A comparison of two methods of data collection for modelling productivity of harvesters: manual time study and follow-up study using on-board-computer stem records

Productivity of a mechanized P. patula cut-to-length harvesting operation was estimated and modelled using two methods of data collection: manual time study and follow-up study using StanForD stem files. The objective of the study was to compare the productivity models derived using these two methods to test for equivalence. Manual time studies were completed on four different machines and their operators. Two Ponsse Bear harvesters fitted with H8 heads, and two Ponsse  Beaver harvesters, fitted with  H6 heads, were included. All machines were equipped with Ponsse Opti2 information system. All four operators had approximately 1 year of experience working with their respective machines. The four machines worked in separate four-tree-wide harvesting corridors, and they each harvested 200 trees.  Individual tree diameter at breast height (DBH), and height measurements were made manually. Subsequently, data on the trees in each study were extracted from the StanForD stem reports from each of the harvesters. Cycle times in the stem reports were determined based on the difference between consecutive harvest timestamps. The two methods were compared in terms of their abilities to estimate equivalent measures for tree DBH, volume, and productivity. In all four cases, significant differences were found between the DBH and volume measures derived using the two methods. Subsequently, the volume measures from the manual methods were used as the basis for productivity calculations. Results of the productivity comparisons found no significant differences between the models developed from the two methods. These results suggest that equivalent productivity models can be developed in terms of time using either method, however volume discrepancies indicate a need to reconcile bark and volume functions with the high variability experienced in the country.

[1]  Thomas Seifert,et al.  Mechanised Pine Thinning Harvesting Simulation: Productivity and Cost Improvements as a Result of Changes in Planting Geometry , 2016 .

[2]  Juha Hyyppä,et al.  Uncertainty in timber assortment estimates predicted from forest inventory data , 2010, European Journal of Forest Research.

[3]  P. Ackerman,et al.  Fibre volume losses of eight softwood clearfell harvesting systems in South Africa , 2012 .

[4]  T. Seifert,et al.  Effects of irregular stand structure on tree growth, crown extension and branchiness of plantation-grown Pinus patula , 2013 .

[5]  Natascia Magagnotti,et al.  A new guide for work studies in forestry , 2013 .

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

[7]  Rafael Freitas,et al.  Multi-camera surveillance systems for time and motion studies of timber harvesting equipment , 2017, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[8]  Michael A. Thompson,et al.  AN INTERNATIONAL NOMENCLATURE FOR FOREST WORK STUDY , 2000 .

[9]  Raffaele Cavalli,et al.  Carbon Footprint of Forest Operations under Different Management Regimes , 2016 .

[10]  A. Skoupý,et al.  Productivity and costs of the mechanised cut-to-length wood harvesting system in clear-felling operations , 2018 .

[11]  M. Scholes,et al.  The influence of site factors on nitrogen mineralization in forest soils of the Mpumalanga escarpment area: South africa , 2002 .

[12]  Mattias Eriksson,et al.  Productivity of harvesters and forwarders in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up datasets , 2014 .

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

[14]  Rien Visser,et al.  Determining the shape of the productivity function for mechanized felling and felling-processing , 2012, Journal of Forest Research.

[15]  Lars Eliasson,et al.  Comparison of Single-Grip Harvester Productivity in Clear- and Shelterwood Cutting , 2013 .

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

[17]  C. Nati,et al.  Diesel Consumption and Carbon Balance in South African Pine Clear-Felling CTL Operations: a Preliminary Case Study , 2017 .

[18]  L. Pari,et al.  Use, Utilization, Productivity and Fuel Consumption of Purpose-Built and Excavator-Based Harvesters and Processors in Italy , 2017 .

[19]  Dariusz Kulak,et al.  Productivity and Time Consumption of Timber Extraction with a Grapple Skidder in Selected Pine Stands , 2017 .

[20]  Hans Rudolf Heinimann,et al.  Productivity of a cut-to-length harvester family - an analysis based on operation data , 2001 .

[21]  Y. Nuutinen.  Possibilities to use automatic and manual timing in time studies on harvester operations , 2013 .

[22]  Kari Väätäinen,et al.  Automatic Time Study Method for Recording Work Phase Times of Timber Harvesting , 2013 .

[23]  André Cyr,et al.  Effect of Tree Form on the Productivity of a Cut-to-Length Harvester in a Hardwood Dominated Stand , 2016 .

[24]  Ola Lindroos,et al.  The correlation between long-term productivity and short-term performance ratings of harvester operators , 2011 .

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

[26]  Laura Koskela,et al.  On the analysis of cubic smoothing spline-based stem curve prediction for forest harvesters , 2006 .

[27]  Dominik Röser,et al.  The accuracy of manually recorded time study data for harvester operation shown via simulator screen , 2008 .

[28]  Alejandro Olivera,et al.  Automatic GNSS-enabled harvester data collection as a tool to evaluate factors affecting harvester productivity in a Eucalyptus spp. harvesting operation in Uruguay , 2016 .