
particularly airport terminal buildings-are increasingly characterized by large-scale facilities, open architectural
layouts, extensive multi-level atrium spaces and highly integrated technical systems. The promulgation of the
National Technical Regulation on Fire Safety for Buildings and Structures (QCVN 06:2022/BXD) and its
Amendment No. 1:2023 has contributed to raising the overall level of fire safety for buildings and structures.
However, it has also created a number of “bottlenecks” when applied to highly specialized facilities such as
airports. This paper employs a policy and regulatory analysis approach, typical case studies across the project
life cycle, and comparative analysis with international standards, including International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Doc 9137 Part 1 and relevant National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards
applicable to airport facilities. The findings indicate that the impacts of QCVN 06:2022/BXD are most
significant in four major areas: (i) master planning and fire service access; (ii) architectural design of terminal
buildings (access routes, roof access, and open spaces); (iii) fire compartmentation, egress, and smoke control
in large spaces; and (iv) approval procedures, acceptance processes, and management of design and functional
changes. Based on these findings, the paper proposes a set of solutions, including the development of an “airport
annex” guidance document for QCVN 06, the establishment of a Performance-Based Design (PBD) framework
with transparent criteria, the resolution of inter-agency conflicts through coordination mechanisms, and the
harmonization of Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) capability requirements in line with ICAO standards.
Keywords: QCVN 06:2022/BXD, airport, fire safety, smoke control, egress, fire safety approval, PBD, ICAO,
NFPA.
INTRODUCTION
An airport is a complex infrastructure system with highly specific characteristics, serving both as a place of large
public concentration (airport terminal buildings) and as a cluster of industrial and technical facilities (technical
areas, aircraft hangars, fuel depots, cargo warehouses, power stations, etc.). In terms of operation, airports are
subject to strict aviation security requirements, continuous 24/7 operation, and passenger flows that fluctuate
according to “flight peak cycles” (peak and off-peak loads). Architecturally, modern terminals are typically
characterized by large-scale, multi-level atrium spaces, extensive glass façades, and multi-layered traffic
organization (landside roads, elevated curbside decks, departure and arrival halls, etc.), which require egress and
smoke control solutions that are considerably more complex than those of conventional public buildings.
In this context, QCVN 06:2022/BXD and its Amendment No. 1:2023 play a crucial role in standardizing fire
safety requirements for buildings and structures in Vietnam. However, since QCVN 06:2022/BXD has been
developed as a “general-purpose” regulation, many of its requirements are quantitative and prescriptive in nature.
When applied to airport facilities, such requirements may conflict with aviation operational constraints and lead
to additional costs without necessarily optimizing actual fire safety performance. Meanwhile, international
practice for large-scale and specialized facilities is increasingly oriented toward PBD and the demonstration of
safety through simulation and quantitative assessment, based on the methodological foundation of the SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering and contemporary PBD reviews [3], [4]. In addition, specialized
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 184
www.rsisinternational.org
standards such as ICAO Doc 9137 Part 1 (RFF) and NFPA standards (NFPA 415 for terminal buildings and
NFPA 403 for ARFF) indicate that an approach based on “fit-for-purpose” and “objective-capability” principles
may be more appropriate for airport facilities [5]-[7].
From the practical experience of implementing numerous airport projects in Vietnam, a key issue has emerged:
the same requirement of QCVN 06:2022/BXD can be interpreted in different ways and may result in multiple
rounds of approval adjustments when confronted with special configurations (elevated curbsides, large halls,
long-span roofs, multi-level atrium complexes, etc.). Therefore, a systematic study is required in order to: (i)
identify the groups of QCVN 06:2022/BXD provisions that have the most significant impact on airports; (ii)
analyze the impact mechanisms across the project life cycle; (iii) determine the root causes of the bottlenecks in
application; and (iv) propose improvement solutions that ensure legal compliance while enhancing actual safety
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Research objectives
The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of QCVN 06:2022/BXD and its Amendment No.
