Anttonen, T.

Keskinen, S.

Kärhä, K.

Laurén, A.

Nuutinen, Y.

Palander, T.

Poikela, A.

Rajala, P. T.

Jukuri

Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in FinlandKalle Kärhä1, Tuomas Anttonen2, Teijo Palander2, Asko Poikela3, Sirkka Keskinen3, Ari Laurén4,              Yrjö Nuutinen4 & Pekka T. Rajala11Stora Enso Wood Supply Finland, 2University of Eastern Finland, 3Metsäteho Oy & 4Natural Resources Institute FinlandFORMEC 2015 – Forest Engineering: Making a positive contributionOctober 4–8, 2015, Hotel Courtyard Marriott, Linz, AustriaReasons for our studyM&MHighlights of the studyConclusions.2ContentsCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015Photos: Tuomas Anttonen.3Reasons for Our Study                                                               1) Damages caused by big storms for Finnish forests during the 2000´sCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 201501234567892000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Windfall trees, Mm3  sobPyryJanikaAstaVeeraLahjaSylviTapaniHannuEinoOskariSeijaSources: Finnish Forest Research Institute, Finnish Forest Centre.1) Damages caused by big storms for Finnish forests during the 2000’s.2) No studies of windfall salvaging in Finland.Many windfall salvaging studiesinternationally, e.g.                                in Switzerland by Hagauerin the Czech Republic by Dvořákin Italy by Magagnotti et al.                       in Poland by Szewczyk et al.                             in Norway by Talbot et al.                                  in Sweden by Bergkvist and Sondell. 4Reasons for Our StudyCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 20151) Damages caused by big storms for Finnish forests during the 2000’s.2) No studies of windfall salvaging in Finland.3) The Trade Association of Finnish Forestry and Earth Moving Contractors: Wood harvesting costs  of windfalls typically 30–70% higher than from normal loggings.5Reasons for Our StudyCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015Time-study data collecting in December 2013 after the Eino and Seija storms. Comparative time study: Three harvesters (John Deere 1270D/H414, Logset 8H/TH 75X and Ponsse Ergo/H73), as well as three harvester operators. The same harvesters/operators cut also normal standing trees of clear cuttings. 6M&M (1/2)Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015Cutting work was recorded on video, and the time study was carried out by analyzing the video material by a new tool developed by Ari Laurén.Damage type was attached for all stems processed in the time study.Final study material for stem processing modeling was                       1,088 trees.Stem processing time was modeled by applying non-linear regression analysis with the stem volume and windfall dummy as the independent variables. 7M&M (2/2)Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 20150100200300400500600NormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningNormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningNormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningOperator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3Number of stems(2) Felled whole tree withoutstump(1D) Broken tree section(1C) Felled broken tree withseparate butt and top sections(1B) Hang-up whole tree(1A) Felled whole tree withstump(0) Standing tree8Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015Total Data (1,751 trees) by Operator, by Cutting Method and by Damage Type(0) Standing tree(2) Felled whole tree without stump(1C) Felled broken tree with separate butt and top sections(1B) Hang-up whole tree(1A) Felled whole tree with  stump Tree drawings: Laura Noponen.0100200300400500600NormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningNormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningNormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningOperator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3Number of stems(2) Felled whole tree withoutstump(1D) Broken tree section(1C) Felled broken tree withseparate butt and top sections(1B) Hang-up whole tree(1A) Felled whole tree withstump(0) Standing tree9Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015Total Data (1,751 trees) by Operator, by Cutting Method and by Damage Type(0) Standing tree(2) Felled whole tree without stumpTree drawings: Laura Noponen.Modeling stem processing time in normal clear cuttings:(1C) Felled broken tree with separate butt and top sections(1B) Hang-up whole tree(1A) Felled whole tree with  stump0100200300400500600NormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningNormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningNormalclearcuttingWindfallclearcuttingWindfallthinningOperator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3Number of stems(2) Felled whole tree withoutstump(1D) Broken tree section(1C) Felled broken tree withseparate butt and top sections(1B) Hang-up whole tree(1A) Felled whole tree withstump(0) Standing tree10Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015Total Data (1,751 trees) by Operator, by Cutting Method and by Damage Type(0) Standing tree(2) Felled whole tree without stumpTree drawings: Laura Noponen.Modeling stem processing time in windfall clear cuttings:(1C) Felled broken tree with separate butt and top sections(1B) Hang-up whole tree(1A) Felled whole tree with  stumpHighlights of the Study 12Time Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Modeling of moving timeCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 20150102030405060700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Density of removal, stems/haMoving time, s/stem Normal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingWindfall thinningNormal clear cuttingWindfall cutting11.9 s/stem5.6 s/stem→ +114%13December 10, 20150204060801001201401601802000 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Stem processing time, s/stemNormal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingNormal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingTime Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Modeling of stem processing time; Operator 1Gap: 14.8 s/stemCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland14December 10, 20150204060801001201401601802000 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Stem processing time, s/stemNormal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingNormal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingTime Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Modeling of stem processing time; Operator 2Gap: 4.0 s/stemCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland15December 10, 20150204060801001201401601802000 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Stem processing time, s/stemNormal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingNormal clear cuttingWindfall clear cuttingTime Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Modeling of stem processing time; Operator 3Gap: 10.1 s/stemCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland16December 10, 20151001101201301401501601701800 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Relative stem processing time, %Operator 1Operator 2Operator 3AverageTime Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Relative stem processing time by operatorCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland100 = Cutting normal standing trees.17December 10, 20151001101201301401501601701800 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Relative stem processing time, %Operator 1Operator 2Operator 3AverageTime Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Relative stem processing time by operator+14–36% Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland100 = Cutting normal standing trees.Moving time: +114%.Stem processing time: +14–36%.Miscellaneous time: +147%.with cutting windfall stems 3.7 s/stem, with normal standing trees 1.5 s/stem. Total effective (E0) time:24–53% higher compared to cutting normal standing trees (300–1,500 dm3).18Summary of Time Consumption in Cutting of WindfallsCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 201519December 10, 20151001101201301401501601701800 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Relative total effective time, %Operator 1Operator 2Operator 3AverageTime Consumption in Cutting of Windfalls                         Relative total effective (E0) time by operator+24–53% Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland100 = Cutting normal standing trees.Cutting productivity: -20–35%.Cutting costs: +31–61%.(On the presumption that operating (E15) hour costs of harvester in cutting windfalls are 5% higher than cutting normal final fellings).Harvesting costs: +11–34%.         (On the presumption that no effect   on forwarding productivity and costs in forest haulage of windfall timber).20Cutting Productivity and Costs of Windfalls,                                         as well as Harvesting Costs of WindfallsCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 201521December 10, 2015505560657075808590951000 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Relative cutting productivity, %Operator 1Operator 2Operator 3AverageCutting Productivity of Windfalls by Operator-20–35% Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland100 = Cutting normal standing trees.1001101201301401501601701800 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Relative cutting cost, %Operator 1Operator 2Operator 3Average22December 10, 2015Cutting Costs* of Windfalls by Operator+31–61% Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland*) On the presumption that operating (E15) hour costs of harvester                   in cutting windfalls are 5% higher than cutting normal final fellings.100 = Cutting normal standing trees.1001101201301401501601701800 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Stem volume, dm3Relative harvesting cost, %Operator 1Operator 2Operator 3Average23December 10, 2015Harvesting Costs** of Windfalls+11–34% **) On the presumption that no effect on forwarding productivity and costs in forest haulage of windfall timber.Cutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland100 = Cutting normal standing trees.After the Eino and Seija storms cutting productivity of windfalls was, on the average, 20–35% lower than those of cutting normal standing trees.Consequently, cutting costs were        31–61% higher and wood harvesting costs were 11–34% higher.                  N.B. The Trade Association of Finnish Forestry and Earth Moving Contractors: Wood harvesting costs of windfalls are typically 30–70% higher. More time studies with more operators/harvesters in different harvesting conditions are needed     in the future.  24ConclusionsCutting Productivity of Windfalls in Finland December 10, 2015kalle.karha@storaenso.com

Cutting productivity of windfalls in Finland

Cutting productivity of windfalls in Finland

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Jukuri