## 4 Project Example Analysis
### Cloud Entropy Weight Method to Determine the Objective Weight of Risk Indicators  
In order to ensure the effectiveness of the cloud entropy weighting method's weighting and cloud model generation, based on the principle of the importance of risk indicators, experts are invited to score risk indicators. The score range is \([0,100]\); the greater the score, the greater the risk degree of the risk index. The scoring results are shown in Table 12.  
According to Formula (18), the weight \(\theta_{j}\) determined by the traditional weight calculation method can be obtained, and then the risk weight \(\beta_{j}\) determined by the improved cloud entropy weight method can be obtained by using Formula (19). The calculation results are shown in Table 13. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Risk Indicators** & \(\mathbf{Ex}\) & \(\mathbf{Eu}\) & \(\mathbf{He}\) & \(\mathbf{\theta}_{j}\) & \(\mathbf{\beta}_{j}\) \\ \hline Personnel quality C1 & 71.80 & 16.74 & 4.16 & 0.058 & 0.053 \\ Organizational completeness C2 & 49.00 & 20.12 & 6.02 & 0.039 & 0.035 \\ Construction management efforts C3 & 67.50 & 17.63 & 4.70 & 0.054 & 0.049 \\ Economic contract issues C4 & 73.20 & 12.12 & 7.17 & 0.059 & 0.059 \\ Construction material quality C5 & 89.90 & 3.52 & 3.30 & 0.072 & 0.102 \\ Temporary structure safety C6 & 79.00 & 11.05 & 5.35 & 0.063 & 0.065 \\ Material and equipment stacking C7 & 63.20 & 16.37 & 6.66 & 0.051 & 0.047 \\ Material and equipment transportation C8 & 54.60 & 14.34 & 2.16 & 0.044 & 0.042 \\ Mechanical equipment failure C9 & 57.00 & 13.16 & 7.09 & 0.046 & 0.045 \\ Construction program reasonableness C10 & 80.00 & 12.91 & 3.48 & 0.064 & 0.063 \\ Construction process maturity C11 & 67.00 & 14.54 & 7.51 & 0.054 & 0.051 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Calculation results of objective weights of risk indicators. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Risk Indicators** & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Exerts**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** \\ \hline Personnel quality C1 & 60 & 35 & 75 & 65 & 88 & 70 & 75 & 80 & 85 & 85 \\ Organizational completeness C2 & 60 & 30 & 20 & 70 & 50 & 40 & 35 & 55 & 60 & 70 \\ Construction management efforts C3 & 70 & 75 & 50 & 71 & 90 & 35 & 50 & 80 & 75 & 79 \\ Economic contract issues C4 & 87 & 85 & 40 & 70 & 85 & 86 & 74 & 70 & 75 & 60 \\ Construction material quality C5 & 92 & 86 & 89 & 90 & 90 & 92 & 89 & 87 & 91 & 93 \\ Temporary structure safety C6 & 50 & 75 & 90 & 85 & 80 & 60 & 90 & 82 & 88 & 90 \\ Material and equipment stacking C7 & 72 & 60 & 25 & 85 & 55 & 60 & 55 & 60 & 75 & 85 \\ Material and equipment transportation C8 & 40 & 70 & 62 & 25 & 45 & 65 & 65 & 66 & 58 & 50 \\ Mechanical equipment failure C9 & 50 & 60 & 65 & 30 & 60 & 50 & 60 & 65 & 70 & 60 \\ Construction program reasonableness C10 & 80 & 55 & 90 & 85 & 60 & 70 & 90 & 95 & 85 & 90 \\ Construction process maturity C11 & 65 & 85 & 75 & 70 & 65 & 80 & 50 & 30 & 70 & 80 \\ Construction work violation C12 & 35 & 75 & 85 & 90 & 62 & 70 & 90 & 80 & 90 & 85 \\ Construction monitoring situation C13 & 85 & 75 & 72 & 85 & 80 & 75 & 55 & 70 & 65 & 35 \\ Insufficient security measures C14 & 60 & 80 & 90 & 70 & 86 & 85 & 75 & 87 & 90 & 95 \\ Geological conditions C15 & 70 & 40 & 85 & 62 & 89 & 90 & 85 & 90 & 86 & 50 \\ Climatic and environmental conditions C16 & 95 & 85 & 85 & 90 & 93 & 85 & 80 & 90 & 81 & 75 \\ Natural disaster C17 & 20 & 65 & 70 & 45 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 82 & 55 & 70 \\ Construction site conditions C18 & 50 & 15 & 20 & 70 & 60 & 30 & 55 & 55 & 50 & 20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Scoring results of the importance of risk indicators. One can analyze Table 13 to determine the following:  
(1) The score expectations in the table have a high degree of differentiation. Some indicators have an expected value close to 90, and some indicators have values lower than 50.