Table 1. Compartment information. | |
Harvesting contractor | Mecharv |
Grower company | CMPC – Forestal Mininco |
Farm | Totoras |
Compartment number | 3 |
Species | Eucalyptus globulus Labill. |
Established (year/month) | 1998/05 |
Treatment | Clear-cut |
Fell age (years/months) | 9/11 |
Average tree volume (m3) | 0.204 |
Fig. 1. The chain flail delimber debarker at work: A) feeding whole trees and B) discharging debarked stems.
Table 2. Volume, bark-wood bond strength (BWBS) and work quality classes. | |
Volume class | Volume range (m3 ub) |
1. Very small | < 0.050 |
2. Small | 0.051–0.099 |
3. Medium | 0.100–0.199 |
4. Large | 0.200–0.299 |
5. Very large | 0.300–0.499 |
BWBS class | Description |
1. Very good | The bark comes off in a very long strip that can reach into the canopy before it severs (>10 m) |
2. Good | The bark comes off in long strips of half of the height of the tree (approximately from 4 to 10 m) |
3. Medium | The bark comes off in medium lengths of between one and four metres |
4. Poor | The bark comes off in short lengths of up to one metre |
5. Very poor | The bark will not come off by hand; it needs to be chiselled off by means of the hatchet |
Quality class | Description |
1. Good | All bark is removed from the stem: residual bark content estimated to less than 0.5 % achieved |
2. Medium | Strips of residual bark remain: residual bark content estimated to less than 1 % achieved |
3. Poor | Sections of the tree have not had bark removed: residual bark content estimated to more than 1 % |
Table 3. Main results of the productivity study. | |||||
mean | SD | min | max | ||
Cycle time | s | 42 | 11 | 14 | 116 |
Trees in load | n° | 4.4 | 1.6 | 1 | 11 |
Load volume | m3 ub | 0.857 | 0.338 | 0.025 | 2.050 |
Tree volume | m3 ub | 0.204 | 0.078 | 0.025 | 0.475 |
Productivity | m3 ub PMH–1 | 74.7 | 28.6 | 3.2 | 201.5 |
m3 ub SMH–1 | 59.1 | 22.6 | 2.5 | 159.4 | |
Utilization | % | 80.5 | - | - | - |
DF | 0.24 | - | - | - | |
SD = standard deviation; ub = under bark; PMH = productive machine hours, excluding delays; SMH = scheduled machine hours, including delays; Utilization = productive time/scheduled time; DF = delay factor, or delay time/productive time, where productive time is expressed in PMH |
Fig. 2. Breakdown of work site time by productive tasks and delays. Other work = handling loads and residues, re-arranging stacks.
Table 4. Results of the regression analysis. | ||||
Productive time per cycle (s) = a + b × Load volume (m3 ub) | ||||
n = 788 | R2 adjusted = 0.220 | |||
Anova Table | ||||
DF | SS | F-value | P-Value | |
Regression | 1 | 372.00 | 222.41 | <0.0001 |
Residual | 786 | 1314.72 | - | - |
Total | 787 | 1686.72 | - | - |
Regression Coefficients | ||||
Coeff | SE | F-value | P-Value | |
a | 28.50 | 0.96 | 29.30 | <0.0001 |
b | 15.78 | 1.08 | 14.19 | <0.0001 |
Load volume (m3 ub) = a + b ln Tree volume (m3 ub) | ||||
n = 788 | R2 adjusted = 0.327 | |||
Anova Table | ||||
DF | SS | F-value | P-Value | |
Regression | 1 | 29.43 | 383.56 | <0.0001 |
Residual | 786 | 60.30 | - | - |
Total | 787 | 89.73 | - | - |
Regression Coefficients | ||||
Coeff | SE | F-value | P-Value | |
a | 1.63 | 0.04 | 39.97 | <0.0001 |
b | 0.47 | 0.02 | 19.58 | <0.0001 |
DF = degrees of freedom; SS = sum of squares; Coeff = coefficient; SE = standard error |
Fig. 3. Relationship between productivity and load volume. SMH = scheduled machine hours, including delays; the arrows indicate the position on the graph corresponding to the mean tree volume (m3 ub) indicated in the ellipses, based on the second equation shown in Table 4.
Table 5. Product quality vs. BWBS class. | ||||||
BWBS 3 | BWBS 4 | BWBS 5 | Total | % | ||
Quality 1 | n | 369 | 150 | 122 | 641 | 57.9 |
% | 57.6 | 23.4 | 19.0 | 100.0 | ||
Quality 2 | n | 56 | 49 | 214 | 319 | 28.8 |
% | 17.6 | 15.4 | 67.1 | 100.0 | ||
Quality 3 | n | 10 | 6 | 132 | 148 | 13.4 |
% | 6.8 | 4.1 | 89.2 | 100.0 | ||
Total | n | 435 | 205 | 468 | 1108 | |
% | 39.3 | 18.5 | 42.2 | 100.0 | ||
χ2 = 365.12, P-Value < 0.0001 | ||||||
BWBS = bark-wood bond strength |
Table 6. Results of the ordinal logistic regression analysis. | |||||
n = 1108 | |||||
R2 = 0.232 | |||||
Quality class 2 | |||||
Coeff | SE | e Coeff | χ2 | P-Value | |
Constant | –3.998 | 0.310 | 0.018 | 166.257 | <0.0001 |
BWBS 4 | 0.821 | 0.224 | 2.272 | 13.378 | 0.0003 |
BWBS 5 | 2.158 | 0.190 | 8.656 | 128.792 | <0.0001 |
n° trees | 0.485 | 0.060 | 1.624 | 65.835 | <0.0001 |
Quality class 3 | |||||
Coeff | SE | e Coeff | χ2 | P-Value | |
Constant | –6.062 | 0.465 | 0.002 | 169.744 | <0.0001 |
BWBS 4 | 0.455 | 0.529 | 1.576 | 0.740 | 0.3896 |
BWBS 5 | 3.326 | 0.350 | 27.833 | 90.128 | <0.0001 |
n° trees | 0.556 | 0.071 | 1.744 | 61.518 | <0.0001 |
BWBS = bark-wood bond strength; Coeff = coefficient; SE = standard error; n° trees = number of trees in a load |
Table 7. Results of previous chain flail studies. View in new window/tab. |