# Development of Fire Safety Assessment Model for Buildings Using Analytic Hierarchy Process
## 6 Discussion  
The outcomes of the developed method are summarized in Table 10. The recommendations based on the heat map evaluation can be seen in Figure 9, which shows that both case studies are at a high risk of fire danger. The fire protection situation in the first case study is worse than that in the second case study, which indicates the necessity of drawing further attention to improving fire safety in the first case study.  
Figure 8: Fire risk heat map.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fire Containment**} & **Inert Gas** & **Automatic** & **Restrict** & **Preings** & **Fire** & **Building** & **nth Root of** & **Eigenvector** \\  & **Fooding** & **Sprinklers** & **Openings** & **Doors** & **Construction** & **(ABCD) Product** & **(Relative** \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Inert gas flooding} & 1 & 1/2 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/5 & 0.362 & 0.055 \\  & Automatic sprinklers & 2 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/3 & 0.699 & 0.105 \\  & Restricting openings & 4 & 2 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/5 & 0.956 & 0.144 \\  & Fire doors & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1/6 & 1.217 & 0.184 \\  & Building construction & 5 & 3 & 5 & 6 & 1 & 3.393 & 0.512 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Firefighting**} & **Foam** & **Fooding** & **Fooding** & **Fooding** & **(ABCD) Product** & **(Relative** \\  & **Generators** & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Foam generators} & 1 & 1/3 & 1/5 & 0.405 & 0.101 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hydrants} & 3 & 1 & 1/4 & 0.909 & 0.226 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Extinguishers} & 5 & 4 & 1 & 2.714 & 0.674 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fire Management**} & **Training and Safety People** & **Raise Awareness** & **Fire Safety Audit** & **(ABCD) Product** & **(Relative** \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Training and safety people} & 1 & 1/4 & 1/3 & 0.437 & 0.111 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Raise awareness} & 4 & 1 & 1/6 & 0.874 & 0.222 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Fire safety audit} & 3 & 6 & 1 & 2.621 & 0.667 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 9: _Cont._* It can be noticed that the hazard rating for the first case study (1) is higher than for the second case study (2), and the level of compliance with safety measures is lower. This indicates that immediate actions are required in the first case study (1). Such comparison is proof of the strength of the developed models, and it was not possible using the traditional method.
* The results of the models are in conformance with those reported by the traditional method. Both methods recommend dealing with the fire hazard and safety comments before issuing the approval of the safety license.
* The proposed methodology makes it possible to keep track of and better document the outcomes of the assessment process. It also allows the decision-makers to compare different buildings based on hazard and safety ratings. In addition, it can point out the most significant areas of improvement to enhance protection from fire hazards. One more benefit of the models is the ability to get similar results even when the assessment of the same building is conducted by different experts.