## 3 Results
### System Performance Evaluation
#### 3.1.5 Comparative Evaluation of Functional, Thermal, and Economic Performance Indicators  
To holistically assess the effectiveness of the proposed intelligent fire response system, a comparative analysis was conducted against a conventional water-based sprinkler system across multiple dimensions. The evaluation included functional response characteristics (e.g., detection latency, spray duration), thermal performance (e.g., flame height and peak temperature), and operational parameters such as visibility, cost, and maintenance. Each metric was selected to represent a critical performance domain relevant to real-world deployment scenarios. Table 5 summarizes the quantitative and qualitative differences between the baseline and proposed systems, highlighting key advantages in detection speed, suppression precision, thermal control, and long-term economic value.  
To ensure statistical rigor, all comparative results were derived from repeated experiments (\(n=10\)), with outcomes reported as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. In addition, paired  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Baseline System** & **Proposed System** & **Improvement Effect** \\ \hline Fire Suppression Medium & Water-based Sprinkler & Residue-Free Clean Extinguishing & Minimizes electrical damage; no water \\ Control Mechanism & Mechanical Ventilation + Exhaust Fan & EEV 100\% + PURGE 120\% & Supply required \\ Diffuser Type & Fixed-type Ceiling Diffuser & 250 mm Motorized Rotation + 360\% & Targeted spray at fire core \\ Sensor Type & Photoelectric Smoke + Thermal Sensor & ISO 7240[60] Composite + & \\ Detection-to-Activation Time & 9 s & Al-integrated & Avg. detection time reduced by 2.8 s \\ Spray Duration & 60-90 s & 3 s & 20\% faster \\ Flame Height (60 s) & 1.25 cm & 1.80 m & 46\% \\ Peak Temperature (90 s) & 110\(\,\)C & 58\(\,\)C & \(-\)52\(\,\)C \\ Visibility at 120 s & Not Achieved & Achieved & Secured evacuation visibility \\ Installation Cost (Office) & Approx. 230 M USD & Approx. 311 M USD & Increased by 35\% \\ Insurance Discount & None & 14-18\% & Reduced operational expenditure \\ Maintenance & Head: 10 yrs, Fan: Prome to corrosion & Cylinder: 10 yrs, Packing: 1 yr & Lower component failure rate and maintenance risk \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Fire detection times across ignition materials during controlled trials. The table summarizes detection latency measurements for four ignition materials—paper, wood, polyurethane foam, and electrical cable—recorded over ten trials each. All trials were conducted under standardized environmental conditions using the proposed edge AI-based detection system. The results show consistent performance with a mean detection time of 5.8 s (\(\sigma=0.6\) s), demonstrating the system’s ability to rapidly identify diverse fire sources during the incipient stage.  
\(t\)-tests were conducted to evaluate the significance of differences in detection time, suppression efficiency, and thermal performance metrics. Statistical significance was established at \(p<0.05\).  
Overall, the comparative analysis underscores the superior performance of the proposed system across key functional, thermal, and operational metrics. Detection and suppression times were markedly reduced, thermal stress on the environment was significantly mitigated, and visibility conditions were enhanced to support safe evacuation. Although the system incurs a higher upfront installation cost, this is offset by long-term operational benefits including faster recovery, reduced equipment damage, and potential insurance discounts. These findings validate the system's comprehensive effectiveness and reinforce its suitability for deployment in high-risk or high-value indoor environments.