Development of Fire Safety Assessment Model for Buildings Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract

Fires pose significant risks, encompassing loss of life, destruction of property, and substantial adverse impacts on the economy. Therefore, the prioritization of fire safety in building structures must be embraced by all relevant stakeholders, including building owners, authorities, and the general public. However, traditional fire safety assessment methods can be laborious and challenging, impeding the identification of potential fire hazards and the selection of optimal fire safety measures. To this end, this research study offers an analytic hierarchy process for assessing building fire safety. Two case studies are presented to support this model’s outperformance compared with conventional assessment techniques. The proposed method yields hazard ratings of 5.3 and 4.3 along with safety ratings of 5.5 and 5.9 for the two case studies. Additionally, the proposed model yields comprehensible, well-documented, and comparable results. Therefore, it serves as a valuable decision-making tool for evaluating fire hazards and enhancing the efficiency of building structures. As a result, decision-makers can identify current and future fire protection and prevention requirements with greater ease and precision, making the decision-making process more effective.

1. Introduction

Fire safety of buildings is a major concern for related agencies in Saudi Arabia. Recent public defense reports have shown increasing numbers of fire accidents in public buildings in Saudi Arabia [1]. Many of these accidents are devastating and involve loss of life and severe damage to properties [2]. The latest WHO figures showed that 825 fire-related deaths occurred in Saudi Arabia in 2020 [3]. In 2017, a conflagration engulfed six buildings located within the historic town of Jeddah, resulting in the subsequent collapse of three of these structures. Over the course of the Kingdom, 51,781 fires were reported in 2016, an increase of 1% over the 51,188 incidents registered in 2015. It was also reported that residential structures experience about 65% of fire incidents [4]. Related government agencies need to prevent such accidents in the future by taking all possible preventive measures [5]. One of the main preventive measures to ensure the safety of buildings against fire hazards is the safety assessment process [6].

Fire hazards in buildings are one of the main safety concerns [7,8]; however, the assessment process for these hazards in Saudi Arabia is not clear. The main government agency responsible for building fire safety assessments is the civil defense department. Other concerned parties may be involved in the process, such as the municipalities. However, there is a lack of communication and coordination among different parties, leading to major issues related to the application of safety and fire protection measures. Furthermore, there is a demand for a proper assessment system that is characterized by standard and consistent reporting to reduce subjectivity in the process.

Assessment models are useful and powerful tools that can be used to evaluate and communicate the fire safety performance of buildings [9,10,11]. Lo [12] proposed a fire safety assessment index model that was based on evaluating the risks of fire for existing buildings. There are many studies conducted to address the design process of fire protection systems of buildings [13,14]. However, few of them focus on evaluating existing buildings’ conditions in terms of fire safety performance, which could be critical to saving human life and property. With a special focus on the Kingdom, Hamida and Hassanain [15] formulated the prevailing fire safety code regulations with the aim of establishing a baseline level of safety within residential facilities. These standards were designed to mitigate the likelihood of fire incidents and minimize associated risks. Hassanain et al. [16] offered a rigorous and systematic approach to evaluating fire safety in schools and determining the potential measures to enhance the general level of safety in such facilities.

Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 seeks to achieve the safety, health, and welfare of citizens and residents by promoting sustainability in every sector. In this regard, the safety of buildings against fire hazards is gaining more attention from concerned authorities and public agencies aiming to achieve safer buildings and environments. By addressing the identified gaps, namely the lack of consideration of fire safety in the construction sector and the absence of a fire assessment model for the Saudi market, this study aims to provide a structured approach to evaluating building fire safety in Saudi Arabia. The research seeks to establish guidelines, frameworks, and standards that enable the effective implementation of fire safety measures, ensuring the safety and resilience of structures in Saudi Arabia. The ultimate goal is to enhance fire safety practices in the construction industry and reduce the risks associated with fire incidents, leading to safer built environments in the country. To achieve the objective of this study, the following sub-objectives shall be accomplished:

• Develop a “hazard classification index of buildings and structures”, as per the requirement of the Saudi Building Code.
• Establish a “safety index model for buildings and structures”, based on the requirement of the civil defense department in Saudi Arabia.
• Provide a logical interpretation for the hazard and safety indices that will serve as a replacement for the current assessment method.

2. Literature Review

This section provides a review of the Saudi Building Code and the current safety assessment process in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it provides a discussion of the previous related studies focusing on identifying the fire protection systems in buildings. This review is essential to support the methodology that follows to solve the research problem.

2.1. Saudi Building Code

According to the Saudi Building Code National Committee, the Saudi Building Code is defined as [17]: “the set of terms, requirements, subsequent laws, executive regulations, and annexes related to building and construction to ensure safety and public health”. Its major objective is to define the minimum terms and conditions to ensure the health and safety of the public. It was implemented in five phases, starting in 2018 and ending in 2022. It will be implemented gradually to certain types of buildings until it is applied to all building types in the last phase. The code comprises two versions: the first version is the terms which include the procedures for licenses and engineering plans preparation of buildings, and the second version includes the requirements which are considered the main reference of the code to show the details for the design, execution, and construction of buildings.

In Saudi Arabia, a construction permit is normally issued by the municipality after approving the building design drawings. Architectural, structural, sanitary, and electrical drawings are among the available drawings. The civil defense department is in charge of building fire protection, while the municipality is in charge of building structural safety. Municipal engineers usually focus on land use regulations, elevation aesthetics, and other considerations, such as circulation and privacy. Before granting construction permits for commercial projects or projects of four floors or higher in Saudi Arabia, most municipalities send all construction drawings to the civil defense to review safety concerns.

