# Risk Assessment of Drilling and Blasting Method Based on Nonlinear FAHP and Combination Weighting
## 6 Conclusions  
Based on the WBS-RBS coupling matrix, an improved method for calculating indicator weights was introduced, and a nonlinear operator was incorporated to establish a combined weighting-nonlinear FAHP risk assessment method for a drilling and blasting method of construction. The following conclusions were drawn:  
1. A comprehensive risk evaluation system was established by coupling work breakdown structure (WBS) and risk breakdown structure (RBS), effectively linking construction tasks with potential risks. This approach minimized omissions and overlaps in risk identification, providing a structured framework for assessing drilling and blasting construction risks.
2. The game theory combined weighting method was used to integrate the subjective weights calculated by the analytic hierarchy process and the objective weights calculated by principal component analysis. By applying group decision-making principles, a more reliable combined weight for the evaluation results was established, improving the rationality of the risk assessment results for drilling and blasting methods of construction and addressing the limitations inherent in single weighting methods.
3. Based on the combined weights, a nonlinear operator was introduced to perform a nonlinear fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of the drilling and blasting method construction section at the flat guide entrance of the Daliangshan No. 1 Tunnel. The prominent influence coefficients were determined subjectively, balancing the potential weakening of significant risk factors in traditional linear weighted averages. The results of the linear FAHP and nonlinear FAHP were compared, validating the rationality of the nonlinear FAHP evaluation results.
4. The model was applied to the Daliangshan No. 1 Tunnel, identifying the overall risk level as high. Key secondary risk factors, such as detonation network reliability and ventilation system performance, were highlighted. Comparative analysis demon strated the model's superior accuracy in weight determination and risk classification over conventional methods.  
Conceptualization and methodology, C.J. and D.L.; software, X.S.; validation, L.X.; writing--original draft, H.P.; writing--review and editing, Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the Science and Technology Innovation Team of Shaanxi Innovation Capability Support Plan (No. 2020 TD005). The financial supports are gratefully acknowledged and the data are available for the journal.  
Not applicable.  
The measured data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.  
The authors express thanks to the people who helped with this work, and acknowledge the valuable suggestions from the peer reviewers.  
Author [PERSON] was employed by the company China Construction First Group Corporation Limited Northwest Branch. Authors [PERSON] and [PERSON] were employed by the company China Railway Beijing Group Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.