UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A production and cost analysis of log transportation by flatbed trucks in the central jungle region of… Aquino, David Cirilo 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A6 A58.pdf [ 9.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075146.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075146-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075146-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075146-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075146-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075146-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075146-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075146-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075146.ris

Full Text

A PRODUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS OP LOG TRANSPORTATION BY FLATBED TRUCKS IN THE CENTRAL JUNGLE REGION OF PERU by DAVID CIRILO AQUINO B.Sc. F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l A g r a r i a "La Molina", 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF FORESTRY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of F o r e s t r y We accept t h i s t h e s i s as comforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1986 © David C i r i l o Aquino, 1986 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s m a y b e g r a n t e d b y t h e h e a d o f m y d e p a r t m e n t o r b y h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2 0 7 5 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V 6 T 1W5 D a t e AUGUST l?8& 7 Q ^  i i ABSTRACT This thesis reports a study of the productivity and cost of hauling logs by flatbed trucks, observed during 1985 at Belho Horizonte S.C.R. Ltd. sawmill, in Pichanaki, Peru. This operation t y p i f i e s many similar hauling operations in the Peruvian t r o p i c a l mountain forests. In order to investigate means of improving productivity and decreasing hauling costs in the hauling operations of the Forest companies in the Central Jungle Region of Peru, the productivity and cost trade-offs of truck hauling by d i e s e l -powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks was evaluated. Furthermore, the overall hauling system was also examined to ide n t i f y the main factors that govern productivity and costs of the flatbed trucks. The truck a c t i v i t i e s during the entire hauling cycle were recorded using Servis Recorders. The haul distance, the number of logs and the volume hauled per t r i p were also recorded on a survey form. Complementary information regarding truck cost parameters was also obtained. The results show that there is no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in performance between gasoline-powered trucks and d i e s e l -powered trucks when they are compared for the following operating variables: v e l o c i t y empty, vel o c i t y loaded, delay, loading and unloading time. S i g n i f i c a n t l y greater payloads per t r i p have been found for diesel-powered trucks. i i i Very low p r o d u c t i v i t y and very expensive h a u l i n g costs have been found f o r both types of truck as a r e s u l t of low truck speed caused by the poor c o n d i t i o n s of the f o r e s t roads, low p r o d u c t i v i t y of the manual l o a d i n g method, and exce s s i v e delay time per t r i p . S u b s t a n t i a l p r o d u c t i v i t y i n c r e a s e s and haul cost r e d u c t i o n s can be obtained by upgrading the f o r e s t roads, mechanizing the l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n , reducing the de l a y time, and l o a d i n g the v e h i c l e s to t h e i r c a p a c i t y every t r i p . Under the e x i s t i n g o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , h a u l i n g logs with used (17-18 y r - o l d ) gasoline-powered tr u c k s was more cost e f f i c i e n t f o r the most frequent one-way haul d i s t a n c e (30-50 km) i n the C e n t r a l Jungle Region of Peru. The info r m a t i o n provided i n t h i s study can be a p p l i e d f o r planning purposes and to examine the f e a s i b i l i t y of using t r u c k s of greater payload c a p a c i t y , and new l o a d i n g and unloading equipment. In a d d i t i o n , the a c t u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the f o r e s t roads can be compared to the requirements of fut u r e t r u c k i n g equipment. i v T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S P a g e A B S T R A C T i i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S i v L I S T OF T A B L E S v i L I S T OF F I G U R E S i x A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S x i I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 C H A P T E R 1 T H E C E N T R A L J U N G L E R E G I O N : B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N 5 1 . 1 G e o g r a p h y a n d C l i m a t e 5 1 . 2 P h y s i o g r a p h i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 5 1 . 3 F o r e s t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 6 1 . 4 F o r e s t I n d u s t r y 6 1 . 5 C u r r e n t H a r v e s t i n g S y s t e m s 8 C H A P T E R 2 M A I N F A C T O R S T H A T A F F E C T L O G - T R U C K I N G P R O D U C T I V I T Y A N D C O S T S 1 1 2 . 1 P h y s i c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f L o g g i n g R o a d s 1 1 2 . 2 H a u l i n g D i s t a n c e 1 2 2 . 3 L o a d i n g a n d U n l o a d i n g O p e r a t i o n 1 2 2 . 4 T r u c k T y p e a n d P a y l o a d S i z e 1 3 C H A P T E R 3 S T U D Y M E T H O D O L O G Y 1 5 3 . 1 S u r v e y P r o c e d u r e 1 5 3 . - 1 . 1 S e l e c t i o n o f C u t t i n g A r e a s a n d S u r v e y V e h i c l e s 1 5 3 . 1 . 2 M e a s u r e m e n t o f M a c h i n e T i m e a n d P r o d u c t i v i t y 18 3 . 1 . 3 P a y l o a d p e r T r i p 22 3 . 1 . 4 C o m p l e m e n t a r y T r u c k D a t a 24 3 . 1 . 5 S u r v e y o f t h e H a u l R o u t e 27 3 . 2 A n a l y s i s 27 3 . 2 . 1 A n a l y s i s o f O b s e r v e d T r i p s 28 3 . 2 . 1 . 1 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 28 3 . 2 . 2 T r u c k P r o d u c t i v i t y a n d C o s t 29 3 . 2 . 2 . 1 T r u c k P r o d u c t i v i t y 30 3 . 2 . 2 . 2 T r u c k C o s t E s t i m a t e 30 3 . 2 . 3 A n a l y s i s o f t h e H a u l R o u t e 38 3 . 2 . 4 S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s 38 3 . 2 . 5 B r e a k - e v e n A n a l y s i s 39 V CHAPTER 4 STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 41 4.1 Analysis of Observed Trips 41 4.1.1 Loading Time 41 4.1.2 Unloading Time 48 4.1.3 Travel Time Empty 50 4.1.4 Travel Time Loaded" 52 4.1.5 Delay 54 4.1.6 Payload 56 4.2 Truck Productivity and Cost 58 4.2.1 Estimated Truck Cycle Time 58 4.2.2 Daily and Annual Production 61 4.2.3 Fleet Size 61 4.2.4 Truck cost Estimate and Haul Cost 62 4.3 Analysis of the Haul Route 68 4.3.1 Public Road 68 4.3.2 Forest Roads 68 4.3.3 Forest Roads Design Specifications 70 4.3.4 Road Maintenance 76 4.4 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis 78 4.4.1 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis of Cycle Time 78 4.4.2 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis of Hauling Cost... 85 4.5 Break-even Analysis 99 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 103 LITERATURE CITED 108 APPENDICES 112 1. Truck Rider Trip Report 113 2. Truck Purchase Price Information 115 3. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 117 4. Plan and P r o f i l e of Forest Roads Surveyed 125 v i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Sawmills i n the C e n t r a l Jungle Region of Peru... 8 2 Estimated Density (green weight-green volume b a s i s ) of f o r e s t s p e c i e s harvested i n the study area 25 3 T e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the t r u c k s 26 4 Design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r f o r e s t roads i n Peruvian f o r e s t o p erations 39 5 F i e l d data summary of diesel-powered t r u c k s 42 6 F i e l d data summary of gasoline-powered t r u c k s . . . 43 7 F i e l d data summary of mixed truck f l e e t 47 8 Summary of l o a d i n g time f o r diesel-powered t r u c k s and gasoline-powered trucks 48 9 Summary of unloading time f o r diesel-powered tr u c k s and gasoline-powered trucks 50 10 Summary of v e l o c i t y empty f o r diesel-powered tr u c k s and gasoline-powered t r u c k s 51 11 Summary of v e l o c i t y loaded f o r diesel-powered tr u c k s and gasoline-powered t r u c k s 52 12 Summary of de l a y time (expressed as percentage of p r oductive time of the truck c y c l e ) f o r the e n t i r e truck f l e e t 55 13 Summary of the payload by truck type 56 14 Estimated c y c l e time f o r a 26 km one-way haul f o r diesel-powered t r u c k s and gasoline-powered t r u c k s 59 15 Truck p r o d u c t i v i t y by truck type f o r a 26 km one-way haul d i s t a n c e 62 16 Hauling cost parameters 63 17 Summary of truck c o s t s 64 18 Estimated haul cost f o r diesel-powered t r u c k s for 26 km one-way haul d i s t a n c e 65 19 Estimated haul cost f o r gasoline-powered t r u c k s v i i for 26 km one-way haul distance 65 20 Summary of curvature and gradient of forest roads sampled 71 21 Impact of average round t r i p speed and delay time on truck cycle time 81 22 Impact of average round t r i p speed and loading time on truck cycle time 82 23 Impact of loading and delay time on truck cycle time 82 24 Impact of loading and delay time on truck cycle time when the average round t r i p speed is increased to 12 km/hr 83 25 Impact of delay and loading time on truck cycle time when the average round t r i p speed i s increased to 15 km/hr 83 26 Impact of hauling distance and loading time on truck cycle time when the average round t r i p speed is increased to 15 km/hr and delay i s reduced to 1.00 hr 84 27 Impact of hauling distance and loading time on truck cycle time when the average round t r i p speed is increased to 30 km/hr and delay is reduced to 1.00 hr 84 28 Impact of truck ownership period on haul cost... 86 29 Impact of annual operating hours on haul cost... 86 30 Impact of average round t r i p speed on haul cost 87 31 Impact of loading time on haul cost 88 32 Impact of delay time on hauling cost 89 33 Impact of haul distance and payload on haul cost of diesel-powered trucks 90 34 Impact of haul distance and payload on haul cost of gasoline-powered trucks 90 35 Analytical i l l u s t r a t i o n of the effects of varying average round t r i p speed, delay and loading time on productivity and haul cost of diesel-powered trucks 93 v i i i 36 A n a l y t i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of v a r y i n g average round t r i p speed, d e l a y and l o a d i n g time on p r o d u c t i v i t y and h a u l c o s t of g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s 94 37 Impact of h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e and p a y l o a d on h a u l c o s t under a l t e r n a t i v e N o . l f o r d i e s e l -powered t r u c k s 97 38 Impact of h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e and p a y l o a d on h a u l c o s t under a l t e r n a t i v e No.2 of d i e s e l -powered t r u c k s 97 39 Impact of h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e and p a y l o a d on h a u l c o s t under a l t e r n a t i v e N o . l of g a s o l i n e -powered t r u c k s 98 40 Impact of h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e and p a y l o a d on h a u l c o s t under a l t e r n a t i v e No.2 of g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s 98 41 E s t i m a t e d h a u l i n g c o s t as a s t a n d i n g and t r a v e l l i n g c o s t f o r d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s 100 42 E s t i m a t e d h a u l i n g c o s t as a s t a n d i n g and t r a v e l l i n g c o s t f o r g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s 100 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Central Jungle Region in Peru 7 2 Home-made Jammer 10 3 Study Area: Road Network 16 4 Gasoline-powered truck being f i t t e d with a flatbed 19 5 Diesel-powered truck loaded at the m i l l yard 19 6 Servis Recorder chart at the end of the t r i p 23 7 Servis Recorder chart t o t a l l e r with chart in position 23 8 Loading logs by hand r o l l i n g method 45 9 Loading logs by crosshaul method 45 10 Unloading flatbed truck at the m i l l yard 49 11 Unloading truck by side dumping 49 12 . Loading gravel and rock manually 57 13 F i l l i n g in potholes with gravel and rock 57 14 Average truck cycle time for die s e l and gasoline-powered trucks 60 15 Average cycle time expressed as standing and t r a v e l l i n g time 60 16 Hauling cost comparison, diesel-powered versus gasoline-powered 67 17 Main forest road without drainage system 74 18 Main forest road with mudholes and ruts 74 19 Log bridge with concrete abutments 77 20 Hauling cost comparison for diesel-powered trucks 9 5 21 Hauling cost comparison for gasoline-powered trucks 96 X 22 Hauling c o s t comparison f o r diesel-powered t r u c k s : e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s versus proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s . . 101 23 Break-even c h a r t - t r u c k comparison, d i e s e l -powered versus gasoline-powered 102 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude and deep appreciation to my academic supervisor, Mr. G. G. Young, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Forestry, for his continuous guidance, constant encouragement and constructive c r i t i c i s m throughout my graduate studies and in the development of this thesis. Special thanks are extended to Dr. J. D. Barret and Mr. P. Oakley, members of my supervisory committee, for their constructive comments and suggestions. I also express special acknowledgements to the Solorzano family, owners of Belho Horizonte S.C.R. Ltd. Sawmill, for providing a l l f i e l d f a c i l i t i e s for the data c o l l e c t i o n in Pichanaki, Peru. Moreover, I am grateful to the truckers of this forest company for their help. I would l i k e to thank Mr. A. W. S i n c l a i r of FERIC for providing the Servis Recorders to carry out the time study. Furthermore, my gratitude is also extended to Mr. J. McPhalen of Forest Planning Systems Ltd., for permitting me to use his "Forest Survey U t i l i t i e s " computer program to draw the plan and p r o f i l e of the forest roads. Thanks are due to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Universidad Nacional Agraria "La Molina" (Lima), and the Faculty of Forestry of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia for f i n a n c i a l support. F i n a l l y I woud l i k e to thank my wife Luz for her patience and understanding throughout my entire study. 1 INTRODUCTION H a u l i n g c o s t s a r e t h e m a j o r e x p e n s e o f l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e f o r e s t c o m p a n i e s i n t h e C e n t r a l J u n g l e R e g i o n o f P e r u , b u t l i t t l e i s k n o w n a b o u t t h e r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e v a r i o u s f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g h a u l i n g c o s t s . T h e f o r e s t c o m p a n i e s o f t h i s i m p o r t a n t r e g i o n o f P e r u m u s t i m p r o v e h a u l i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d c o s t s . I n o r d e r t o a s s i s t t h e m , t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d c o s t o f h a u l i n g l o g s b y f l a t b e d t r u c k s o f d i f f e r e n t e n g i n e t y p e s a r e d i s c u s s e d a n d a n a l y s e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . F u r t h e r m o r e , a c o s t s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s o f t h e h a u l i n g o p e r a t i o n i s c a r r i e d o u t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i m p a c t o n t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d h a u l c o s t o f v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e m a j o r o p e r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . F i n a l l y , t h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f o r e s t r o a d s w h e r e t h e h a u l i n g o p e r a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e i s d e s c r i b e d a n d a n a l y s e d . T h e C e n t r a l J u n g l e r e g i o n o f P e r u i s l o c a t e d o n t h e m s t e e p s l o p e s o f t h e e a s t e r n f l a n k s o f t h e A n d e s , a n d c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g w o o d p r o d u c t c e n t e r s : S a n R a m o n , L a M e r c e d , O x a p a m p a , V i l l a R i c a , P i c h a n a k i , a n d S a t i p o . T h e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s o f t h i s r e g i o n a r e v e r y i m p o r t a n t a s a r e s u l t o f i t s p r o x i m i t y t o L i m a , t h e c a p i t a l o f P e r u , w h i c h i s t h e m a i n c o n s u m p t i o n c e n t e r o f w o o d p r o d u c t s i n t h e c o u n t r y . T h e t o t a l f o r e s t a r e a o f t h i s r e g i o n i s 8 , 9 8 7 , 0 0 0 h a , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s 12% o f t h e t o t a l P e r u v i a n f o r e s t l a n d . 2 Sawmilling is the main forest industry in the Central Jungle region. Truck hauling is the only method of log transportation from the bush landings to the m i l l s . Logging companies generally use old, small gasoline-powered flatbed trucks with a payload capacity of 8,000 to 12,000 kg. Some logging companies have recently introduced new trucks powered by di e s e l engines of similar payload capacity. The most frequent one-way hauling distance in this region is in the range of 30 to 50 km, although there are some cases where the hauling distance is greater than 90 km (David, 1983; Frisk, 1978 ) . The problems of the log transportation system have always worried the forest operators of the Central Jungle region, and the problems are intensifying as logging operations occur further away from the sawmills. The forest industry in this zone is experiencing higher hauling costs as a result of the longer hauling distance, low road standards, low load capacity of the trucks, age of the trucks and the method used for loading and unloading trucks (David, 1983). Forest companies need a way of decreasing hauling costs in this region. This can be accomplished by investigating the truck hauling operation in a systems context. This means that a l l phases of the truck cycle: traveling, queueing, loading, unloading and the multitude of operational delays must be studied before the overall productivity and costs can be estimated (Smith and Tse, 1977a). 