## 4 Results and Analysis  
### Calculation of Indicator Weights  
According to the Equations (4)-(9) to calculate the evaluation index subjective weights (\(\varepsilon=0\)) (See Tables A1-A4 for evaluation data); the Equations (10)-(17) to calculate the evaluation index objective weights (See Tables A5-A8 for evaluation data); and the Equations (19)-(23) to calculate the combined weight coefficients \(\mu_{1}\) and \(\mu_{2}\), we can obtain \(\mu_{1}=0.3139\) and \(\mu_{2}=0.6861\), and, furthermore, we can calculate the evaluation index combination weights. The subjective weights, objective weights, and combination weights of the evaluation indices are given in Figure 9, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicators**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Large Mileage**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Small Mileage**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **JD Excavation** & **DM Excavation** & **JD Excavation** & **DM Excavation** \\ \hline A\({}_{21}\) & 59.2 & 58.1 & 60.1 & 57.2 \\ A\({}_{22}\) & 160.7 & 258.3 & 173.1 & 211 \\ A\({}_{23}\) & 165.2 & 62.9 & 103 & 60 \\ A\({}_{24}\) & 18.6 & 32.3 & 17.2 & 30.3 \\ A\({}_{31}\) & 5 & 8 & 5 & 8 \\ A\({}_{32}\) & 21 & 50 & 23 & 50 \\ A\({}_{33}\) & 7445.3 & 9358.2 & 8466.4 & 8409.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: \(Cont.\) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicator Level**} & **Excellent (I)** & **Good (II)** & **Average (III)** & **Rather Poor (IV)** & **Poor (V)** \\ \hline Perimeter eye drilling efficiency & A\({}_{11}<4\) & \(4\leq\) A\({}_{11}<8\) & \(8\leq\) A\({}_{11}<12\) & \(12\leq\) A\({}_{11}<16\) & \(16\leq\) A\({}_{11}\) \\ Trenching eye drilling efficiency & A\({}_{12}<4\) & \(4\leq\) A\({}_{12}<8\) & \(8\leq\) A\({}_{12}<12\) & \(12\leq\) A\({}_{12}<16\) & \(16\leq\) A\({}_{12}\) \\ Auxiliary eye drilling efficiency & A\({}_{13}<4\) & \(4\leq\) A\({}_{13}<8\) & \(8\leq\) A\({}_{13}<12\) & \(12\leq\) A\({}_{13}<16\) & \(16\leq\) A\({}_{13}\) \\ Bottom plate eye drilling efficiency & A\({}_{14}<4\) & \(4\leq\) A\({}_{14}<8\) & \(8\leq\) A\({}_{14}<12\) & \(12\leq\) A\({}_{14}<16\) & \(16\leq\) A\({}_{14}\) \\ Measurement time & A\({}_{21}<55\) & \(55\leq\) A\({}_{21}<57\) & \(57\leq\) A\({}_{21}<59\) & \(59\leq\) A\({}_{21}<61\) & \(61\leq\) A\({}_{21}\) \\ Drilling time & A\({}_{22}<165\) & \(165\leq\) A\({}_{22}<190\) & \(190\leq\) A\({}_{22}<215\) & \(215\leq\) A\({}_{22}<240\) & \(240\leq\) A\({}_{22}\) \\ Charging time & A\({}_{23}<70\) & \(70\leq\) A\({}_{23}<95\) & \(95\leq\) A\({}_{23}<120\) & \(120\leq\) A\({}_{23}<145\) & \(145\leq\) A\({}_{23}\) \\ Preparation time & A\({}_{24}<15\) & \(15\leq\) A\({}_{24}<20\) & \(20\leq\) A\({}_{24}<25\) & \(25\leq\) A\({}_{24}<30\) & \(30\leq\) A\({}_{24}\) \\ Construction quality & A\({}_{1}<3\) & \(3\leq\) A\({}_{31}<6\) & \(6\leq\Delta_{3}<9\) & \(9\leq\Delta_{3}<12\) & \(12\leq\Delta_{31}\) \\ Construction staffing & A\({}_{32}<30\) & \(30\leq\Delta_{32}<35\) & \(35\leq\) A\({}_{32}<40\) & \(40\leq\) A\({}_{32}<45\) & \(45\leq\) A\({}_{31}\) \\ Comprehensive cost & A\({}_{33}<7500\) & \(7500\leq\) A\({}_{33}<8000\) & \(8000\leq\) A\({}_{33}<8500\) & \(8500\leq\) A\({}_{33}<9000\) & \(9000\leq\) A\({}_{33}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Tunnel drilling and blasting method construction ergonomics evaluation index criteria. Turnel Drilling and Blasting Method of Excavation Ergonomics and Evaluation Level Criteria Calculation  
According to Table 9 in the tunnel drilling and blasting method of the excavation ergonomics evaluation index sub-polar values and the combination of weights in Figure 9 to build a weighted judgment matrix. We can obtain the grade criteria for the tunnel drilling and blasting method of excavation ergonomics. As the selected evaluation indicators are very small indicators, so the smaller the grade value (A), the higher the level of the tunnel drilling and blasting method of excavation ergonomics.