The civil defense department requests floor plans that have at least two stairways. Further, specific safety drawings are also required; these include a fire detection layout, fire alarm bells, emergency lights, smoke detectors, sand buckets, fire extinguishers, fire hose cabinets, and fire water pumps. Before 2018, the designers used to follow the safety criteria based on their prior experience and local safety requirements. There were no authorized safety codes in the Kingdom for designers or civil defense authorities to follow. In the absence of adequate safety and building codes in the Kingdom, it is debatable if the safety regulations are applied appropriately.

2.2. Fire Hazards in Buildings

According to the Saudi code for fire protection, a building or an installation is considered unsafe in the following cases: “Existing installations or equipment that become unsafe or defective due to insufficient or inadequacy of exit means, lighting, and ventilation, or which are dangerous as a result of the fire, or which constitute a danger to human life, or general well-being, or insufficiency in maintenance, deemed unsafe. The vacant structure should be insured against unauthorized entry as required and should be considered an unsafe facility”. The Saudi Code pays a lot of attention to the ability of the occupants to evacuate the building during emergencies as one of the main safety measures. It also provides a list of situations that could make the building unsafe, such as the danger of fire incidents.

As depicted in

Table 1. Classification of the buildings and facilities according to the seriousness of fire incidents.

Seriousness Level	Description
Light danger	Buildings that have weak combustion of their contents are unlikely to have a self-fire, and thus, the potential seriousness is revealed in panic situations, overcrowding at the exits during exposure to fire, and fumes from outer sources.
Medium danger	Buildings that have their contents burned due to the rapid medium spread of fire, or that release a great number of toxic fumes without having any explosions.
High danger	Buildings that have their contents burn at a very high speed or release toxic fumes or explosions.

, buildings and facilities are classified according to the seriousness of fire incidents into three main categories: light, medium, and high danger [18]. Light-danger buildings consist of incombustible material and the main source of risk in these buildings is due to overcrowding in panic situations. Meanwhile, medium- and high-danger buildings contain flammable material that may produce explosions and toxic fumes. For instance, Ramezanifar et al. [19] conducted a risk assessment of the methanol storage tank fire accident to help decision-makers take necessary preventative or appropriate actions. Moreover, Kamil et al. [20] developed a probabilistic model for analyzing the causal factors, interactions, and pathways for accidents in the oil and refining industry. It shall be noted that fire safety requirements for each category of building are different.

2.2.1. Fire Hazards during Design

Buildings must be designed to protect their users from fire without affecting their daily use. To achieve this goal, the minimum safety requirements must be ensured in the design stage of the building [21]. Some of the safety points that must be taken into account include designing the building to protect the users from fire, smoke, fumes, and panic in emergencies. It is also critical that the building is capable of sustaining fire incidents up to the point that enables users to evacuate safely. The main design elements that allow the safe evacuation of users are the emergency exits [22]. The design of emergency exits must take into account building type, users, and available safety systems. It is not acceptable to count on firefighting measures to ensure the building’s safety. Other requirements for emergency exits include (1) removing all obstacles from the escape routes, (2) opening the doors with the escape direction, (3) providing signs that show the escape routes, (4) ensuring sufficient lights and alarm systems in the building, and (5) isolating the vertical openings.

2.2.2. Fire Hazards and Building Requirements

The main aim of fire safety requirements is to ensure the safety of the construction against fire hazards that includes the following [22,23]: (1) protecting the building from collapse because of fire for a certain period, which should be sufficient to evacuate the building and fight the fire, and (2) containing the fire in the smallest possible area inside the building or a section of it and preventing the spread of fire to other sections. As such, several points need to be considered in managing the building location for fire prevention [24]. The distance of the building from other buildings is specified by the civil defense requirements based on its type and use. The building layout must allow the arrival of civil defense vehicles at the nearest construction point. In general, the required distance should not exceed 17 m for buildings equipped with a network of dry nozzles for firefighting. When designing compounds, the following requirements must be considered: (1) providing adequate internal streets (net width must not be less than 4 m), (2) providing adequate entrances and exits for vehicles, (3) designing the gates to be at least 4.5 m in height, (4) adequately distributing water nozzles around the buildings, (5) leaving 20% of the area in an industrial location, and (6) ensuring the capacity of the inspecting chambers to bear the civil defense vehicles.

2.3. Summary of Previous Studies

Fire safety risk assessment is one of the most important issues in building fire management. Its importance comes from the criticality of the loss of life and the damage that the fire accident could result in [25]. Many previous studies have proposed methods and techniques to assist professionals in evaluating the fire risk of buildings [26]. This section provides a summary of previous studies conducted to improve fire safety in buildings. The summary will illustrate the research problem, methodology applied, and outcomes given the current research issue. More attention will be provided to studies conducted in Saudi Arabia and to studies that utilize the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

AHP is one of the most common multi-criteria decision analysis techniques to support decision-making during difficult and uncertain situations [27,28,29]. Shapira and Simcha [30] investigated the safety factors affecting tower cranes during their operation based on the knowledge of experts. Through interviews with 19 construction experts, AHP was applied to assess the relative importance of safety factors. The results showed that the crane operator and general superintendent had a major role in site safety. The study provided an effective example of utilizing the AHP method for risk assessment at construction sites that can be adopted for any other construction site. Aminbakhsh et al. [31] utilized both the theory of cost of safety model and the AHP method to propose a new safety risk assessment framework for construction projects. The framework aimed to help decision-makers prioritize safety risks and make adequate prevention investments while considering the funding limits. It can be used as an effective tool during planning and budgeting for construction projects to set project goals without compromising safety.