1:2023 on airport construction projects in Vietnam and to propose solutions for improving the application
mechanism. Four specific objectives are defined as follows:
To identify the groups of requirements in QCVN 06:2022/BXD that have the most significant impact on airport
facilities (particularly terminal buildings).
To analyze the impacts across the project life cycle: planning → design → approval → construction →
acceptance → operation.
To conduct comparative analysis with international standards (ICAO, NFPA, and PBD/SFPE) in order to select
approaches suitable to the conditions of Vietnam.
To propose solutions, including the specialized application of the regulation, the establishment of a PBD
framework, inter-agency coordination mechanisms, and the harmonization of ARFF capability logic.
Research scope
The research scope focuses on building components that are strongly affected by fire safety regulations,
including airport terminal buildings, multi-level atrium halls, commercial and service areas within terminals,
elevated curbside structures, auxiliary technical areas, and access infrastructure connections. The legal scope
takes QCVN 06:2022/BXD and its Amendment No. 1:2023 as the primary analytical framework, combined with
references to ICAO Doc 9137 Part 1 and relevant NFPA standards [6], [7]. Regarding the technical foundation
for PBD and validation models, the study draws upon the SFPE Handbook and several representative studies
and reviews on PBD and simulation [4], [8], [9].
Research methodology
The study employs a combination of the following methods:
Policy and regulatory analysis: deconstructing the groups of QCVN 06:2022/BXD requirements relevant
to airports and analyzing the fire safety management logic in relation to specific building types.
Project life-cycle analysis: tracing the impacts of regulatory requirements on decision-making processes
throughout planning, design, approval, construction, acceptance, and operation.
Comparative analysis: comparing the prescriptive and quantitative approach of QCVN 06:2022/BXD
with the “objective-capability” approach of ICAO and the specialized standards of NFPA, while
positioning PBD as a tool to harmonize project-specific characteristics with unified management
requirements [3]-[7].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 185
www.rsisinternational.org
Synthesis and policy recommendations: developing solutions based on priority levels and
implementation roadmaps suitable to practical conditions.
Current Situation and Analysis of the Impacts of QCVN 06:2022/BXD on Airport Projects
QCVN 06:2022/BXD has significant impacts on the design of fire protection systems for airports
QCVN 06:2022/BXD has been developed for broad application, with many provisions emphasizing minimum
requirements in order to standardize and facilitate state management of fire prevention, firefighting, and rescue
operations [1], [2]. However, airports are facilities with highly specific and stringent operational, security, and
functional requirements. As a result, even a minor change in the layout of fire service access or technical zoning
may trigger a chain reaction affecting architecture, structural systems, Mechanical And Electrical Plumbing
(MEP) design, traffic organization, and security control. This explains why the impacts of QCVN 06:2022/BXD
on airports are “greater” than those on conventional public buildings of similar gross floor area.
From the perspective of modern fire safety engineering, an approach based on performance objectives (goal-
oriented) and verification through simulation and quantitative assessment is considered more appropriate for
complex facilities [3], [4]. International practice shows that large airport terminals often need to adopt PBD in
order to balance open architectural layouts, smoke control requirements, passenger flow management, and
operational efficiency [3], [8]. This creates a certain gap compared to a rigid prescriptive application if no flexible
mechanism is available.
Impacts on master planning and organization of fire service access
Conflicts between “fire service access” and aviation operational constraints
The group of requirements related to fire service roads, stopping positions, and façade access in QCVN
06:2022/BXD typically exerts influence from the very early stage of master planning [1], [2]. For terminal
buildings, arranging access roads close to the building may conflict with landside traffic organization (passenger
cars, taxis, buses), multi-level elevated curbsides, security-controlled areas, and traffic segregation requirements.
In many projects, in order to “comply” with access requirements, investors have had to:
Provide dedicated service roads for fire engines (leading to increased costs for pavements, drainage, lighting,
and security arrangements);
Modify building setbacks, resulting in adjustments to elevated curbside connections, parking areas, and
underground technical infrastructure;
Reconfigure façades and access points, directly affecting architectural appearance and commercial operations.
