## 4 Engineering Case Analysis
### Comparative Analysis of Evaluation Results  
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Triangular Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method, this paper conducts a comparative analysis between the comprehensive weights of evaluation indicators and the evaluation results obtained from the Traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, and the results obtained from the Triangular Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method. (1) The comparison results between Figures 10 and 11 show differences in the comprehensive weights of the evaluation indicators at the sub-criteria level determined by the two methods. The magnitude of these differences varies for different indicators. Considering that the two methods employed different questionnaire survey methods, matrix determi \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Criteria Layer**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Indicator Layer**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Indicator Value**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Entrance Section** & **Middle Section** & **Method** & **Entrance Section** & **Middle Section** & **Exit Section** \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Operational \\ management \\ \end{tabular} } & Organizational structure & Information search & \multirow{2}{*}{90} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} \\  & \(U_{41}\) & & \(U_{41}\) & and interviews & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Regulations and \\ procedures \(U_{42}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Regulations and \\ procedures \(U_{42}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Information search \\ and interviews \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} & \multirow{2}{*}{90} \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Publicity and education \\ \(U_{43}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Publicity and education \\ and interviews \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{85} & \multirow{2}{*}{85} & \multirow{2}{*}{85} & \multirow{2}{*}{85} \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Emergency management \\ \(U_{44}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Emergency management \\ \(U_{44}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Information search \\ and interviews \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{74} & \multirow{2}{*}{74} & \multirow{2}{*}{74} \\  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Traffic management \(U_{45}\) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Traffic management \(U_{45}\) \\ and interviews \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{80} & \multirow{2}{*}{80} & \multirow{2}{*}{80} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tunnel Names**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**The Risk Level Assessment Results for Each Section of the Tunnel**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**The Traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Entrance** \\ **Section** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Middle** \\ **Section** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Exit Section** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Entrance** \\ **Section** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Middle** \\ **Section** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Exit Section** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Sijiao’an Tunnel & II & II & I & II & II & II \\ \hline Jiaodong’ac Tunnel & III & II & II & III & II & II \\ \hline Anjishan Tunnel & II & I & I & II & I & II \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Risk Assessment Results for Long Tunnels in the G1523 Yongguan Expressway (Section K0 + 000 to K46 + 920). nation approaches, and were influenced by subjective errors from different experts, the differences in weights are a normal outcome resulting from the combination of multiple factors. Furthermore, the relative changes in comprehensive weights of evaluation indicators obtained using the Triangular Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the traditional AHP show a basic consistency in their trends.