3 The f i r s t objective of this study is to investigate the productivity and cost trade-offs of truck hauling by gasoline powered flatbed trucks with 8,000 kg payload capacity and di e s e l powered trucks of 8,260 kg payload capacity, under similar operating conditions such as road quality and weather. This comparison w i l l allow the selection of the more ef f e c t i v e truck to perform the log hauling operation that takes place in the Central Jungle region of Peru. In t h i s study the following hypothesis w i l l be tested: the cost of hauling logs expressed in dollars per cubic metre ($/m3) with diesel powered trucks with 8,260 kg payload capacity is less than with gasoline powered trucks of 8,000 kg payload capacity for the most frequent one-way hauling distance (30-50 km) in the Central Jungle region of Peru. Consequently, diesel powered trucks should be better suited for hauling operations in t h i s region. The second objective of this study is to examine the overall hauling system in order to i d e n t i f y the main factors that govern productivity and costs of the flatbed trucks evaluated. This information w i l l show where improvements or changes can be made to increase productivity and reduce costs of trucking logs to the sawmills. The o r i g i n a l intention of this work was to investigate the productivity and cost trade-offs of truck hauling of gasoline powered flatbed trucks with 8,000 kg payload capacity and di e s e l powered trucks of 12,000 or 15,000 kg 4 p a y l o a d c a p a c i t y . T h i s o r i g i n a l i d e a was not acc o m p l i s h e d because the l o g g i n g company which coo p e r a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y d i d not own any d i e s e l powered f l a t b e d t r u c k s w i t h t h i s p a y l o a d c a p a c i t y . The t h e s i s i s d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e c h a p t e r s . Chapter 1 p r e s e n t s as background i n f o r m a t i o n a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the geography and c l i m a t e , p h y s i o g r a p h i c and f o r e s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y and the c u r r e n t h a r v e s t i n g systems i n the C e n t r a l J u n g l e r e g i o n of P e r u . Chapter 2 d e s c r i b e s the main f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t l o g - t r u c k i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y and c o s t s . Chapter 3 d e s c r i b e s the s t u d y methodology which has been used i n t h i s t r u c k h a u l i n g s t u d y . Chapter 4 g i v e s the s t u d y f i n d i n g s and d i s c u s s e s the r e s u l t s . Chapter 5 c o n t a i n s the summary and the c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s s t u d y , as w e l l as some s p e c i f i c recommendations. 5 CHAPTER 1 THE CENTRAL JUNGLE REGION OF PERU: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1 Geography and Climate The C e n t r a l Jungle r e g i o n of Peru i s l o c a t e d i n the eastern and c e n t r a l part of Peru between 8° and 12° 20' l a t i t u d e south and 70° 30' and 76° long i t u d e west. The t e r r i t o r y i n v o l v e s the zones of P a c h i t e a , Oxapampa, Chanchamayo, Satipo and A t a l a y a . The t o t a l area of t h i s r e g i o n i s 12,454,900 he c t a r e s . T h i s truck h a u l i n g study was c a r r i e d out i n the f o r e s t h a r v e s t i n g area of Pichanaki which i s l o c a t e d i n the province of Chanchamayo of the Department of J u n i n . I t t y p i f i e s many s i m i l a r operations i n t h i s r e g i o n . F i g u r e 1. shows the geographic l o c a t i o n of t h i s r e g i on. The c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s r e g i o n are t y p i c a l of t r o p i c a l mountain r a i n f o r e s t s : hUmid and hot. R a i n f a l l i s very heavy from November to A p r i l , and the annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n ranges between 1,500 and 3,000 mm. The temperature i s qu i t e uniform ithroughout the year. The average temperature ranges between 18°C and 25°C (Brack, 1977; Romero, 1983). 1.2 Physiographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The f o r e s t s of t h i s r e g i o n are l o c a t e d between 700 and 2,000 metres above sea l e v e l and the topography i s broken 6 with very steep slopes (Malleux, 1982). S i l t and clay s o i l s dominate in this region although coarse-grained s o i l s are common. Good road-building material is abundant in this zone. 1.3 F o r e s t Characteristics The Central Jungle Region of Peru has an area of 8,987,000 hectares which represents 12% of the t o t a l Peruvian forest land base. The forests of this region, l i k e the forests of the Amazon lowlands, have an extremely heterogeneous species composition. Many forest inventory studies have been carried out in thi s region. They reveal a to t a l standing merchantable volume between 66 and 140 m3/ha (Romero, 1983). A forest inventory carried out in the provinces of Chanchamayo and Satipo of the Department of Junin reports a t o t a l standing merchantable volume between 78 and 138 ma/ha with 40 and 63 trees per hectare. The average stem volume was between 1.6 and 2.3 m3 (U.N.A., 1982). 1.4 F o r e s t Industry The forest industry in this region is mainly sawmilling. Sawmills produce lumber as a major product. However, ra i l r o a d crossties, f r u i t boxes, and broom sticks are also produced on a minor scale. The sawmills are located in the forest d i s t r i c t s of San Ramon, Oxapampa, V i l l a Rica, and Satipo. The lumber production of these mills in 1981 7 FIGURE 1. C e n t r a l Jungle Region i n Peru. C H I L E SOURCE : I n s t i t u t o N a c i o n a l de P l a n i f i c a c i o n . 1981, Programa de d e s a r r o l l o de l a S e l v a C e n t r a l . 8 represented 19% of the t o t a l Peruvian lumber production. The number of sawmills and the lumber production in 1981 are shown in Table 1. Logs are supplied to the sawmills from their own harvesting operations. Logging operations are adapted to selective harvesting practices; and the volume harvested per hectare is estimated at 30 m3/ha (Frisk, 1978). The forest companies harvest primarily moena (Nectandza spp.), t o r n i l l o (Cedrelinga catenaeformis), alcanfor (Ocotea spp.), cedro (Cedrela spp.), diablo fuerte (Podocarpus spp.), and congona (Brosimun spp.) (Romero, 1983). Table 1. Sawmills in the Central Jungle Region of Peru. Forest Distr i c t Number of Sawmills Lumber Annual Capacity (m3) Lumber Annual Production (m3) San Ramon 16 45,200 43,800 Oxapampa 12 39,500 15,800 V i l l a Rica 18 37,700 15,300 Satipo 31 60,500 48,000 Total 71 182,900 122,900 Source: David, E. 1983, E l transporte terrestre de la madera en la Selva Central. Lima. 1.5 Current Harvesting Systems F e l l i n g and bucking operations in this region are carried out with chainsaws. Felled trees are bucked at the stump s i t e mainly into logs 2.45 to 3.10 metres long, although in some cases the stem is bucked into logs of 4.30 9 to 4.90 metres. The d a i l y production of a two man crew (chainsaw operator and helper) is estimated in the range of 14 to 28 m3 for the f e l l i n g and bucking operation (David, 1983 ) . Primary transportation in this zone is either manual or mechanized. Manual (with the aid of gravity) is the main method used to skid logs downhill to roadside.'This method is used only when the logs are to be skidded down a slope steep enough to allow their free movement without the application of any power. The logs are skidded down by r o l l i n g them with the help of peavies. The peavy is extensively used in this zone not only to r o l l the logs during the skidding operation but also to a s s i s t in loading and unloading the trucks. On the other hand, when there are favorable topographic conditions, chutes are constructed in g u l l i e s to s l i d e logs downhill to roadside. The construction of a chute consists of clearing a gu l l y and placing small logs to act as ramps in the d i f f i c u l t parts of the track. Campos (cited in Leigh, 1984) indicates that the lengths of the chutes vary up to a maximum of 800 to 1,000 metres. Mechanized yarding is carried out with a home-made jammer. This method is used to yard logs u p h i l l . The home-made jammer (Figure 2) consists of an one-drum hoist and a boom mounted on an old truck. The hoist is operated through a power take-off from the truck drive l i n e , or by a separate engine, and the boom is an A-frame mounted on the rear end of the truck. The maximum yarding distance with this system is 10 150 metres , and the e s t i m a t e d p r o d u c t i o n i s up to 20 m 3 per day under the best o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . Moreover , the jammer i s sometimes used to perform the l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n ( F r i s k , 1979). B e s i d e s , some l o g g i n g companies have r e c e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d l i n e s k i d d e r s i n t h i s r e g i o n . The methods used i n l o a d i n g , h a u l i n g , and u n l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n are d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 4 of t h i s t h e s i s . FIGURE 2. Home-made Jammer. 11 CHAPTER 2 MAIN FACTORS THAT AFFECT LOG-TRUCKING PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS The p r o d u c t i v i t y and co s t of h a u l i n g logs by truck are mainly determined by the h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e , p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c o n d i t i o n s of the road, l o a d i n g and unloading equipment, and with the truck type and payload s i z e (Conway, 1982; FAO, 1974; S t e n z e l et al.,1985). In t h i s chapter, the i n f l u e n c e s of the main f a c t o r s on the p r o d u c t i v i t y and h a u l i n g c o s t s are d i s c u s s e d . 2.1 P h y s i c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Logging Roads Several authors have pointed out that the proper planning, design, c o n s t r u c t i o n and maintenance of log g i n g roads are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the e f f i c i e n c y of the h a u l i n g o p e r a t i o n . D e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n on these t o p i c s can be found i n the r e f e r e n c e s by Adams (1983), F i s h e r and Taber (1975), Garland (1983a,1983b,1983c), Haussman and Pr u e t t (1973), H e i n r i c h (1976), Jonhson and Wheeler (1978), McNally (1977), and S t e n z e l et a l . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Byrne et al.(1960) i n h i s study f o r west coast c o n d i t i o n s of U.S.A. found that the t r a v e l time of log g i n g t r u c k s , and consequently the h a u l i n g cost i s a f f e c t e d by grade, road s u r f a c e , alignment, width of roadway, turnout spacing and d e n s i t y of t r a f f i c . Baumgrass (1970) s t a t e s that 12 the physical ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of logging roads such as grade, curvature, length, width, and surface "conditions a l l determine trucking e f f i c i e n c y . When road c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s become adverse to trucking, production delays increase, truck size and thus payloads are limited, truck wear accelerates, and travel time increases. Silversides (1981) explains that the truck f l e e t and road are equally important components of a transport system. In order to optimize transport costs, there must be a balance between investment in road construction and maintenance, and the money spent on vehicles. 2.2 Hauling Distance The cost of trucking logs varies with the length of haul, and this cost is higher when the haul distance is longer. Moreover, the haul distance determines the number of tr i p s and therefore the volume that can be hauled in a day (Conway, 1982). On the other hand, the most economical size of transport vehicle is found to vary with the length of the haul and the loading and unloading methods used; and for longer hauling distances diesel-powered trucks should be considered for use instead of gasoline-powered trucks (FAO, 1974 ) . 2.3 Loading and Unloading Operation The terminal functions of loading and unloading have a direct influence on hauling productivity. When the hauling 13 d i s t a n c e i s s h o r t , the t e r m i n a l times should be s h o r t , otherwise they w i l l become too l a r g e a part of the t o t a l r o u n d - t r i p time. On the other hand, small volumes of timber can only support low c a p i t a l - c o s t l o a d i n g equipment and v i c e versa (FAO, 1974). Conway (1982) i n d i c a t e s that h a u l i n g i s the most c o s t l y component i n the t o t a l h a r v e s t i n g system, t h e r e f o r e t r u c k s should not lose time w a i t i n g at the landings f o r logs or because the l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n i s slow. 2.4 Truck Type and Payload S i z e Trucks used i n l o g g i n g vary widely i n s i z e and l o a d -c a r r y i n g c a p a b i l i t y . This depends on many f a c t o r s such as s i z e of o p e r a t i o n , haul d i s t a n c e s , road c o n d i t i o n s , volumes a v a i l a b l e , and the product to be hauled. They vary from s i n g l e - a x l e v e h i c l e s with 100- to 135-horsepower engines that c a r r y a payload of up 8,172 kg, to custom-built v e h i c l e s that can p u l l a load i n excess of 90,800 kg and are powered by 400 to 500 horsepower engines (Conway, 1982). St e n z e l et al.(1985) s t a t e s that production l i n e v e h i c l e s , which are small t r u c k s f i t t e d with a f l a t b e d and necessary a c c e s s o r i e s , might haul a reasonable load, but they are not designed f o r h a u l i n g . These small t r u c k s may be l a c k i n g i n power, braking c a p a c i t y , proper framing, and adequate s p r i n g assemblies because they were not designed to serve as l o g g i n g t r u c k s . Moreover, t h i s author i n d i c a t e s that there are custom-built v e h i c l e s that are designed for 14 hauling. These logging trucks are classed as either on-highway or off-highway trucks. Byrne et a l . (1960) found that there is l i t t l e difference between the cost of hauling logs with gasoline powered trucks when compared with di e s e l powered trucks. The advantage of lower cost of d i e s e l fuel is offset by higher repair, l u b r i c a t i o n , and fixed costs. 15 CHAPTER 3 S T U D Y M E T H O D O L O G Y T h i s t r u c k h a u l i n g s t u d y was c a r r i e d out i n the wood p r o d u c t s c e n t e r of P i c h a n a k i , which i s l o c a t e d 365 km from L i m a , d u r i n g the d r y ( June-August ) h a u l season i n 1985. A p r i v a t e f o r e s t company (Belho H o r i z o n t e S . C . R . L t d . s a w m i l l ) cooperated i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i s company h a u l s up to 11,250 s o l i d m 3 of hardwoods per year w i t h a f l e e t of 10 s m a l l f l a t b e d t r u c k s . 3.1 Survey Procedure 3 . 1 . 1 S e l e c t i o n of C u t t i n g Areas and Survey V e h i c l e s C u t t i n g Areas Three c u t t i n g areas were s e l e c t e d at the extreme end of the secondary road ( F i g u r e 3) i n the " A l t o C u y a n i " l o g g i n g a r e a . D i e s e l - p o w e r e d and g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s h a u l i n g from these areas t r a v e l l e d over much the same r o u t e . The common road was r e q u i r e d so t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance and p r o d u c t i v i t y c o u l d be r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t r u c k s r a t h e r than the o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . F e l l i n g , b u c k i n g and p r i m a r y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n were c a r r i e d out by c o n t r a c t o r s . F e l l e d t r e e s were bucked at the stump s i t e w i t h chainsaws i n t o l o g s of 2.45 , 3.10 , 4 .30 , and 4.90 m e t r e s . Both the manual method w i t h the a i d of g r a v i t y and FIGURE 3. Study Area : Road Network. Area 2 Plchanaki Town Area 1 20+000 OD + o o O + Ui o o 26+000 Area 3 Diagram not to s c a l e LEGElSf n C u t t i n g Area P u b l i c road Main f o r e s t road Secondary f o r e s t road Dump 17 the mechanized method using home-made jammers, were used in primary transportation of logs. A t y p i c a l crew of one winch operator and one choker setter was observed in the yarding system. Contractors were paid an average r a t e 1 of CND$2.87/m3 for the f e l l i n g , bucking, skidding, and for helping during the loading operation. When contractors performed the yarding operation with the company-owned jammer, the Belho Horizonte S.C.R. Ltd. company paid an average of CND$1.62/m3 for the f e l l i n g , bucking, and yarding operation. Generally, each truck hauled from only one cutting area, and the dump s i t e was at the m i l l yard. The o r i g i n of each t r i p was i d e n t i f i e d by the cutting area number and by the contractor name. Road Network Three road classes were recognized in the haul route (Figure 3). One kilometre of public highway was used as part of the main haul road. This road was of compacted gravel with two lanes and with dense t r a f f i c . The remainder of the hauling route consisted of private forest roads. The length of the main road was 19.50 km and the length of the secondary road ranged from 1.5 to 6.0 km. Truck Fleet Six small flatbed trucks (3 gasoline-powered and 3 diesel-powered) with a payload capacity between 8,000 and 8,260 kg were observed in this study. For the remainder of 1 An exchange rate of 1 CND$=9,975.25 Peruvian soles was used to express this cost in current dollars of August 1985. 18 this thesis, the truck classes are i d e n t i f i e d by the names of gasoline-powered and diesel-powered trucks. The small flatbed trucks used by this private company are the same type of trucks widely used by most of the logging companies in the Central Jungle region of Peru. The basic unit (Figure 4 and 5) consists of a conventional two-axle truck, one steering axle and one driving axle with dual wheels. It is designed to carry the load d i r e c t l y on i t s body structure. 