Industrial Round-Wood Damage and Operational Efficiency Losses Associated with the Maintenance of a Single-Grip Harvester Head Model: A Case Study in Russia

Gerasimov, Yuri; Seliverstov, A. A.; Syunev, V.

doi:10.3390/f3040864

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies identified engine power as the most important characteristic (Spinelli et al 2010;Jiroušek et al 2007). Crane characteristics, such as reach and lifting capacity, have also been found to be important (Lindroos et al 2008), as have harvester head characteristics, such as feed speed, roller design (Nuutinen et al 2010) and maintenance (Gerasimov et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A log-by-log productivity analysis of two Valmet 475EX harvesters

Alam

Walsh

Strandgard

et al. 2014

International Journal of Forest Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Productivity of a mechanized harvesting system is influenced by stand and terrain conditions, operator performance, and machinery limitations or design. The purpose of the study was to compare the productivity of two near-identical single-grip harvesters in similar Australian Pinus radiata clearfell harvesting operations on a log-by-log basis. The study first compared the productivity of each harvester against tree volume for cycle times and for tree processing times only. Significant differences in productivity between the harvesters were found to be largely due to significant differences in tree processing times. Comparisons between each component of processing time (dragging-out time, disc-cutting time, cross-cutting time, harvester head travel time and delimbing time) for a subset of 6.1 m sawlogs at each study site found operator working technique differences to be the main driver of productivity differences between the harvesters. In particular, the operator of the less productive harvester dragged out most trees after felling and cut discs on most trees to reset the lengthmeasuring device, whereas the operator of the other, more productive harvester rarely carried out these activities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A log-by-log productivity analysis of two Valmet 475EX harvesters

Alam

Walsh

Strandgard

et al. 2014

International Journal of Forest Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been mentioned in publications that the consumption of fuel varies with the tree species to be harvested and its diameter [8]. The fuel consumption distribution by the types of the feed rollers significantly affects both the mean values (t Stat = 2.6 > t Crit = 1.64) and the dispersion of data (F = 0.9 > F Crit = 0.8).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of feed rollers on productivity and fuel consumption

Zimelis¹,

Kaleja²,

Spalva³

et al. 2017

Engineering for Rural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the harvester head feed roller type on the fuel consumption and productivity during the spring season. This study compares feed rollers with moving metal plates on rubber shock absorbers (Moipu plate wheel rollers, hereinafter named -gentle feed rollers) and feed rollers with large round spikes (hereinafter named -conventional feed rollers). The study was conducted in Vidusdaugava forestry (forests managed by the Joint Stock Company Latvia State Forests). A total area of 18.69 ha or 19 felling sites were logged in the final felling with gentle feed rollers and 20.29 ha or 15 felling sites -with conventional feed rollers. Harvested spruce saw logs were delivered to Rettenmeier Baltic Timber Ltd, pine sawlogs to IKEA Industry Latvia Ltd and veneer logs to Latvijas Finieris Ltd. APonsse Ergo harvester manufactured in 2008 with a standard H7 felling head was used in the study. Logging tests were carried out in the spring and early summer, using standard logging work tasks with both feed roller types.According to the data from the harvester onboard computer the productivity was 27 m 3 ·h -1 using the gentle feed rollers and 33 m 3 ·h -1 using the conventional feed rollers. However, the comparison of productivity while processing the trees of the same diameter demonstrated slightly weaker performance with the gentle feed rollers. The difference is statistically significant if the tree diameter at the breast height is below 20 cm. Further studies are necessary to investigate the productivity depending on the season and felling type. Fuel consumption using the gentle feed rollers was 18.02 l·h -1 and using the conventional feed rollers it was 16.75 l·h -1 . Fuel consumption by the roller type has a significant impact on both mean values (t Stat = 2.6 > t Crit = 1.64) and data dispersion (F = 0.9 > F Crit = 0.8).

show abstract

“…To enable the efficient use of any technology, we must study all relevant characteristics connected to it. Several aspects of using the harvester technology were studied, such as the damage to logs by feed roller spikes [20][21][22], the impact of heavy machinery on soil [23], harvester efficiency and performance [24,25], bucking optimization [26], harvester productivity [27][28][29], time consumption analysis [30][31][32] and harvester operators [33]. However, one key aspect of the harvester technology has been largely neglected in the scientific literature: the control and information systems and standards connected with their settings to achieve the most accurate volume estimates of the produced timber.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Timber Volume Estimates Using Various Algorithms Available in the Control and Information Systems of Harvesters

Löwe

Sedmíková

Natov

et al. 2019

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timber is the most important source of revenue in forestry and, therefore, is necessary to precisely estimate its volume. The share of timber volume produced by harvesters is annually growing in many European countries. Suitable settings of harvesters will allow us to achieve the most accurate volume estimates of the produced timber. In this study, we compared the different methods of log volume estimation applied by control and information systems of harvesters. The aim was to analyze the price categories that can be set up in the StanForD standard and to determine the differences between the algorithms used for log volume estimations. We obtained the data from *.STM files collected from March 2017 until June 2018 on a medium-size harvester. We analyzed price categories and found seven different algorithms used to estimate the log volumes. Log volume estimates according to Algorithm A2 were considered as standard because these estimates should be closest to the true log volumes. Significant differences, except the difference between Algorithm A2 and Algorithm A3, were found between log volumes estimated by different algorithms. After categorization of logs to assortments, the results showed that significant differences existed between algorithms in each assortment. In the roundwood assortment, which contains the most valuable logs, a difference of more than 6% was found between the log volumes estimated by Algorithm A5 and Algorithm A2. This is interesting because Algorithm A5 is widely used in some Central European countries. To obtain volumes closest to the true volumes, we should use Algorithm A2 for the harvester production outputs. The resulting differences between the algorithms can be used to estimate the volume difference between harvester outputs using the different price categories. Understanding this setting of harvesters and the differences between the price categories will provide users useful information in applied forest management.

show abstract

Industrial Round-Wood Damage and Operational Efficiency Losses Associated with the Maintenance of a Single-Grip Harvester Head Model: A Case Study in Russia

Cited by 29 publications

References 9 publications

A log-by-log productivity analysis of two Valmet 475EX harvesters

A log-by-log productivity analysis of two Valmet 475EX harvesters

Impact of feed rollers on productivity and fuel consumption

Differences in Timber Volume Estimates Using Various Algorithms Available in the Control and Information Systems of Harvesters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About