Evaluating productivity, cost, chip quality and biomass recovery for a mobile chipper in Australian roadside chipping operations

Ghaffariyan, Mohammad Reza; Sessions, John; Brown, Mark

doi:10.17221/51/2012-jfs

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20 onesquare meter plots per each harvesting method were laid out along transects within a systematicrandom grid. All residues within these plots were weighed (Ghaffariyan et al 2012b). To measure the yield per ha, the delivered product weight per each harvesting method was recorded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: A case study in south-west Western Australia

Ghaffariyan¹,

Brown²

2013

J. For. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different factors can impact on the timber harvesting methods including stand characteristics, ground conditions, extraction distance, climate, silvicultural treatments and social interests. The multiple-criteria analysis is an effective methodology for helping foresters decide what system to apply depending on their operations specifications. Four harvesting methods were compared in Western Australian Eucalypt plantations including cut-to-length (CTL), in-field chipping using a delimbing and debarking flail integrated with the chipper (IFC-DDC), in-field chipping using a chipper with a separate flail machine for delimbing and debarking (IFC-F/C) and whole tree to roadside (WTR). The decision criterions consisted of total operating cost (from stand to mill gate), yield per ha, harvesting residues, fuel consumption and bark content of the chips. The Promethee method was used to evaluate the alternatives using Decision Lab software. Based on the results, the IFC-DCC was the best harvest method while WTR method was the worst harvesting alternative in the case study area. IFC-DCC method resulted in the lowest operating cost and the highest recovered yield per ha compared to the other harvesting methods.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: A case study in south-west Western Australia

Ghaffariyan¹,

Brown²

2013

J. For. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The assessment of the theoretical biomass potential is once again restricted to a maximum allocation of the biomass without any indication of losses or harvestable volumes. Several papers calculated biomass quantity using the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Forestry standard methodology [63] for sampling remaining slash [23,[64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. In each of the papers, the CRC methods give a good indication of the number of residues that are left on-site before and after the removal of forest biomass.…”

Section: Theoretical Biomass Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cost (USD/t), fuel consumption (L/t), and energy content (MJ/t) of slash bundling operations and total operational cost (USC/kWh) of a slash-bundler application to collect harvest residues in Eucalyptus plantation are measured using time-motion-studies [65]. The chipping cost (USD/t) and forwarding cost (USD/t) are analyzed using time-motion-studies on Bruks Chipper operations in Pine plantations [23,67]. Similarly, time-motion-studies in integrated harvest sites in Pine plantation were carried out to measure productivity and unit cost (AUD/m 3 ) of harvesting and forwarding operations [69].…”

Section: Available Biomass Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cost of an economically sustainable BSC is heavily influenced by operating costs and the need to maintain a supply of forest biomass [21,22]. The economics related to harvesting technology and collection methods [23] as well as biomass handling and storage are critical to ensure the reliability of supply [8,23]. The biggest cost contribution comes from transport which is determined by the quality and moisture content of the biomass and the mode of transport [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review on the Potential of Forest Biomass for Bioenergy in Australia

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of forest biomass for bioenergy in Australia represents only 1% of total energy production but is being recognized for having the potential to deliver low-cost and low-emission, renewable energy solutions. This review addresses the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy production in Australia relative to the amount of biomass energy measures available for production, harvest and transport, conversion, distribution and emission. Thirty-Five Australian studies on forest biomass for bioenergy are reviewed and categorized under five hierarchical terms delimiting the level of assessment on the biomass potential. Most of these studies assess the amount of biomass at a production level using measures such as the allometric volume equation and form factor assumptions linked to forest inventory data or applied in-field weighing of samples to predict the theoretical potential of forest biomass across an area or region. However, when estimating the potential of forest biomass for bioenergy production, it is essential to consider the entire supply chain that includes many limitations and reductions on the recovery of the forest biomass from production in the field to distribution to the network. This review reiterated definitions for theoretical, available, technological, economic and environmental biomass potential and identified missing links between them in the Australian literature. There is a need for further research on the forest biomass potential to explore lower cost and lowest net emission solutions as a replacement to fossil resources for energy production in Australia but methods the could provide promising solutions are available and can be applied to address this gap.

show abstract

“…It covers both, the direct energy input representing the energy effectively used to sustain a process and the indirect energy input which stands for the energy stored in the materials used in the process (Vusić et al 2013). While the energetic balance proved to be a good indicator characterizing the environmental performance of forest operations being adopted by many studies (Picchio et al 2009, Magagnotti & Spinelli 2011, Balimunsi et al 2012, Ghaffariyan et al 2012, Vusić et al 2013, other impact types such as the soil disturbance or damage to residual trees may occur, involving sometimes economic losses (Dvořák & Iordache 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of operational factors on fossil energy inputs in motor-manual tree felling and processing: results of two case studies

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ignea Gh., Ghaffaryian M.R., Borz, S.A., 2017. Impact of operational factors on fossil energy inputs in motor-manual tree felling and processing: results of two case studies. Ann. For. Res. 60(1): 161-172.Abstract. In many cases tree felling and processing operations are carried out motor-manually and knowledge about fossil fuel consumption and direct energy inputs when using such equipment is required for different purposes starting with operational costing and ending with environmental assessment of forest operations. In this study, fuel mixture, chain oil and direct fossil energy inputs were evaluated for two chainsaws which were used to fell and process trees in two silvicultural systems. The results of this study suggest that there is a strong dependence relation between selected tree size variables such as the diameter at breast height and tree volume on one hand and the fuel mixture, chain oil and direct fossil energy inputs when felling and processing broadleaved hardwood and resinous softwood trees on the other hand. For the broadleaved trees (mean tree volume of 1.50 m 3 tree -1 , DBH of 45.5 cm and tree height of 21.84 m) the mean direct fossil energy input was of 3.86 MJ m -3 while for resinous trees (mean tree volume of 1.77 m 3 tree -1 , DBH of 39.28 cm and tree height of 32.49 m) it was of 3.93 MJ m -3 . Other variables, including but not limited to the technology used, work experience and procedural pattern, may influence the mentioned figures and extensive studies are required to clarify their effects.

show abstract

Evaluating productivity, cost, chip quality and biomass recovery for a mobile chipper in Australian roadside chipping operations

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: A case study in south-west Western Australia

Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: A case study in south-west Western Australia

A Review on the Potential of Forest Biomass for Bioenergy in Australia

Impact of operational factors on fossil energy inputs in motor-manual tree felling and processing: results of two case studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About