3.1.2 Measurement of Machine Time and Productivity A continuous time study method (Luissier, 1961; Stenzel et a l . , 1985) was used in the data c o l l e c t i o n to evaluate the productivity of the trucks. A model DSR servis recorder was attached to each of the trucks under study to record i t s a c t i v i t i e s during the entire t r i p cycle. The servis recorder is an instrument for recording the a c t i v i t y of a vehicle throughout a given work period. It consists of a spring wound clock that drives a disk under a stylus on a pendulum. The vibration of the machine activates the pendulum, which scribes the disk (Nelson, 1974; Berlyn and Keen, 1964). The servis recorder was i n s t a l l e d on the truck following the i n s t a l l a t i o n technique described by Berlyn and Keen (1964). Twelve-hour charts were used in this time study. One or two charts were used and changed each round t r i p . The FIGURE 5. Diesel-powered truck loaded at the m i l l yard. 20 insertion and removal of the servis recorder charts was carried out by following the procedure described by Nelson (1974). Each chart was i d e n t i f i e d by l a b e l l i n g i t with truck No., cutting area, and date. The a c t i v i t i e s of a sample of 54 truck t r i p s were recorded using this instrument. In order to recognize the hauling cycle and to establish a correlation between servis recorder traces and work cycle elements, the author was required to ride the trucks for some t r i p s and to record t r i p data with a wrist watch (to the nearest minute) and a survey form (Appendix 1). The survey form used by Smith and Tse (1977b) to record t r i p data was used as a basis for this survey form. It was modified to f i t to this particular time study. The hauling cycle was divided into working elements, which were recognized and measured on each chart. These time elements are: 1. Travel empty 2. Load ing 3. Travel loaded 4. Unloading 5. Delay These hauling cycle elements are defined below: Travel empty Travel empty begins when the truck leaves the parking area or the unloading area at the m i l l and ends when the truck arrives at the bush landing. 21 Loading Loading begins when the truck arrives at the bush landing and i t includes positioning the truck for loading, loading the logs, and preparing the load for hauling. Since i t was not possible to recognize on the charts short delays of loading queue and short delays while the truck was waiting for logs, these delay times are included in the loading time. Travel loaded Travel loaded begins when the truck leaves the bush landing and ends when i t arrives at the unloading area located at the m i l l yard. Delay Delay time consists of the time which the vehicle spends i d l e . It is composed of mechanical delay and non-mechanical delay. Mechanical delay involves time spent in replacing or repairing a f a i l e d part, and service a c t i v i t i e s such as warm-up time, fueling, lubricating, routine checking and inspection. Non-mechanical delay includes operational lost time due to weather, road conditions, being stuck, waiting for another phase, helping another machine, waiting for supervisor's instructions, etc., and the sum of time spent in long loading and unloading queues. Furthermore, i t includes personnel time, such as truck driver's rest and food breaks. The individual work cycle elements were i d e n t i f i e d by the type of the trace on the chart. Figure 6 shows the type of trace made by the pendulum stylus in each cycle element. 22 When the truck is t r a v e l l i n g the stylus makes a wide continuous band, when i t is i d l i n g the stylus makes a thinner band, when i t is being loaded or unloaded the stylus makes a discontinuous wide band, and when i t is stopped the stylus makes a single thin l i n e . A chart t o t a l l e r was used to add up the time elements - during a round t r i p . The procedure described by Nelson (1974) was followed to measure the hauling cycle elements. Figure 7 shows a servis recorder chart t o t a l l e r with a chart ready to measure. 3.1.3 Payload per Trip The payload of the trucks for each t r i p was measured by stick scaling. This operation was carried out at the dump si t e just after the unloading operation. The log's diameter at the base and at the top and the length were recorded on a form which is shown in the Appendix 1. The volume of each log was calculated in the o f f i c e with Smalian's formula (Hush et al.,1982): V = L/2 (Ato + A u) Where: V = Log volume in m3 L = Log length in m ~ A*, = Cross-sectional area at base of log in m2 A„ = Cross-sectional area at top of the log in m2 2 3 FIGURE 7 . S e r v i s Recorder c h a r t t o t a l l e r with c h a r t in pos i t i o n . 24 The p a y l o a d weight was c a l c u l a t e d by u s i n g the s p e c i e s weight f a c t o r . Samples of wood of each f o r e s t s p e c i e were taken from l o g s hauled to determine the wood d e n s i t y (green w e i g h t - g r e e n volume b a s i s ) . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of wood d e n s i t y was c a r r i e d out a t the Wood Technology L a b o r a t o r y of the U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l A g r a r i a La M o l i n a i n L i m a . The e s t i m a t e d greenwood u n i t weights of the s p e c i e s h a r v e s t e d i n the s t u d y area i s shown i n T a b l e 2. 3.1.4 Complementary Truck Data In a d d i t i o n to the t i m i n g d a t a , complementary i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t r u c k s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and t r u c k c o s t parameters were o b t a i n e d by d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n , p e r s o n a l communicat ion, and from the r e c o r d s of the p r i v a t e company which cooperated i n t h i s s t u d y . Truck S p e c i f i c a t i o n s Truck i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g make, age, e n g i n e , f r o n t a x l e and r e a r a x l e c a p a c i t y , t i r e s , f l a t b e d d i m e n s i o n s , t a r e w e i g h t , and maximum p a y l o a d c a p a c i t y were c o l l e c t e d . T a b l e 3 summarizes the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d and d i e s e l -powered t r u c k s e v a l u a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . Truck Cost Parameters The f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d f o r each t r u c k i n g s i t u a t i o n : - purchase p r i c e of t r u c k - number of t r i p s per year 25 Table 2. Estimated Density (green weight-green volume basis) of forest species harvested in the study area. Commom Name Genus/Species 2' 3 Density (t/m 3) Manzano Battia spp. 1.17 Congona Bzosimum spp. 0.97 Almendro Cazyocaz spp. 1.24 Cedro Cedrela spp. 0 .77 To r n i l l o Cedrelinga catenaeformis 0.80 Tulpay Clazicia zacemosa 1.07 Matapalo Ficus spp. 0.78 Catahua Huza czepitans 0 .89 Bander i l i a Izyantheza juznensis 0.78 Nogal Juglahs neotzopica 1.13 Moena amarilla Nectandza spp. 0.78 Moena negra Wectandra spp. 0.79 Alcanfor Ocotea spp. 0.70 Copal Protium puncticulatum 0 .86 Zapote Quararibea cozdata 0 .83 Nogal amarillo Tezminalia amazonia 1.08 A j i N.I. 4 1.06 Huamanchilea N.I. 1.04 Sachahuasca N.I. 0.99 Vilco N.I. 0 . 88 2 Arostegui, A.V. 1982. Recopilacion y a n a l i s i s de estudios tecnologicos de maderas Peruanas. Proyecto PNUD/FAO/81/002. Documento de trabajo No.2. Lima, Peru. 57pp. 3 Reynel, C. 1984. Un vocabulario para describir y nombrar a los arboles en la lengua Campa-Ashaninca. Revista Forestal del Peru, 12(1-2):81-97. 4 Tree Species not i d e n t i f i e d . 26 Table 3. Technical specifications of the trucks Gasoline-powered trucks Diesel-powered trucks Truck make Engine Transmission Front axle capacity Rear axle capacity Tires Tare weight Flatbed dimens ions Age Maximum Payload Ford F-600 Ford 6.1 L(370)2V V-8 BHP-115 @ 2800 RPM 4-speed dire c t 2,724 kg (6,000 lb) 6,810 kg (15,000 lb) 9.00X20-12 11,123 kg (24,500 lb) 2.70 m X 4.60-4.80 m 17-18 years 8,000 kg Dodge DP-500 Diesel Perkins C6-354.2 BHP-120 @ 2800 RPM NP-542 5-speed 3,178 kg (7,000 lb) 7,945 kg (17,500 lb) 9.00X20-12 11,123 kg (24,5001b) 2.70 m X 4.60-4.80 m 4-6 years 8,260 kg 27 - annual o p p o r t u n i t y i n t e r e s t r a t e - d r i v e r wage per t r i p - helper wage per t r i p - f u e l consumption - f u e l p r i c e - o i l and l u b r i c a t i o n cost - t i r e c ost and l i f e - l i f e r e p a i r c o s t of a set of t i r e s - truck r e p a i r and maintenance cost - truck f l a t b e d cost and l i f e - manual winch cost and l i f e 3.1.5 Survey of the Haul Route Representative segments of the d i f f e r e n t road c l a s s e s of the haul route were surveyed during the same period that the time study took p l a c e . The f o l l o w i n g p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the roads were c o l l e c t e d : road grade, subgrade width, cu r v a t u r e , s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s and s i d e s l o p e . The maintenance of the haul route was a l s o observed. Suunto clin o m e t e r , Suunto compass, and nylon chain were the instruments used i n the survey of the haul route and adequate survey forms were used to c o l l e c t the f i e l d data. 3.2 A n a l y s i s The a n a l y s i s based on the info r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t s of: - a n a l y s i s of observed (survey) t r i p s 28 - truck p r o d u c t i v i t y and cost - a n a l y s i s of haul route c o n d i t i o n s - s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s - break-even a n a l y s i s 3.2.1 A n a l y s i s of Observed T r i p s A d e t a i l e d comparative a n a l y s i s of gasoline-powered versus diesel-powered t r u c k s was undertaken based on the average of each element of the truck working c y c l e . The ope r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s analyzed were : - t r a v e l empty - t r a v e l loaded - l o a d i n g time - unloading time - d e l a y - payload volume and weight. Due to v a r i a t i o n s between t r i p s as a consequence of the d i f f e r e n t c u t t i n g areas and d i f f e r e n t h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d , the comparison between both types of truck was based on the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : v e l o c i t y empty, v e l o c i t y loaded, l o a d i n g time, delay time (expressed as a percentage of the productive time of the h a u l i n g c y c l e ) , payload volume and weight, and unloading time. 3.2.1.1 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s A d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s , i n c l u d i n g c a l c u l a t i o n of minimum, maximum, average, and standard d e v i a t i o n , was 29 obtained for each work element. In order to determine i f there is s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the hauling work elements between gasoline-powered and diesel-powered trucks a test of hypothesis concerning means of the operating variables indicated above was developed. With the mean and standard deviation values obtained from the sample data collected during the time study, a test concerning variances was carried out f i r s t , and then a test concerning means was performed. The procedure for testing a hypotheses described by Walpole (1982) was followed. A 0.05 level of significance was used. A linear correlation and linear regression analyses was performed also to measure the relationship existent between variables involved in the hauling operation. The regression and correlation analyses were accomplished u t i l i z i n g the ABSTAT s t a t i s t i c a l package for microcomputers. 3.2.2 Truck Productivity and Cost The analysis of the surveyed t r i p s provided the basic performance data for each truck type involved in this study. However, because hauling cycles for d i f f e r e n t cutting areas and d i f f e r e n t hauling distances were collected, these observations could not be used d i r e c t l y to compare productivity and cost. Consequently, the comparison of productivity and cost between gasoline-powered and d i e s e l -powered trucks was structured around a standard hypothetical haul route, with performance estimated from the actual survey 30 data. The haul route to cutting area number 3, was selected and i t includes the following: Road Segment Kilometres (Class) Public highway 1.00 Main forest road 19.50 Secondary forest road 5.50 Total 26.00 The t o t a l travel time for this haul length was calculated with the average round t r i p speed which was determined by using the following formula (FAO, 1974): Average round t r i p speed (km/hr) = 2 (SL X SE)/(SL + SE) Where : SL = speed loaded (km/hr) SE = speed empty (km/hr) 3.2.2.1 Truck Productivity The comparison of the productivity of gasoline-powered trucks versus diesel-powered trucks was carried out based on the following components: - truck cycle time and t r i p s per day - d a i l y and annual production - f l e e t requirements by vehicle type. 3.2.2.2 Truck Cost Estimate The estimate of trucking costs is based on the technique proposed by McNally (1975), and on the costing method applied by Smith and Tse (1977b). This method is based on hourly costs but d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between in-use hours and t r a v e l l i n g 31 hours. This method recognizes that some operating costs accumulate when the unit is standing or t r a v e l l i n g , such as depreciation and operator wages, while other costs accumulate only when the vehicle is t r a v e l l i n g such as cost of fue l , t i r e s , and servicing and repair. In-use hours are defined as the time when the truck is ready for duty; that i s , operable and with driver. However, the driver food and rest periods are not scheduled and are not paid. The scheduled in-use time is subdivided into t r a v e l l i n g hours and standing hours. The in-use costs, accruing for the entire operating time, include: - c a p i t a l depreciation - interest on average investment - operating labour (wages and fringe benefits) Travelling hours are defined as the time when the vehicle is in motion and they include productive haul, empty return, and maneuvering. The t r a v e l l i n g costs which build up as the vehicle is moved include: - fuel - o i l and lubrication - t i r e s - vehicle repair and maintenance The remainder of this section discusses in d e t a i l each of these cost items and gives the method and formulae used in calcula t i n g the costs. The costs are expressed as either per in-use hour or per t r a v e l l i n g hour. 32 A. In-Use Hour Costs The in-use costs are based on the truck purchase price data of used gasoline-powered trucks and new diesel-powered trucks, obtained from the records of the cooperating forest company. Original truck purchase price data from 1981 was transformed to the equivalent current Canadian dollars in August 1985 (common base date of this truck study), by removing the effects of i n f l a t i o n from the o r i g i n a l purchase price cost data. Calculations are based on increases of the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI) reported by Wilson (1985) for the period 1981-1985. Appendix 2 shows truck purchase price information for this study. Depreciation Depreciation is a means of recovering the o r i g i n a l investment in a machine (McNally, 1977). There are several methods of calculating depreciation depending upon the particular purpose. The straight l i n e method was used to compute the depreciation. This is the simplest method to calculate depreciation, and is generally the accepted method for estimating equipment cost per unit of time (Miyata, 1980). The mathematical formula for straight line depreciation per in-use hour is as follows (Smith and Tse, 1977b): Depreciation Purchase price - Salvage value In-use hour Ownership period x In-use hr/yr McNally (1977) indicates that there is no way of knowing precisely the economic l i f e of machine because of factors 33 re l a t i n g to obsolescence, severity of use and quality of maintenance. McNally also points out that for cost estimating purposes i t can be assumed that logging trucks which haul short distances and spend an average of 40-60 percent of round t r i p time at terminal points have a normal l i f e of 20,000 in-use hours or t r a v e l l i n g l i f e of 10,000 productive machine hours. Salvage value is the amount that equipment can be sold for at the time of i t s disposal. The actual salvage value of equipment is affected by current market demand for used equipment and the condition of the equipment at the time of disposal. However, estimating the future value of equipment is very d i f f i c u l t because i t is based on future market conditions, and the unknown condition of the equipment at the time of i t s disposal (Miyata, 1980). In this thesis, to estimate resale value a 'truck value depreciation scale' suggested by Canadian Kenworth Ltd.(Cited in Smith and Tse, 1977b) was applied to the o r i g i n a l value. Following is the resale value (% of purchase price excluding t i r e s ) factor as a function of ownership period: Ownership period (years) Resale value factor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.00 0 . 70 0 . 56 0.45 0 . 