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

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 length-measuring device, whereas the operator of the other, more productive harvester rarely carried out these activities.

[1]  Jörn Erler,et al.  The Human Influence on Productivity in Harvester Operations , 2011 .

[2]  Leon Bren,et al.  Harvester Productivity and Operator Fatigue: Working Extended Hours , 2004 .

[3]  Dan Bergström,et al.  Cutting Corners with a New Crane Concept , 2008 .

[4]  Bruce R. Hartsough,et al.  Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy. , 2010 .

[5]  Sten Gellerstedt.  Mechanised cleaning of young forest — The strain on the operator , 1997 .

[6]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system , 2006 .

[7]  Pete Bettinger,et al.  Thinning Productivity and Cost for a Mechanized Cut-to-Length System in the Northwest Pacific Coast Region of the USA , 1994 .

[8]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  Characteristics and Significance of a Harvester Operators’ Working Technique in Thinnings , 2004 .

[9]  Glen Murphy,et al.  ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTING IMPROVED STEM SCANNING SYSTEMS ON MECHANICAL HARVESTERS/PROCESSORS , 2004 .

[10]  Mauricio Acuna,et al.  Estimating harvester productivity in Pinus radiata plantations using StanForD stem files , 2013 .

[11]  Frank Thomas Purfürst,et al.  Learning Curves of Harvester Operators , 2010 .

[12]  Jaakko Heinonen,et al.  Operational efficiency and damage to sawlogs by feed rollers of the harvester head. , 2010 .

[13]  A. Christopoulos,et al.  Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Linear and Nonlinear Regression: A Practical Guide to Curve Fitting , 2004 .

[14]  A. Keeves,et al.  Yield regulation in South Australian Pinus radiata plantations. , 1976 .

[15]  Metsäteho Oy,et al.  Productivity and Cutting Costs of Thinning Harvesters , 2004 .

[16]  Yuri Gerasimov,et al.  Industrial Round-Wood Damage and Operational Efficiency Losses Associated with the Maintenance of a Single-Grip Harvester Head Model: A Case Study in Russia , 2012 .

[17]  Masahiko Nakagawa,et al.  Effect of Tree Size on Productivity and Time Required for Work Elements in Selective Thinning by a Harvester , 2007 .

[18]  H. Ovaskainen.  Timber harvester operators’ working technique in first thinning and the importance of cognitive abilities on work productivity , 2009 .

[19]  Rien Visser,et al.  Finding the ‘Sweet-Spot’ of Mechanised Felling Machines , 2009 .