Focusing on improving the fire safety of residential buildings in Saudi Arabia, which is alleged to account for 69% of all building fires, Al-Homoud and Khan [32] conducted a survey study to identify the most common safety issues. Most of the residents were found to be unaware of several safety issues in their households. The study presented a safety audit checklist that can be used to evaluate the safety measures in existing buildings. It also suggested safety strategies for designers, owners, authorities, and residents of the buildings to improve fire safety. The study emphasized the importance of the safety assessment process to enhance fire safety in residential buildings. To improve the fire risk assessment process of buildings, Wei et al. [33] established a fire risk assessment index system based on fuzzy mathematics and a support vector machine algorithm. The study obtained the index values and risk scores by analyzing actual risk assessment projects. The model was used to assess a sports building, and the results were compared with the actual assessment. The findings showed a good agreement between the two assessment methods, which indicated the efficiency of the new method. This study provided an example of how the fire risk assessment process can be enhanced using new modeling methodologies to reduce time and effort.

The fire risk assessment process is very critical to preventing and controlling fire incidents in high-rise buildings [34]. Nimlyat et al. [35] conducted a study to evaluate the fire safety of high-rise buildings in Nigeria during the design and construction stages. Building occupants were surveyed using a questionnaire to find out their perceptions about fire safety measures. The study also investigated the practicality of using new measures to enhance safety. Electrical faults were found to be the most common cause of fire incidents in high-rise buildings. The study recommended that both the designers and owners need to cooperate to improve fire safety measures. This can be achieved by implementing the building codes adequately and efficiently. Juan [36] proposed an assessment index system using the Shaley-DS methodology. The proposed evaluation index had six dimensions, namely, fire protection capability, electrical equipment, automatic alarm system, automatic fire extinguishing system, evacuation capability, and management capability. The non-linear relationship between indexes was addressed using Shapley values to determine the index weights. Then, the evidence theory, the likelihood function, and the evidence fusion algorithm were utilized to find out the fire safety level. The outcomes showed that the most important indicators for fire safety were the electrical equipment, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and evacuation capability. The study employed an advanced methodology to assess fire safety in high-rise buildings, which might add more complexity to the process.

Fire incidents could have a dramatic impact on the sustainability of buildings. As such, Rahardjo and Prihanton [37] investigated the most important issues related to fire protection in sustainable buildings in Jakarta. The study utilized AHP, OMAX, and traffic light system methods to analyze the data from 50 high-rise buildings. The results revealed that inadequate roads and the absence of building access were the most critical issues while the poor performance of fire protection systems was found to be the main source of inconsistencies. The outcomes of this study raised awareness about the most critical issues to reduce and prevent the impact of fire incidents. This study provided an example of how the assessment process can determine the most critical issues affecting fire safety in high-rise buildings. Measuring the fire resilience of buildings is critical to ensure their safety and functionality after fire events. Hence, Himoto [38] proposed a new methodology to quantify the fire resilience of buildings using the event-tree approach. In this method, the fire scenarios were probabilistically determined for each fire zone. The results from applying this method to an office building revealed that the sprinkler system was the most critical design aspect affecting fire resilience.

Most of the current fire protection systems for buildings have shortcomings that could increase the possibility of fire accidents. Kodur et al. [22] reviewed the fire protection systems and the related fire hazards in buildings. The study suggested a framework to enhance fire safety based on four key areas: fire protection system, regulation and enforcement, consumer awareness, and technology and resource advancement. Strategies for improvement have been suggested as follows: developing cost-effective fire suppression systems, defining rational fire design methods, characterizing new materials, and developing performance-based codes.

This research makes notable contributions by addressing key research gaps identified through an extensive review of the existing literature. First, a significant gap identified is the lack of a specific fire assessment model tailored to the unique context of the Saudi construction industry. This absence of a dedicated model hampers the effective implementation of fire safety measures and exposes buildings to increased vulnerabilities. Building upon this observation, the primary novelty of this research lies in the proposition of a fire safety assessment index model specifically designed for constructing buildings in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, this research recognizes the limitations of current laws and regulations pertaining to fire safety in buildings. In particular, the existing legal framework primarily emphasizes the facilitation of safe occupant evacuation during emergencies [39]. Therefore, an additional contribution of this study lies in its dedication to understanding occupants’ behavior and their impact on ensuring safe and efficient evacuation processes during fire incidents. The proposed model not only fills the aforementioned gaps but also contributes to the body of knowledge by presenting a comprehensive framework that focuses on both fire prevention and fire management within buildings. By encompassing these two crucial aspects, the model offers a holistic approach to fire safety in construction settings, ensuring a proactive and effective response to fire incidents. In summary, this research contributes to the body of knowledge by proposing a tailored fire safety assessment model for the construction of buildings in Saudi Arabia, which offers a comprehensive framework for fire prevention and management.