36 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.10 beyond 10 34 An ownership period of 8 years and resale value factor of 15% was assumed for new diesel-powered trucks. While, an ownership period of 4 years and resale value factor of 10% was assumed for used gasoline-powered trucks. An average of 160 t r i p s per year (an estimated 1686 in-use hours) was determined from the cooperating forest company records for both types of truck. Interest The charge for interest was computed based on the average value of yearly investment of the machine. The formula used to calculate is as follows (Miyata, 1980) : (P - S) (N + 1) AVI = + S 2 N Where : AVI = average value of yearly investment over i t s entire economic l i f e P = i n i t i a l investment cost S = salvage value N = economic l i f e in years. The interest amount per in-use hour is calculated with an annual opportunity interest rate of 12% as follows: A = (AVI * i)/Y Where : A = Interest amount per in-use hour ($/hr) i = annual opportunity interest rate (expressed in decimal form) Y = in-use hours per year 35 O p e r a t i n g l a b o u r The c o s t of o p e r a t i n g l a b o u r i s comprised of the d i r e c t wages of t r u c k d r i v e r and h i s h e l p e r t o g e t h e r w i t h the i n d i r e c t c o s t of l a b o u r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s ( M c N a l l y , 1977). The author observed t h a t a t r u c k d r i v e r g e n e r a l l y works w i t h a h e l p e r , and they are p a i d on a p e r - t r i p b a s i s . The c o s t of labour f r i n g e b e n e f i t s of 30% i n d i c a t e d by Campos (1983) f o r the P e r u v i a n workers i s used i n t h i s s t u d y . S i n c e i n - u s e time i s e q u a l to the number of hours the d r i v e r i s a l l o c a t e d to the t r u c k and p a i d as a d r i v e r , the o p e r a t i n g l a b o u r c o s t per i n - u s e hour i s o b t a i n e d as f o l l o w s : l a b o u r c o s t per t r i p * (1 + f ) O p e r a t i n g l a b o u r ($ /hr ) = In-use hours per c y c l e Where : f = c o s t of l a b o u r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s expressed i n d e c i m a l form of d i r e c t l a b o u r c o s t The i n - u s e hours per c y c l e i s e q u a l to the t o t a l h a u l i n g c y c l e time e x c l u d i n g d r i v e r food t i m e . • B. T r a v e l l i n g Hour C o s t s The average o p e r a t i n g c o s t of the t r u c k s s e l e c t e d f o r the time s t u d y was used as a b a s i s to c a l c u l a t e the t r a v e l l i n g c o s t s f o r each type of t r u c k under c o m p a r i s o n . F u e l The b a s i c f u e l consumption , expressed i n k i l o m e t r e s per l i t r e , was c a l c u l a t e d from monthly f u e l consumption r e c o r d s of the v e h i c l e s kept f o r the c o o p e r a t i n g p r i v a t e company. The average consumption r a t e was c a l c u l a t e d w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n 36 on the number of t r i p s per month, the or i g i n of the t r i p s , and data on lengths of t r i p s . The fuel per t r a v e l l i n g hour is calculated as follows: Fuel cost/per t r a v e l l i n g hour = Kilometres/trip X fuel p r i c e ( $ ) / l i t r e X 1 litre/number of kilometres X 1 trip/number of t r a v e l l i n g hours O i l and lubrication O i l and lub r i c a t i o n costs include the cost of engine o i l , f i n a l drive o i l , transmission o i l , and grease. Based on records of o i l and lubrication costs for the hauling period of 8 months (January to August of 1985) was calculated an average o i l and lubrication costs per t r a v e l l i n g hour for each type of truck involved in this study. The cost data for these items have been corrected to current dollars of August 1985 for thi s analysis, so they do not include i n f l a t i o n . Tires The o r i g i n a l t i r e s were depreciated with the vehicle. Thus, t i r e costs cover repairs to the o r i g i n a l t i r e s and the cost of, and repairs to, replacement t i r e s during the l i f e of the truck. The following t i r e cost formula (McNally, 1977) is used to calculate the t i r e cost per t r a v e l l i n g hour : B ( T + B ) (Y * Z - A) TCTH = + Y * Z A * Y * Z Where : TCTH = t i r e cost per t r a v e l l i n g hour B = l i f e repair cost of a set of t i r e s Y = l i f e of truck in years 37 Z = t r a v e l l i n g h o u r s per y e a r A = l i f e o f a s e t of t i r e s e x p r e s s e d i n t r a v e l l i n g h o u r s Data were o b t a i n e d r e g a r d i n g t i r e p u r c h a s e c o s t ( i n c l u d i n g t u b e ) , and r e p a i r c o s t o f a s e t o f t i r e s o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d s of t h o s e v e h i c l e s s u r v e y e d . W i t h i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t i r e l i f e f o r 8 months p r o v i d e d by t h e owners of t h e B e l h o H o r i z o n t e S.C.R. L t d . s a w m i l l , t h e t i r e c o s t per t r a v e l l i n g hour f o r b o t h t y p e s of t r u c k was e s t i m a t e d . The l i f e o f a s e t of t i r e s i s assumed t o be 900 t r a v e l l i n g h o u r s f o r t h e t r u c k s a n a l y s e d i n t h i s h a u l i n g s t u d y . R e p a i r and M a i n t e n a n c e R e p a i r and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t i n c l u d e s e v e r y t h i n g f r o m s i m p l e m a i n t e n a n c e t o t h e p e r i o d i c o v e r h a u l of e n g i n e , t r a n s m i s s i o n , c l u t c h , b r a k e s , and o t h e r major equipment components; and m a i n t e n a n c e and r e p a i r c o s t a r e m a i n l y a f f e c t e d by t h e s e v e r i t y o f w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , m a i n t e n a n c e and r e p a i r p o l i c i e s , and t h e b a s i c equipment d e s i g n and q u a l i t y ( M i y a t a , 1980). M o r e o v e r , r e p a i r and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t of a machine i n c r e a s e s w i t h i n c r e a s i n g age o f t h e machine ( M c N a l l y , 1 9 77). T r u c k r e p a i r and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m the r e c o r d s o f t h e s u r v e y e d t r u c k s f o r t h e h a u l i n g p e r i o d of 8 months ( J a n u a r y t o A u g ust of 1985) were used t o e s t i m a t e t h e r e p a i r and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t f o r t h i s s t u d y . However; t h i s c o s t i s u n d e r e s t i m a t e d b e c a u s e i t i n c l u d e s t h e v a l u e of a l l p a r t s , m a t e r i a l s used t o r e p a i r and m a i n t a i n , and o p e r a t i n g 3 8 labour when the trucks were taken to a particular repair shop; but i t does not include operating labour and equipment cost when the trucks were repaired and maintained by the company's mechanics. The cost data for this item has been corrected to current dollars of August 1985 for this analysis, so i t does not include i n f l a t i o n . 3.2.3 Analysis of the Haul Route A plan and a longitudinal p r o f i l e of each segment of road surveyed were drawn to an appropriate scale. Then the design elements of each road class were analyzed by comparing with the forest road dimensions proposed by Frisk (1979) to be applied in Peruvian forest operations. Furthermore, the maintenance of these forest roads was analysed. Table 4 shows the forest roads design specifications for forest operations in Peru proposed by Frisk (1979). 3.2.4 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis The basic purpose of s e n s i t i v i t y analysis is to find out how the results of a model change when the data, parameters, or assumptions of the model change (Martin, 1971). A cost s e n s i t i v i t y analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of variations in the major operating parameters on the productivity and haul cost. The effect of the following factors was evaluated in this analysis: delay time, loading time, t r a v e l l i n g time, hauling distance, vehicle ownership period, annual in-use hours, and payload volume. To 39 f a c i l i t a t e rapid computation of hauling cost and provide a medium for exploring the impact of changes in the cost factors indicated above, a hauling cost model was developed on an IBM PC microcomputer using the Symphony0 spreadsheet Software package. Table 4. Design ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s for forest roads in Peruvian forest operations. Design element Road Types Main road Secondary road sk idding road Design speed (km/hr) Flat t e r r a i n 40-45 30-35 20-25 Rolling t e r r a i n 30-40 25-30 15-20 H i l l y t e r r a i n 20-30 15-25 10-15 Mountainous te r r a i n 15-20 10-15 5-10 Surface width (m) 5-6 4-5 3 . 5 Minimum curve radius (m) 30 15 10 Crown (%) 2-3 3 3 Turnouts no yes yes Ditches yes yes no Culverts yes yes no Surface type gravel gravel or d i r t road d i r t road road 3.2.5 Break-even Analysis A break-even analysis was carried out in order to calculate the one-way hauling distance (km) at which the t o t a l hauling costs of gasoline-powered trucks are equal to diesel-powered trucks. The break-even point at which the 5 Symphony is an integrated Software package from Lotus Development Corporation. 40 t o t a l h a u l i n g cost ($/m3) of each a l t e r n a t i v e are equal i s c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s ( S t e n z e l et a_l., 1985): STd + Td (X) = STg + Tg (X) STd - STg X = Tg - Td Where: STd = Standing cost/m 3 - Diesel-powered t r u c k s Td = T r a v e l l i n g cost/m 3 per ki l o m e t r e STg = Standing cost/m3 - Gasoline-powered t r u c k s Tg = T r a v e l l i n g cost/m 3 per ki l o m e t r e X = Break-even d i s t a n c e i n k i l o m e t r e s 41 CHAPTER 4 STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 A n a l y s i s of Observed T r i p s Data of 54 round t r i p s were c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g June to August of 1985. Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the f i e l d data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d on diesel-powered t r u c k s and gasoline-powered tr u c k s r e s p e c t i v e l y . 4.1.1 Loading Time The c o n d i t i o n s of the l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d here i n order to understand t h i s time element of the v e h i c l e working c y c l e . Trucks were loaded e i t h e r by hand r o l l i n g method or by c r o s s h a u l method. In some cases a combination of both l o a d i n g methods was observed. Hand R o l l i n g Method Logs decked at the upper s i d e of the road were mainly loaded by the hand r o l l i n g method. To perform the l o g l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n , the truck was p o s i t i o n e d on the do w n h i l l s i d e of the l o g deck, and the logs were r o l l e d onto the truck bed using a peavy. On s l o p i n g ground, a p a i r of pole s k i d s was l a i d from the ground to the truck f l a t b e d , and then the logs were r o l l e d onto the v e h i c l e . F i g u r e 8 shows t h i s l o a d i n g method. The truck d r i v e r , the helper and the c o n t r a c t o r who accomplished the f e l l i n g , bucking and manual s k i d d i n g o p e r a t i o n were i n charge of the l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n . I t was Table 5. F i e l d data summary of diesel-powered t r u c k s . Trip Hauling Travel Velocity Travel Velocity Loading Unloading Tot.Prod Delay Delay Total cycle Payload No. distance eapty eapty loaded loaded tiae tiae tiae tiae I Prod. tiae Logs Voluae Height (ki) (hr) (ka/hr) (hr) (ka/hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) tiae (hr) (1) (a3) (kg) 1 26.00 2.43 10.70 3.25 B.00 2.83 0.33 8.84 4.65 52.60 13.49 8 6.05 4B70 2 26.00 2.75 9.45 3.67 7.08 2.25 0.25 8.92 2.75 30.83 11.67 11 6.82 5790 3 26.00 2.58 10.08 4.33 6.00 1.58 0.42 8.91 4.17 46.80 13.0B 13 7.B9 6300 4 26.00 2.58 10.08 3.42 7.60 2.00 0.35 8.35 1.50 17.96 9.85 15 6.50 5140 5 19.50 1.57 12.42 2.58 7.56 2.00 0.43 6.58 0.60 9.12 7.18 11 6.98 5580 6 26.00 2.30 11.30 3.25 8.00 1.83 0.18 7.56 3.27 43.25 10.83 10 6.39 6260 7 26.00 2.75 9.45 3.83 6.79 1.83 0.23 8.64 1.95 22.57 10.59 5 6.62 5280 8 26.00 3.05 8.52 3.67 7.08 1.62 0.37 8.71 4.22 48.45 12.93 13 9.40 8650 9 26.00 2.57 10.12 3.97 6.55 2.08 0.58 9.20 2.55 27.72 11.75 6 8.04 7770 10 20.55 2.08 9.88 2.30 8.93 3.17 0.37 7.92 3.42 43.18 11.34 14 6.58 7720 11 20.55 2.28 9.01 2.80 7.34 1.45 0.27 6. B0 5.13 75.44 11.93 4 12.29 9950 12 26.00 2.13 12.21 3.13 8.31 1.25 0.22 6.73 1.35 20.06 8.08 10 5.58 4350 13 26.00 2.58 10.08 3.58 7.26 2.17 0.25 8.58 2.34 27.27 10.92 e 6.47 5050 14 26.00 2.17 11.98 3.08 8.44 2.33 0.25 7.83 2.67 34.10 10.50 5 7.72 6140 IS 26.00 2.22 11.71 3.25 8.00 2.50 0.27 8.24 1.76 21.36 10.00 5 7.45 5B10 16 26.00 2.17 11.98 3.17 8.20 2.08 0.33 7.75 2.92 37.68 10.67 14 4.95 4260 17 26.00 2.53 10.28 3.27 7.95 2.00 0.58 8.38 2.12 25.30 10.50 10 7.54 5960 18 19.70 1.83 10.77 2.83 6.96 1.92 0.28 6.86 3.47 50.58 10.33 11 8.81 6870 19 19.50 1.83 10.66 2.67 7.30 2.62 0.31 7.43 2.17 29.21 9.60 8 7.36 5940 20 19.70 2.25 8.76 2.42 8.14 1.33 0.25 6.25 1.92 30.72 8.17 7 7.23 5640 21 19.50 1.67 11.68 2.30 B.4B 1.00 0.27 5.24 1.18 22.52 6.42 9 7.25 5710 22 26.00 2.67 9.74 3.67 7.08 2.08 0.30 8.72 2.28 26.15 11.00 6 7.68 8600 23 26.00 2.42 10.74 3.58 7.26 2.08 0.35 8.43 3.23 38.32 11.66 11 7.80 6410 24 26.00 2.75 9.45 3.53 7.37 2.27 0.38 8.93 1.37 15.34 10.30 8 8.24 6430 25 20.55 1.50 13.70 2.63 7.B1 3.23 0.25 7.61 3.55 46.65 11.16 5 8. IB 7280 MIN. = 19.50 1.50 8.52 2.30 6.00 1.00 0.18 5.24 0.60 9.12 6.42 4.00 4.95 4260.00 MAI. = 26.00 3.05 13.70 4.33 8.93 3.23 0.58 9.20 5.13 75.44 13.49 15.00 12.29 9950.00 MEAN = 10.59 7.58 2.06 0.32 33.73 9.08 7.43 6310.40 VARIANCE = 1.6189 0.4587 0.2964 0.0100 215.76 10.4933 1.9950 1902337 STO. DEV. - 1.2724 0.6773 0.5444 0.0999 14.69 3.2393 1.4124 1379.25 Table 6 . F i e l d data summary of gasoline-powered t r u c k s . Trip Hauling Travel Velocity Travel Velocity Loading Unloading Tot.Prod Delay Delay Total cycle Payload No. distance eipty eapty loaded loaded tiae t iae t iae tiae 1 Prod. t iae Logs Voluae Height (ka) (hr) (ka/hr) (hr) (ka/hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) t iae (hr) (1) (•3) (kg) 1 26. SO 2.25 11.78 3.08 8.60 0.78 0.17 6.28 2.05 32.64 8.33 9 5.01 4910 2 26.S0 2.50 10.60 3.08 8.60 1.92 0.25 7.75 3.17 40.90 10.92 15 4.66 3740 3 26. SO 2.13 12.44 3.70 7.16 1.83 0.62 8.28 5.55 67.03 13.83 9 8.59 6780 4 20.00 2.05 9.76 3.18 6.29 1.70 0.30 7.23 2.58 35.68 9.81 13 7.74 6250 S 26.50 2.25 11.78 3.33 7.96 2.20 0.33 8.11 2.97 36.62 11.08 16 6.86 S360 6 20.00 1.83 10.93 2.78 7.19 2.17 0.27 7.05 1.55 21.99 B.60 13 5.66 5460 7 20.00 2.18 9.17 3.25 6.15 2.75 0.32 8.50 1.67 19.65 10.17 11 5.59 5810 8 20.00 2.25 8.89 2.75 7.27 1.92 0.33 7.25 2.17 29.93 9.42 11 4.77 4900 9 20.00 2.12 9.43 3.03 6.60 1.75 0.42 7.32 1.86 25.41 9.18 17 7.21 6160 10 20.00 2.17 9.22 3.28 6.10 1.13 0.38 6.96 1.70 24.43 8.66 15 6.51 5760 11 20.00 2.12 9.43 2.85 7.02 1.83 0.22 7.02 2.84 40.46 9.86 8 S.44 5600 12 20.00 2.08 9.62 3.28 6.10 2.12 0.33 7.81 1.02 13.06 8.83 16 6.89 6450 13 20.00 2.08 9.62 3.12 6.41 1.67 0.25 7.12 4.40 61.80 11.52 9 5.48 4740 14 26.50 2.50 10.60 3.5B 7.40 2.08 0.37 8.53 2.52 29.54 11.05 20 7.82 7660 IS 20.00 2.65 7.55 2.70 7.41 2.45 0.22 8.02 2.73 34.04 10.75 14 5.S 5680 16 20.00 1.90 10.53 2.68 7.46 2.37 0.28 7.23 1.24 17.15 8.47 6 6.56 6500 17 20.00 1.90 10.53 2.50 8.00 1.25 0.35 6.00 0.69 11.50 6.69 17 6.S S410 18 20.00 2.08 9.62 3.00 6.67 1.83 0.33 7.24 2.94 40.61 10.18 15 6.84 6100 19 20.00 2.05 9.76 2.57 7.78 1.75 0.25 6.62 0.93 14.05 7.55 7 6.32 6340 20 20.00 2.58 7.75 2.63 7.60 1.67 0.30 7.18 3.20 44.57 10.38 11 6.5 5160 21 20.00 2.00 10.00 2.33 8.58 1.25 0.33 5.91 1.29 21.83 7.20 16 5.53 4310 22 20.00 1.95 10.26 2.42 8.26 2.17 0.28 6.82 1.21 17.74 8.03 12 5.45 4400 23 26.50 2.50 10.60 4.17 6.35 2.17 0.27 9.11 2.50 27.44 11.61 15 7.65 6100 24 26.50 2.58 10.27 4.05 6.54 1.83 0.28 8.74 2.29 26.20 11.03 14 6.41 5080 25 26.50 2.58 10.27 3.33 7.96 2.25 0.30 8.46 1.67 19.74 10.13 12 6.77 5890 26 26.50 2.75 9.64 4.00 6.63 2.00 0.25 9.00 2.50 27.78 11.50 12 6.31 6310 27 26.50 2.70 9.81 3.83 6.92 2.42 0.37 9.32 2.10 22.53 11.42 3 7.21 6990 2B 19.00 1.50 12.67 2.30 8.26 2.62 0.28 6.70 3.40 50.75 10.10 14 7.29 6700 29 26.00 2.42 10.74 3.42 7.60 1.50 0.37 7.71 1.17 15.18 8.88 13 9.07 6740 M N . = 19.00 U50 7.55 2.30 6.10 0.78 0.17 5.91 0.69 11.50 6.69 3.00 4.66 3740.00 MAI. = 26.50 2.75 12.67 4.17 8.60 2.75 0.62 9.32 5.55 67.03 13.83 20.00 9.07 7660 MEAN = 10.11 7.27 1.91 0.31 30.01 12.52 6.49 5768.62 VARIANCE = 1.3308 0.6352 0.2006 0.0066 191.4782 14.0443 1.1819 788583.7 STD. DEV. 1.1536 0.7970 0.4479 0.0813 13.8376 3.7476 1.0872 i 188.0223 44 observed that generally the loading crew consisted of four people. Crosshaul Method Logs decked along the road were loaded using the crosshaul method. In this log loading method (Figure 9) two pole skids were placed between the ground and the truck flatbed. A rope or chain anchored at the rear end of the flatbed was passed around the log to be loaded, and then hooked to a single rope leading to a power source on the front part of the flatbed. A manual T i r f o r winch was the power source used in this method. This manual winch r o l l e d the log up the skids and onto the truck by pul l i n g in the rope. The peavy was used to r o l l the logs onto the flatbed and also to arrange the layer of logs. The loading operation was mainly carried out by the truck driver and the helper when the crosshaul method was used. Once the truck had been loaded, the logs were cinched t i g h t l y with the two binder lines or chains anchored to the flatbed. The binders were tightened around the load of logs by the manual winch. It must be emphasized that the manual T i r f o r winch is a necessary component of the flatbed trucks evaluated. From the records of the cooperating forest company i t was found that each T i r f o r winch had a purchase cost of CND$600 and average expected l i f e of three years. FIGURE 9. Loading logs by c r o s s h a u l method. 46 Table 5 and Table 6 show the l o a d i n g time f o r each t r i p f o r d i e s e l engine tr u c k s and g a s o l i n e engine trucks r e s p e c t i v e l y . These t a b l e s a l s o show the minimum, maximum, and average l o a d i n g time of the tr u c k s under comparison. The t e s t concerning means (Ho :U. i -u. 2=0) of the l o a d i n g time (Appendix 3) i n d i c a t e s that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n l o a d i n g time between diesel-powered tr u c k s and gasoline-powered t r u c k s . Based on t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t the l o a d i n g time data of the 54 truck t r i p s were used to c a l c u l a t e the average l o a d i n g time f o r the mixed truck f l e e t (Table 7). A summary of l o a d i n g time f o r the e n t i r e truck f l e e t i s shown i n Table 8. The c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s a weak l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between l o a d i n g time and the variables:number of log s , volume, and weight of the payload. The average time to load a f l a t b e d truck (1.98 hr) , whatever manual l o a d i n g method i s used, r e v e a l s that the l o a d i n g method i s not e f f i c i e n t . This s i t u a t i o n i n d i c a t e s the n e c e s s i t y to examine the i n t r o d u c t i o n of mechanized l o a d i n g equipment to make the h a u l i n g o p e r a t i o n more e f f i c i e n t . However, small logging o p e r a t i o n s , l i k e the cooperating f o r e s t company i n t h i s study, cannot a f f o r d high c a p i t a l investment i n modern loaders such as front-end l o a d e r s . The home-made jammer, which r e q u i r e s a c a p i t a l investment between CND$5,000 and CND$8,000, could be used as a mobile loader to improve the e f f i c i e n c y of the l o a d i n g o p e r a t i o n . Moreover, by proper planning and good s u p e r v i s i o n of the h a u l i n g o p e r a t i o n Table 7. F i e l d data summary of mixed truck f l e e t Trip No. IU11I i n ; distinct (ki) 26.50 2 t . » 24.50 70.00 26.50 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 26.50 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 19.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 19.50 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 20.55 20.55 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 26.00 19.70 11.50 19.70 19.50 26.00 26.00 26.00 20.55 Trtvtl t) .25 50 13 05 .25 83 18 25 12 17 12 08 08 SO 65 90 90 08 05 .58 .00 .95 50 .58 58 75 70 .50 42 43 75 58 58 57 30 .75 05 57 08 28 .13 58 17 22 ,17 S3 83 83 25 .67 67 .42 75 SO Velocity ttoty (ki/hr) 11.78 10.60 12.44 9.76 11.78 10.93 1.17 8.89 1.43 9.22 1.43 9.62 1.62 10.60 7.55 10.53 10.53 1.62 1.76 7.75 10.00 10.26 10.60 10.27 10.27 1.64 1.81 12.67 10.74 10.70 I.4S 10.08 10.08 12.42 11.30 I . 45 6.52 10.12 1.88 I . 