# Emergency Repair Scheduling Model for Road Network Integrating Rescheduling Feature
## 4 Case Analysis and Discussion
### Responsibility Area
#### 4.1.3 New Resource Point  
At unit time 32 after the initial disaster, one neighboring maintenance unit has completed all repair works of the damaged road sections within its own area of responsibility. Under the command of superior authority, this neighboring maintenance unit dispatches their available resources to support this repair project. Since the neighboring engineering unit joins the repair project, the decision maker must confirm the number of new resources that can be cooperated and dispatched, and then update the repair schedule again to include the new resources in the emergency repair project schedule. The new resource point is Resource Point 2, which has six new resources, as shown in Figure 8. For this new resource point, it is necessary to add more routes between the new resource point and the disaster point (i.e., Figure 8: new routes between resource point 2 and disaster 10, and resource point 2 and disaster 11), and the related information is summarized in Table 12. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Disaster** & **Resource** & **Repair Start** & **Repair** & **Repair** & **Resource** \\
**Point No.** & **Usage** & **Time** & **Duration** & **Finish Time** & **Transit** \\  & & **(20 min)** & **(20 min)** & **(20 min)** & **Route** \\ \hline
3 & 3 & 2 & 40 & 42 & 1 \\
4 & 2 & 43 & 27 & 70 & 5 \\
5 & 1 & 44 & 76 & 120 & 6 \\
6 & 3 & 4 & 71 & 75 & 2 \\
7 & 2 & 78 & 53 & 131 & 10 \\
8 & 1 & 2 & 25 & 27 & 3 \\
9 & 1 & 77 & 45 & 122 & 14 \\
10 & 2 & 132 & 10 & 142 & 15 \\
11 & 2 & 72 & 12 & 84 & 13 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Rescheduling results after new disaster point occurs. Figure 7: Diagram of the repair process after new disaster point occurs (Case 2). As discussed in previous Section 4.1.2, the optimized result has been updated to the first rescheduling result. The rescheduling feature allows the decision maker the permission to update the schedule result of the new disaster points (disaster points 9, 10, and 11) that occurred in unit time 12, and restrict initial disaster points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 without rescheduling actions since no or minimal change in the initial stage's schedule is expected. A schematic diagram of the repair process after rescheduling the addition of new resources is shown in Figure 9, and the updated rescheduling results are shown in Table 13. From the optimized result, with the support of new resources, a minimum total project duration of 131 (unit: 20 min) is an improvement, compared with the result of the previous scenario with the total duration of 142 (unit: 20 min). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Disaster** & **Resource** & **Repair Start** & **Repair** & **Repair** & **Resource** \\
**Point No.** & **Usage** & **Time** & **Duration** & **Finish Time** & **Transit** \\
3 & 3 & 2 & 40 & 42 & 1 \\
4 & 2 & 43 & 27 & 70 & 5 \\
5 & 1 & 44 & 76 & 120 & 6 \\
6 & 3 & 4 & 71 & 75 & 2 \\
7 & 2 & 78 & 53 & 131 & 10 \\
8 & 1 & 2 & 25 & 27 & 3 \\
9 & 1 & 37 & 45 & 82 & 19 \\
10 & 2 & 36 & 10 & 46 & 20 \\
11 & 3 & 37 & 10 & 47 & 21 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Rescheduling results after new resource point is added (Case 2). Figure 8: Schematic diagram after new resource point is added (Case 2). As we compare the schedule before (Table 10) and after (Table 12) the new resources are added, we can see that disaster points 9, 10, and 11 are geographically closer to the new resources than the initial ones, so the repair schedules of these three disaster points are finished much earlier after the neighboring maintenance unit supports them, and the interesting discussions are presented as follows. 1. Disaster point 9: Due to the support of new resources, the rescheduling feature makes this repair activity schedule 40 time units earlier than the new resource site. 2. Disaster point 10: For the same reason as above, the emergency repair activity at this disaster point was scheduled 96 time units ahead of schedule. 3.