3. Research Methodology

Fire accidents in buildings can be attributed to either a hazardous event or a failure of protection systems. First, a hazardous event occurs when the building does not satisfy fire safety standards and specifications [40]. This could be attributed to the failure to follow the fire safety specification or the inadequacy of the standards and specifications. It can also be due to the inefficient safety inspection process of new and old buildings that can point to fire safety deficiencies early. Second, a failure of protection systems occurs when specific protection components perform at an unacceptable level. This often results in damage to properties and sometimes it might cause loss of life.

As shown in Figure 1, the methodology of this research is based on developing a safety assessment model for evaluating buildings and structures in Saudi Arabia. The study comprises two main parts: the first one is developing a “hazard classification index of buildings and structures” following the requirement of the Saudi Building Code, and the second one is establishing a “safety index model for buildings and structures” based on the requirement of the civil defense department in Saudi Arabia.

Within each model, the main factors and sub-factors are defined from previous studies and interviews with experts who are involved in developing a standard hierarchy for hazard classification and safety of the buildings. The type of building, location, usage, design, structure, and building material are fire hazard factors considered in this research. As for fire safety systems and measures, it deals with fire detection, prevention, containment, fighting, and management systems. The AHP methodology is used to determine the relative weights of the defined factors and sub-factors for the two models.

The final condition rating index for a building is developed using the weighted sum of the two ratings: the fire hazard of the building and the fire safety indexes. The resulting model provides the decision-makers with a fire assessment performance score which can be interpreted using the fire safety index interpretation table at the end of this study. At this point, the best decisions are nominated for the building considering the current building condition.

3.1. Fire Hazards Data

All types of buildings should comply with the Saudi code for fire protection to obtain a safety permit. The requirements based on the Saudi code include specifications related to design, layout, usage, structure, material, and others. These building specifications are important to determine the hazard level of the building. The Saudi code also specifies fire safety measures and systems that ensure the prevention, detection, and control of fire events in buildings. This stage is the first step toward identifying the overall safety condition of the building.

There are hundreds of factors that affect fire safety in buildings. It was therefore important to find the most comprehensive and applicable set of factors for this study. Previous studies along with public defense reports and international safety standards were reviewed to determine the initial group of factors. These factors were evaluated by 40 experts in the fire safety domain who provided their feedback about the appropriateness of the factors. The experts were asked to reject the inapplicable factors, combine the repeated ones, and suggest additional factors. The outcome of this step showed that 30 experts reported that the group of factors was excellent, and 10 reported that it was acceptable with some comments. All experts’ comments were evaluated and incorporated into the final group of factors shown in Figure 2.

The fire hazard classification encompasses various factors, including user behaviors, access requirements, building requirements, and design considerations for emergencies. User behavior factors encompass situations where the building is not utilized for its intended purpose, the presence of hazardous activities, and lack of user awareness regarding fire safety measures. Access requirements involve providing suitable roads for civil defense vehicles to reach the building and considering the distance between the building and civil defense vehicles. Building requirements include considerations such as building type and usage, adherence to building material requirements, electrical connections, and the nature of building contents. Finally, designs for emergency considerations involve aspects such as fire containment design, availability of emergency exits, and designated assembly points for occupants during emergencies.

3.2. Fire Safety Performance Data

The second stage is the fire safety identification or characterization stage. This is where the safety rating models for the building condition are developed. Typically, the assessment process of building safety is divided into two parts including describing the building condition and evaluating fire safety systems and measures. To achieve this, each phase has its hierarchy elements which are used to construct the hazard classification index and the fire safety index. Then, both indexes are weighted to indicate the final condition of the building. The developed methodology is suitable to be used for different types of buildings and structures.

There are hundreds of factors that affect the fire safety of buildings. To determine the most comprehensive and applicable set of factors, previous studies along with public defense reports and international safety standards were reviewed. The appropriateness of the initial group of factors was evaluated by 15 experts in the fire safety field. The experts were asked to reject the inapplicable factors, combine the repeated ones, and suggest additional factors. According to the findings, 10 experts reported that the group of factors was excellent, and 5 reported that it was acceptable with some comments. All experts’ comments were assessed and integrated into the final group of factors shown in Figure 3.

Fire safety encompasses several critical components, including fire prevention, fire detection, fire containment, firefighting, and fire management. Fire prevention measures involve conducting regular inspections and maintenance, installing fire safety exit signs and alarms, establishing appropriate building access and emergency evacuation routes, as well as isolating fire sources. Fire detection mechanisms incorporate the use of photoelectric detectors, thermal sensors, and smoke detectors/alarms. Fire containment strategies encompass the implementation of inert gas flooding, automatic sprinkler systems, measures to restrict openings, installation of fire doors, and ensuring appropriate building construction standards. Firefighting measures involve the deployment of foam generators, hydrants, and extinguishers. Finally, fire management entails conducting training and ensuring the safety of individuals, raising awareness about fire safety practices, and conducting fire safety audits to assess and improve overall fire management protocols.