01 12.21 10.08 II. 98 11.71 II. 18 10.28 10.77 10.66 8.76 11.68 1.74 10.74 1.45 13.70 Trivfl loaded (hr) 3.08 3.08 3.70 3.18 3.33 2.78 3.25 2.75 3.03 3.28 2.85 3.28 3.12 3.58 2.70 2.68 2.50 3.00 2.57 2.63 2.33 2.42 4.17 4.05 3.33 4.00 3.83 2.30 3.42 3.25 3.67 4.33 3.42 2.58 3.25 3.83 3.67 3.17 2.30 2.80 3.13 3.58 3.08 3.25 3.17 3.27 2.83 2.67 2.42 2.30 3.67 3.58 3.53 2.63 Velocity Loading loidtd t i l t (kt/hr) 8.60 8.60 7.16 6.29 7.16 7.19 6.15 7.27 6.60 6.10 7.02 6.10 6.41 7.40 7.41 7.46 8.00 6.67 7.78 7.60 8.58 8.26 6.35 6.54 7.96 6.63 6.12 8.26 7.60 8.00 7.08 6.00 7.60 7.56 8.00 6.79 7.08 6.S5 8.13 7.34 8.31 7.26 8.44 8.00 8.20 7.15 6.16 7.30 8.14 8.48 7.08 7.26 7.37 7.81 (hr) 0.78 1.12 1.83 1.70 2.20 2.17 2.75 1.92 1.75 1.13 1.83 2.12 1.67 2.08 2.45 2.37 1.25 1.83 1.75 1.67 1.25 2.17 2.17 1.83 2.25 2.00 2.42 2.62 1.50 2.83 2.25 1.58 2.00 2.00 1.83 1.83 1.62 2.08 3.17 1.45 1.25 2.17 2.33 2.50 2.08 2.00 1.92 2.62 1.33 1.00 2.08 2.08 2.27 3.23 Unloading t i l t (hr) 0.17 0.25 0.62 0.30 0.33 0.27 0.32 0.33 0.42 0.38 0.22 0.33 0.25 0.37 0.22 0.28 0.35 0.33 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.37 0.28 0.37 0.33 0.25 0.42 0.35 0.43 0.18 0.23 0.37 0.58 0.37 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.33 0.58 0.28 0.31 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.25 Tot.Prod t l x (hr) 6.28 7.75 8.28 7.23 8.11 7.05 8.50 7.25 7.32 6.96 7.02 7.81 7.12 8.53 8.02 7.23 6.00 7.24 6.62 7.18 5.91 6.82 9.11 8.74 8.46 9.00 9.32 6.70 7.71 8.84 8.92 8.91 8.35 6.58 7.56 8.64 8.71 9.20 7.92 6.80 6.73 8.58 7.83 8.24 7.75 8.38 6.86 7.43 6.25 5.24 8.72 8.43 8.93 7.61 Dti ay t i t * (hr) 2.05 3.17 5.55 2.58 2.97 1.S5 1.67 2.17 1.86 1.70 2.84 1.02 4.40 2.52 2.73 1.24 0.69 2.94 0.93 3.20 1.21 1.21 2.50 2.21 1.67 2.50 2.10 3.40 1.17 4.65 2.75 4.17 1.50 0.60 3.27 1.95 4.22 2.55 3.42 5.13 1.35 2.34 2.67 1.76 2.92 2.12 3.47 2.17 1.92 1.18 2.28 3.23 1.37 3.55 It lay 1 Prod t l M 32.64 40.10 67.03 35.68 36.62 21.99 19.65 29.93 2S.41 24.43 40.46 13.06 61.80 21.54 34.04 17.15 11.50 40.61 14.05 44.57 21.83 17.74 27.44 26.20 18.74 27.78 22.53 50.75 15.18 52.60 30.83 46.80 17.96 1.12 43.25 22.57 48.45 27.72 43. IB 75.44 20.06 27.27 34.10 21.36 37.68 25.30 50.58 21.21 30.72 22.52 26.15 38.32 15.34 46.65 Total cyclt t i l t (hr) 8.33 10.92 13.83 I. 81 II. 08 8.60 10.17 I. 42 1.18 8.66 1.86 8.83 II. 52 11.05 10.75 8.47 6.69 10. ie 7.55 10.38 7.20 8.03 11.61 11.03 10.13 11.50 11.42 10.10 8.88 13.49 11.67 13.08 9.85 7.18 10.83 10.59 12.93 11.75 11.34 11.93 8.08 10.92 10.50 10.00 10.67 10.50 10.33 9.60 6.17 6.42 11.00 11.66 10.30 11.16 mil. • 11.00 1.50 7.55 2.30 6.00 0.78 0.17 5.24 0.60 9.12 6.42 M I . • 26.50 3.05 13.70 4.33 8.13 3.23 0.62 9.32 5.55 75.44 13.83 BEAK • 10.33 7.42 1.98 0.32 31.73 VM1NKE * 1.4141 0.3674 0.2459 0.0080 202.36 STD. DEV. It 1.2223 0.7533 0.4959 0.0897 14.23 48 delays at the landings could be reduced, in particular queueing for loading and waiting for logs. Table 8. Summary of loading time for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. Sample size 54 Minimum loading t i me (hr ) 0.78 Maximum loading time (hr) 3 . 23 Average loading time (hr) 1.98 Sample standard deviation (s) 0.4959 Source : Data extracted from Table 7. 4.1.2 Unloading Time A l l the trucks were unloaded at the sawmill yard. The unloading method was side dumping; either by pu l l i n g with a rope powered by an e l e c t r i c winch which is used to feed logs into the main saw or by r o l l i n g the logs off the truck with a peavy. Figure 10 and 11 i l l u s t r a t e the unloading operation at the m i l l yard. Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the unloading time of each truck type of this study. The test concerning means (Ho: Ux-U. 2 = 0) of the unloading time (Appendix 3) indicates that there is no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in unloading time between diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. Table 9 summarizes the unloading time for the mixed f l e e t . It has been found that a positive but low correlation exists between unloading time and the variables: number of logs, volume, and weight of the payload. 50 Table 9, Summary of unloading time for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. Sample size 54 Minimum unloading time (hr) 0.17 Maximum unloading time (hr) 0.62 Average unloading time (hr) 0.32 Sample standard deviation (s) 0.0897 Source: Data extracted from Table 7. 4.1.3 Travel Time Empty Empty travel time obtained from the Servis Recorder charts for each t r i p is shown in Table 5 and Table 6 for diesel-powered and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. This o r i g i n a l data were used to calculate the v e l o c i t y empty (km/hr) for each t r i p in order to compare both types of truck. The minimum, maximum, and average v e l o c i t y when empty for each type of truck can also be observed in Tables 5 and 6. The test concerning means (Ho : Un.-U 2 = 0 ) of the empty v e l o c i t i e s (Appendix 3) indicates that there is no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in v e l o c i t y empty between d i e s e l -powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. F i n a l l y , the average v e l o c i t y for the mixed f l e e t was computed (Table 7). The v e l o c i t y empty for the mixed f l e e t is summarized in Table 10. Empty truck speed for each road class was not possible to obtain in this study because on the service recorder traces could not be di f f e r e n t i a t e d by road class. However, the travel time obtained from the survey t r i p reports when the truck was ridden indicated that there is no s i g n i f i c a n t 51 difference in the ve l o c i t y empty between the diff e r e n t road classes. Table 10. Summary of Velocity empty for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. Number of observations 54 Minimum v e l o c i t y empty (km/hr) 7. 55 Maximum ve l o c i t y empty (km/hr) 13. 70 Average v e l o c i t y empty (km/hr) 10 . 33 Sample standard deviation (s) 1. 2223 Source: Data extracted from Table 7. Travel time empty was found to be dependent on the hauling distance (one way). A simple linear regression carried out with this variable indicates that the following equation may be used to predict values of travel time empty on the basis of the one-way hauling distance (km) Y = 0.4825 + 0.0769 X Where: Y = predicted value of travel time empty in hours X = One-way hauling distance in kilometres The analysis of variance for this regression is summarized in Appendix 3. The F test indicates that the calculated F (49.3792) is greater than the F o . o s c r i t i c a l (4.03) with 1,52 degrees of freedom; consequently the computed regression equation is s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 probability l e v e l . The c o e f f i c i e n t of determination ( r 2 ) of this equation shows that the haul distance explained 48.7% of the variation in travel time empty. The reader is cautioned that this regression equation can not be used to predict 52 travel time empty beyond the range of hauling distances used to f i t this equation. 4.1.4 Travel Time Loaded Table 5 and 6 summarize the travel time loaded expressed in hours for each t r i p for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. The vel o c i t y loaded (km/hr) for each t r i p has been computed with this o r i g i n a l data to compare both types of truck. The minimum, maximum, and average v e l o c i t y loaded of each truck type can also be observed in the tables indicated above. The test concerning means (Ho:Ui-u a=0) of this variable (Appendix 3) indicates that the average v e l o c i t y loaded of diesel-powered trucks is not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the average v e l o c i t y loaded of gasoline-powered trucks. Therefore, the average v e l o c i t y loaded for the mixed f l e e t was computed (Table 7). A summary of v e l o c i t y loaded for the trucks under comparison is shown in Table 11. Table 11. Summary of Velocity loaded for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. Number of observations 54 Minimum vel o c i t y loaded (km/hr) 6 . 00 Maximum ve l o c i t y loaded (km/hr) 8 . 93 Average v e l o c i t y loaded (km/hr) 7. 42 Sample standard deviation (s) 0. 7533 Source: Data extracted from Table 7. Travel time loaded on each segment of road class was not possible to recognize on the servis record chart either. However, the data obtained when the t r i p was ridden revealed 53 n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n v e l o c i t y l o a d e d (km) b e t w e e n t h e d i f f e r e n t r o a d c l a s s e s . A h i g h p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n ( r = 0 . 7 8 3 8 ) w a s f o u n d b e t w e e n t r a v e l t i m e l o a d e d ( h r ) a n d o n e - w a y h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e ( k m ) . T h e s i m p l e l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f t r a v e l t i m e l o a d e d o n h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n m a y b e u s e d t o p r e d i c t t r a v e l t i m e l o a d e d ( h r ) o n t h e b a s i s o f o n e - w a y h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e ( k m ) . Y = 0 . 1 4 3 6 + 0 . 1 2 9 9 X w h e r e : Y = p r e d i c t e d v a l u e o f t r a v e l t i m e l o a d e d i n h o u r s X = o n e - w a y h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e i n k i l o m e t r e s T h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r t h i s r e g r e s s i o n i s s h o w n i n A p p e n d i x 3 . T h e F t e s t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c a l c u l a t e d F ( 8 2 . 8 5 7 5 ) i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e F o . o s c r i t i c a l ( 4 . 0 3 ) w i t h 1 , 5 2 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m ; t h e r e f o r e t h e c o m p u t e d r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0 . 0 5 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l . T h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r t h i s e q u a t i o n s h o w s t h a t t h e h a u l d i s t a n c e e x p l a i n e d 6 1 . 4 % o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n t r a v e l t i m e l o a d e d . T h e r e a d e r i s c a u t i o n e d t h a t t h i s r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n c a n n o t b e u s e d t o p r e d i c t t r a v e l t i m e l o a d e d b e y o n d t h e r a n g e o f h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e s u s e d t o f i t t h i s e q u a t i o n . T h e l o w t r u c k s p e e d e i t h e r e m p t y o r l o a d e d f o u n d d u r i n g t h e t i m e s t u d y , r e v e a l s t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g f o r e s t r o a d s r e q u i r e u p g r a d i n g . T r u c k s s h o u l d d e v e l o p a v e r a g e r o u n d t r i p s p e e d a b o v e 15 k m / h r , i f t h e m a i n a n d s e c o n d a r y f o r e s t r o a d a r e b u i l t f o l l o w i n g t h e d e s i g n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s g i v e n b y F r i s k 54 (1979). In contrast, the flatbed trucks evaluated performed at a very low average round t r i p speed ( 8.64 km/hr). 4.1.5 Delay Total delay time (hr) for each round t r i p can be observed in Table 5 and 6 for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. In order to compare the delay time of both types of truck, the o r i g i n a l data were expressed as a percentage of the t o t a l productive time (loading, unloading, and tr a v e l l i n g ) of the truck cycle. The test concerning means (Ho : U.i-u.2 = 0 ) of the delay time expressed as percentage of the productive time (Appendix 3) indicates that there is no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in delay time between either type of truck. Consequently, the delay times of the 54 round t r i p s recorded were used to calculate the average delay time for the entire truck f l e e t (Table 7). It can be observed in Table 7 that the minimum delay time recorded was 0.60 hours (36 minutes) when the hauling distance (one way) was 19.50 km. On the other hand, the maximum delay time recorded was 5.55 hours when the hauling distance was 26.50 km. Table 12 summarizes the delay time for the entire f l e e t . This table shows that an average delay of 31.73% of the t o t a l productive time of the truck cycle has been found for both types of truck. Positive but low correlation has been found between delay time (hours) and hauling distance, travel time empty, travel time loaded, loading time, and unloading time. A 55 detailed delay analysis (duration, cause, and location) for each truck type was not possible in this study. Although the delay time can be i d e n t i f i e d by the type of trace on the chart, the cause of the delay in only a few instances was indicated by the truck drivers. However, the author had the opportunity to ride the trucks on some t r i p s and record the cause, location and time of the delay during the hauling cycle by using the survey form shown in Appendix 1. Table 12. Summary of delay time (expressed as percentage of productive time of the truck cycle) for the entire truck f l e e t . Number of observations 54 Minimum delay (%) 9.12 Maximum delay (%) 75.44 Average delay (%) 31.73 Sample standard deviation (s) 14.23 Source: Data extracted from Table 7. The main delay causes observed in these t r i p s were the following. According to the policy of the forest company which cooperated in this study, each truck driver during the empty travel must transport gravel and rock to maintain the running surface of the main and the secondary forest roads. The gravel was loaded manually with shovels (Figure 12) from a gravel p i t located along the main road (km 9 + 250). It was observed that this operation took between 20 and 35 minutes to perform. The gravel was unloaded by dumping i t in the mudholes and wheel ruts of the road (Figure 13). The 56 unloading operation took between 10 and 23 minutes to accomplish. Other main sources of delay observed in order of importance were the following: road inspection, truck stuck, truck mechanical breakdown, truck run out of f u e l , road blocked, waiting for supervisor's instructions, and truck driver's personal time. An average of 25 minutes (0.42 hours) for the truck driver's food and rest was observed during these t r i p s . 4.1.6 Payload The number of logs, volume, and weight of the payload for each t r i p are displayed in Table 5 and Table 6 for diesel-powered and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. The payload of the trucks under comparison is summarized in Table 13. This Table shows that the average payload is 7.43 m3 and 6.49 m3 for dies e l and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. Table 13. Summary of the payload by truck type. Diesel-powered Gasoline-powered trucks trucks Number of observations Minimum number of logs 25 4 29 3 4 .66 9 .07 6.49 3740 7660 5768 .6 Minimum payload volume (m3) Maximum payload volume (m3) Average payload volume (m3) Minimum payload weight (kg) Maximum payload weight (kg) Average payload weight (kg) 4260 9950 6310 4.95 12.2 7.43 Source: Data extracted from Table 5 and Table 6 57 FIGURE 12. Loading g r a v e l and rock manually. 58 The t e s t c o n c e r n i n g means ( H o:Ui-u 2 = 0 ) of the payload (Appendix 3) shows t h a t the payload e i t h e r expressed i n volume (m 3) or expressed i n weight (kg) of d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the p a y l o a d of g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s . The average p a y l o a d weights d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 13, r e v e a l t h a t f l a t b e d t r u c k s t r a v e l l e d w i t h p a y l o a d s i z e below t h e i r f u l l c a p a c i t y . T h i s s i t u a t i o n happened as a r e s u l t of l a c k of knowledge of the u n i t l o g weight of the f o r e s t s p e c i e s h a r v e s t e d p l u s the presence of mudholes and r u t s on the f o r e s t roads of the h a u l r o u t e . T a b l e 5 a l s o shows t h a t o n l y i n a few i n s t a n c e s the d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s were o v e r l o a d e d . On the c o n t r a r y , T a b l e 6 shows t h a t g a s o l i n e -powered t r u c k s never were o v e r l o a d e d . 4.2 Truck P r o d u c t i v i t y and Cost 4 . 2 . 1 E s t i m a t e d Truck C y c l e Time In order to p r e d i c t t r u c k p r o d u c t i v i t y and c o s t , an e s t i m a t e of the c y c l e time was made. Average v a l u e s of l o a d i n g t i m e , u n l o a d i n g t i m e , t r u c k v e l o c i t y empty, t r u c k v e l o c i t y l o a d e d , and d e l a y time o b t a i n e d from the a c t u a l s u r v e y data were used to c a l c u l a t e the t o t a l c y c l e time f o r both type of t r u c k s under compar ison , f o r the h y p o t h e t i c a l common h a u l route (one way) of 26 km. Table 14 summarizes the t o t a l c y c l e time f o r d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s and g a s o l i n e -powered t r u c k s . 59 Table 14 demonstrates that delay time is the second largest component after the t r a v e l l i n g loaded time. In contrast, the unloading time is the minor element during the truck cycle. Figure 14 generated with data of Table 14 shows the average truck cycle time by element time expressed in percentage. Table 14 shows that the standing time of the trucks is 4.94 hours per round t r i p , and the trucks spend 6.02 hours t r a v e l l i n g the one-way haul route of 26 km. From Figure 15 i t can be appreciated that the t r a v e l l i n g time (empty and loaded) represents 54.9% of the t o t a l cycle time, meanwhile the standing time (loading, unloading, and delay) represents 45.1% of the t o t a l cycle time. Table 14. Estimated cycle time for a 26 km one-way haul for diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered trucks. ELEMENT TIME PER TRIP (hr) Travelling - empty 2.52 loading 1.98 Travelling - loaded 3.50 Unloading 0 . 32 Delays- 2.64 Total cycle Paid hours time per c y c l e 2 10 .96 10.54 On the other hand, in Table 7 i t can be observed that a minimum cycle time of 6.42 hours was obtained for a hauling distance of 19.50 km; and the maximum cycle time was 1 Based on an average delay of 31.73% of productive time obtained from the sample data. 2 Driver's food and rest break of 25 minutes (0.42 hours) was excluded from the t o t a l cycle time because this time is not considered paid time. FIGURE 14. AVERAGE TRUCK CYCLE TIME far D i e s e l a n d S a a o l i n e - p u wm e d T r u c k s Delay (24.11) U n l n a i t i T i g (2.9SS) T r a v e l l i n g - l o a d e d (32.02) L o a d i n g (18.1SB) FIGURE 15. Average c y c l e time expressed as s t a n d i n g and t r a v e l l i n g time. S t a n d i n g <4&1X> T r a v e l l i n g (64.9%) 61 13.83 hours for a hauling distance of 26.50 km. The author observed during the f i e l d work of this study that trucks which hauled from cutting area 1 could make two round t r i p s per day on many occasions; but trucks which hauled from cutting area 2 and 3 could only make one round t r i p per day. 4.2.2 Daily and Annual Production Considering the average of 160 round t r i p s per year obtained for both types of truck, and considering the average payload (m3) for each t r i p for each type of truck, the annual volume which might be hauled with the flatbed trucks analysed was estimated for the hypothetical one-way haul route of 26 km. From the average cycle time obtained in Table 14, i t is apparent that the trucks under comparison can make only one round t r i p per day for the hauling distance indicated above. The productivity of the flatbed trucks analysed is given in Table 15. 