双套车对风阻木材堆垛不同模式的评价

IF 2.7 2区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY
R. Spinelli, K. Stampfer, N. Magagnotti, Giulio Cosola, Fabio De Francesco, Gernot Erber, M. Mihelič
{"title":"双套车对风阻木材堆垛不同模式的评价","authors":"R. Spinelli, K. Stampfer, N. Magagnotti, Giulio Cosola, Fabio De Francesco, Gernot Erber, M. Mihelič","doi":"10.5552/crojfe.2023.2051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Yarding whole trees is the most efficient way of extracting timber in steep terrain and allows reaping the combined benefits of mechanization and biomass recovery. In downhill yarding, however, whole-tree extraction is associated with a greater risk of loosening rocks or debris by the incoming loads as they bounce around along the extraction corridor. That may also cause damage to the cables and anchors by corresponding shock loads, ultimately endangering the yarder and its crew. To avoid these risks, »double-hitch carriages« can be employed. They combine a conventional motorized dropline carriage with a secondary carriage (»trailer«), equipped with a further, independent dropline winch. Thus, loads can be attached at two points and transported fully suspended above the ground in a horizontal position.Operation of these carriages may not be limited to the »horizontal« mode: the main carriage could also be operated without trailer (»single« mode), or separate loads may be attached to the two droplines (»double« mode), but their impact on the efficiency and economy of yarding operations is yet unknown. Therefore, the present study investigated how these modes affect the productivity and cost of downhill whole tree yarding. To this end, a classic time and motion study was conducted during a salvage logging operation in Northern Italy under a strictly controlled experimental design.Average productivity (18.2±7.2 to 24.5±15.4 m³ PSH0-1 merchantable volume per productive system hour excluding delays) and extraction cost (18 to 20 Euro m-³) did not differ significantly between treatments, while load composition and time consumption by task did. More (2.2±0.5) pieces per load were yarded under the »double«, than under the »single« (1.4±0.5) and »horizontal« (1.1±0.3) treatments. Inhaul speed (3.1±0.6 m s-1) was significantly higher under the »horizontal« treatment, which compensated for increased loading time derived from attaching the load at least at one point outside the corridor. Unloading took significantly longer under the »double« treatment, as loads had to be dropped successively due to the confined conditions on the landing. Though slowest (2.5±0.9 m s-1) during inhaul, the »single« treatment exhibited none of the other treatments disadvantages and larger loads could be accumulated due to partial suspension. From an economic viewpoint, the »horizontal« mode may only be warranted over yarding distances substantially beyond average. On shorter ones, it must be justified by other reasons, such as minimizing product contamination, soil disturbance or excessive strain to the skyline when the terrain profile impedes sufficient ground clearance.","PeriodicalId":55204,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Different Modes for Yarding Windthrown Timber with a Double-Hitch Carriage\",\"authors\":\"R. Spinelli, K. Stampfer, N. Magagnotti, Giulio Cosola, Fabio De Francesco, Gernot Erber, M. Mihelič\",\"doi\":\"10.5552/crojfe.2023.2051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Yarding whole trees is the most efficient way of extracting timber in steep terrain and allows reaping the combined benefits of mechanization and biomass recovery. In downhill yarding, however, whole-tree extraction is associated with a greater risk of loosening rocks or debris by the incoming loads as they bounce around along the extraction corridor. That may also cause damage to the cables and anchors by corresponding shock loads, ultimately endangering the yarder and its crew. To avoid these risks, »double-hitch carriages« can be employed. They combine a conventional motorized dropline carriage with a secondary carriage (»trailer«), equipped with a further, independent dropline winch. Thus, loads can be attached at two points and transported fully suspended above the ground in a horizontal position.Operation of these carriages may not be limited to the »horizontal« mode: the main carriage could also be operated without trailer (»single« mode), or separate loads may be attached to the two droplines (»double« mode), but their impact on the efficiency and economy of yarding operations is yet unknown. Therefore, the present study investigated how these modes affect the productivity and cost of downhill whole tree yarding. To this end, a classic time and motion study was conducted during a salvage logging operation in Northern Italy under a strictly controlled experimental design.Average productivity (18.2±7.2 to 24.5±15.4 m³ PSH0-1 merchantable volume per productive system hour excluding delays) and extraction cost (18 to 20 Euro m-³) did not differ significantly between treatments, while load composition and time consumption by task did. More (2.2±0.5) pieces per load were yarded under the »double«, than under the »single« (1.4±0.5) and »horizontal« (1.1±0.3) treatments. Inhaul speed (3.1±0.6 m s-1) was significantly higher under the »horizontal« treatment, which compensated for increased loading time derived from attaching the