## 5 Conclusions  
As mentioned above, a building facade is the first barrier resisting waves and quivers from an explosion, and it plays a determining role in decreasing a building's vulnerability and human casualties. Thus, in this research, we tried to assess various widely used materials in this part of a building (due to effective indices). To do so, 5 out of 10 indices were considered, including reducing an explosion's effect, debris removal capability, resistance to fire capability, reconstruction capability, and implementation costs. In this regard, a list of 10 important indices (as a criteria list) was developed based on expert opinions and was screened using a fuzzy Delphi technique to find the five most important indices in the rest of a facade assessment. According to the screening phase results, reducing an explosion's effect had the most influence on selecting the proper facade, and then implementation costs were placed in the next rank. As a consequence of the screening phase, an assessment of different facade materials was practiced using fuzzy EDAS. Based on the results, a \"coatings cement facade\" was recognized as the best alternative to building a facade to enhance resistance to an explosion wave. In addition, a \"stone facade\" was selected as the second best material, with a minimal difference in the importance factor. However, other alternatives were steeply lower in importance and are not recommended for use as facade materials in blast-resistant buildings. The proposed methodology can be used to evaluate other materials in other case studies, based on different project environments, available options, and other standards and specifications according to a project's obligations. Conceptualization and problem definition, M.B. ; formal analysis, S.H.Z. ; investigation, S.H.Z., M.B., and P.C. ; methodology, H.H. ; project administration, S.H.Z. ; resources, M.B. ; supervision, S.H.Z. ; validation and calculations, H.H. ; writing--review and editing, H.H., S.H.Z., and A.A.E. This research received no external funding. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Alternatives** & **sp** & **nsp** & **sn** & **nsn** \\ \hline Brick facade & A1 & \(\begin{array}{c}-7.67,-2.98,\\ 0.98\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-0.58,-0.22,\\ 0.07\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-1.66,2.98,\\ 10.24\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}0.28,0.79,1.11\end{array}\) \\ \hline Stone facade & A2 & \(\begin{array}{c}3.42,8.35,13.16\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}0.26,0.63,0.99\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-12.91,-8.35,\\ -1.33\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}1.09,1.59,1.91\end{array}\) \\ \hline Coatings & A3 & \(\begin{array}{c}5.73,12.93,\\ 21.32\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}0.43,0.98,1.61\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-14.88,-12.93,\\ -10.46\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}1.73,1.91,2.04\end{array}\) \\ \hline Composite & A4 & \(\begin{array}{c}-8.34,-4.09,\\ 3.00\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-0.63,-0.31,\\ 0.23\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-2.01,4.09,9.53\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}0.33,0.712,1.14\end{array}\) \\ \hline Curtain wall & A5 & \(\begin{array}{c}-15.76,-14.20,\\ -10.81\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-1.19,-1.07,\\ -0.82\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}8.85,14.20,\\ 19.66\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}-0.38,0.002,\\ -2.77\end{array}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Weighted positive and negative distances from average and related normalized values.