Access based on “deployment effectiveness” instead of purely geometric distances
In PBD practice, certain access requirements are transformed from purely “geometric distance” criteria into
criteria based on “operational deployment effectiveness,” including: access time, the ability to position fire
engines and deploy crews, hose reach, availability of water supply points/standpipes, and the capability to access
functional floors [3], [4]. This approach helps reconcile the specific architectural and traffic configurations of
airports while still ensuring safety objectives. In principle, this is an aspect that should be institutionalized in an
“airport annex” for QCVN 06:2022/BXD.
Impacts on terminal architecture: upper-level access, roof access, and operational costs
Upper-level access: risk of becoming a formalistic requirement
Certain access requirements (for example, upper-level access) are intended to ensure rescue accessibility in
situations where the façade is constrained [1]. However, airport terminal buildings often already have multiple
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 186
www.rsisinternational.org
access points inherently provided by elevated curbsides, departure and arrival halls, and various functional
floors. If the density of access points is applied mechanically along the entire façade length, three typical
consequences may arise:
Disruption of architectural façade concepts (especially large glass façades);
Increased costs for security control, intrusion prevention, and maintenance;
During operation, areas that are required to remain unobstructed may be occupied for advertising or temporary
counters, thereby reducing actual safety effectiveness.
Roof access: conflicts with long-span roofs and occupational safety
Modern terminals commonly employ long-span steel roofs, lightweight roofing systems, and multiple layers of
technical installations. A rigid requirement for roof access may increase occupational safety risks and
maintenance costs without significantly improving actual firefighting capability. In many cases, response
effectiveness depends more on smoke control strategies, functional zoning, fire detection and suppression
systems, and access from operational floors [3].
Therefore, a reasonable solution is to convert this requirement into an assessment based on “access functionality”
and roof conditions (with conditional exemptions or reductions subject to justification) instead of imposing a
uniform requirement.
Impacts on fire compartmentation, egress, and smoke control in large spaces
The terminal as a “passenger flow problem” driven by flight peak cycles
Unlike shopping centers, airport terminals involve passenger flows with luggage, various special user groups,
and bottlenecks caused by security screening and ticket control. As a result, assumptions regarding occupant
load and movement speed based on “generic models” may be inaccurate. Consequently, egress and smoke control
requirements should be based on specific scenarios corresponding to different operational periods (peak hours,
off-peak hours, and abnormal events). This is the reason why international practice frequently employs egress
simulation and scenario-based tenability criteria [3], [8].
Smoke control in large spaces: the need for PBD and quantitative criteria
In large or multi-level atrium spaces, the selection among mechanical smoke exhaust, natural smoke ventilation,
pressurization, or hybrid systems depends heavily on building geometry and operational conditions. Research
on smoke control in large public spaces has shown that effectiveness can vary considerably depending on
ventilation strategies and system configurations [9].
For airport terminal buildings, a recent simulation study also emphasized the importance of modeling smoke
spread, visibility, temperature, and egress time in optimizing “fireproof spaces” [8]. This suggests that without
a PBD framework, prescriptive application may be suboptimal and may prolong approval processes due to
technical disputes.
Impacts on approval, acceptance, and management of design changes
In airport projects, design documents often undergo multiple rounds of adjustment when conflicts arise between
prescriptive regulations and special configurations. Although QCVN 06:2022/BXD allows for alternative or
equivalent solutions, the absence of standardized verification criteria increases the risk of “prolonged approval
processes”: each party (consultants, investors, and approving authorities) may have different interpretations of
equivalency levels, acceptance criteria, and verification methods. PBD reviews emphasize that, for PBD to
operate transparently, a clear framework of procedures, criteria, and tools is essential; otherwise, management
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 187
www.rsisinternational.org
uncertainty and legal risks will increase [3], [4]. Therefore, the bottleneck in approval is not only technical but
also stems from the “lack of a formal PBD institutional framework.”
