Comparison of Two Simulation Methodologies in Construction

Simulation of construction systems has been an active area of research in construction for the past two decades. In particular, simulation using MicroCYCLONE has gained general acceptance in academia. This paper compares MicroCYCLONE simulation with SLAM II process‐interaction simulation. A simulation model of a horizontal earth‐boring (HEB) operation was built and simulated using the two systems. Both methods yield the same results for deterministic modeling. When the model is stochastic, the mean was predicted to be the same for a 95% confidence interval based on 40 runs. Although the random number streams could not be forced to be the same in both systems, the confidence intervals for the mean time intersected, thus implying that the means were not different. The advantages of each of the systems were also highlighted. CYCLONE is easy to use and appropriate for repetitive construction operations. On the other hand, SLAM II provides elaborate tools for more sophisticated analyses. The work illustrates that a simulator can obtain the same results using MicroCYCLONE or SLAM II, thus validating the MicroCYCLONE system, since SLAM II is well‐known and established. The time required to develop a simulation model using either system depends on the familiarity with the particular system. It is, however, observed that CYCLONE models for repetitive operations that are not complex take lesser time in general. The paper also describes the construction process used in the study to provide a proper background for analysis and comparison.