Design and testing of stand-specific bucking instructions for use on modern cut-to-length harvesters

This study addresses three important issues in tree bucking optimization in the context of cut-to-length harvesting. (1) Would the fit between the log demand and log output distributions be better if the price and/or demand matrices controlling the bucking decisions on modern cut-to-length harvesters were adjusted to the unique conditions of each individual stand? (2) In what ways can we generate stand and product specific price and demand matrices? (3) What alternatives do we have to measure the fit between the log demand and log output distributions, and what would be an ideal goodness-of-fit measure? Three iterative search systems were developed for seeking stand-specific price and demand matrix sets: (1) A fuzzy logic control system for calibrating the price matrix of one log product for one stand at a time (the stand-level one-product approach); (2) a genetic algorithm system for adjusting the price matrices of one log product in parallel for several stands (the forest-level one-product approach); and (3) a genetic algorithm system for dividing the overall demand matrix of each of the several log products into stand-specific sub-demands simultaneously for several stands and products (the forest-level multi-product approach). The stem material used for testing the performance of the stand-specific price and demand matrices against that of the reference matrices was comprised of 9 155 Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) sawlog stems gathered by harvesters from 15 mature spruce-dominated stands in southern Finland. The reference price and demand matrices were either direct copies or slightly modified versions of those used by two Finnish sawmilling companies. Two types of stand-specific bucking matrices were compiled for each log product. One was from the harvester-collected stem profiles and the other was from the pre-harvest inventory data. Four goodness-of-fit measures were analyzed for their appropriateness in determining the similarity between the log demand and log output distributions: (1) the apportionment degree (index), (2) the χ statistic, (3) Laspeyres’ quantity index, and (4) the price-weighted apportionment degree. The study confirmed that any improvement in the fit between the log demand and log output distributions can only be realized at the expense of log volumes produced. Standlevel pre-control of price matrices was found to be advantageous, provided the control is done with perfect stem data. Forest-level pre-control of price matrices resulted in no improvement in the cumulative apportionment degree. Cutting stands under the control of stand-specific demand matrices yielded a better total fit between the demand and output matrices at the forest level than was obtained by cutting each stand with non-stand-specific reference matrices. The theoretical and experimental analyses suggest that none of the three alternative goodness-of-fit measures clearly outperforms the traditional apportionment degree measure.

[1]  B. Sinha,et al.  Some Aspects of the Sampling Distribution of the Apportionment Index and Related Inference , 2007 .

[2]  Jingxin Wang,et al.  Optimal tree-stem bucking of northeastern species of China , 2004 .

[3]  Johan Oja,et al.  Prediction of Board Values in Pinus sylvestris Sawlogs Using X-ray Scanning and Optical Three-dimensional Scanning of Stems , 2004 .

[4]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  The effect of two bucking methods on Scots pine lumber quality , 2004 .

[5]  Jukka Malinen.  Locally Adaptable Non-parametric Methods for Estimating Stand Characteristics for Wood Procurement Planning , 2003 .

[6]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[7]  Glen Murphy,et al.  Value recovery from two mechanized bucking operations in the southeastern United States , 2003 .

[8]  Dennis J. Sweeney,et al.  Study guide to accompany an introduction to management science : quantitative approaches to decision making , 1985 .

[9]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[10]  J. B. Pickens,et al.  Choosing Prices to Optimally Buck Hardwood Logs with Multiple Log-Length Demand Restrictions , 1997, Forestry sciences.

[11]  M. Naesberg,et al.  Mathematical programming models for optimal log bucking , 1985 .

[12]  W. Dale Greene,et al.  Georgia's logging businesses, 1987 to 1997 , 2001 .

[13]  S. Bowers.  Increased Value through Optimal Bucking , 1998 .

[14]  I. Korpela.  Individual tree measurements by means of digital aerial photogrammetry , 2004, Silva Fennica Monographs.

[15]  John Sessions,et al.  Tree Bucking for Optimal Stand Value with Log Allocation Constraints , 1989 .

[16]  Elias Willem Hans,et al.  Resource Loading by Branch-and-Price Techniques , 2001 .

[17]  G. Dantzig,et al.  THE DECOMPOSITION ALGORITHM FOR LINEAR PROGRAMS , 1961 .

[18]  J. Puumalainen,et al.  Optimal cross‐cutting and sensitivity analysis for various log dimension constraints by using dynamic programming approach , 1998 .