Table 1. Matrix of Major Impacts of QCVN 06:2022/BXD on Airport Projects
QCVN 06:2022/BXD
Requirement
Project Stage
Affected
Typical Consequences
Level of
“Bottleneck”
Fire service access/fire
service roads
Master planning -
preliminary design
Adjustment of master layout,
additional infrastructure
costs, operational conflicts
Very high
Access routes (upper-level
access, roof access)
Architectural design
- acceptance
Increased costs, reduced
operational usability, risk of
formalistic implementation
High
Fire
compartmentation/egress
Design - approval
Architectural fragmentation,
difficulty in accommodating
passenger flows
High
Smoke
control/pressurization
MEP design -
approval
Lack of verification
framework, prolonged
documentation process
Very high
Equipment / ARFF
Investment -
operation
Overlapping standards,
difficulty in optimizing
capabilities
Medium to high
Comparative Financial Impact: Prescriptive Compliance versus Performance-Based Optimization
While this study does not disclose project-specific financial data due to confidentiality considerations, a
scenario-based comparative assessment can clarify the relative economic implications of purely prescriptive
For a representative mid-to-large international terminal building in Vietnam (gross floor area approximately
80,000-120,000 m²), strict compliance with prescriptive fire service access requirements may require:
Construction of additional dedicated fire service roads (estimated 500-800 m in length);
Adjustment of building setbacks along terminal façades (typically 3-6 m);
Relocation or redesign of underground utilities, drainage systems, and curbside structures.
Based on prevailing civil construction cost levels in Vietnam, such modifications may represent approximately
1.5-3.5% of total terminal construction cost, excluding long-term maintenance, security control, and operational
efficiency impacts.
By contrast, a PBD-based alternative that demonstrates equivalent deployment effectiveness (e.g., validated
response time, hose reach, access to critical floors, and water supply adequacy) may:
Reduce redundant hard infrastructure;
Minimize façade alterations;
Preserve commercial frontage and passenger circulation efficiency.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 188
www.rsisinternational.org
Although PBD introduces additional design and simulation costs (typically estimated at 0.2-0.5% of construction
cost for complex facilities), the net lifecycle financial impact may remain favorable when avoided civil works
and operational optimization are considered.
Therefore, the economic question is not whether fire safety increases cost, but whether financial resources are
allocated toward infrastructure redundancy or toward demonstrable operational effectiveness.
Causes of the Limitations and Shortcomings in Application
Causes arising from the “mismatch” between specialized facilities and general management instruments
The core of the problem lies in the incompatibility between airports as highly specialized facilities and a
regulatory instrument designed for general application. QCVN 06:2022/BXD has appropriate objectives;
however, when its rigid requirements are applied to open terminal configurations, multi-level elevated curbsides,
large halls, and long-span roofs, compliance costs increase significantly and the need for “equivalent solution
verification” arises [1], [2]. In the absence of a standardized verification framework, these shortcomings tend to
Inter-agency causes: lack of coordination mechanisms for resolving conflicts
Airports are environments involving multiple management stakeholders, including construction authorities, fire
prevention and firefighting agencies, aviation authorities, security agencies, and operational units. When
regulatory conflicts occur, the absence of coordination mechanisms causes each project to become an isolated
case, increasing uncertainty and prolonging decision-making processes. Research on inter-agency coordination
networks has demonstrated that the role of “boundary spanners” and inter-organizational communication is key
to reducing fragmentation and improving coordination effectiveness in emergency and multi-stakeholder
situations [11]. This lesson is directly relevant to the coordination of approval processes for airport projects.
Institutional causes: demand for flexibility without an official PBD framework
PBD is a reasonable tool for addressing complex facilities, but a prerequisite for its effective operation is a
transparent framework consisting of procedures, criteria, and tools [3], [4]. In the absence of an official PBD
framework, the process of “demonstrating equivalency” can easily fall into prolonged debates, lack of consensus,
or be forced back into purely prescriptive solutions at any cost, thereby undermining the objective of
optimization.
