## 3 Result and Analysis
### Determination of Evaluation Index Weight
#### 3.1.2 Determining Expert Scores  
Through the method described in Section 2.3.2, the calculation process is shown in Tables 5-9. We calculated the revised expert score table in Tables 10-12. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \(\mathbf{U_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{U_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{U_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{U_{4}}\) & \(\mathbf{U_{5}}\) & \(\mathbf{U_{6}}\) & \(\mathbf{U_{7}}\) \\ \hline Project 1 & 68 & 0.68 & 6 & 1 & 5 & 0.41 & 300 \\ Project 2 & 45 & 0.46 & 0.5 & 40 & 27 & 0.12 & 600 \\ Project 3 & 70 & 0.60 & 2.1 & 20 & 23 & 0.3 & 400 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Data required by the model. Figure 2: Evaluation index system of TBM selection decision-making. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Expert** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(0)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(0)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(1)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(1)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(2)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(2)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(3)** \\ \hline \(1\) & \(1\) & \(-0.1607\) & \(0.8393\) & \(-0.1290\) & \(0.8710\) & \(-0.1158\) & \(0.8842\) \\ \(2\) & \(1\) & \(-0.1607\) & \(0.8393\) & \(-0.1290\) & \(0.8710\) & \(-0.1158\) & \(0.8842\) \\ \(3\) & \(1\) & \(-0.2904\) & \(0.7096\) & \(-0.3125\) & \(0.6875\) & \(-0.3211\) & \(0.6789\) \\ \(4\) & \(1\) & \(-0.2904\) & \(0.7096\) & \(-0.3125\) & \(0.6875\) & \(-0.3211\) & \(0.6789\) \\ \(5\) & \(1\) & \(-0.1607\) & \(0.8393\) & \(-0.1290\) & \(0.8710\) & \(-0.1158\) & \(0.8842\) \\ \(\overline{X}^{(0)}=2.4000\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{X}^{(1)}=2.3605\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{X}^{(2)}=2.3448\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{X}^{(3)}=2.3386\)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Correction of water inrush. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Expert** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(0)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(0)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(1)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(2)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(2)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(3)** \\ \hline \(1\) & \(1\) & \(-0.1607\) & \(0.8393\) & \(-0.1290\) & \(0.8710\) & \(-0.1158\) & \(0.8842\) \\ \(2\) & \(1\) & \(-0.1607\) & \(0.8393\) & \(-0.1290\) & \(0.8710\) & \(-0.1158\) & \(0.8842\) \\ \(3\) & \(1\) & \(-0.2904\) & \(0.7096\) & \(-0.3125\) & \(0.6875\) & \(-0.3211\) & \(0.6789\) \\ \(4\) & \(1\) & \(-0.2904\) & \(0.7096\) & \(-0.3125\) & \(0.6875\) & \(-0.3211\) & \(0.6789\) \\ \(5\) & \(1\) & \(-0.1607\) & \(0.8393\) & \(-0.1290\) & \(0.8710\) & \(-0.1158\) & \(0.8842\) \\ \(\overline{X}^{(0)}=2.4000\) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{X}^{(1)}=2.3605\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{X}^{(2)}=2.3448\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\overline{X}^{(3)}=2.3386\)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Correction of fracture zone. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Expert** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(0)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(0)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(1)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(1)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(2)** & \(\mu_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(2)** & \(P_{\mathbf{1}}\)**[**(3)** \\ \hline \(1\) & \(1\) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Geological** \\ **Condition** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Adverse** \\ **Geology** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Tunnel Design** \\ **Index Weight** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Geological condition & \(1\) & \(0.279\) & \(2.632\) \\ Adverse geology & \(3.58\) & \(1\) & \(9.091\) \\ Tunnel design & \(0.38\) & \(0.110\) & \(1\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Modified scoring table of objectives to criteria.