4.2.3 Fleet Size A f l e e t size of 9.46 and 10.83 for diesel-powered and gasoline-powered trucks respectively was obtained for Belho Horizonte S.C.R. Ltd. sawmill, which hauls 11,250 m3 of sawlogs per year, considering the annual volume (m3) which might be hauled with each type truck for the hypothetical one-way haul distance of 26 km. 62 Table 15. Truck productivity by truck type for a 26-km one-way haul distance. Diesel-powered Gasoline-powered truck truck Number of t r i p s per day 1 1 Annual truck t r i p s 160 160 Average volume hauled/trip (m3) 7.43 6 . 49 Annual volume hauled (m3) 1189 1038 4.2.4 Truck Cost Estimate and Haul Cost Economic and physical data obtained during the f i e l d work of this study 3 which are summarized in Table 16, were used to estimate costs per in-use hour and per t r a v e l l i n g hour for each truck type. The results are shown in Table 17. F i n a l l y , haul cost was estimated by each truck type, again based on the hypothetical haul distance of 26 km. The haul cost per t r i p and per cubic metre for both types of trucks under comparison is summarized in Table 18 and Table 19. The t r i p cost breakdown in Table 18 for diesel-powered trucks indicates the dominance of four costs: depreciation, interest, fuel and t i r e s . It can be shown that the main items (depreciation and interest) can be expected to decrease s i g n i f i c a n t l y by reducing the standing time per t r i p in this type of truck. 3 A l l the cost parameters are expressed in current dollars of August 1985. An exchange rate of 1 Canadian $ = 9,975.25 Peruvian soles reported by Banco Central de Reserva del Peru for August 1985, was used to express in Canadian dollars the o r i g i n a l cost data obtained in Peruvian soles. Table 16. Hauliag cost parameters. Truck Type Paraaeter Diesel-powered Gasoline-pottered I n i t i a l purchase price of truck ($) 54505 14640 Ownership period in years 3 4 Resale value factor (I purchase price excluding t i r e s ) 15 10 Truck salvage value ($) 7586.25 1071 I n i t i a l cost of t ruck 's flatbed ($) 570 570 Expected flatbed l i f e (years) 3 3 Opportunity interest rate (Z) 12 12 Nuaber of t r ip s per year 160 160 In-use hours per year 1686 1686 Fuel price ( t / l i t r e ) 0.4300 0.4967 Fuel consuaption (ka / l i t r e ) 1.1449 0.7632 Oi l and lubr icat ion cost (J/hour) 0.28 0.32 Oil price ($ / I i t re ) 2.44 2.44 Tire price ($ / t i re ) 655 655 Nuaber of t i r e s on truck 6 6 L i f e of a set of t i r e s in t rave l l ing hours 900 900 L i f e repair cost of a set of t i r e s ($) 200 200 Truck repair and aaintenance cost ($/hour) 1.56 1.48 I n i t i a l cost of aanual winch ($) 600 600 Manual winch l i f e (years) 3 3 Manual winch repair and aaintenance cost ($/hour) 0.06 0.06 Hauling distance (ka) 26 26 Eapty speed (ka/hour) 10.33 10.33 Loaded speed (ka/hour) 7.42 7.42 Round t r i p average speed (ka/hour) 8.64 8.64 Tiae required for loading (hour) 1.98 1.98 Tiae required for unloading (hour) 0.32 0.32 Delay tiae (Z of productive tiae) 31.73 31.73 Truck driver wage ($ / t r ip) 8.02 8.02 Helper wage ( J / t r i p ) 3.01 3.01 Fringe benefits (Z of direct wages) 30 30 Average payload (kg) 6310 5768.62 Average payload (i3) 7.43 6.49 Travell ing hours per year 963 963 Standing hours per year 723 723 64 Table 17. Summary of truck costs. A. Fixed cost per In-use hour ($) TRUCK TYPE COST FACTOR Diesel--powered Gasoline--powered Depreciation 3. 71 2 . 24 Truck 3 48 2 . 01 Flatbed + Manual winch 0 23 0. 23 Interest 2. 47 0 . 74 Truck 2 41 0. 68 Flatbed + Manual winch 0 .06 0 . 06 Operating labour(Driver&helper) 1. 36 1. 36 Wages 1 05 1. 05 Fr inges 0 31 0. 31 SUBTOTAL 7. 54 4 . 34 B. Variable cost per t r a v e l l i n g hour ($) COST FACTOR TRUCK TYPE Diesel-powered Gasoline -powered Fuel O i l and Lubrication Tires Repair and Maintenance Truck Manual winch 3.24 0.28 4 . 08 1.62 1.56 1. 0.06 0. 5.62 0 . 32 3 . 57 1. 54 48 06 SUBTOTAL 9 .22 11.05 65 Table 18. Estimated haul cost for diesel-powered trucks for 26 km one-way haul distance. FACTOR COST ($/hr) HOURS TOTAL $/m3 % In-use costs: Depreciation 3 71 10 .54 39 .10 5 26 29 Interest 2 47 10 54 26 07 3 51 20 Wages & Fringe 1 36 10 .54 14 34 1 93 11 Travelling costs: Fuel 3 24 6 02 19 .53 2 63 14 O i l & Lubrication 0 28 6 02 1 69 0 23 1 Tires 4 08 6 02 24 55 3 30 18 Repair & Maintenance 1 62 6 02 9 75 1 31 7 Total cost per t r i p ($): Haul cost/m 3 ($): 135 02 18.17 Table 19. Estimated haul cost for gasoline-powered trucks for 26 km one-way haul distance. FACTOR COST ($/hr) HOURS TOTAL $/m3 % In-use costs: Depreciation 2 24 10 54 23 64 3 64 21 Interest 0 .74 10 .54 7 75 1 19 7 Wages & Fringe 1 .36 10 .54 14 34 2 21 13 Travelling costs: Fuel 5 62 6 .02 33 84 5 21 30 O i l & Lubrication 0 .32 6 .02 1 93 0 30 2 Tires 3 .57 6 .02 21 48 3 31 19 Repair & Maintenance 1 54 6 .02 9 27 1 43 8 Total cost per t r i p ($) Haul cost/m 3 ($): 112 24 17 29 66 The t r i p cost breakdown in Table 19 for gasoline-powered trucks reveals the dominance of three costs-: f u e l , depreciation, and t i r e s . It is apparent that the haul cost cannot be expected to decrease s i g n i f i c a n t l y by reducing the standing time per t r i p , because the main cost factor in this type of truck is f u e l . Table 18 and Table 19 reveal that the cost of hauling logs with gasoline-powered trucks ($17.29/m3) is less than with diesel-powered trucks ($18.17/m3) for the hypothetical one-way haul route of 26 km. Figure 16 constructed with data of Table 18 and 19 shows the haul cost comparison by cost factors between both types of truck. It can be observed that the higher depreciation and interest cost of diesel-powered trucks counterbalance their advantage of lower fuel cost. The hauling cost of $17.29/m3 or $18.17/m3 with flatbed trucks obtained for the short haul distance of 26 km, is extremely expensive i f i t is compared with haul cost obtained with logging trucks in B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. For example, in the i n t e r i o r of B r i t i s h Columbia, a haul cost of $13.01/m3 with 5 axle-standard pole t r a i l e r has been reported by Smith (1981), for a haul route of 261 km (one way). Of this route, 229 km was dual-lane all-weather road (highway) and 32 km was 1 1/2- lane low standard rural access road. 67 FIGURE 1 6 . HAULING COST COMPARISON Diesel-powered versus Gasoline-powered s *» H w o u H 2 D Deprec'n Interest Wages Fuel Oil&Lube Tires R k M 1\ 1 Diesei-powered COST FACTOR i p y ^ Gasoline-powered 68 4 . 3 A n a l y s i s o f t h e H a u l R o u t e C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t r a v e l t i m e a n d h a u l c o s t a r e a f f e c t e d b y r o a d s u r f a c e , g r a d i e n t , c u r v a t u r e , r o a d w i d t h , e t c ; i n t h i s h a u l i n g s t u d y , c e r t a i n d e s i g n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e e x i s t i n g h a u l r o u t e w e r e c o l l e c t e d a n d a n a l y s e d . T h r e e r o a d c l a s s e s w e r e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e h a u l r o u t e ( F i g u r e 3 ) : p u b l i c r o a d , m a i n f o r e s t r o a d a n d s e c o n d a r y f o r e s t r o a d . 4 . 3 . 1 P u b l i c R o a d O n e k i l o m e t r e o f " M a r g i n a l " p u b l i c h i g h w a y w a s u s e d a s p a r t o f t h e m a i n h a u l r o a d . T h i s s h o r t s e g m e n t o f p u b l i c r o a d r u n s t h r o u g h t h e P i c h a n a k i t o w n a n d h a s d e n s e t r a f f i c . T h e " M a r g i n a l " h i g h w a y i s a d o u b l e - l a n e r o a d , a n d a g r a v e l l e d r o a d o f h i g h s p e e d d e s i g n . B u t , b e c a u s e o n l y a s h o r t s e g m e n t o f t h i s p u b l i c r o a d i s u s e d a n d i t r u n s t h r o u g h a t o w n , t h e t r a v e l s p e e d o f t h e t r u c k s a n a l y s e d w a s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t t h a n i n t h e f o r e s t r o a d s . T h e d e s i g n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f t h i s s h o r t l e n g t h o f p u b l i c r o a d a r e a s f o l l o w s : s u b g r a d e w i d t h , 9 . 0 m ; r u n n i n g s u r f a c e w i d t h , 7 . 0 m ; m a x i m u m g r a d e , 3%; a n d c r o w n , 4%. 4 . 3 . 2 F o r e s t R o a d s F o r e s t r o a d s b u i l t b y t h e B e l h o H o r i z o n t e S . C . R . L t d . s a w m i l l m a y b e c l a s s i f i e d i n t w o b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i r f u n c t i o n : m a i n a n d s e c o n d a r y r o a d . 69 Main Road The main forest road used for the flatbed trucks in this hauling study was a single-lane, undrained d i r t road of 19.50 km. This main road may be c l a s s i f i e d as a permanent road because i t is planned to be maintained for t r a f f i c for at least 10 years. A t r a f f i c density of at least seven log trucks per day was observed in this road. However, the t o t a l t r a f f i c density that this road supports is higher because i t is also used by lo c a l farmers to transport their farm crops. This main road is used only during dry periods, as i t is unuseable during the rainy season. Therefore, i t can also be c l a s s i f i e d as a "Summer road" (Stenzel et a l . , 1985). Secondary Road The secondary road c l a s s i f i c a t i o n consisted of branch and spur roads. The branch roads connected the spur with the main road, and the spur roads were short roads to landings. The secondary roads surveyed were single-lane, d i r t , and undrained roads. They are temporary roads, and usually are abandoned when the area has been logged. A t r a f f i c density of 2 or 3 log trucks per day was observed in the branch roads. A l l forest roads in the Central Region of Peru l i k e the forest roads evaluated in this study are b u i l t by the private forest company with crawler tractor bulldozers. 70 4.3.3 Forest Roads Design Specifications In order to know the design cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the forest roads where the hauling operation took place, representative segments of main and secondary road were surveyed. With the f i e l d data collected a plan at a scale of 1:1000, and a p r o f i l e with 1:1500 horizontal scale, and 1:300 v e r t i c a l scale were drawn. P r o f i l e and Plan views of some of the segments surveyed are shown in Appendix 4. The reader is cautioned that the o r i g i n a l graphs with the scale indicated above have been reduced by 64%. Table 20 summarizes the f i e l d observations collected regarding road grade and curvature in the main and the secondary road. Road grade Table 20 reveals that a maximum favorable grade of 16 and 17.5% has been found in the main road and secondary road respectively. The p r o f i l e of the segments of road Main3 and Sec3C in Appendix 4 show that the highest values of favorable grade is found in long distances. Garland (1983b) indicates that favorable grades may reach 12 to 15% for short distances; and Henrich (1976) recommended in his proposed road c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system for forest operations in t r o p i c a l high forest, maximum favorable grades of 10 and 12% in steep and d i f f i c u l t t e r r a i n for main and secondary road respectively. 71 Table 20. Summary of curvature and gradient of forest roads sampled. Road class Road sample code Length of road sampled(m) Max. grade(%) Curve Favor . Adverse # Radius (m) Main road Mainl Main2 Main3 Main4 Main5 Main6 Main7 100 130 450 200 300 150 150 2 13 16 12 3 11 2 4 2 6 10 13 1 5 3 3 3 40 20,35,35,8,25 20,25,13 10,20,20 30,15,30 Seel 200 16 — 1 5 Sec2A 230 -- 13 2 35,35 Sec2B 150 — 12 3 25,35,35 Secondary Sec2C 110 9 — 1 10 road Sec3A 170 14 - 2 25,25 Sec3B 135 14 - 4 25,25,8,15 Sec3C 200 17. 5 3 35,30,10 Sec3D 230 13 4 1 35 Total 2,905 On the other hand, the highest adverse grade found on the forest roads surveyed was 13% in the main road and in the secondary road. The p r o f i l e s of the segments of road Main7 and Sec2B, where these highest values of adverse grade have been found, can be observed in Appendix 4. Garland (1983b) and Haussman and Pruett (1973) indicate that adverse grade should be kept below 10%; and Henrich (1976) recommends maximum adverse grade of 8 to 10% for main and secondary road respectively. As can be observed in Table 20, some sections of the forest road surveyed show steeper favorable grade and a l i t t l e steeper adverse grade than the recommended grade values by the authors indicated above. 72 Curves Table 20 shows that most of the road segments surveyed have an abundance of curves, and some of them are very sharp. As i t can be observed in this table, the following road segments present very sharp curves: Main3, Main4, Main6, Main7, Seel, Sec2c, Sec3b, and Sec3c. The radius of each curve was measured in the plan view of the section of road surveyed with a p l a s t i c curve templet with a radius at the plan view scale. Plan views of some of the segments of road surveyed, which are given in Appendix 4 show the number of curves in each section and their corresponding curvature. It is apparent in Table 20 that the minimum curve recommended by Frisk (1979 ) of 30 and 15 metres for curves in the main and secondary road respectively, are not met in many cases. Conway (1982) explains that an abundance of curves on a road slows down t r a f f i c , and on single-lane roads with short-radius curves, round-trip time is increased and driving can be hazardous. Besides, Garland (1983b) recommends moderate grades, not greater than 7% in sharp curves. Road width Many representative cross sections of each road class were also surveyed. The data collected is summarized as follows: Road class Subgrade width (m) Surface width (m) Main road 4.50 - 6.50 3.00 - 3.60 Secondary road 4.00 - 5.00 2.90 - 3.20 73 By comparing these road s u r f a c e width values with the proposed by F r i s k (1979), i t can be r e a l i z e d that the surveyed roads are narrow. The author observed that many s e c t i o n s of road i n steep t e r r a i n were b u i l t i n f u l l cut with cut slope between 1:0.60 and 1:1 i n the main road; and cut slope between 1:0.30 and 1:0.80 i n the secondary road. Furthermore, i r r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l of turn-out p o i n t s c o n s t r u c t e d i n the main f o r e s t road, and i n the branch roads was a l s o observed. Road drainage The surveyed f o r e s t roads were without proper drainage s t r u c t u r e s . Main and secondary roads were b u i l t without a crown, d i t c h e s , and c u l v e r t s , which are needed to i n t e r c e p t , c o l l e c t and remove s u r f a c e and subsurface r u n o f f from the roads. An adequate drainage system i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of any road must be made not only f o r passage of s u r f a c e of water from adjacent s l o p e s , but a l s o f o r r a p i d drainage of the road bed i t s e l f to keep the road i n good, s e r v i c e a b l e c o n d i t i o n (Haussman and P r u e t t , 1973). Garland (1983b) recommends the design crowned roads with d i t c h e s and frequent cross d r a i n s i n an area of frequent and intense p r e c i p i t a t i o n to d r a i n r a i n f a l l o f f the road q u i c k l y . Many s e c t i o n s of the main road were observed to have severe drainage problems such as mudholes and r u t s as a consequence of a lack of a drainage system to prevent water s a t u r a t i o n of the road s u r f a c e and road subgrade. Figure 17, 74 FIGURE 17. Main f o r e s t road without drainage system. 75 and Figure 18 i l l u s t r a t e sections of main road with drainage problems. Fewer drainage problems in the secondary road were observed as a res u l t of low t r a f f i c density and temporary use. Roads broken with chuckholes and ruts force a driver to slow down, and trucks t r a v e l l i n g f u l l y loaded on such roads w i l l have higher truck maintenance cost and less production (Conway, 1982 ) . The design specifications regarding crown, ditches and culverts proposed by Frisk (1979) are not met in the forest roads where the hauling operation took place. Bridges Two log bridges with concrete abutments were observed in the main forest road. Guardrails, and shear logs, and proper decking with crossties and planking could improve these bridges. Lack of maintenance of the bridge decking in one of them was noted. Figure 19 shows a log bridge of 10 metres span with concrete abutments over the "Cuyani" r i v e r . Road surface The main and the secondary road of the haul route evaluated may be c l a s s i f i e d as d i r t road, because only short sections of road with drainage problems were gravelled. However, Frisk (1979) recommends gravelled surface road in the case of the main road. Since natural gravel is available, the main forest road should be gravelled in order to make i t permanently open to t r a f f i c . 7 6 4 . 3 . 4 R o a d M a i n t e n a n c e P o o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e f o r e s t r o a d s h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d d u r i n g t h e f i e l d w o r k o f t h i s t r u c k h a u l i n g s t u d y . A s s t a t e d i n S e c t i o n 4 . 1 . 