3.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

It is commonly acknowledged that problems can arise due to various causes. In order to address such issues, the application of a multi-criteria decision-making technique becomes imperative, as it empowers decision-makers to hierarchically prioritize the causal factors based on their relative significance [41]. AHP is one of the decision-making models used to determine the relative weight of various alternatives based on multiple parameters and, thereby, provides an aggregate ranking of each alternative [42,43]. Additionally, it is a useful method for carrying out qualitative and quantitative research, coming to robust conclusions, and carrying out various kinds of analysis [44]. The application of AHP in assessing fire danger demonstrates its effectiveness, as the estimation of fire risk is a challenging task, and numerous researchers have employed AHP for this purpose [45,46]. Applying the AHP begins with the creation of the problem’s hierarchical structure, which introduces the interactions between the goal, criteria, and sub-criteria [28]. Once the hierarchy is constructed, the relative weights of the main factors and sub-factors are calculated using pairwise comparison. This process is conducted for each hierarchy separately using expert inputs. The following steps must be considered when performing a pairwise comparison:

• Determining which of the two factors has more influence on the factor at a higher level in the hierarchy. For example, what contributes to the fire hazard in buildings—building requirements or access requirements? What affects the building requirements more—building contents or building materials?
• Determining to what extent a specific factor is more important or has a greater influence. Experts translate their verbal assessment into numbers using a scale from 1–9 according to AHP methodology. In this step, a qualitative assessment is transformed into a quantitative one. In the comparison matrix, the greater integer assigned indicates the higher importance of the factor in the row relative to the column factor. The number 1 is assigned to factors that have equal importance or have the same influence on the factor at a higher level. When factor (A) has more influence over (B), it is assigned an integer larger than 1 with respect to its influence. In contrast, factor (B) is assigned the reciprocal value.

The main advantage of pairwise comparison is that it is a systematic process such that each factor is evaluated (n − 1) times for a set of factors containing (n) attributes. This methodology offers more effectiveness to the obtained results. Additionally, any logical discrepancy can be detected through a built-in tool used to avoid logical discrepancies. The weighting process can be repeated to evaluate alternatives—i.e., rank and decide on the best alternative.

3.4. Fire Hazard Index

The fire hazard index of a building is evaluated by measuring the compliance of each aspect of the building design and construction against the Saudi code for fire protection. Each building aspect is evaluated over a 0–100% scale with 0 and 100 representing no risk and highest risk, respectively. Moreover, the developed model introduces increased factors, which will increase the final score if any essential aspect is out of the acceptable range. This approach will draw the decision-makers’ attention to critical safety issues that represent a high risk to occupants of the building. The weight of each factor and sub-factor for each building hazard element is determined using the AHP technique. The building hazard index is evaluated by measuring its compliance against four main factors: user behavior (UB), access requirements (AR), building requirements (BR), and emergency design (DM). The final score for building fire hazard is calculated using Equation (1) after evaluating all attributes related to the main factors. The interpretation of the building fire hazard index values and the required actions are shown in

Table 2. Building fire hazard scale and its interpretation.

Fire Hazard Scale	Grade Explanation	Action Required
8–10	Critical condition	Immediate action is required.
6–8	Very bad condition	New building design changes are required.
4–6	Bad to an acceptable condition	Bad condition, major changes are required.
2–4	Good condition	Good condition, minor changes are required.
<2	Excellent condition	No specific action is required, only typical routine inspections.

.

𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 Fire 𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝑈𝐵. 𝑤_𝑈𝐵 + 𝐴𝑅. 𝑤_𝐴𝑅 + 𝐵𝑅. 𝑤_𝐵𝑅 + DM. 𝑤_DM

(1)

where, UB, AR, BR, and DM refer to the condition ratings of user behaviors, access requirements, building requirements, and emergency design, respectively. 𝑤_𝑈𝐵, 𝑤_𝐴𝑅, 𝑤_𝐵𝑅, and 𝑤_DM refer to the relative weight of each main factor.

3.5. Fire Safety Index

The fire safety index of a building is evaluated by measuring the compliance of the fire safety systems in a building with the Saudi code requirements. In this study, five main attributes for fire safety in buildings are defined, namely, fire prevention (FP), fire detection (FD), fire containment (FC), firefighting (FF), and fire management (FM). Each attribute is evaluated over a 0–100% scale with 100 representing the best safety condition and 0 being the most critical condition. This methodology ensures a systemic evaluation to help draw attention to the most critical safety issues affecting the building’s performance during fire incidents. The weight of each factor and sub-factor for each building safety element is determined using the AHP technique. The final score for building fire safety is calculated using Equation (2) after evaluating all attributes related to the main factors. The interpretation of the building fire safety index values and the required actions are shown in

Table 3. Building fire safety scale and its interpretation.

Fire Safety Scale	Grade Explanation	Action Required
8–10	Excellent condition	No specific action is required, only typical routine inspections.
6–8	Good condition	Good condition, minor changes are required.
4–6	Bad to an acceptable condition	Bad condition, major changes are required.
2–4	Very bad condition	New building design changes are required.
<2	Critical condition	Immediate action is required.

.

𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝐹𝑃. 𝑤_𝐹𝑃 + 𝐹𝐷. 𝑤_𝐹𝐷 + FC. 𝑤_FC + 𝐹𝐹. 𝑤_𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝑀. 𝑤_𝐹𝑀

(2)

where, FP, FD, FC, FF, and FM refer to condition ratings of fire prevention, fire detection, fire containment, firefighting, and fire management, respectively. 𝑤_𝐹𝑃, 𝑤_𝐹𝐷, 𝑤_FC, 𝑤_𝐹𝐹, and 𝑤_𝐹𝑀 refer to the relative weight for each main factor.

4. Case Study

This section provides an overview of the model development, descriptions of case studies, and the traditional and proposed fire safety assessment methods.

