Vibration and noise assessment of tractor-trailer and truck-mounted chippers

Rottensteiner, Christian; Tsioras, Petros A.; Neumayer, Heinz; Stampfer, Karl

doi:10.14214/sf.984

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whole-body vibrations generated by forwarders were higher (0.6 m·s -2 ) than those of harvesters (Table 3). According to Rottensteiner et al (2013), driving through forest stands causes higher vibration than other operations of the machine in chipping operations. This could also cause higher vibration of the forwarders in our case, as their share of driving through forest stands is higher than that of harvesters.…”

Section: Whole-body Vibrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Martin¹,

Messingerová²,

Ferenčík³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article was aimed at assessment of selected factors of the work environment, which influenced the operators of harvesters and forwarders. The selection of the work environment factors was based on a thorough literature survey. From the survey exposure to whole-body vibrations, noise (equivalent and peak), microclimatic conditions and mental load were selected for detailed observations. The measurements were conducted according to international standards and assessed according to European or national legislation. Subjective assessment of the effects of the work environment was conducted through a structured interview. The exposure to whole-body vibrations was 0.5 m·s -2 . The equivalent noise exposure was 78 dB, peak noise exposure was 130 dB. The average temperature inside the machine cabs was 17.9°C and average airflow velocity was 0.06 m·s -2 . Mental load was high according to the Meister questionnaire, three operators considered the load inadequate, two considered it adequate. Subjective assessment showed that operators considered other factors to be light or no load.Keywords: noise exposure; whole-body vibrations; microclimate; mental load Work environment is a set of all conditions in which workers carry out their work. It consists of all workers and factors present at the workplace, or of those who have to do with the work and influence the health or comfort of workers. The worker is exposed to many harmful factors which interact and their joint effect can be synergistic or complementary (Schwartz et al. 2013).Operators of multi-operational machinery carry out their tasks in ergonomically designed cabs capable of partial attenuation of noise and vibrations caused by the machine movement, driving gear, and working parts of the machine. Cabs are also equipped with air conditioning and glare reducing windows. Some factors (e.g. electromagnetic, ionising radiation, various chemical factors, or energy expenditure) do not apply to the jobs of multioperational machinery operators. Their assessment would only consume time with no significant effect on the overall outcome of the assessment. The nature of work in mechanized logging partially shifted from physical to mental after employment of multi-operational machinery. The need for muscular activity decreased and the need to stay concentrated and alert through long periods grew in importance. Harvester operators have to be able to process a lot of information, react quickly, and retain their concentration in monotonous, repetitive operations (Axelsson, Pontén 1990;Poschen 1993;Gellerstedt 1997;Gellestedt et al. 1999;Tsioras 2012). Operating the machines is quite demanding. According to Gellerstedt (2002), 4,000 control inputs per hour have to be carried out by the operator, due to the lack of automatic functions of the boom and harvester head. Despite the ergonomic design of the cabs, the operators of mobile machinery are exposed mainly to noise (Hans-

show abstract

Section: Whole-body Vibrationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Martin¹,

Messingerová²,

Ferenčík³

et al. 2016

J. For. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

Performance of a small and a medium sized professional chippers and the impact of storage time on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stem wood chips characteristics