Causes related to technical capacity: simulation and quantitative analysis not yet widely established
The problem of smoke control and egress in large spaces requires reliable input data and adequate modeling
capabilities. If there is a lack of standardization in occupant load assumptions, design fire scenarios, tenability
criteria, and model validation methods, the quality of documentation will be inconsistent, making it difficult for
approving authorities and increasing legal risks [3], [8], [9].
Table 2. Cause-Effect Tree
Cause Group
Direct
Consequences
Proposed Solutions
General-purpose
regulation
Formalistic
compliance/high
costs
Airport annex + application
guidelines
Fragmented inter-
agency
coordination
Prolonged approval
processes
Inter-agency technical task
force (boundary spanners)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 189
www.rsisinternational.org
Lack of official
PBD framework
Technical disputes
and uncertainty
National PBD framework for
airports
Limited simulation
capacity
Inconsistent
documentation
quality
Training and independent
verification
In the Vietnamese context, the implementation of a simulation-intensive PBD framework requires adequate
technical infrastructure, including access to validated fire and smoke modeling tools, evacuation simulation
platforms, and sufficient computational capacity for large atrium analyses. Currently, simulation expertise and
computational resources are unevenly distributed among consulting firms, and regulatory agencies may require
additional training to ensure consistent review standards. Therefore, institutional capacity building must address
both private-sector designers and public-sector reviewing authorities.
Proposed Baseline Assumptions for Occupant Load and Flight Peak Cycles in the Vietnamese Context
The study identifies a lack of standardized occupant load data specific to airport terminals in Vietnam. To address
this gap, the following preliminary baseline assumptions are proposed for simulation-based design and
regulatory review:
Departure hall peak density: 2.0-2.5 m² per person
Arrival hall peak density: 1.5-2.0 m² per person
Retail and food service zones: 1.4-1.8 m² per person
Security checkpoint accumulation factor: up to 1.3 times average zone density during flight bank peaks
For design fire scenarios and evacuation modeling, peak flight cycles at major Vietnamese international airports
may be conservatively modeled as 1.2–1.5 times average hourly passenger throughput.
These values are proposed as interim reference parameters pending the development of nationally standardized
datasets and should be validated against project-specific operational statistics where available.
Solutions and Recommendations for Improvement (Feasible and with Implementation Roadmaps)
Development of a “Guideline/Annex for the Application of QCVN 06:2022/BXD to Airport Facilities”
A priority solution is to issue a technical-legal document at the level of a guideline or annex, serving as a
“specialized interpretation layer” for QCVN 06:2022/BXD when applied to airport facilities. This document
should:
Classify airport components (terminal, concourse, landside/curbside, technical areas, hangars, fuel
depots, etc.) and their specific risk characteristics.
Clearly specify groups of QCVN 06:2022/BXD provisions that are directly applicable, groups requiring
“adjusted application,” and groups that may be conditionally exempted or reduced.
Define documentation requirements for demonstrating equivalent solutions.
Provide “acceptable solution templates” for common configurations (terminals with elevated curbsides,
large atrium halls, etc.).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 190
www.rsisinternational.org
This approach is similar to international practice, where specialized standards are used for terminal
buildings (NFPA 415) and ARFF (NFPA 403) instead of applying a single general standard to all types
of facilities [6], [7].
Establishment of an official PBD framework for airports: procedures - criteria - tools
The proposed PBD framework should include at least six steps:
1. Define safety objectives and the scope of application (areas or spaces requiring PBD).
2. Develop design fire scenarios and operational conditions (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
system operational status, door conditions, occupant density according to peak cycles).
3. Conduct fire and smoke simulations and evaluate tenability conditions (visibility, temperature, toxicity,
etc.).
4. Conduct egress simulations to determine the Required Safe Egress Time and compare it with the
Available Safe Egress Time in order to evaluate the adequacy of evacuation safety.