load at least at one point outside the corridor. Unloading took significantly longer under the »double« treatment, as loads had to be dropped successively due to the confined conditions on the landing. Though slowest (2.5±0.9 m s-1) during inhaul, the »single« treatment exhibited none of the other treatments disadvantages and larger loads could be accumulated due to partial suspension. From an economic viewpoint, the »horizontal« mode may only be warranted over yarding distances substantially beyond average. On shorter ones, it must be justified by other reasons, such as minimizing product contamination, soil disturbance or excessive strain to the skyline when the terrain profile impedes sufficient ground clearance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2023.2051\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2023.2051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

整棵树的院子是在陡峭地形中提取木材的最有效方法,并允许收获机械化和生物质回收的综合效益。然而,在下坡的院子里,整棵树的提取与岩石或碎片松动的风险更大,因为它们在提取走廊上反弹。这也可能造成相应的冲击载荷对电缆和锚的损坏,最终危及整个船厂及其船员。为了避免这些风险,可以使用“双挂车厢”。它们将传统的机动吊具与二级吊具(“拖车”)结合在一起,并配备了一个独立的吊具绞车。因此,载荷可以在两点上附着,并在水平位置上完全悬浮在地面上运输。这些车厢的操作可能并不局限于“水平”模式:主车厢也可以在没有拖车的情况下操作(“单”模式),或者可以在两个管道上附加单独的负载(“双”模式),但它们对码垛操作的效率和经济的影响尚不清楚。因此,本研究探讨了这些模式对下坡整树围场的生产力和成本的影响。为此,在意大利北部的一次打捞伐木作业中,在严格控制的实验设计下进行了一次经典的时间和运动研究。处理之间的平均生产率(每生产系统小时18.2±7.2至24.5±15.4 m³PSH0-1可销售容积,不包括延迟)和提取成本(18至20欧元m-³)没有显着差异,而负载组成和任务的时间消耗则存在显着差异。在“双”处理下,每个荷载的分拣(2.2±0.5)件比“单”处理(1.4±0.5)件和“水平”处理(1.1±0.3)件多。在“水平”处理下,运输速度(3.1±0.6 m s-1)明显更高,这补偿了至少在走廊外的一个点附加负载所增加的加载时间。在“双重”处理下,卸载花费的时间明显更长,因为由于着陆时的受限条件,负载必须连续下降。虽然“单一”处理在进站过程中最慢(2.5±0.9 m s-1),但没有其他处理的缺点,而且由于部分悬浮,可以积累更大的载荷。从经济学的角度来看,“水平”模式可能只适用于远远超过平均水平的距离。对于较短的,必须有其他的理由,如尽量减少产品污染、土壤干扰或当地形剖面阻碍足够的离地间隙时,对天际线的过度紧张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Different Modes for Yarding Windthrown Timber with a Double-Hitch Carriage
Yarding whole trees is the most efficient way of extracting timber in steep terrain and allows reaping the combined benefits of mechanization and biomass recovery. In downhill yarding, however, whole-tree extraction is associated with a greater risk of loosening rocks or debris by the incoming loads as they bounce around along the extraction corridor. That may also cause damage to the cables and anchors by corresponding shock loads, ultimately endangering the yarder and its crew. To avoid these risks, »double-hitch carriages« can be employed. They combine a conventional motorized dropline carriage with a secondary carriage (»trailer«), equipped with a further, independent dropline winch. Thus, loads can be attached at two points and transported fully suspended above the ground in a horizontal position.Operation of these carriages may not be limited to the »horizontal« mode: the main carriage could also be operated without trailer (»single« mode), or separate loads may be attached to the two droplines (»double« mode), but their impact on the efficiency and economy of yarding operations is yet unknown. Therefore, the present study investigated how these modes affect the productivity and cost of downhill whole tree yarding. To this end, a classic time and motion study was conducted during a salvage logging operation in Northern Italy under a strictly controlled experimental design.Average productivity (18.2±7.2 to 24.5±15.4 m³ PSH0-1 merchantable volume per productive system hour excluding delays) and extraction cost (18 to 20 Euro m-³) did not differ significantly between treatments, while load composition and time consumption by task did. More (2.2±0.5) pieces per load were yarded under the »double«, than under the »single« (1.4±0.5) and »horizontal« (1.1±0.3) treatments. Inhaul speed (3.1±0.6 m s-1) was significantly higher under the »horizontal« treatment, which compensated for increased loading time derived from attaching the load at least at one point outside the corridor. Unloading took significantly longer under the »double« treatment, as loads had to be dropped successively due to the confined conditions on the landing. Though slowest (2.5±0.9 m s-1) during inhaul, the »single« treatment exhibited none of the other treatments disadvantages and larger loads could be accumulated due to partial suspension. From an economic viewpoint, the »horizontal« mode may only be warranted over yarding distances substantially beyond average. On shorter ones, it must be justified by other reasons, such as minimizing product contamination, soil disturbance or excessive strain to the skyline when the terrain profile impedes sufficient ground clearance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering (CROJFE) is a refereed journal distributed internationally, publishing original research articles concerning forest engineering, both theoretical and empirical. The journal covers all aspects of forest engineering research, ranging from basic to applied subjects. In addition to research articles, preliminary research notes and subject reviews are published. Journal Subjects and Fields: -Harvesting systems and technologies- Forest biomass and carbon sequestration- Forest road network planning, management and construction- System organization and forest operations- IT technologies and remote sensing- Engineering in urban forestry- Vehicle/machine design and evaluation- Modelling and sustainable management- Eco-efficient technologies in forestry- Ergonomics and work safety
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信