Laitila¹,

Routa²

2015

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance of a small and a medium sized professional chippers and the impact of storage time on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stem wood chips characteristics Laitila J., Routa J. (2015). Performance of a small and a medium sized professional chippers and the impact of storage time on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stem wood chips characteristics. Silva Fennica vol. 49 no. 5 article id 1382. 19 p. Highlights• The storage time of pulpwood had no significant effect on particle size distribution in any chip size classes.• The study confirms the knowledge that chipping time consumption is inversely proportional to engine power and grapple load size in feeding.• The use of an narrower 80 mm × 80 mm sieve on Scots pine material does not seem to offer any benefit compared to a 100 mm × 100 mm sieve from the perspective of chip quality. AbstractThe primary aim of this study was to clarify the chipping productivity and fuel consumption of tractor-powered and truck-mounted drum chippers when chipping pine pulpwood at a terminal. The secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of wood storage time on the chemical and physical technical specifications of wood chips by chipping pulpwood from eight different storage time groups, using Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) pulpwood stems logged between 2 and 21 months previously at the terminal with the above-mentioned chippers. Thirdly, the impact of sieve mesh size on the particle size distribution of wood chips from different age groups was compared by using an 80 mm × 80 mm sieve for a tractor-powered chipper and a 100 mm × 100 mm sieve for a truck-mounted chipper. With both chippers, the chipping productivity grew as a function of grapple load weight. The average chipping productivity of the tractor-powered chipper unit was 19 508 kg (dry mass) per effective hour (E 0 h), and for the truck-mounted chipper the average productivity was 31 184 kg E 0 h -1 . The tractor-powered drum chipper's fuel consumption was 3.1 litres and for the truck-mounted chipper 3.3 litres per chipped 1000 kg (dry mass). The amount of extractives or volatiles did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences between storage time groups. The particle size distributions with both chippers were quite uniform, and the storage time of pulpwood did not have a significant effect on the particle size distribution in any chip size classes. One reason for this might be that the basic density of chipped wood was homogenous and there was no statistical difference between different storage times. The use of new sharp knives is likely to have affected chip quality, as witnessed by the absence of oversized particles and the moderate presence of fines. The use of narrower 80 mm × 80 mm sieves on Scots pine material does not seem to offer any benefit compared to 100 mm × 100 mm from the chip quality point of view.2 Silva Fennica vol. 49 no. 5 article id 1382 · Laitila et al. · Performance of a small and a medium sized…

show abstract

“…There are at least three good reasons why our study focused on chipping time. First, chipping is the task generating the highest emission levels, and therefore it is the strongest functional contributor to daily exposure (Rottensteiner et al 2013). Second, at least two of the factors explored in this study (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These machines have already raised some concern for the exposure of operators to wood dust ) and noxious chemical compounds (Magagnotti et al 2014), due to their large outputs and engines. For the same reasons, one may suspect that exposure to noise and vibration is also significant, and recent studies confirm such concerns (Rottensteiner et al 2013;Nuutinen et al 2014). While they agree on high exposure levels, these studies often disagree about whether these levels exceed legal limits or not .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations

Poje¹,

Spinelli²,

Magagnotti³

et al. 2018

Silva Fenn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations Poje A., Spinelli R., Magagnotti N., Mihelic M. (2018). The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations. Silva Fennica vol. 52 no. 1 article id 7003. 14 p. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.7003 Highlights• Exposure to noise and vibration is higher when chipping branches rather than logs.• Noise levels are higher in the separate cab, especially at some frequencies.• Vibration is higher for the Z axis in the separate cab, for the X axis in the truck.• Noise is higher when working with blunt knives, rather than new knives.• Knife wear has no significant effect on exposure to whole-body vibration. AbstractIndustrial chipping is becoming increasingly popular, as the result of a growing demand for woody biomass. Industrial chippers are large, powerful machines that generate much noise and vibration. This study explored some factors that may affect exposure to noise and vibration, namely: feedstock type (branches vs. logs), work station characteristics (truck cab vs. separate cab) and knife wear (new knives vs. blunt knives). Exposure to noise was significantly affected by all three factors, and it was higher for branch feedstock, separate cabs and blunt knives. The higher exposure levels recorded for the separate cab were especially insidious, because they were below and above the hearing threshold and would elude immediate perception. Exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) was significantly higher for branch feedstock and for the separate cab. Knife wear seemed to determine an increase in WBV, but this effect had no statistical significance and the result could not be taken as conclusive. Among the three factors studied, work station characteristics had the strongest effect. Further studies may extend the comparison to a wider range of options, as well as explore the use of exposure variation for machine diagnostics.

show abstract

Vibration and noise assessment of tractor-trailer and truck-mounted chippers

Cited by 19 publications

References 28 publications

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Objective and subjective assessment of selected factors of the work environment of forest harvesters and forwarders

Performance of a small and a medium sized professional chippers and the impact of storage time on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stem wood chips characteristics

The effect of feedstock, knife wear and work station on the exposure to noise and vibrations in wood chipping operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About