5. Conduct sensitivity and uncertainty analyses and assess reasonably worse-case scenarios.
Implement independent review and manage changes during construction and operation.
The technical foundation for this framework can be referenced from the SFPE Handbook [3] and recent PBD
reviews [4]. For terminal buildings, specialized simulation studies have demonstrated that modeling smoke
spread, visibility, temperature, and egress time is highly valuable in optimizing compartmentation and fire-safe
spaces [8]. The PBD framework must be accompanied by minimum acceptance criteria (tenability) and model
validation requirements to avoid arbitrary application.
Resolving conflicts in fire service access through “deployment effectiveness” criteria instead of rigid
geometric distances
It is proposed to shift part of the access requirements from “distance measurement” to “deployment capability
assessment,” including:
Time required to reach deployment points.
Ability to position vehicles and deploy crews.
Hose reach capability.
Availability of water supply points, standpipes, and fire department connections.
Capability to access critical functional floors.
When geometric configurations cannot be achieved due to constraints related to elevated curbsides, traffic
organization, or security, alternative solutions should be permitted if equivalent deployment capability can be
demonstrated within the PBD framework. This represents a way to harmonize prescriptive requirements with
operational realities and is consistent with the “objective-capability” philosophy of modern fire safety design
[3], [4].
Adjustment of upper-level access and roof access requirements based on functional criteria
It is recommended to convert requirements that are prone to becoming formalistic into functional criteria:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 191
www.rsisinternational.org
Roof access: mandatory application only when roofs allow safe and practical access with real
operational value; conditional exemptions or reductions should be allowed for long-span roofs
when alternative access routes (from technical floors, elevated curbsides, or internal access
points) are available and deployment capability is demonstrated.
Upper-level access: allow replacement with a combination of solutions (access points from
elevated curbsides or functional floors, adequately sized access doors, operational zones, and
security control measures) if functional equivalence can be justified.
The key point is to institutionalize conditions for exemption or reduction in an annex or guideline in order to
minimize approval disputes.
Harmonization of ARFF equipment standards according to ICAO logic, converting “equipment lists” into
It is recommended to adopt the capability logic of ICAO Doc 9137 Part 1 as the foundation, focusing on response
time, operational capability, quantities of extinguishing agents, and rescue capacity [5]. For domestic equipment
standards based on prescriptive equipment lists, guidance should be developed to convert such requirements into
capability-based criteria in order to avoid purely mechanical “vehicle counting” [10]. The objective is to optimize
investments based on the actual risk profile of each airport, preventing overlaps or deficiencies in capacity.
Establishment of inter-agency coordination mechanisms based on the “boundary spanners” model
It is proposed to establish an inter-agency technical task force for major airport projects, consisting of
representatives from construction authorities, fire prevention and firefighting agencies, aviation authorities, and
independent experts. This task force would act as a “technical focal point” to unify interpretations, resolve
conflicts, and manage changes during approval processes, in line with research evidence on inter-organizational
coordination networks and the role of boundary spanners in multi-stakeholder contexts [11]. Such a mechanism
is particularly essential when applying PBD in order to avoid situations where “each approval round becomes a
new debate.”
Proposed Organizational Structure for Inter-Agency Coordination
To operationalize the boundary spanner model, it is proposed that a formally recognized inter-agency technical
task force be established through a joint ministerial circular. This task force should include:
A representative from the construction regulatory authority;
A representative from the national fire prevention and firefighting authority;
A representative from the civil aviation authority;
An independent fire engineering expert.
The task force should possess advisory authority during design review stages and binding interpretative authority
regarding the assessment of equivalent solutions for nationally significant airport projects. Such formal
empowerment would reduce interpretative fragmentation and increase procedural certainty.
