## 5 Solving Pareto Optimal Solution Set and Analysis Decision
### Pareto Optimal Solution Set and Analysis of Running 25 Pumping Wells Schemes  
Similarly, on the premise of meeting the constraints and control conditions, the second optimization working condition is set to arbitrarily close one of the wells, resulting in a total of 26 layout schemes, without changing the location of the wells in the preliminary layout scheme. After optimization by the Gamultiobj program, 26 sets of Pareto solution sets are obtained, and 26 feasible schemes can be optimized for three objectives. Three sets of layout optimization schemes with evenly distributed Pareto solution sets are selected for analysis. The Pareto optimal solution set and pumping well layout state under the second optimization working condition are shown in Figure 7.  
It can be seen from Figure 7 that the three schemes under the second optimized working condition are to close the J26, J16, or J3 pumping well, respectively. Similarly, all Pareto solutions of the three schemes under the second optimization condition are substituted into the dewatering multi-objective optimization evaluation system, and the evaluation scores are calculated. The weighted scores of the three objectives are arranged in descending order. The score results of the Pareto solutions of each scheme are shown in Table 7.  
Select the Pareto solution with the highest evaluation score among the dewatering optimization schemes in Table 7, which are the three dewatering schemes with weighted scores of 89.455, 90.545, and 89.455, respectively. The comparison of the optimization results of the three objectives is shown in Table 8. The optimal results of decision variables are shown in Figure 8.  
Figure 6: Optimization results of decision variables under the first optimization working condition. Figure 7: Pareto set distribution diagram and pumping well working state under the second optimal working condition. (In the figure (**a,c,e**), the red dot indicates the relationship between the total water inflow and the settlement influence coefficient, the green dot indicates the relationship between the central water level drawdown and the total water inflow, the blue dot indicates the relationship between the central water level drawdown and the settlement influence coefficient). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Each Scheme** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Pareto** \\ **Solution No.** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Score for** \\ **Objective I** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Score for** \\ **Objective II** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Score of** \\ **Objective III** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Weighted Scores of Three** \\ **Objectives of Dewatering** \\ **Optimization** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Close J26 pumping well} & 1 & 85 & 90 & 90 & 89.455 \\  & 2 & 85 & 80 & 90 & 86.365 \\  & 3 & 75 & 80 & 90 & 85.275 \\  & 4 & 95 & 90 & 80 & 84.725 \\  & 5 & 85 & 90 & 80 & 83.635 \\  & 6 & 65 & 70 & 90 & 81.095 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 1 & 85 & 90 & 90 & 89.455 \\  & 2 & 85 & 90 & 90 & 89.455 \\  & 3 & 85 & 80 & 90 & 86.365 \\ Close J16 pumping well & 4 & 75 & 80 & 90 & 85.275 \\  & 5 & 95 & 90 & 80 & 84.725 \\  & 6 & 75 & 70 & 90 & 82.185 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 1 & 85 & 90 & 90 & 89.455 \\  & 2 & 85 & 90 & 90 & 89.455 \\  & 3 & 85 & 80 & 90 & 86.365 \\  & 4 & 75 & 80 & 90 & 85.275 \\  & 5 & 95 & 90 & 80 & 84.725 \\  & 6 & 75 & 70 & 90 & 82.185 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Evaluation table for optimal scheme of foundation pit dewatering for running 25 pumping wells. Figure 8: Optimization results of decision variables under the second optimization working condition.