[19]  Daniel L. Schmoldt.  INTERNAL LOG SCANNING: RESEARCH TO REALITY , 2000 .

[20]  Matti Maltamo,et al.  Application of Most Similar Neighbor Inference for Estimating Marked Stand Characteristics Using Harvester and Inventory Generated Stem Databases , 2001 .

[21]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  An introduction to genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[22]  David George Briggs,et al.  A dynamic programming approach to optimizing stem conversion , 1980 .

[23]  Teijo Palander,et al.  Metrics for Distribution Similarity Applied to the Bucking to Demand Procedure , 2004 .

[24]  Kurt Eisemann,et al.  The Trim Problem , 1957 .

[25]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[26]  Paul M. Bobrowski.  The log bucking problem: A comparison of dynamic programming versus branch and bound , 1994 .

[27]  A. Usenius.  Optimum bucking of sawlog stems taking the customer's needs into account , 1986 .

[28]  David Beasley,et al.  An overview of genetic algorithms: Part 1 , 1993 .

[29]  Glen Murphy,et al.  Adaptive control of bucking on harvesters to meet order book constraints , 2004 .

[30]  Paul M. Bobrowski.  Branch‐and‐Bound Strategies for the Log Bucking Problem , 1990 .

[31]  J. Galletly.  An Overview of Genetic Algorithms , 1992 .

[32]  François Grondin,et al.  Improvements of the Dynamic Programming Algorithm for tree Bucking , 2007 .

[33]  A. G. D. Whyte,et al.  Bucking tree-length stems optimally , 1986 .

[34]  Harri Hänninen,et al.  Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2000. , 2002 .

[35]  Ralph E. Gomory,et al.  A Linear Programming Approach to the Cutting Stock Problem---Part II , 1963 .

[36]  R. Gomory,et al.  A Linear Programming Approach to the Cutting-Stock Problem , 1961 .

[37]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1996, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[38]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  What makes an optimization problem hard? , 1995, Complex..

[39]  John Sessions,et al.  Manufacturing logs with computer-aided bucking at the stump , 1989 .

[40]  D. Wolpert,et al.  No Free Lunch Theorems for Search , 1995 .

[41]  John Sessions,et al.  Computer Aided Bucking on a Mechanized Harvester , 1991 .

[42]  Brian J. Greber,et al.  Using Tabu Search To Generate Stand-Level, Rule-Based Bucking Patterns , 1997 .

[43]  Lester Randolph Ford,et al.  A Suggested Computation for Maximal Multi-Commodity Network Flows , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[44]  Bernard W. Taylor,et al.  Introduction to Management Science , 2006 .

[45]  John Sessions,et al.  Making Better Tree-Bucking Decisions in the Woods , 1988 .

[46]  J. Lappi.  Calibration of Height and Volume Equations with Random Parameters , 1991, Forest Science.

[47]  T. R. Dell,et al.  Quantifying Diameter Distributions with the Weibull Function , 1973 .

[48]  David Briggs,et al.  A survey of systems analysis models in forestry and the forest products industries , 1984 .

[49]  George B. Dantzig,et al.  Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs , 1960 .

[50]  Dr. Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics , 2004 .

[51]  George J. Klir,et al.  Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic - theory and applications , 1995 .

[52]  T. Gobakken.  The Effect of Two Different Price Systems on the Value and Cross-cutting Patterns of Norway Spruce Logs , 2000 .

[53]  H. G. Daellenbach,et al.  Technical Note - Forest Outturn Optimization by Dantzig-Wolfe Decomposition and Dynamic Programming Column Generation , 1985, Oper. Res..

[54]  G. A. Mendoza,et al.  A two-stage decision model for log bucking and allocation , 1986 .

[55]  Martin Peter Reinders.  IDEAS, for integral logistics in centralized wood processing , 1990 .

[56]  Julio Eduardo Arce,et al.  A Forest-Level Bucking Optimization System that Considers Customer's Demand and Transportation Costs , 2002 .

[57]  B. Faaland,et al.  Log Bucking and Lumber Manufacturing Using Dynamic Programming , 1984 .

[58]  Andre Laroze,et al.  A Linear Programming, Tabu Search Method for Solving Forest-Level Bucking Optimization Problems , 1999 .

[59]  Bull,et al.  An Overview of Genetic Algorithms: Part 2, Research Topics , 1993 .

[60]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  Pre-harvest measurement of pine stands for sawing production planning. , 1997 .