Proposed Legal/Procedural Mechanism to Empower the Task Force
To ensure that the inter-agency technical task force operates effectively and consistently across projects, a clear
legal and procedural basis is required. This study proposes that the task force be formally empowered through a
joint ministerial circular or equivalent administrative instrument, specifying:
Mandate and scope: applicable to nationally significant airport projects and/or projects with complex
terminal configurations requiring equivalent solution assessments under QCVN 06:2022/BXD.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 192
www.rsisinternational.org
Decision-making role: advisory authority for early-stage design coordination, and interpretative authority
for evaluating equivalency justifications under the PBD framework.
Process integration: defined milestones for task force engagement (concept design review, design
development review, final approval review, and change-management review during construction).
Documentation rules: standardized submission package for equivalency assessment (scenario definition,
modeling assumptions, acceptance criteria, validation approach, and peer review statement).
Time-bound coordination: clear timelines for feedback and resolution to avoid prolonged approval
cycles.
Institutionalizing these procedural rules would reduce interpretative fragmentation, improve transparency, and
provide regulatory certainty for both project owners and approving authorities, particularly when simulation-
based arguments are introduced in the approval process.
Enhancement of technical capacity and standardization of PBD documentation
A package of capacity-building solutions is proposed:
Provide specialized training on fire-smoke-egress simulation and uncertainty management;
Develop standardized templates for PBD reports (structure of argument, assumptions, validation,
sensitivity analysis);
Establish mechanisms for independent review and a list of accepted tools and models;
Standardize occupant load data and scenarios according to flight peak cycles to ensure consistency
across projects.
Table 3. Implementation roadmap for proposed solutions
Solution Group
Short-term (≤12 months)
Medium-term (1-3
years)
Long-term (≥3 years)
Airport
annex/guidelines
Issue guidelines for the
application of QCVN
06:2022/BXD to terminal
buildings
Expand application to
other airport components
Integrate into the next
revision of QCVN
06:2022/BXD
PBD framework
Pilot implementation for
large atrium spaces
Standardize tenability
criteria and report
templates
Establish a national PBD
standard for specialized
facilities
Fire service access
“Deployment effectiveness”
mechanism +supporting
infrastructure
Standardize time-to-
access criteria
Achieve inter-agency
harmonization in
regulations
ARFF
Convert equipment lists to
ICAO-based capability
criteria
Standardize risk
assessment
methodologies
Develop a national
ARFF capability
framework
Inter-agency
coordination
Establish inter-agency
technical task force for key
projects
Expand to a standing
coordination model
Institutionalize
coordination
mechanisms
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 193
www.rsisinternational.org
To enhance consistency and transparency, a standardized structure for PBD documentation is recommended:
1. Project description and scope of PBD application
2. Regulatory context and defined safety objectives
3. Design fire scenarios and operational assumptions
4. Modeling methodology and software validation
5. Tenability criteria and acceptance thresholds
6. Egress analysis and comparison between Required Safe Egress Time and Available Safe Egress Time
7. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
8. Conclusions and equivalency justification
9. Independent peer review statement
This structured approach may reduce ambiguity during regulatory approval and enhance technical rigor.
Integration of Building Information Modeling into the PBD Framework
The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) can significantly strengthen PBD implementation in
airport projects. BIM enables:
Accurate geometric extraction for fire and smoke simulations;
Dynamic modeling of occupant movement;
Coordination between architectural, structural, and MEP systems;
Lifecycle fire risk management tracking.
By linking BIM data with simulation workflows, inconsistencies in geometry, zoning, and system configuration
can be minimized, thereby improving approval transparency and reducing iterative design conflicts in complex
terminal projects.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The revised analysis incorporating financial illustration, baseline occupant load assumptions, and technical
capacity considerations further strengthens the empirical grounding of the study and clarifies the practical
feasibility of the proposed reforms.
