Comparing PROMODEL and SDESA in modeling construction operations

Authors:
Ming Lu;Lap-Chi Wong
Affiliations:
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Humg Hom, Hong Kong, China;Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Humg Hom, Hong Kong, China
Venue:
WSC '05 Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation
Year:
2005

Citing 5
Cited 2

Computer Simulation in Management Science

Computer Simulation in Management Science
Simulation Using Promodel

Simulation Using Promodel
Future of simulation software: the current and future status of simulation software (panel)

Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation: exploring new frontiers
Simulation modeling using promodel technology: simulation modeling using promodel technology

Proceedings of the 35th conference on Winter simulation: driving innovation
Modeling concurrent operational interruptions in construction activities with Simplified Discrete Event Simulation Approach (SDESA)

WSC '04 Proceedings of the 36th conference on Winter simulation

Attaining cost efficiency in constructing sports facilities for Beijing 2008 Olympic Games by use of operations simulation

Proceedings of the 38th conference on Winter simulation
Construction planning methodology integrating operations simulation and four dimensional computer aided design (4D-CAD)

Proceedings of the 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The research presented applies the PROMODEL alongside a simplified discrete-event simulation approach (SDESA) and its software platform resulting from in-house construction research for modeling typical construction operations. The characteristics and modeling needs for construction and manufacturing systems are compared in general. A simple earth-moving operation and a real site operation integrating concreting and waste handling practices serve as case studies to illustrate the features, advantages, and limitations of PROMODEL and SDESA. It is found that SDESA can adequately, precisely depict the construction operations with much less learning and modeling efforts compared with PROMODEL. Particular comparisons between the two methodologies are made on (1) resource transit times, (2) activity priorities, (3) resource utilization rates, and (4) basic model structures (i.e. production-line vs. vehicle-loop).