2013
DOI: 10.14214/sf.899
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring the chipping and transportation of wood fuels with a fleet management system

Abstract: Controlling and organizing the complex forest-to-consumer supply chain of wood fuels is a challenging task, especially for the chipping and transport processes. Truck mounted chippers and transport trailer-trucks must be scheduled to minimize delay to be profitable. Job management within the supply chain, including machine activity based controlling, offers a new way to increase efficiency and productivity. However, detailed data are required to detect and analyze potential gaps and improve forest fuel supply.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is particularly prevalent with stump fuel wood . According to Holzleitner et al (2013), reducing moisture content from 45% to 37% improves the productivity of chip trucks by 9% at a transport distance of 55 km.…”
Section: Fuel Quality Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is particularly prevalent with stump fuel wood . According to Holzleitner et al (2013), reducing moisture content from 45% to 37% improves the productivity of chip trucks by 9% at a transport distance of 55 km.…”
Section: Fuel Quality Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mainly because of relatively long distances between feedstock and CHP plant and high chipping efficiency, these were not favourable for the chipper and two chip truck system and caused a high share of waiting time for the chipper. To compare the share of comminution time on the operating time with mobile chippers, earlier studies (Spinelli & Wisser 2009, Holzleitner et al 2013, Eliasson et al 2012, Asikainen 1995, Eriksson et al 2014a, Laitila et al 2010and Metsäalan… 2013 have presented higher rates for chipping by mobile chippers. Spinelli & Wisser (2009) found 73.8% chipping rate in the studied forest chip supply system, whereas Holzleitner et al resulted 49% in their study in Austria.…”
Section: Operational Efficiency and Monetary Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, grinders offer a rather coarse product that is unsuitable for use in some smaller plants (Hakkila 1989;Strelher 2000;Rinne 2010;Eriksson et al 2013). Currently, roadside chipping is the dominant chipping system in Finland and Sweden as well as in other European countries (Junginger et al 2005;Stampfer and Kanzian 2006;Kärhä 2011;Eriksson et al 2013;Holzleitner et al 2013;Rottensteiner et al 2013;Routa et al 2013;Wolfsmayr and Rauch 2014;Eliasson et al 2015). Large disc chippers or drum chippers are used on terminals for chipping large-sized stemwood, while drum chippers dominate the chipping of logging residues and small trees on landings in Finland (Kärhä 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tractor-powered units are also cheaper to acquire and easier to resell in sections than truck-mounted chippers , but tractor-powered units cannot relocate between worksites as quickly as truck-mounted units, and chipping productivity is lower Spinelli and Magagnotti 2014). The chipper's engine power and the grapple load size in feeding are the two most important elements that affect chipping productivity (Spinelli and Hartsough 2001;Van Belle 2006;Spinelli and Magagnotti 2010;Ghaffariyan et al 2013) if operational delays are excluded (Spinelli and Visser 2009;Holzleitner et al 2013;Spinelli and Magagnotti 2014). Evidently, truck-mounted chippers are most suited to contractors with large annual chipping volumes and wide procurement areas, whereas tractorpowered chippers are interesting options for contractors who work locally.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several forest technology studies have noted that interactions leading to waiting and queuing result in increased costs (e.g. Asikainen 1995;Talbot et al 2003;Väätäinen et al 2005;Spinelli and Visser 2009;An and Searcy 2010;Asikainen 2010;Holzleitner et al 2013;Belbo and Talbot 2014;Eriksson 2014a;Eriksson 2014b). For example, in the cost of comminution and transportation, the bias varies between 10-20% (Asikainen 1995;Asikainen 2010), depending on the transportation distance if the interactions of comminution and transportation capacity are not considered.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%