The study demonstrates that QCVN 06:2022/BXD and its Amendment No. 1:2023 have significant impacts on
airport projects because the regulation directly affects key components of terminal buildings, including master
planning and access arrangements, architectural space organization, fire compartmentation and egress, and
smoke control in large spaces [1], [2]. Four major impact areas have been identified: (i) conflicts and additional
costs related to fire service access; (ii) inadequacies in applying certain prescriptive requirements to open
architectural layouts and elevated curbsides; (iii) difficulties in demonstrating smoke control and egress
performance due to the lack of an official PBD framework; and (iv) overlapping logic in ARFF equipment
standards when simultaneously operating under ICAO requirements and domestic standards [5], [10].
Fundamentally, the current shortcomings do not negate the fire safety objectives of QCVN 06; rather, they reflect
the need to specialize the application of the regulation for airport facilities and to institutionalize PBD in order
to address unique configurations. International experience and the scientific foundation of PBD indicate that, for
complex facilities, performance-based verification with clear criteria and validation mechanisms enables both
the achievement of safety objectives and the optimization of design and operation [3], [4]. At the same time,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Page 194
www.rsisinternational.org
effective risk management in multi-stakeholder environments largely depends on inter-agency coordination
mechanisms and the role of “boundary spanners” [11].
Key recommendations
Issue guidelines or an annex for the application of QCVN 06:2022/BXD to airports in order to
reduce uncertainty and standardize interpretations.
Establish an official PBD framework (procedures-criteria-tools-independent review) for large-
scale and multi-level terminal buildings.
Resolve conflicts in fire service access by applying deployment effectiveness criteria and
supporting infrastructure, instead of imposing rigid geometric distance requirements in all cases.
Adjust requirements that are prone to becoming formalistic (upper-level access and roof access)
based on functional criteria and conditional exemptions supported by verification.
Harmonize ARFF standards according to ICAO logic and convert prescriptive “equipment lists”
into capability-based criteria to optimize investment in line with actual risk.
Establish a permanent inter-agency coordination mechanism for major airport projects to unify
technical decisions and manage changes effectively [11].
REFERENCES
1. Ministry of Construction of Vietnam. (2022). Circular No. 06/2022/TT-BXD promulgating QCVN
06:2022/BXD - National Technical Regulation on Fire Safety for Buildings and Structures.
2. Ministry of Construction of Vietnam. (2023). Circular No. 09/2023/TT-BXD promulgating
Amendment No. 1:2023 to QCVN 06:2022/BXD - National Technical Regulation on Fire Safety for
Buildings and Structures.
3. Hurley, M. J. (Ed.). (2016). SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (5th ed.). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0
4. Gernay, T. (2024). Performance-based design for structures in fire: Advances, challenges, and
perspectives. Fire Safety Journal, 142, 104036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.104036
5. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2015). Airport Services Manual (Doc 9137), Part 1:
Rescue and Fire Fighting (4th ed.). ICAO.
6. National Fire Protection Association. (2026). NFPA 415: Standard on Airport Terminal Buildings,
Fueling Ramp Drainage, and Loading Walkways (2026 ed.). NFPA.
7. National Fire Protection Association. (2018). NFPA 403: Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-
Fighting Services at Airports (2018 ed.). NFPA.
8. Si, Q. M., Zhao, Y. H., Huo, S., Fu, S., & Zhang, H. T. (2024). A Simulation Method for Fireproof
Space Design in Aviation Airport Terminals. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 23(4),
644-655. https://doi.org/10.2507/IJSIMM23-4-703
9. Gao, R., Li, A., Hao, X., Lei, W., Zhao, Y., & Deng, B. (2012). Fire-induced smoke control via hybrid
ventilation in a huge transit terminal subway station. Energy and Buildings, 45, 280-289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.018
10. Vietnam Standards and Quality Institute. (2023). TCVN 3890:2023 - Fire Protection and Firefighting
- Equipment for Buildings and Structures - Equipment and Installation Requirements.
11. Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners
in multiagency coordination. Administration & Society, 38(2), 207-225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005280605
12. Chow, W. K., & Ng, M. Y. (2003). Review on fire safety objectives and application for airport
terminals. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 9(2), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-
0431(2003)9:2(47)