5 o f t h i s c h a p t e r , t r u c k d r i v e r s m u s t t r a n s p o r t r o c k a n d g r a v e l o n t h e f l a t b e d o f t h e t r u c k d u r i n g t h e e m p t y r e t u r n t r i p . B a s i c a l l y , t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e r o a d s i s r e d u c e d t o f i l l i n t h e m u d h o l e s a n d r u t s w i t h g r a v e l a n d r o c k , w h i c h a r e a c c o m p l i s h e d m a n u a l l y b y t h e t r u c k d r i v e r a n d h i s h e l p e r . L a c k o f c o n t r o l o f o v e r h a n g i n g b r u s h , a s w e l l b r u s h o b s t r u c t i n g v i s i b i l i t y o n c u r v e s i n m a n y s e c t i o n s o f t h e m a i n r o a d w a s a l s o o b s e r v e d . I t i s w e l l k n o w n t h a t t o o m u c h r o a d s i d e v e g e t a t i o n c r e a t e s v i s i b i l i t y a n d s a f e t y p r o b l e m s a n d d e l a y s d r y i n g o f t h e r o a d s u r f a c e . T h e o w n e r o f B e l h o H o r i z o n t e S . C . R . L t d . c o m p a n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t r o a d g r a d i n g o f t h e m a i n r o a d i s d o n e o n c e a y e a r w i t h b u l l d o z e r , b u t t h e p o t h o l e s a n d r u t s a r e e l i m i n a t e d f o r o n l y a s h o r t t i m e b y t h i s a c t i v i t y . A c c o r d i n g t o S t e n z e l e t a l . ( 1 9 8 5 ) , m u d h o l e s i n a r o a d a r e a p r o b l e m t h a t c a n n o t b e e l i m i n a t e d m e r e l y b y d u m p i n g r o c k i n t h e h o l e s . M u d h o l e s c a n b e r e p a i r e d m o s t e f f e c t i v e l y b y d r a i n i n g t h e h o l e , r e m o v i n g t h e m u d , a n d f i l l i n g t h e h o l e w i t h h i g h - q u a l i t y m a t e r i a l . M o r e o v e r , m u d h o l e s o c c u r p r i m a r i l y a s a r e s u l t o f p o o r d r a i n a g e ; t h e r e f o r e , c o r r e c t i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e d r a i n a g e s y s t e m o f t e n t i m e s e l i m i n a t e s t h e p r o b l e m . T h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e e x i s t i n g f o r e s t r o a d s r e v e a l s t h a t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e p r o p e r p l a n n i n g , d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e e x i s t i n g r o a d c o n d i t i o n s had an adverse e f f e c t on l o g h a u l i n g and c o s t . FIGURE 19. Log bridge with concrete abutments 78 4.4 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis As stated in Section 3.2.4 Chapter 3, a computerized hauling cost model to operate on an IBM PC microcomputer was developed to carry out the s e n s i t i v i t y analysis. The model uses the Symphony spreadsheet development system. It is designed to calculate the average cycle time, the number of t r i p s per year, and the haul cost per t r i p and per cubic metre for a given one-way haul distance (km) and for a given flatbed truck. The model was developed in a manner which allows the s e n s i t i v i t y analysis to be accomplished by using the Symphony's "Sheet Range What-if" command (Ewing and LeBlond, 1984). The effects on the cycle time and the haul cost can be explored by a l t e r i n g factors such as truck average round t r i p speed, loading time, delay time, and haul distance. The effects of varying truck ownership period, in-use hours per year, and payload per t r i p on the haul cost were also evaluated. 4.4.1 S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis of Truck Cycle Time In Section 4.2.1, an average cycle time of 10.96 hours for a haul distance (one way) of 26 km was obtained. A maximum truck cycle time of 6.50 hours for a one-way hauling distance of 26 km must be obtained to allow the trucks to make at least 2 round t r i p s per day. 79 The effect on the cycle time of increasing the average round t r i p speed of 8.64 km/hr (obtained from the time study) up to 30 km/hr, and reduction of the average delay time (2.64 hr) from 10 to 80% can be observed in Table 21. This table shows that trucks can st a r t reaching a cycle time of 6.50 hr when the average round t r i p speed is increased to 15 km/hr and the delay time is reduced by 80% (0.53 hr). Maximum cycle time of 6.50 hr can also be obtained with greater speed than 15 km/hr with less reduction of delay time. F i n a l l y , this table shows that even i f the round t r i p could be increased to 30 km/hr, a cycle time of 6.50 hr cannot be reached by the trucks without a reduction in delay time. The effect on the cycle time of increasing average round t r i p speed and decreasing the average loading time (1.98 hr) by 10 to 80% are displayed in Table 22. This table reveals that trucks can attain a maximum cycle time of 6.50 hr when the average round t r i p speed is increased to 17 km/hr and when the loading time is reduced by 80%. Maximum cycle time of 6.50 hr can also be obtained with less reduction of loading time but with higher speeds than 17 km/hr. In addition, in Table 22 can be observed that without reducing the loading time, the cycle time of 6.50 hr cannot be reached despite the round t r i p speed being increased to 30 km/hr. The effect of decreasing delay time and loading time on the cycle time can be observed ln Table 23. This table shows that although the loading and delay time could be reduced by 80%, the truck cycle time can never be lower than 7.26 hr. 80 Which means that by only reducing loading and delay time, trucks cannot be expected to make 2 round t r i p s per day in a s h i f t of 13 hours. Based on the results obtained in Tables 21, 22, and 23, the effects of decreasing delay and loading time on the cycle time when the average round t r i p speed could be increased up to 12 and 15 km/hr respectively were examined. Table 24 shows that i f the average round t r i p speed is increased to 12 km/hr, a cycle time of 6.50 hr could be obtained by reducing the delay time in the range between 50 to 80% ,and by reducing the loading time in the range between 80 to 40% respectively. Table 25 shows that trucks can obtain a cycle time of 6.50 hr in many combinations of reduction of delay and loading time, i f the average round t r i p speed is increased to 15 km/hr. The impact of hauling distance and loading time on truck cycle time when the average round t r i p speed could be increased to 15 km/hr or 30 km/hr, and the delay time could be reduced to 1.00 hr (reduction of 62%) was also examined in Table 26 and Table 27. Table 26 reveals that under the assumed conditions of speed and delay, when the one-way haul distance is not greater than 30 km, trucks could make two round t r i p s per day in many cases by reducing loading time by at least 40%. This table also reveals that even i f the loading time could be reduced by 80%, trucks cannot be expected to perform two round t r i p s per day when the hauling distance is greater than 35 km. 81 On the other hand, Table 27 shows t h a t t r u c k s can make 2 round t r i p s f o r a h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e of 45 km i n c l u s i v e without any r e d u c t i o n of the l o a d i n g time. By r e d u c i n g the d e l a y of a t l e a s t 60%, t r u c k s c o u l d perform 2 round t r i p s f o r a h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e of 65 km. F i n a l l y , i t can be observed t h a t f o r a h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e g r e a t e r than 75 km, t r u c k s c o u l d o n l y make one round t r i p per day; but c y c l e time of l e s s than 10.0 hours c o u l d be ob t a i n e d f o r a h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e of 100 km, i n c l u s i v e without r e d u c i n g the l o a d i n g time. Table 21. Iapact of average round t r i p speed and delay t iae on truck cycle t i ae . Cycle Tiae (hr) Oelay Tiae (hr) Avg.Speed -oz -10Z -20Z -30Z -40Z -50Z -60Z -70Z -80Z (ka/hr) 2.64 2.38 2.11 1.85 1.5B 1.32 1.06 0.79 0.53 8.64 10.96 10.69 10.43 10.17 9.90 9.64 9.37 9.11 8.85 10.00 10.14 9.88 9.61 9.35 9.08 8.82 8.56 8.29 8.03 11.00 9.67 9.40 9.14 8.88 8.61 8.35 8.08 7.82 7.56 12.00 9.27 9.01 8.75 8.48 8.22 7.95 7.69 7.43 7.16 13.00 8.94 8.68 8.41 8.15 7.88 7.62 7.36 7.09 6.83 14.00 8.65 3.39 8.13 7.86 7.60 7.33 7.07 5.81 6.54 15.00 8.41 8.14 7.88 7.61 7.35 7.09 6.82 6.56 6.29 16.00 8.19 7.93 7.66 7.40 7.13 6.87 6.61 6.34 6.08 17.00 8.00 7.73 7.47 7.21 6.94 6.68 6.41 6.15 5.39 18.00 7.83 7.56 7.30 7.04 6.77 6.51 6.24 5.98 5.72 19.00 7.68 7.41 7.15 6.88 6.62 6.36 6.09 5.83 5.56 20.00 7.54 7.28 7.01 6.75 6.48 6.22 5.96 5.69 5.43 21.00 7.42 7.15 6.89 6.62 6.36 6.10 5.83 5.57 5.30 22.00 7.30 7.04 6.78 6.51 6.25 5.98 5.72 5.46 5.19 23.00 7.20 6.94 6.67 6.41 6.14 5.88 5.62 5.35 5.09 24.00 7.11 6.84 6.58 6.31 6.05 5.79 5.52 5.26 4.99 25.00 7.02 5.76 6.49 5.23 5.96 5.70 5.44 5.17 4.91 26.00 6.94 6.68 6.41 6.15 5.38 5.62 5.36 5.09 4.33 27.00 6.87 6.60 6.34 6.07 5.81 5.55 5.28 5.02 4.75 28.00 6.80 6.53 5.27 6.01 5.74 5.48 5.21 4.95 4.69 29.00 6.73 6.47 6.21 5.94 5.58 5.41 5.15 4.89 4.52 30.00 6.67 6.41 6.15 5.88 5.62 5.35 5.09 4.83 4.56 Table 22. Iapact of average round t r i p speed and loading tiae on truck cycle t iae . Cycle t iae (hr) Loading Tiae (hrs) Avg.Speed -01 -101 -201 -301 -401 -50Z -601 -701 -801 (ka/hr) 1.98 1.78 1.58 1.39 1.19 0.99 0.79 0.59 0.40 8.64 10.96 10.76 10.56 10.36 10.17 9.97 9.77 9.57 9.37 10.00 10.14 9.94 9.74 9.55 9.35 9.15 8.95 8.75 8.56 11.00 9.67 9.47 9.27 9.07 8.88 8.68 8.48 8.28 8.08 12.00 9.27 9.08 8.88 8.6B 8.48 8.28 8.09 7.89 7.69 13.00 8.94 8.74 8.54 8.35 8.15 7.95 7.75 7.55 7.36 14.00 8.65 8.46 8.26 8.06 7.86 7.66 7.47 7.27 7.07 15.00 8.41 8.21 8.01 7.81 7.61 7.42 7.22 7.02 6.82 16.00 8.19 7.99 7.79 7.60 7.40 7.20 7.00 6.80 6.61 17.00 8.00 7.80 7.60 7.40 7.21 7.01 6.81 6.61 6.41 18.00 7.83 7.63 7.43 7.23 7.04 6.84 6.64 6.44 6.24 19.00 7.68 7.48 7.28 7.08 6.88 6.69 6.49 6.29 6.09 20.00 7.54 7.34 7.14 6.95 6.75 6.55 6.35 6.15 5.96 21.00 7.42 7.22 7.02 6.82 6.62 6.43 6.23 6.03 5.83 22.00 7.30 7.11 6.91 5.71 6.51 6.31 6.12 5.92 5.72 23.00 7.20 7.00 6.80 6.61 6.41 6.21 6.01 5.81 5.62 24.00 7.11 6.91 6.71 6.51 6.31 6.12 5.92 5.72 5.52 25.00 7.02 6.82 6.62 6.43 6.23 6.03 5.83 5.63 5.44 26.00 6.94 6.74 6.54 6.35 6.15 5.95 5.75 5.55 5.36 27.00 6.87 6.67 6.47 6.27 6.07 5.88 5.68 5.48 5.28 28.00 6.80 6.60 6.40 '6.20 6.01 5.81 5.61 5.41 5.21 29.00 6.73 6.54 6.34 6.14 5.94 5.74 5.55 5.35 5.15 30.00 6.67 6.48 6.28 6.08 5.88 5.68 5.49 5.29 5.09 Table 23. Iapact of loading and delay t iae on truck cycle t i ae . Cycle t iae (hr) Delay Tiae (hr) Loading Tiae -01 -101 -201 -301 -401 -501 -601 -701 -801 (hr) 2.64 2.38 2.11 1.85 1.58 1.32 1.06 0.79 0.53 1.98 10.96 10.69 10.43 10.17 9.90 9.64 9.37 9.11 8.85 1.78 10.76 10.50 10.23 9.97 9.70 9.44 9.18 8.91 8.65 1.58 10.56 10.30 10.03 9.77 9.51 9.24 8.98 8.71 8.45 1.39 10.36 10.10 9.84 9.57 9.31 9.04 8.78 8.52 8.25 1.19 10.17 9.90 9.64 9.37 9.11 8.85 8.58 8.32 8.05 0.99 9.97 9.70 9.44 9.18 8.91 8.65 8.38 8.12 7.86 0.79 9.77 9.51 9.24 8.98 8.71 8.45 8.19 7.92 7.66 0.59 9.57 9.31 9.04 8.78 8.52 8.25 7.99 7.72 7.46 0.40 9.37 9.11 8.85 8.58 8.32 8.05 7.79 7.53 7.26 Table 24. Itpact of loading and delay t i n on truck cycle t i n when the average round t r i p speed i s increased to 12 ka/hr. Cycle Tiae (hr) Delay Tiae (hr) Loading Tiae -01 -101 -201 -301 -401 -501 -601 -701 -801 (hr) 2.64 2.38 2.11 1.85 1.58 1.32 1.06 0.79 0.53 1.98 9.27 9.01 8.75 8.48 8.22 7.95 7.69 7.43 7.16 1.78 9.08 8.81 B.55 B.2B 02 7.76 7.49 7.23 5.96 1.S8 8.88 8.51 8.35 8.09 7.82 7.56 7.29 7.03 6.77 1.39 B.6B 8.42 8.15 7.89 7.62 7.36 7.10 6.83 6.57 1.19 8.48 8.22 7.95 7.69 7.43 7.16 6.90 6.63 5.37 0.99 8.28 8.02 7.76 7.49 7.23 6.96 6.70 6.44 6.17 0.79 8.09 7.82 7.56 7.29 7.03 6.77 6.50 6.24 5.97 0.59 7.89 7.62 7.36 7.10 6.83 6.57 6.30 6.04 5.78 0.40 7.69 7.43 7.16 6.90 6.53 6.37 6.11 5.84 5.58 Table 25. Iapact of delay and loading tiae on truck cycle t iae when the average round t r ip speed i s increased to 15 ka/hr. Cycle Tiae (hr) Delay Tiae (hr) Loading Tiae -0Z -10Z -20Z -30Z -40Z -50Z -60Z -70Z -80Z (hr) 2.64 2.38 2.11 1.85 1.58 1.32 1.06 0.79 0.53 1.98 8.41 8.14 7.88 7.61 7.35 7.09 6.82 6.56 6.29 1.78 8.21 7.94 7.68 7.42 7.15 6.89 6.62 6.36 6.10 1.58 8.01 7.75 7.48 7.22 6.95 6.69 6.43 6.16 5.90 1.39 7.81 7.55 7.2B 7.02 6.76 6.49 6.23 5.96 5.70 1.19 7.61 7.35 7.09 6.82 6.56 6.29 6.03 5.77 5.50 0.99 7.42 7.15 6.89 6.62 6.36 6.10 5.83 5.57 5.30 0.79 7.22 6.95 6.69 6.43 6.16 5.90 5.63 5.37 5.11 0.59 7.02 6.76 6.49 6.23 5.96 5.70 5.44 5.17 4,91 0.40 6.82 6.56 6.29 6.03 5.77 5.50 5.24 4.97 4.71 Table 26. Iapact of hauling distance and loading tiae on truck cycle t iae when the average round t r ip speed i s increased to 15 ka/hr and delay i s reduced to I.00 hr. Cycle Tiae (hr) Hauling Loading Tiae (hr) Distance -0Z -10Z -20Z -301 -40Z -50Z -60Z -70Z -BOX (ka) 1.98 1.78 1.58 1.39 1.19 0.99 0.79 0.59 0.40 20 5.97 25 6.63 30 7.30 35 7.97 40 8.63 45 9.30 50 9.97 55 10.63 60 11.30 65 11.97 70 12.63 75 13.30 80 13.97 85 14.63 90 15.30 95 15.97 100 16.63 5.77 5.57 6.44 6.24 7.10 6.90 7.77 7.57 8.44 8.24 9.10 8.90 9.77 9.57 10.44 10.24 11.10 10.90 11.77 11.57 12.44 12.24 13.10 12.90 13.77 13.57 14.44 14.24 15.10 14.90 15.77 15.57 16.44 16.24 5.37 5.17 6.04 5.84 6.71 6.51 7.37 7.17 8.04 7.84 8.71 8.51 9.37 9.17 10.04 9.84 10.71 10.51 11.37 11.17 12.04 11.94 12.71 12.51 13.37 13.17 14.04 13.84 14.71 14.51 15.37 15.17 16.04 15.84 4.98 4.78 5.64 5.45 6.31 6.11 6.98 6.78 7.64 7.45 8.31 8.11 8.98 8.78 9.64 9.45 10.31 10.11 10.98 10.78 11.64 11.45 12.31 12.11 12.98 12.78 13.64 13.45 14.31 14.11 14.98 14.78 15.64 15.45 4.58 4.38 5.25 5.05 5.91 5.72 6.58 6.38 7.25 7.05 7.91 7.72 8.58 8.38 9.25 9.05 9.91 9.72 10.58 10.38 11.25 11.05 11.91 11.72 12.58 12.38 13.25 13.05 13.91 13.72 14.58 14.38 15.25 15.05 Table 27. Iapact of hauling distance and loading tiae on truck cycle tiae when the average round t r ip speed i s increased to 30 ka/hr and delay i s reduced to 1.00 hr. Cycle Tiae (hr) Loading Tiae (hr) Distance -oz -10Z -20Z -30Z -40Z -50Z -60Z -70Z -80Z (ka) 1.98 1.78 1.58 1.39 1.19 0.99 0.79 0.59 0.40 20. 4.63 4.44 4.24 4.04 3.84 3.64 3.45 3.25 3.05 25 4.97 4.77 4.57 4.37 4.17 3.98 3.78 3.58 3.38 30 5.30 5.10 4.90 4.71 4.51 4.31 4.11 3.91 3.72 35 5.63 5.44 5.24 5.04 4.84 4.64 4.45 4.25 4.05 40 5.97 5.77 5.57 5.37 5.17 4.98 4.78 4.58 4.38 45 6.30 6.10 5.90 5.71 5.51 5.31 5.11 4.91 4.72 50 6.63 6.44 6.24 6.04 5.84 5.64 5.45 5.25 5.05 55 6.97 6.77 6.57 6.37 6.17 5.98 5.78 5.5B 5.38 60 7.30 7.10 6.90 6.71 6.51 6.31 6.11 5.91 5.72 65 7.63 7.44 7.24 7.04 6.84 6.64 6.45 6.25 6.05 70 7.97 7.77 7.57 7.37 7.17 6.98 6.78 6.58 6.38 75 8.30 8.10 7.90 7.71 7.51 7.31 7.11 6.91 6.72 80 8.63 8.44 8.24 8.04 7.84 7.64 7.45 7.25 7.05 85 8.97 8.77 8.57 8.37 8.17 7.98 7.78 7.58 7.38 90 9.30 9.10 8.90 8.71 8.51 8.31 8.11 7.91 7.72 95 9.63 9.44 9.24 9.04 8.84 8.64 8.45 8.25 8.05 100 9.97 9.77 9.57 9.37 9.17 8.98 8.78 8.58 8.38 85 4.4.2 S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s of Hauling Cost A s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s was conducted to evaluate the impact on the haul cost of changes of the f o l l o w i n g main f a c t o r s t hat may be c o n t r o l l a b l e to some extent by the l o g g i n g company: v e h i c l e ownership p e r i o d , annual in-use time, h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e , payload per t r i p , d e l a y time, l o a d i n g time, and average round t r i p speed. Ownership p e r i o d Table 28 summarizes the h a u l i n g cost f o r the assumed common haul d i s t a n c e (one way) of 26 km f o r d i f f e r e n t ownership p e r i o d f o r d i e s e l and gasoline-powered t r u c k s . In t h i s study, ownnership of 8 and 4 years were assumed for d i e s e l and gasoline-powered trucks r e s p e c t i v e l y . Table 28 shows that by i n c r e a s i n g the ownership p e r i o d from 8 to 12 years f o r diesel-powered t r u c k s , a cost saving of 8.48% could be obtained. In c o n t r a s t , by i n c r e a s i n g the ownership p e r i o d from 4 to 8 years of gasoline-powered t r u c k s , a cost saving of 7.23% could be obtained. However, the maintenance and r e p a i r c o s t are expected to r i s e as the v e h i c l e s get o l d . Therefore, only minimum r e a l c o s t savings could be expected by r e t a i n i n g the same v e h i c l e f o r a greater number of years. Annual o p e r a t i n g hours I n c r e a s i n g annual o p e r a t i n g hours amortizes f i x e d c o s t s over a greater annual production p e r i o d . Hauling cost f o r a d d i t i o n a l annual ope r a t i n g hours than the estimated average of 1686 hours was examined for both types of t r u c k . Table 29 shows how the haul costs change i f the f l a t b e d trucks 86 evaluated could work additional annual in-use hours, but under the actual operating conditions. Table 29 reveals that an increase of 25% of the average annual operating hours (1686 hr/yr) could represent a modest cost savings of 9 and 4% for dies e l and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. Table 28. Impact of truck ownership period on haul cost. Hauling cost ($/m3) Ownership period Diesel-powered Gasoline-powered (years) truck truck 2 19.81 3 22.46 18.13 4 21.16 17.29 5 20.16 16.76 6 19.38 16.46 7 18.74 16.22 8 18.17 16.04 9 17.71 10 17.31 11 16.94 12 16.63 Table 29. Impact of annual operating hours on haul cost. Hauling cost ($/m3) Annual operating Trips per Diesel-powered Gasoline-powered hours year truck truck 1476 140 19.36 17.85 1581 150 18.73 17.55 1686 160 18.17 17.29 1792 170 17.68 17.06 1897 180 17.24 16.86 2002 190 16.85 16.68 2108 200 16.50 16.52 Average round t r i p speed An average round t r i p speed of 8.64 km/hr was obtained from data collected in the time study for both types of truck 87 under comparison. The effect of increasing this average speed up to 30 km/hr was analysed. Table 30 gives the hauling cost for both types of truck for increased average speed. Table 30. Impact of average round t r i p speed on haul cost. Hauling cost ($/m3) Average round t r i p speed Diesel-powered Gasoline-powered (km/hr) truck truck 8.64 18.17 17 .29 10.00 16.81 16.18 12.00 15. 36 15. 00 14.00 14 .33 14.15 16 .00 13.56 13 .52 18.00 12 .96 13.03 20.00 12.48 12.64 22.00 12.08 12.31 24 . 00 11. 75 12 . 05 26.00 11. 48 11. 82 28.00 11.24 11.62 30.00 11.03 11. 45 Table 30 shows that by increasing the average round t r i p speed from 8.64 up to 14 km/hr a cost saving of 21 and 18% could be obtained in dies e l and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. In this Table also shows that by increasing the average speed beyond 18 km/hr the cost reduction drops s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Loading time The effect of reducing loading time from 10 to 80% on the hauling cost is given in Table 31. This table shows that by a drastic reduction of the loading time by 80%, a modest cost saving of 7 and 3% could be obtained in diesel-powered and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. 88 Table 31. Impact of loading time on hauling cost. Hauling cost ($/m3) Loading time Diesel-powered Gasoline-powered (hr) truck truck 1.98 18.17 17.29 1.78 (-10%) 18.01- 17.22 1.58 (-20%) 17.85 17.15 1.39 (-30%) 17 .70 17 . 