Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Performance Analysis of a Harvester during Timber Extraction Activities in Bursa, Turkey

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 7 - 12, 12.06.2018
https://doi.org/10.33904/ejfe.426171

Öz










In Turkey, the use of mechanized harvesting technology in forestry has recently
increased due to
demands of private forest industry for large
amounts of woods
. In order to implement these systems
effectively and efficiently, their applications should be well planned considering
the factors that affect the performance of harvesting equipment. Performances
of the mechanized harvesting systems are mainly influenced by factors such as
tree size, tree formations, terrain conditions, operator motivation and skills.
In this study, a single-grip harvesting operation was evaluated by using time
and motion study analysis. Also, the main factors that affect harvesting
operation were evaluated using statistical analysis. The study was implemented
during a clear-cut operation in Brutian pine (Pinus brutia) stands located in Osmangazi Forest Enterprise
Directorate in the city of Bursa, Turkey. Three stages of harvesting operation
were evaluated; harvester moving to the trees, grabbing and felling trees, and
processing (i.e. delimbing and bucking) trees. The average time of the work
stages was examined, and the results indicated that most of the time was spent
on tree processing. The productivity of the harvesting operation was found to be 24 m3/hr ranging
between 6 m3/hr to 57 m3/hr. This productivity was mostly
affected by the tree size, which
directly influenced the total processing time of the felled trees in the study
area. According to the statistical analysis results, it was found that there is
a significant relationship between tree volume and the time spent on tree processing
stage. The results from this study cannot be generalized but it suggests that
mechanized harvesting using a harvester should be well planned ahead taking
into considering the volume and size of the felled material in order to operate
the harvester with optimal efficiency. Optimum machines and configurations should
be selected based on machine specifications and stand characteristics.
    

Kaynakça

  • Akay, A.E., Sessions, J. 2004. Identifying the factors influencing the cost of mechanized harvesting equipment. Journal of Science and Engineering, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, 7(2):65-72.
  • Andersson, B. 1994. Cut-to-length and tree-length harvesting systems in Central Alberta: A comparison. FERIC, Technical Report TR-108
  • Bembenek, M., Mederski, P.S., Karaszewski, Z., Łacka, A., Grzywiński W., Węgiel A., Giefing, D.F., Erler, J. 2015. Length accuracy of logs from birch and aspen harvested in thinning operations. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 39: 845–850.
  • Bulley, B. 1999. Effect of tree size and stand density on harvester and forwarder productivity in commercial thinning, FERIC Technical Note TN-292, July, 1999
  • Enez, K., Arıcak, B. 2012. “Ağaç Hasat Makinesine Ait Teknik ve Çalışma Koşullarının Değerlendirilmesi”, Journal of Science and Engineering, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Specia Issue 2012, 108-114.
  • Hanell, B., Nordfjell, T., Eliasson, L., 2000. Productivity and costs in shelterwood harvesting. Scandinavian J. of Forest Research. 15(5): 561-569.
  • Hiesl, P., Benjamin, J.G. 2013. Applicability of International Harvesting Equipment Productivity Studies in Maine, USA: A Literature Review. Forests, 4(4):898–921.
  • Jiroušek, R.; Klvač, R., Skoupý, A. 2007. Productivity and costs of the mechanized cut-to-length wood harvesting system in clear-felling operations. J. For. Sci. 53:476–482.
  • Lanford, B.L. Stokes, B.J. 1996. Comparison of two thinning systems. Part 2. Productivity and costs. For. Prod. J., 46, 47–53.
  • Mederski, P.S. 2006. A comparison of harvesting productivity and costs in thinning operations with and without midfield. Forest Ecology and Management, 224(3): 286–296.
  • Mederski P.S., Bembenek M., Karaszewski Z., Łacka A., Szczepańska-Álvarez A., Rosińska M. 2016. Estimating and modelling harvester productivity in pine stands of different ages, densities and thinning intensities. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 37: 27–36.
  • Nakagawa, M., Hamatsu, J., Saitou, T., 2007. Hideya Ishida Effect of tree size on productivity and time required for work elements in selective thinning by a arvester. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 18(2): 24-28
  • Ovaskainen, H., Uusitalo, J., Väätäinen, K. 2004. Characteristics and significance of a harvester operator’s working technique in thinnings. Int J for Eng, 15:67–77.
  • Spinelli, R., Hartsough, B.R., Magagnoti, N. 2010: Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. Forest Product Journal, 60(3): 226–235.
  • Suadicani, K.,Fjeld, D., 2001. Single-tree and group selection in montane Norway spruce stands: Factors influencing operational efficiency. Scandinavian J. of Forest Research. 16(1):79-87.
  • Szewczyk, G., Sowa, J.M., Grzebieniowski, W., Kormanek, M., Kulak, D., Stańczykiewicz, A. 2014. Sequencing of harvester work during standard cuttings and in areas with windbreaks. Silva Fennica, 48(4): 1159-1175.
  • Visser, R., Stampfer, K. 2003. Tree-length system evaluation of second thinning in loblolly pine plantations. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 27(2): 77–82.
  • Wang, J., Haarlaa, R., 2002. Production analysis of an excavator-based harvester: A case study in Finnish forest operations. Forest Prod. J. 52(3): 85-90.
Yıl 2018, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 7 - 12, 12.06.2018
https://doi.org/10.33904/ejfe.426171

