# GIS-Based Optimal Route Selection of Submarine Cables Considering Potential Seismic Fault Zones
## 3 Results
### Case Study 2: Submarine Power Cable Connecting Crete with Egypt  
The same criteria with Case Study 1 (i.e., seabed inclination, bathymetry, seismically active fault zones) have also been adopted in this application and the five scenarios described in the previous subsection have also been examined in the case of a power transmission cable connecting Crete with Egypt. Table 4 lists the weight values that resulted from the AHP for each of the aforementioned scenarios, as well as the rating score of each sub-criterion. Figure 13a,b present five alternative cost (and length) minimized cable routes. Route I corresponds to the extreme scenario with significantly greater influence to bathymetry, Route II represents the realistic scenario and Route III denotes the extreme scenario with a greater weight value to seismic fault zones. Route IV constitutes the intermediate scenario, whereas Route V refers to the scenario where seabed inclination has extreme influence.  
The proposed numerical model for a power cable has been applied to assess the problem of fault-cable intersection. The equivalent and simplified cross-section presented in Figure 5 has been developed. The diameter, D is 64 mm, the equivalent elastic modulus has been set equal to 56 GPa. Similarly to Case Study 1, the cable's burial depth has been set equal to 0.5 m, whereas \(\varphi_{\text{P}}\), K\({}_{0}\) and f have been set as equal to 30\({}^{\circ}\), 0.5 and 0.6, respectively. The friction between the seabed and the cable has been evaluated considering the effective soil unit weight, which has been set as equal to 5.89 kN/m\({}^{3}\). Figure 14a displays the cable deformations in terms of absolute maximum axial strains at the middle of the cable section for the net bedrock displacement equal to 2 cm, 4 cm, 6 cm and 8 cm, 16 cm and 32 cm, for dip angle 60\({}^{\circ}\), whereas Figure 14b depicts the actual displacement of the cable.  
Figure 12: (**a**) Maximum axial strains of the submarine telecommunication cable for different net bedrock displacements, and (**b**) actual displacement of the cable at the fault rupture zone.  
Figure 14: (**a**) Maximum axial strains of the submarine power cable for different net bedrock displacements, and (**b**) the actual displacement of the cable at the fault rupture zone.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Criteria**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Weight-Influence (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sub-Criteria**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Rating Score**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & & & **Scenarios** & & & \\ \cline{2-8}  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Seabed Inclination (\({}^{\circ}\))} & \multirow{2}{*}{82} & \multirow{2}{*}{9} & \multirow{2}{*}{9} & \multirow{2}{*}{33} & \multirow{2}{*}{30} & \multirow{2}{*}{7} & 0–100 & 1 \\  & & & & & & 100–200 & 2 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & 20–30 & 3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & 30–40 & 4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & \(>\)40 & 5 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Bathymetry (m)} & \multirow{2}{*}{9} & \multirow{2}{*}{82} & \multirow{2}{*}{9} & \multirow{2}{*}{33} & \multirow{2}{*}{7} & 0–1000 & 1 \\  & & & & & & 1000–2000 & 2 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & 2000–3000 & 3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & 300–4000 & 4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & & \(>\)400 & 5 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Seismic Fault Zones} & \multirow{2}{*}{9} & \multirow{2}{*}{9} & \multirow{2}{*}{82} & \multirow{2}{*}{34} & \multirow{2}{*}{63} & \multirow{2}{*}{63} & \multirow{2}{*}{63} & \multirow{2}{*}{63} \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Weight-influence and rating score of each of the adopted criteria and sub-criteria for Case Study 2.  
Figure 13: Proposed alternative routes and seismically active fault zones: (**a**) with the bathymetry as a background and (**b**) with the seabed inclination as a background.