## 5 Results and Discussion
### Calculation Results  
The comparison matrix of indicator factors can be obtained from Equations (6) and (9), and Table 4.  
The comparison matrix V of the indicator factors can be obtained by decoding Equations (16) through (18).  
\[V=\begin{bmatrix}1.000&1.536&1.826&1.155\\ 0.696&1.000&1.006&0.603\\ 0.880&1.281&1.000&0.999\\ 0.936&1.244&1.281&1.000\end{bmatrix}\]  
Using MATLAB R2021a and Equations (20) and (21) to calculate results:  
\[y_{max}=5.25\quad\text{CI}=0.0834\quad\text{CR}=0.0937,\quad CR<0.1\]  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** \\ \hline A & (1, 1, 1) & (1, 1.65, 2.5) & (0.5, 1.65, 3.5) & (0.5, 1.14, 2) \\ B & (0.4, 0.61, 1) & (1, 1, 1) & (0.5, 1.65, 3.5) & (0.33, 0.56, 1) \\ C & (0.33, 0.64, 2) & (0.5, 1.31, 2) & (1, 1, 1) & (0.5, 0.76, 2) \\ D & (0.5, 0.87, 2) & (1, 1.78, 3) & (0.5, 1.31, 2) & (1, 1, 1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Comparison matrix of indicator factors.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Grade** & **1** & **II** & **III** & **IV** & **V** \\ \hline Description & Very safe & More safe & Weakly safe & More dangerous & Very dangerous \\  & Fire safety is & & & Poor fire & \\  & in very good & Good fire & Average fire & & safety \\  & condition & safety with & & condition, a & \\  & and very low & low risk of & & some degree & \\  & risk of fire & & of fire risk & & high fire risk \\ Scoring & & & & & \\ Criteria & [0, 1] & [1–3] & [3–5] & [5–7] & [7–9] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Security classification.  
Hence, it is acceptable.  
The same method detailed in Table 4 was used to calculate the comparison matrix for each sub-indicator factor. Subsequently, the defuzzification of the triangular fuzzy number tables of each subindex was carried out, and the respective CR values were obtained (Tables A2-A17 in Appendix A). The consistency values obtained by the results are less than 10%, all of which are satisfactory.  
\[CR_{A}=0.0831,\ CR_{B}=0.0948,CR_{C}=0.0621,CR_{D}=0.0971\]  
We utilized FAHP to determine the weights of 4 indicator factors and 20 sub-indicator factors. For example, using Equations (2)-(5), we calculated the TFN values of the four indicators from Table 4 as follows:  
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & S\({}_{1}\) & S\({}_{2}\) & S\({}_{3}\) & S\({}_{4}\) \\ \hline TFN & (0.107, 0.327, 0.813) & (0.088, 0.179, 0.478) & (0.086, 0.224, 0.669) & (0.113, 0.270, 0.574) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
Using Equations (10) and (11) to compare the value of \(N\big{(}S_{i}\geq S_{j}\big{)}\).  
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline N (S\({}_{1}\geq\) S\({}_{2}\)) & Value & N (S\({}_{2}\geq\) S\({}_{3}\)) & Value & N (S\({}_{3}\geq\) S\({}_{3}\)) & Value \\ N (S\({}_{1}\geq\) S\({}_{2}\)) & 1 & N (S\({}_{2}\geq\) S\({}_{1}\)) & 0.715 & N (S\({}_{3}\geq\) S\({}_{1}\)) & 0.844 & N (S\({}_{4}\geq\) S\({}_{1}\)) & 0.891 \\ N (S\({}_{1}\geq\) S\({}_{3}\)) & 1 & N (S\({}_{2}\geq\) S\({}_{3}\)) & 0.897 & N (S\({}_{3}\geq\) S\({}_{2}\)) & 1 & N (S\({}_{4}\geq\) S\({}_{2}\)) & 1 \\ N (S\({}_{1}\geq\) S\({}_{4}\)) & 1 & N (S\({}_{2}\geq\) S\({}_{4}\)) & 0.802 & N (S\({}_{3}\geq\) S\({}_{4}\)) & 0.924 & N (S\({}_{4}\geq\) S\({}_{3}\)) & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
The relative weights of the four indicators can be obtained from Equations (12)-(14), as shown in Figure 3.  
The remaining 20 sub-index factors were calculated to obtain the relative weight of each sub-index to the index factors. The EWM was then used to find the weight of each index, and both values were combined (with equal weight) to obtain the weight from Equations (29) and (30).