4.1. Overview

To illustrate the implementation of the two developed models, two building case studies in Saudi Arabia are presented in this section. Two official reports from the General Directorate of Civil Defense in Dammam are used as references. The two buildings are a residential compound and a company for which inspections are conducted to acquire a safety certificate. The officials who inspected the buildings traditionally were asked to evaluate them using the proposed models. The outcomes of the developed models are compared with the results in the official reports.

The hazard and safety ratings of each building are determined using the methodology presented in this study. The fire hazard rating system for the buildings measures the hazard level of each building aspect to the overall rating. Therefore, this system can detect and diagnose the exact source of threat from fire. The fire safety rating is used to indicate the performance level of each protection system and, therefore, promote the required corrective actions for various protection components within the building.

The fire hazard and safety ratings for the two buildings are concluded using the expert opinion provided through interview responses. The case study outcomes are discussed with the experts and decision-makers who are involved in the inspection process. For validation purposes, the results obtained by the developed models are compared with those found in traditional reports. The officials recommended the implementation of the developed models and they were highly appreciative of its systematic approach to identifying the fire hazard and safety performance levels.

4.2. Descriptions of Case Studies

The first case study is a two-section residential compound that occupies a land of approximately 82,000 square meters, with only one main entrance. The first section consists of 49 residential units built of bricks and covered with hangers. The ground floor has 35 units (consisting of 3 rooms, a hall, and a kitchen) and 14 units (consisting of 2 rooms, a hall, and a kitchen), and there is a swimming pool, sports fields, and administrative offices. The second section consists of 4 units used as offices and guard council of the naval forces. On the other side, there are workers’ accommodations (90 rooms total and only 35 rooms are used). The dimensions of each room are approximately (3 × 4), and the rooms are built of wood and covered with shrink-wrap. There is also a mosque, a supply warehouse, and a closed carpentry workshop. The second case study is a commercial complex, a reinforced concrete building consisting of several large galleries. Each gallery consists of a ground floor and a mezzanine and contains shelves to display goods. One of the galleries is used by the owner’s company and the rest are unoccupied. Seven emergency exits serve the entire complex.

4.3. Fire Safety Assessment (Traditional Method)

The assessment results of the first case study are depicted in

Table 4. Assessment results of the first case study.

Fire Hazards	Related Factors and Sub-Factors	Safety Requirements	Related Factors and Sub-Factors
Removing the wooden portables, as well as the gas in the workers’ housing	Building requirements and building material requirements	Providing a suitable fire pump	Firefighting and hydrants
Securing the electrical installations	Building requirements and electrical connections	Providing fireboxes	Firefighting and hydrants
Providing the requirements for swimming pools	Building requirements as well as building type and uses	Installation of fire detectors or a fire alarm system	Fire detection, smoke detector/alarms
Removing the carpentry workshop	Building requirements and building contents	Providing fire extinguishers	Firefighting and extinguishers
Removing the debris and the scrap	Building requirements and building contents	Assigning a safety officer	Fire management, training and safety personnel
Correctly covering the sewage pit	Building requirements as well as building type and uses
Designating assembly points for emergencies	Design for emergency and assembly points

. The following safety measures are available: (1) six fireboxes are attached to the compound’s water lines, (2) one powder extinguisher, and (3) miscellaneous fire extinguishers. Meanwhile, the required safety means include the following: (1) providing a suitable fire pump for the site according to hydraulic measurements and connecting it to a special water tank; (2) providing fireboxes to cover the compound completely, as well as maintaining the existing ones and linking them to the pump; (3) installing single-function fire detectors or a fire alarm system in residential units; (4) providing fire extinguishers that cover the entire site; (5) removing the workers’ housing made of wooden barrels, which is at high risk, as well as the gas in the workers’ housing; (6) securing the electrical installations randomly located in the workers’ housing, as well as the water coolers inside the compound, by covering them and extending them through protective pipes to prevent tampering; (7) providing the requirements for swimming pools (handles, survival collars, rescue stick, gradient showing pool depth levels, and a special supervisor who has a swimming certificate); (8) providing an alarm system linked to a control panel in the supply warehouse and offices; (9) removing the carpentry workshop inside the complex; (10) removing the debris and the scrap inside the compound wall; (11) covering the sewage pit located at the guard offices of the Navy correctly; (12) ensuring that a safety official is present in the complex; (13) designating assembly points for emergencies; and (14) implementing all systems according to safety plans approved by the civil defense.

The available safety means include (1) 2 jockey diesel-electric fire pumps with a capacity of 500 g/d, (2) 23 fire boxes, (3) an automatic spraying system with 877 spray heads, (4) 2 civil defense connections, (5) an automatic alarm system linked to a control panel with 195 smoke detectors and 5 heat detectors, (6) 15 control panels, (7) warning bell and glass breaker (no. 23), and (8) 7 emergency exits.

The assessment results of the second case study are depicted in

Table 5. Assessment results of the second case study.

