Abstract
For any networked infrastructure, damage to arcs and/or nodes and associated disruption of network services is inevitable. To reestablish service in a damaged network, affected components must be repaired or reconfigured, a process that can be time consuming and costly, so care must be taken to identify network restoration strategies that reestablish service most efficiently. A strategic goal of service restoration, therefore, is to ensure that facility restoration is prioritized so that system performance is maximized over a planning horizon within budgetary restrictions. To address this problem, this paper proposes a multi-objective optimization approach for network restoration during disaster recovery. The proposed model permits tradeoffs between two objectives, minimization of system cost and maximization of system flow, to be evaluated. A telecommunication application illustrates the significance of the developed approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altay N, Green WG (2006) OR/MS research in disaster operations management. Eur J Oper Res 175:475–493
Ambs K, Cwilich S, Deng M, Houck DJ, Lynch DF, Yan D (2000) Optimizing restoration capacity in the AT&T network. Interfaces 30(1):26–44
Baker MC, Witschorik CA, Tuch JC, Hagery-Espie W, Mendiratta VB (2004) Architectures and disaster recovery strategies for survivable telecommunications services. Bell Labs Tech J 9(2):125–145
Balakrishnan A, Magnanti TL, Sokol JS, Wang Y (2001) Telecommunication link restoration planning with multiple facility types. Ann Oper Res 106:127–154
Balakrishnan A, Magnanti TL, Sokol JS, Wang Y (2002) Spare-capacity assignment for line restoration using a single-facility type. Oper Res 50(4):617–635
Bonyuet MA, Garcia-Diaz A, Hicks IV (2002) Optimization procedures for simultaneous road rehabilitation and bridge replacement decisions in highway networks. Eng Optim 34(5):445–459
Bryson K, Millar H, Joseph A, Mobolurin A (2002) Using formal MS/OR modeling to support disaster recovery planning. Eur J Oper Res 141:679–688
Casari M, Wilkie SJ (2005) Sequencing lifeline repairs after an earthquake: an economic approach. J Regul Econ 27(1):47–65
Chang SE, Nojima N (2001) Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective. Transp Res Part A 35:475–494
Chen Y-W, Tzeng G-H (1999) A fuzzy multi-objective model for reconstructing the post-quake road-network by genetic algorithm. Int J Fuzzy Syst 1(2):85–95
Cho S, Gordon P, Richardson HW, Moore JE III, Shinozuka M (2000) Analyzing transportation reconstruction network strategies: a full cost approach. Rev Urb Reg Dev Stud 12(3):212–227
CNN.com (2006) Asia gets back online after quake. http://www.cnn.com. Dec. 28
CNN.com (2008a) Third undersea Internet cable cut in Mideast. http://www.cnn.com. Feb. 1
CNN.com (2008b) Firm: ship’s anchor cut Mideast Internet cable. http://www.cnn.com. Feb. 8
CNN.com (2008c) Power restored to parts of Florida after outage. http://www.cnn.com. Feb. 26
Cohon JL (1978) Multiobjective programming and planning. Dover, New York
Common Ground Alliance [CGA] (2005) Damage information and reporting tool (DIRT) CGA DIRT Analysis and Recommendations for calendar year 2004: volume 1. Dec. 5. http://www.CommonGroundAlliance.com
FAS [Federation of American Scientists] (2009) Nuclear weapon EMP effects. URL: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
Foster JS, Gjelde E, Graham WR, Hermann RJ, Keupfel HM, Lawson RL, Soper GK, Wood LL, Woodard JB (2004) Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, Volume 1: Executive Report. National Research Council, Committee on Electromagnetic Pulse Environment, Washington D.C. URL: http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf
Grubesic TH, Murray AT (2006) Vital nodes, interconnected infrastructures and the geographies of network survivability. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96(1):64–83
Grubesic TH, Matisziw TC, Murray AT, Snediker D (2008) Comparative approaches for assessing network connectivity and vulnerability. Int Reg Sci Rev 31(1):88–112
Kitamura Y, Lee Y, Okamura K (2007) Experience with restoration of Asia pacific network failures from Taiwan earthquake. IEICE Trans Commun E90-B(11):3095–3103
Kiyota M, Vandebona U, Tanoue H (1999) Multistage optimization of reconstruction sequence of highways. J Transp Eng 125:456–462
Lee JS, Kim TJ (2007) Implementation of spatiotemporal model for infrastructure reconstruction strategy under large-scale disaster. Transp Res Rec 2022:39–46
Lee EE II, Mitchell JE, Wallace WA (2007) Restoration of services in interdependent infrastructure systems: a network flows approach. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 37(6):1303–1317
Madanat S, Park S, Kuhn K (2006) Adaptive optimization and systematic probing of infrastructure system maintenance policies under model uncertainty. J Infrastruct Syst 12(3):192–198
Matisziw TC, Murray AT (2009) Modeling s-t path availability to support disaster vulnerability assessment of network infrastructure. Comput Oper Res 36(2):16–26
Matisziw TC, Murray AT, Grubesic TH (2007) Bounding network interdiction vulnerability through cutset identification. In: Murray AT, Grubesic TH (eds) Critical infrastructure: reliability and vulnerability. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 243–256
Matisziw TC, Murray AT, Grubesic TH (2009) Exploring the vulnerability of network infrastructure to interdiction. Ann Reg Sci 43(2):307–321
Meshkovskiy KA, Rokotyan AY (1992) Restoration of communications network connectivity following the failure of transmission junctions and lines. Telecommun Radio Eng 47:1–5
Murray AT, Matisziw TC, Grubesic TH (2007) Critical network infrastructure analysis: interdiction and system flow. J Geograph Syst 9:103–117
Sarker BR, Mann L, Triantaphyllou E, Mahankali S (1996) Power restoration in emergency situations. Comput Ind Eng 31(1/2):367–370
Smith DR, Cybrowski WJ, Zawislan F, Arnstein D, Dayton AD, Studwell TD (1994) Contingency/disaster recovery planning for the transmission systems of the defense information system network. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 12(1):13–22
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment [USCOTA] (1990) Physical vulnerability of electric system to natural disasters and sabotage. OTA-E-453. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force [USCA] (2004) Final report on the August 14, 2003 blackout in the United States and Canada: causes and recommendations. April, Washington, DC
Wang F, Zhang Z, Machemehl R (2003) Decision-making problem for managing pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects. Transp Res Rec 1853:21–28
Wilson C (2004) High altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) and high power microwave (HPM) devices: threat assessments. CRS Report: RL32544
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. BCS-0908030 and BCS-0718091. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matisziw, T.C., Murray, A.T. & Grubesic, T.H. Strategic Network Restoration. Netw Spat Econ 10, 345–361 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9123-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9123-x