loggingon
  • Home
  • Newsletter
    • Latest Newsletter
    • Archive
    • Subscribe
    • Subscribe a friend
    • Unsubscribe
  • Events
  • Resources
    • Equipment Suppliers
    • Handbooks
    • Journals
    • Research Institutes
    • Useful tools
  • Gallery
    • Harvesters
    • Chip transport
  • Articles
    • Roads
      • Road construction
      • Road equipment
      • Road maintenance
    • Transport
      • Chip transport
      • Log transport on-highway
    • Harvesting
      • Animal
      • Cable Yarders
      • Feller Bunchers
      • Forwarders
      • Harvesters
      • Loading Equipment
      • Manual
      • Motor Manual
      • Other extraction
      • Other Processing Equipment
      • Planning
      • Processing Heads
      • Skidders
      • Tractors
  • Contact us
Examining The Productivity And Costs Of Harvesting Roadside Biomass Residues On Steep Terrain
Processing logging residues at a centralised yard and at the landing site was compared.

Ground-based full-tree systems can generate large quantities of logging residues on landings. Due to the nature of the terrain and difficult road conditions, it is sometimes not possible for large biomass transport trucks to access these residues. A recent research article examined the harvesting of Douglas-fir, true firs and western redcedar. The two systems studied were as follows:
 
  1. Forwarding residues to a concentration yard where they were stored and then ground directly into chip vans (termed “slash forwarding”). The equipment used was a grapple loader, end dump tractor/trailer, grapple loader and horizontal grinder (Peterson 7400, wheeled)
  2. Grinding residues on the landing and then forwarding the hogged material to a concentration yard where it was stored and then reloaded into a chip van (termed “in-woods grinding”). The equipment used was a grapple loader, horizontal grinder (Peterson 4710B), dump truck (modified with high walls) and a front-end loader.

The average moisture content of the logging residue was 24%. The travelling distances for both systems were normalised to enable accurate comparison. The table below provides the productivity results, measured as bone-dry tons (BDT) per scheduled machine hour (SMH), for the various machines within the two systems.
 
Slash forwarding Productivity (BDT/SMH) In-woods grinding Productivity (BDT/SMH)
Grapple loader 45.72 Grapple loader 27.27
End-dump trailer 6.78 Grinder 26.71
Grapple loader 43.43 Dump truck 7.71
Grinder 41.18 Front-end loader 62.85
 
The cost results showed that the slash forwarding system was US$ 23.62 per BDT, while the in-woods grinding was US$ 24.52 per BDT. Where logging residues were densely piled on the roadside, the in-wood grinding system was the most suitable, but when the residues were more scattered, the slash forwarding was preferred.

The research was published in the Forest Products Journal 2012, Vol. 62(3), and was titled “A productivity and cost comparison of two systems for producing biomass fuel from roadside forest treatment residues”. The authors were N Anderson, W Chung, D Loeffler and J Jones. Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2012_anderson_n002.pdf
Return to News
Logset

Search

Recent News

Volvo has started testing the world’s first fuel cell articulated hauler prototype
11 Aug 2022
Vimek presents upgraded forestry machine models
11 Aug 2022
Hiab launches the next generation of Loglift forestry cranes
11 Aug 2022

Archive

  • August 2022
  • June 2022 - Issue 2
  • June 2022

Loggin On News

DISCLAIMER: This web site has been established for the distribution of relevant and interesting information to the forest engineering community. This web site may include inaccuracies. Logging-on shall have no responsibility for errors or omissions in this web site. The information in this web site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

  FACEBOOK   TWITTER   YOUTUBE   SUBSCRIBE

© Logging-On 2018. All Rights Reserved.
Hosting by Gardenroute.com Design & Development by HandMade Connections.