Fire Hazards	Related Factors and Sub-Factors	Safety Requirements	Related Factors and Sub-Factors
Bring proof of cladding resistance	Building requirements and building materials	Install fireboxes as per the approved scheme	Firefighting and hydrants
Large galleries consist of a ground floor and a mezzanine	Building requirements as well as building type and uses	Remove the covers and stickers from the automatic sprinkler system	Fire detection, smoke detector/alarms
Mall	Building requirements as well as building type and uses	Remove the covers and stickers from the alarm system	Fire detection, smoke detector/alarms
Securing a fragmented door	Building requirements and building contents	Two jockey diesel electric fire pumps	Firefighting, fire pumps, and connections
Reinforced concrete	Building requirements and building materials
Emergency exits serve the entire complex	Design for emergency and emergency exits
Adding illuminated emergency exit panels	Design for emergency and emergency exits

. The required safety measures include (1) securing a fragmented door in the ground doors of the stairs that lead to the offices, (2) installing fireboxes as per the approved scheme, (3) providing proof of cladding resistance, (4) removing the covers and stickers from the automatic sprinkler and alarm systems, and (5) adding illuminated emergency exit panels in Al-Othaim gallery.

4.4. Proposed Fire Safety Assessment

The fire hazard ratings are determined using the developed model for the two case studies in this sub-section. The assessment of the case studies under investigation is based on the official reports obtained from the General Directorate of Civil Defense in Dammam. The report consists of two main parts: the first one describes the building in detail considering the requirement of fire protection, and the second part evaluates fire safety measures as per the requirements of the Saudi code.

4.4.1. Fire Hazard Assessment

Figure 4 shows the assessment results of the hazard classification model for the two case studies. The experts evaluated the leaf attributes, and the score of the main factors was calculated automatically using the equations described in the Methodology Section. For the first case study, the highest risks identified include the building requirements and the design for main emergency factors. These findings are aligned with those from earlier studies, such as Akashah [47] who identified the influential factors in employing evacuation strategies as reliable emergency response, building characteristics, and evacuation exercise. In the building requirements, hazards from nonconformance building materials and electrical connections are found to be the most significant. However, in design for emergencies, the absence of assembly points is the most critical risk. For the second case study, the highest risks identified are building material requirements where the cladding resistance is required to be assured. This finding aligns with the research conducted by Mullins-Jaime and Smith [48], who emphasized the significance of using fire-resistant building materials to strengthen fire protection measures and improve overall life safety. Pozdieiev et al. [49] studied the thermal insulation ability of fire-retardant cladding integrity. In addition, the emergency exits in the building are indicated as the most critical factor. Similar findings were reported by Jeon et al. [50] who emphasized the importance of emergency exit signs in the fire safety of buildings.

4.4.2. Fire Safety Assessment

Figure 5 shows the safety assessment results of the two case studies. The experts evaluated the leaf attributes, and the score of the main factors was calculated automatically using the equations described in the Methodology Section. In the first case study, the main safety issues are related to the availability and sufficient number of fire pumps, hydrants, extinguishers, and safety officers in the building. Alexander [51] highlighted the importance of fire hydrants, extinguishers, and officers to ensure the fire safety of buildings. There are also issues related to the installation of alarm systems and smoke detectors. The related attributes for these factors receive low rates corresponding to their level of compliance with the safety requirements. On the other hand, the second case study shows more compliance with safety measures. However, fire pumps, hydrants, and extinguishers are the main issue. Compliance with the requirement of these issues affects the overall safety score for the building.

5. Model Development

This section shows the steps utilized to develop and interpret the fire hazard and safety models as described in the Methodology Section.

5.1. Pairwise Comparison Matrices

Pairwise comparison is applied to determine the AHP weights of the main factors and sub-factors for the fire hazard and fire safety hierarchies. Both hierarchies consist of two levels, as previously displayed in Figure 6 and Figure 7. Within the hazard hierarchy, the building hazard index is evaluated by measuring its compliance against four main factors: user behavior, access requirements, building requirements, and emergency design.

Table 6. Pairwise comparison for hazard factors level 1.

Level 1	User Behavior	Access Requirements	Building Requirements	Design for Emergency	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
User behavior	1.00	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.299	0.059
Access requirements	5.00	1.00	0.33	0.33	0.863	0.169
Building requirements	5.00	3.00	1.00	1.00	1.968	0.386
Design for emergency	5.00	3.00	1.00	1.00	1.968	0.386

and

Table 7. Pairwise comparison for hazard factors level 2.

User Behavior	Building Usage		Dangerous Activities	Occupant Awareness	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Building usage	1		1/3	5	1.186	0.297
Dangerous activities	3		1	5	2.466	0.618
Occupant awareness	1/5		1/5	1	0.342	0.086
Access Requirements	Access Roads		Distance to the Entrance		nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Access roads	1		1		1.000	0.500
Distance to the entrance	1		1		1.000	0.500
Building Requirements	Building Type and Use	Material Requirements	Electrical Connections	Building Content	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Building type and use	1	1/3	1/5	1	0.508	0.094
Material requirements	3	1	1/3	5	1.495	0.277
Electrical connections	5	3	1	5	2.943	0.546
Building contents	1	1/5	1/5	1	0.447	0.083
Design for Emergency	Fire Containment		Emergency Exit	Assembly Points	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Fire containment	1		1/3	3	1.000	0.287
Emergency exit	3		1	3	2.080	0.597
Assembly points	1/3		1/5	1	0.405	0.116

show the calculation of the AHP weights of the main factors and sub-factors using the pairwise comparison method.

In this study, five main fire safety attributes for buildings are defined—namely, fire prevention, fire detection, fire containment, firefighting, and fire management. Within the safety hierarchy,

Table 8. Pairwise comparison for safety factors level 1.