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Akay, A.E., Sessions, J. 2004. Identifying the factors influencing the cost of mechanized harvesting equipment. Journal of Science and Engineering, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, 7(2):65-72.
  • Andersson, B. 1994. Cut-to-length and tree-length harvesting systems in Central Alberta: A comparison. FERIC, Technical Report TR-108
  • Bembenek, M., Mederski, P.S., Karaszewski, Z., Łacka, A., Grzywiński W., Węgiel A., Giefing, D.F., Erler, J. 2015. Length accuracy of logs from birch and aspen harvested in thinning operations. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 39: 845–850.
  • Bulley, B. 1999. Effect of tree size and stand density on harvester and forwarder productivity in commercial thinning, FERIC Technical Note TN-292, July, 1999
  • Enez, K., Arıcak, B. 2012. “Ağaç Hasat Makinesine Ait Teknik ve Çalışma Koşullarının Değerlendirilmesi”, Journal of Science and Engineering, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Specia Issue 2012, 108-114.
  • Hanell, B., Nordfjell, T., Eliasson, L., 2000. Productivity and costs in shelterwood harvesting. Scandinavian J. of Forest Research. 15(5): 561-569.
  • Hiesl, P., Benjamin, J.G. 2013. Applicability of International Harvesting Equipment Productivity Studies in Maine, USA: A Literature Review. Forests, 4(4):898–921.
  • Jiroušek, R.; Klvač, R., Skoupý, A. 2007. Productivity and costs of the mechanized cut-to-length wood harvesting system in clear-felling operations. J. For. Sci. 53:476–482.
  • Lanford, B.L. Stokes, B.J. 1996. Comparison of two thinning systems. Part 2. Productivity and costs. For. Prod. J., 46, 47–53.
  • Mederski, P.S. 2006. A comparison of harvesting productivity and costs in thinning operations with and without midfield. Forest Ecology and Management, 224(3): 286–296.
  • Mederski P.S., Bembenek M., Karaszewski Z., Łacka A., Szczepańska-Álvarez A., Rosińska M. 2016. Estimating and modelling harvester productivity in pine stands of different ages, densities and thinning intensities. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 37: 27–36.
  • Nakagawa, M., Hamatsu, J., Saitou, T., 2007. Hideya Ishida Effect of tree size on productivity and time required for work elements in selective thinning by a arvester. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 18(2): 24-28
  • Ovaskainen, H., Uusitalo, J., Väätäinen, K. 2004. Characteristics and significance of a harvester operator’s working technique in thinnings. Int J for Eng, 15:67–77.
  • Spinelli, R., Hartsough, B.R., Magagnoti, N. 2010: Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. Forest Product Journal, 60(3): 226–235.
  • Suadicani, K.,Fjeld, D., 2001. Single-tree and group selection in montane Norway spruce stands: Factors influencing operational efficiency. Scandinavian J. of Forest Research. 16(1):79-87.
  • Szewczyk, G., Sowa, J.M., Grzebieniowski, W., Kormanek, M., Kulak, D., Stańczykiewicz, A. 2014. Sequencing of harvester work during standard cuttings and in areas with windbreaks. Silva Fennica, 48(4): 1159-1175.
  • Visser, R., Stampfer, K. 2003. Tree-length system evaluation of second thinning in loblolly pine plantations. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 27(2): 77–82.
  • Wang, J., Haarlaa, R., 2002. Production analysis of an excavator-based harvester: A case study in Finnish forest operations. Forest Prod. J. 52(3): 85-90.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Research Articles
Yazarlar

Ebru BİLİCİ

Dalia ABBAS

Yayımlanma Tarihi 12 Haziran 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA BİLİCİ, E., & ABBAS, D. (2018). Performance Analysis of a Harvester during Timber Extraction Activities in Bursa, Turkey. European Journal of Forest Engineering, 4(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.33904/ejfe.426171

Creative Commons License

The works published in European Journal of Forest Engineering (EJFE) are licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.