Level 1	Prevention	Detection	Containment	Fighting	Management	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Prevention	1	3	5	5	7	3.500	0.456
Detection	1/3	1	5	5	7	2.255	0.293
Containment	1/5	1/5	1	1/7	7	0.525	0.068
Fighting	1/5	1/5	7	1	9	1.203	0.157
Management	1/7	1/7	1/7	1/9	1	0.200	0.026

and

Table 9. Pairwise comparison for safety factors level 2.

Fire Prevention	Preventative Inspections and Maintenance	Fire Safety Exit Signs and Fire Alarms		Building Access and Emergency Evacuation Routes	Isolate Fire Sources	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Preventative inspections and maintenance	1	1/2		1/4	1/6	0.380	0.076
Fire safety exit signs and fire alarms	2	1		1/3	1/2	0.760	0.152
Building access and emergency evacuation routes	4	3		1	1/3	1.414	0.283
Isolation of fire sources	6	2		3	1	2.449	0.490
Fire Detection	Photoelectric Detectors	Thermal Sensors		Smoke Detector/Alarms		nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Photoelectric detectors	1	1/3		1/5		0.405	0.094
Thermal sensors	3	1		1/6		0.794	0.184
Smoke detector/alarms	5	6		1		3.107	0.722
Fire Containment	Inert Gas Flooding	Automatic Sprinklers	Restrict Openings	Fire Doors	Building Construction	nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Inert gas flooding	1	1/2	1/4	1/4	1/5	0.362	0.055
Automatic sprinklers	2	1	1/2	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
Firefighting	Foam Generators	Hydrants		Extinguishers		nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Foam generators	1	1/3		1/5		0.405	0.101
Hydrants	3	1		1/4		0.909	0.226
Extinguishers	5	4		1		2.714	0.674
Fire Management	Training and Safety People	Raise Awareness		Fire Safety Audit		nth Root of (ABCD) Product Values	Eigenvector (Relative Weight)
Training and safety people	1	1/4		1/3		0.437	0.111
Raise awareness	4	1		1/6		0.874	0.222
Fire safety audit	3	6		1		2.621	0.667

show the calculation of the AHP weights of the main factors and sub-factors using the pairwise comparison method.

5.2. Final Developed Models

The final developed models include two types: the first one is used for fire hazard assessment and the second one involves the assessment of safety measures against fire danger. The weight of each main factor and sub-factor represents its relative importance as shown below. The final developed models are (1) the fire hazard assessment model (Figure 6 and Figure 7) and the fire safety assessment model (Figure 8).

5.3. Fire Risk Heat Map

The final scores for fire hazard and safety in buildings are calculated after evaluating all attributes related to the main factors using Equations (1) and (2), respectively. The heat map shown in Figure 8 will be used to interpret the results of the two models. The hazard score of a building is shown on the x-axis, while the safety score is plotted on the y-axis. The outcomes from the heat map determine the level of fire risk of the building under evaluation.

6. Discussion

The outcomes of the developed method are summarized in

Table 10. Summary of the results using the proposed method.

Case Study	Hazard Rating	Interpretation	Safety Rating	Interpretation
1	5.3	Bad to acceptable condition	5.5	Bad to acceptable condition
2	4.3	Bad to acceptable condition	5.9	Bad to acceptable condition

. 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.

• 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.

7. Conclusions

Every year, numerous buildings worldwide are subject to devastating fires, causing loss of life, property damage, and significant economic impact. Therefore, ensuring fire safety in buildings is a critical concern for all stakeholders, including building owners, authorities, and the public. The development of the fire safety assessment model for buildings offers several benefits, including (1) improved fire safety assessment as the developed model provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to assessing fire hazards and safety in buildings, making it easier for decision-makers to identify potential risks and determine appropriate fire protection measures; (2) enhanced efficiency as traditional fire safety assessment methods can be time-consuming and complex, leading to challenges in identifying potential fire hazards and determining appropriate fire protection measures, whereas the proposed model simplifies the assessment process, allowing faster and more efficient evaluations; (3) increased accuracy because the applied AHP method provides a structured and rigorous approach to decision-making, ensuring accurate and reliable assessments; (4) better documentation as the model results are easier to document and interpret, making it simpler to compare different buildings’ fire safety and identify improvement areas; and (5) more effective decision-making as the model provides decision-makers with a clear and concise overview of a building’s fire safety status. This enables clear identification of current and future fire protection and prevention requirements, making the decision-making more effective. Overall, this study offers significant benefits for improving fire safety assessments in buildings. This paper provides two case studies that validate the benefits of the proposed model over traditional assessment methods. This helps to reduce the risk of fire-related incidents and enhances overall fire safety.

Despite the valuable contributions of this study to fire safety assessment in buildings, several limitations should be acknowledged. These include the subjectivity in expert judgments during the decision-making process as well as the complexity and variability of the factors involved in fire safety and hazard assessment. Future research should aim to address these limitations and explore solutions to enhance the applicability, robustness, and practicality of fire safety assessment models in various contexts. In this regard, this study provides the following recommendations for future work: (1) expanding a pool of experts to gather a more comprehensive dataset and to seek the insights of additional knowledgeable professionals, thereby minimizing subjectivity and improving the reliability of the findings, and (2) exploring alternative decision-making techniques to assess their performance and suitability in ranking fire safety and hazard assessment factors.