08 1.19 (-40%) 17.55 17.00 0.99 (-50%) 17.39 16.93 0.79 (-60%) 17.23 16.86 0.59 (-70%) 17.07 16.78 0.40 (-80%) 16.92 16.71 Delay time The impact of a 10 to 80% reduction in delays on the haul cost was also evaluated. Hauling cost by truck type for decreasing delay time is given in Table 32. Table 32 i l l u s t r a t e s that by eliminating 80% of the average delay time, the hauling cost could be reduced by 9 and 4% in dies e l and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. Haul distance and payload The e f f e c t on the haul cost of increasing haul distance and increasing payload per t r i p was also evaluated. Table 33 and Table 34 i l l u s t r a t e how the hauling cost of diesel and gasoline-powered trucks respectively, could change i f hauling distance and payload increased. Table 33 shows that for a given one-way haul distance, the haul cost of diesel-powered trucks could be reduced by 17% by increasing the average payload per t r i p from 7.43 to 9.0 m3. On the contrary, Table 34 shows that for any given 89 one-way haul d i s t a n c e a r e d u c t i o n of 28% of the haul cost of gasoline-powered tr u c k s could be reached by i n c r e a s i n g the payload from 6.49 to 9.0 m3. F i n a l l y , Table 33 and 34 i l l u s t r a t e t h a t an extremely high h a u l i n g c o s t not lower than $54.0/m3 i s expected f o r a haul d i s t a n c e of 100 km with both types of tr u c k , i f the e x i s t i n g o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s are maintained. Table 32. Impact of de l a y time on h a u l i n g c o s t . Hauling cost ($/m 3) Delay time (hr) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck 2.64 18.17 17.29 2.38 (-10%) 17.97 17.20 2.11 (-20%) 17.75 17 .10 1.85 (-30%) 17.55 17.00 1.58 (-40%) 17.33 16.90 1.32 (-50%) 17.13 16.81 1.06 (-60%) 16.92 16.71 0.79 (-70%) 16.71 16.61 0.53 (-80%) 16.50 16.52 E f f e c t of round t r i p speed, delay, and l o a d i n g time on haul c o s t The s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s of the c y c l e time and the ha u l i n g c o s t have r e v e a l e d that some f a c t o r s d i r e c t l y c o n t r o l l a b l e by the log g i n g company, such- as average round t r i p speed, l o a d i n g time, and delay time, have great i n f l u e n c e on the truck p r o d u c t i v i t y and haul c o s t . Based on these r e s u l t s , a s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out to evaluate the j o i n t e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g average speed, and reducing d e l a y and l o a d i n g time. Table 33. Iapact of haul distance and payload on haul cost of diesel-powered trucks. Hauling cost ($/a3) Hauling Payload (a3) Oi stance — — (ka) 7.43 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10 10.38 10.29 9.64 9.08 8.57 8.12 15 12.82 12.70 11.90 11.20 10.58 10.02 20 15.25 15.11 14.16 13.33 12.59 11.93 25 17.69 17.52 16.43 15.46 14.60 13.83 30 20.12 19.93 18.69 17.59 16.61 15.74 35 22.55 22.34 20.95 19.71 18.62 17.64 40 24.99 24.75 23.21 21.84 20.63 19.54 45 27.42 27.17 25.47 23.97 22.64 21.45 50 29.86 29.58 27.73 26.10 24.65 23.35 55 32.29 31.99 29.99 28.23 26.66 25.25 60 34.72 34.40 32.25 30.35 28.67 27.16 65 37.16 36.81 34.51 32.48 30.68 29.06 70 39.59 39.22 36.77 34.61 32.69 30.97 75 42.03 41.63 39.03 36.74 34.70 32.87 80 44.46 44.05 41.29 38.86 36.71 34.77 85 46.90 46.46 43.55 40.99 38.71 36.68 90 49.33 48.87 45.81 43.12 40.72 38.58 95 51.76 51.28 48.08 45.25 42.73 40.48 100 54.20 53.69 50.34 47.38 44.74 42.39 Table 34. Iapact of hauling distance and payload on haul cost of gasoline-powered trucks. Hauling cost ($/a3) Hauling Oistance Payload (a3) 1) 6.49 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 .10 9.04 8.38 7.82 7.33 6.90 6.52 15 11.62 10.77 10.05 9.43 8.87 8.38 20 14.20 13.16 12.29 11.52 10.84 10.24 25 16.78 15.56 14.52 13.61 12.81 12.10 30 19.36 17.95 16.75 15.70 14.78 13.96 35 21.94 20.34 18.98 17.80 16.75 15.82 40 24.52 22.73 21.22 19.89 18.72 17.68 45 27.10 25.13 23.45 21.98 20.69 19.54 50 29.68 27.52 25.68 24.08 22.66 21.40 55 32.26 29.91 27.92 26.17 24.63 23.26 60 34.84 32.30 30.15 28.26 26.60 25.12 65 37.42 34.69 32.38 30.36 28.57 26.98 70 40.00 37.09 34.61 32.45 30.54 28.84 75 42.58 39.48 36.85 34.54 32.51 30.71 80 45.16 41.87 39.08 36.64 34.48 32.57 85 47.74 44.26 41.31 38.73 36.45 34.43 90 50.32 46.65 43.54 40.82 38.42 36.29 95 52.90 49.05 45.78 42.92 40.39 38.15 100 55.48 51.44 48.01 45.01 42.36 40.01 91 The author assumes that the average round t r i p of 8.64 km/hr of the flatbed trucks evaluated could be increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y by improving the existing road standard. The actual road standard of the forest roads could be upgraded by performing the following a c t i v i t i e s : - reshaping the road bed and providing a crown - i n s t a l l i n g culverts and ditches where needed - improving the horizontal and v e r t i c a l alignment where possible - maintaining properly the forest road It can be assumed that trucks could perform round t r i p average speed of 12 or 15 km/hr i f the a c t i v i t i e s indicated above are accomplished. The average loading time of 1.98 hr could also be reduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y by changing the loading method. Since a drastic reduction of 80% in the loading time could represent only a modest saving of 7% in the case of the more expensive truck (diesel-powered), the author believes that the use of a very expensive loading machine such as a front-end loader cannot be j u s t i f i e d at this stage. The home-made jammer which is used in the yarding operation could be considered to perform the loading operation in reduced time. Ogle (1982) indicates that a shop-built cable crane mounted on flatbed Ford which i s used to yard and load, can load flatbed trucks in approximately 30 minutes, in a Mexican logging operation. Besides, Corvanich (1979) in his report of logging operations in Thailand points out that a local-made 92 crane truck r e q u i r e s 45 minutes to load a l o g truck of 12,000 kg payload c a p a c i t y . Based on these r e p o r t s , the time r e q u i r e d to load a f l a t b e d truck with a home-made jammer i s assumed to be 45 minutes. On the other hand, i t i s assumed that the f o r e s t roads with proper drainage system and proper maintenance w i l l be f r e e of mudholes and r u t s , and the g r a v e l r e q u i r e d to s u r f a c e the road or to s t a b i l i z e the subgrade must be hauled with dump t r u c k s . The author assumes that delay due to l o a d i n g and unloading g r a v e l , truck stuck, and road reconnaissance, and w a i t i n g f o r l o g s , can be e l i m i n a t e d . Delay due to mechanical problems can a l s o be reduced i f p r e v e n t i v e maintenance of the t r u c k s could be implemented. Under these circumstances, only c e r t a i n delays would remain, such as minor mechanical problems, warm up time, f u e l i n g , truck d r i v e r ' s food breaks, personnel time, e t c . I t i s estimated that the average d e l a y time could be reduced by at l e a s t 62%, which means that a maximum d e l a y time of 1.00 hour per t r i p could be expected. A s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s was conducted to evaluate the e f f e c t on the h a u l i n g cost of the f o l l o w i n g proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s : Factor A l t e r n a t i v e A l t e r n a t i v e No.l No. 2 Average round t r i p speed (km/hr) 12 15 Loading time (hr) 0.75 0.75 Delay (hr) 1.00 1.00 93 Table 35 and Table 36 show the effect of increasing the travel speed, and reducing delay and loading time on truck productivity and haul cost of dies e l and gasoline-powered trucks respectively. Table 35 shows that in the case of diesel-powered trucks, by increasing the average speed to 12 or 15 km/hr, and reducing the delay and loading time by 62%, a large reduction between 27.96 and 35.94% in the hauling cost could be obtained. On the other hand, Table 36 shows that in the case of gasoline-powered trucks, a reduction of the hauling cost of 19.38 and 26.20% may be expected for alternative No.1 and alternative No. 2 respectively. F i n a l l y , Tables 35 and 36 show that hauling logs with diesel-powered trucks could be cheaper than with gasoline-powered trucks in both proposed alternatives. Table 35. Analytical i l l u s t r a t i o n of the effects of varying average round t r i p speed, delay and loading time on productivity and haul cost of diesel -powered trucks. Existing Alternative Alternative conditions No.l No. 2 Average cycle time (hr) 10.96 6 . 40 5.5 Number of t r i p s per year 160 282 330 Volume hauled per t r i p (m3) 7.43 7.43 7 .43 Volume hauled per year (m3) 1,189 2,095 2, 452 Depreciation ($/m3) 5.26 2.99 2.55 Interest ($/m3) 3.51 1.99 1.70 Wages and Fringe ($/m3) 1.93 1.93 1.93 Fuel ($/m3) 2.63 2.63 2.63 O i l and lub r i c a t i o n ($/m3) 0.23 0.16 0.13 Tires ($/m3) 3.30 2.44 1.94 Repair and Maintenance($/m3) 1.31 0.94 0 .76 Haul cost ($/m3) 18.17 13.09 11. 64 94 Figure 20 and Figure 21 generated with data of Table 35 and Table 36 respectively, i l l u s t r a t e the effects of varying average round t r i p speed, delay and loading time on haul cost components of dies e l and gasoline-powered trucks. Figure 20 and 21 reveal that a substantial cost saving of depreciation, interest, and t i r e s , i s expected in the most costly truck (diesel-powered). F i n a l l y , these figures indicate that great cost saving of t i r e s could be obtained under the operating conditions proposed in alternatives No.1 and No.2. Table 36. Analytical i l l u s t r a t i o n of the effects of varying average round t r i p speed, delay and loading time on productivity and haul cost of gasoline-powered trucks. Existing Alternative Alternative conditions No.l No. 2 Average cycle time (hr) 10.96 6 .40 5 . 54 Number of t r i p s per year 160 282 330 Volume hauled per t r i p (m3) 6 . 49 6 . 49 6 . 49 Volume hauled per year (m3) 1,038 1,830 2,142 Depreciation ($/m3) 3.64 2.07 1.77 Interest ($/m3) 1.19 0 .68 0.58 Wages and Fringe ($/m3) 2.21 2 . 21 2 . 21 Fuel ($/m3) 5.21 5. 21 . 5. 21 O i l and Lubrication ($/m3) 0.30 0.21 0.17 Tires ($/m3) 3.31 2 . 53 1.99 Repair and maintenance ($/m3) 1.43 1.03 0 . 82 Haul cost ($/m3) 17.29 13.94 12 . 76 It can also be assumed that flatbed trucks t r a v e l l i n g over forest roads with smooth surfaces (free of mudholes and ruts ) , can haul near their f u l l payload capacity . The effect of increasing haul distance and payload per t r i p was analyzed for d i e s e l and gasoline-powered trucks under the operating 95 c o n d i t i o n s proposed i n A l t e r n a t i v e 1 and 2. Tables 37, 38, 39,and 40 summarizes the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s . By comparing h a u l i n g c o s t o b t a i n e d f o r diesel-powered t r u c k s i n Table 33, 37, and 38, f o r any g i v e n h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e , i t i s apparent t h a t a c o s t s a v i n g between 40 to 46.92% c o u l d be reached by i n c r e a s i n g the payload from 7.43 to 9.0 m3 per t r i p i n a l t e r n a t i v e 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . FIGURE 20. HAULING COST COMPARISON for Diesel-powered Trucks 8 - i 1 i r Deprec'n Interest Puel Oil&Lube Tires E x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s Wages COST FACTOR E H A l t e r n a t i v e No.l R & M A l t e r n a t i v e No.2 9 6 FIGURE 21. HAULING COST COMPARISON for GaBoline-powered Trucks h (A 0 U H M 2 D 4 -3 -/ 1 -> Deprec'a Interest Wages Fuel Oil&Lube Tires R k E x i s t i n g conditions COST FACTOR LZZI Alternative No.l E Z I Alternative No.2 Table 38. Iapact of hauling distance and payload on haul cost under Alternative No.2 of diesel-powered trucks. Hauling Cost ($/i3) Hauling Distance Payload (i3) (ka) 7.43 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10 6.47 6.41 6.01 5.66 5.34 5.06 15 8.09 8.01 7.51 7.07 6.68 6.33 20 9.70 9.61 9.01 8.48 8.01 7.59 25 11.32 11.21 10.51 9.90 9.35 8.85 30 12.94 12.82 12.02 11.31 10.68 10.12 35 14.55 14.42 13.52 12.72 12.01 11,38 40 16.17 16.02 15.02 14.13 13.35 12.65 45 17.79 17.62 16.52 15.55 14.68 13.91 50 19.40 19.22 18.02 16.96 16.02 15.17 55 21.02 20.82 19.52 18.37 17.35 16.44 60 22.64 22.42 21.02 19.79 18.69 17.70 65 24.25 24.03 22.52 21.20 20.02 18.97 70 25.87 25.63 24.03 22.61 21.36 20.23 75 27.48 27.23 25.53 24.02 22.69 21.50 80 29.10 28.83 27.03 25.44 24.02 22.76 85 30.72 30.43 28.53 26.85 25.36 24.02 90 32.33 32.03 30.03 28.26 26.69 25.29 95 33.95 33.63 31.53 29.68 28.03 26.55 100 35.57 35.23 33.03 31.09 29.36 27.82 Table 37. iapact of hauling distance and payload on haul cost under Alternative No.l for diesel-powered trucks. Hauling Cost ($/a3) Hauling Distance Payload (a3) (ka) 7.43 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10 7.03 6.96 6.53 6.14 5.80 5.50 15 8.92 8.84 8.29 7.80 7.36 6.98 20 10.82 10.71 10.04 9.45 8.93 8.46 25 12.71 12.59 11.80 11.11 10.49 9.94 30 14.60 14.47 13.56 12.77 12.06 11.42 35 16.50 16.34 15.32 14.42 13.62 12.90 40 18.39 18.22 17.08 16.08 15.18 14.38 45 20.29 20.10 18.84 17.73 16.75 15.87 50 22.18 21.97 20.60 19.39 18.31 17.35 55 24.07 23.85 22.36 21.04 19.87 18.83 60 25.97 25.73 24.12 22.70 21.44 20.31 65 27.86 27.60 25.88 24.35 23.00 21.79 70 29.76 29.48 27.64 26.01 24.57 23.27 75 31.65 31.36 29.40 27.67 26.13 24.75 80 33.54 33.23 31.15 29.32 27.69 26.24 85 35.44 35.11 32.91 30.98 29.26 27.72 90 37.33 36.98 34.67 32.63 30.82 29.20 95 39.23 38.86 36.43 34.29 32.38 30.68 100 41.12 40.74 38.19 35.94 33.95 32.16 Table 40. Iapact of hauling distance and payload on haul cost under Alternative No.2 of gasoline-powered trucks. Hauling Cost ($/i3) Distance Payload (a3) (ka) 6.49 7.00 7.SO 8.00 8.S0 9.00 10 6.64 6.16 5.75 5.39 5.07 4.79 IS 8.55 7.93 7.40 6.94 6.53 6.17 20 10.46 9.70 9. OS 8.49 7.99 7.55 25 12.38 11.47 10.71 10.04 9.45 8.92 30 14.29 13.25 12.36 11.59 10.91 10.30 35 16.20 15.02 14.02 13.14 12.37 11.68 40 18.11 16.79 15.67 14.69 13.83 13.06 45 20.02 18.56 17.32 16.24 15.29 14.44 SO 21.93 20.33 18.98 17.79 16.75 15.82 55 23.84 22.11 20.63 19.34 18.21 17.19 60 25.75 23.88 22.29 20.89 19.66 18.57 65 27.67 25.65 23.94 22.44 21.12 19.95 70 29.58 27.42 25.59 23.99 22.58 21.33 75 31.49 29.19 27.25 25.55 24.04 22.71 80 33.40 30.97 28.90 27.10 2S.50 24.09 85 35.31 32.74 30.56 28.65 26.96 25.46 90 37.22 34.51 32.21 30.20 28.42 26.84 95 39.13 36.28 33.86 31.75 29.88 28.22 100 41.05 38.06 35.52 33.30 31.34 29.60 Table 39. Iapact of hauling distance and payload on haul cost under Alternative No.l of gasoline-povered trucks. Hauling Cost ($/a3) Hauling Payload (a3) Di stanc e (ka) 6.49 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 10 7.10 6.58 6.14 5.76 5.42 5.12 15 9.23 8.56 7.99 7.49 7.05 6.66 20 11.37 10.54 9.84 9.23 8.68 8.20 25 13.51 12.53 11.69 10.96 10.32 9.74 30 15.65 14.51 13.54 12.70 11.95 11.29 35 17.79 16.49 15.39 14.43 13.58 12.83 40 19.93 18.47 17.24 16.17 15.21 14.37 45 22.06 20.46 19.09 17.90 16.85 15.91 50 24.20 22.44 20.94 19.64 18.48 17.45 55 26.34 24.42 22.79 21.37 20.11 19.00 60 28.48 26.41 24.65 23.10 21.75 20.54 65 30.62 2B.39 26.50 24.84 23.38 22.08 70 32.76 30.37 28.35 26.57 25.01 23.62 75 34.90 32.35 30.20 28.31 26.64 25.16 80 37.03 34.34 32.05 30.04 28.28 26.71 85 39.17 36.32 33.90 31.78 29.91 28.25 90 41.31 38.30 3S.75 33.51 31.54 29.79 95 43.45 40.28 37.60 35.25 33.18 31.33 100 45.59 42.27 39.45 36.98 34.81 32.87 99 Figure 22 generated with data from Tables 33, 37, and 38 i l l u s t r a t e s a truck cost comparison of diesel-powered trucks, for the existing operating conditions, and proposed alternatives, for increasing hauling distance, but maintaining a l l the other factors constant. 4.5 Break-even Analysis Hauling cost as a standing cost per unit volume to cover loading, unloading and delay time, plus a t r a v e l l i n g cost per unit volume per unit hauling distance were calculated for both types of trucks under comparison, to determine the break-even distance at which the t o t a l hauling cost ($/m3) of both alternatives are equal. In this analysis, standing costs comprise depreciation, interest, operator wages and fringe benefits. While t r a v e l l i n g costs comprise the three items indicated above together with f u e l , o i l and lubrication, t i r e s , and repair and maintenance (McNally, 1974, 1975). Standing and t r a v e l l i n g costs were calculated with truck cost estimate data reported in Section 4.2.3 of this Chapter, and they are shown in Table 41 and Table 42. From the results obtained in Table 41 and 42, the hauling cost per unit volume of each type of truck analysed in this study can be expressed as: a) Diesel-powered trucks Hauling cost ($/m3) = $4.59 + ($0.5224 * HD) 100 b) Gasoline-powered trucks Hauling cost ($/m3) = $3.0-2 + ($0.5490 * HD) Where: HD = one-way hauling distance in kilometres Table 41. Estimated hauling cost as a standing and t r a v e l l i n g cost for diesel-powered trucks. I tern Standing Travelling Total One-way hauling distance (km) 26 26 Hours per t r i p 4.52 6 .02 10 . 54 Cost: per hour 7.54 16.77 per t r i p 34.10 100.92 135.02 per m3 4. 59 13 . 58 18 .17 per m3-km 0 . 5224 Table 42. Estimated hauling cost as a standing and t r a v e l l i n g cost for gasoline-powered trucks. I tern Standing Travelling Total One-way hauling distance (km) 26 26 Hours per t r i p 4 . 52 6.02 10 . 54 Cost: per hour 4 .34 15. 39 per t r i p 19 .61 92.63 112.24 per m3 3.02 14 .27 17 . 29 per m3-km 0.5490 The standing cost ($/m3) of 4.59 or 3.02 is fixed regardless of hauling distance as long as the standing time (loading, unloading, and delay) of 4.52 hours per t r i p can be maintained; while the t r a v e l l i n g cost ($/m3-km) of 0.5490 or 0.5224 is expected to decrease in inverse proportion to tr a v e l l i n g speed; which means by upgrading the forest roads the t r a v e l l i n g cost can be reduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y (McNally, 1974 ) . 101 By a p p l y i n g the formula g i v e n i n S e c t i o n 3.2.5, Chapter 3, the break-even p o i n t was c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : X = (4.59-3.02)/(0.5490-0.5224) = 59.0 km Where: X = break-even d i s t a n c e i n km The break-even a n a l y s i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 23. T h i s f i g u r e shows t h a t below the equal p o i n t (59 km) h a u l i n g l o g s with gasoline-powered t r u c k s i s cheaper than with d iesel-powered t r u c k s . Above t h i s p o i n t the r e v e r s e i s t r u e . FIGURE 22. H a u l i n g c o s t comparison f o r d i e sel-powered t r u c k s : e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s v e r s u s proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s . 80 — i •• 1 0 -j , , , , . , , ! r 10 30 50 70 90 E x i s cond t i n g i t i o n s ONE-WAY HAULING DISTANCE {km} + A l t e r n a t i v e No.l o A l t e r n a t i v e No.2 ONE-WAY HAULING DISTANCE (km) ST-dieuel f TC-diesel 0 ST-gas. A TC-gaB. o to 103 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This hauling study was carried out in a logging company in the wood products center of Pichanaki, which t y p i f i e s many similar hauling operations in the Central Jungle region of Peru. The study reveals that the existing physical ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s and conditions of the forest roads are probably one of the main obstacles to e f f i c i e n t transportation of logs from bush landings to sawmill by flatbed trucks. Very low average travel speed empty of 10.33 km/hr or loaded of 7.42 km/hr for flatbed trucks was found. This is believed to be primarily as a result of presence of mudholes and ruts on the running surface of many sections of the forest roads. The forest roads had serious drainage problems because they were b u i l t without crown, ditches or culverts to prevent water saturation of the road surface and subgrade. Poor alignment is also thought to be a contributing factor to low speed. Delay time was the second major obstacle to e f f i c i e n t log transportation by flatbed trucks. An average delay time of 2.64 hours, which represents 24.1% of the truck cycle for a haul distance (one way) of 26 km, has been found, as a result of drainage problems on forest roads, inadequate p o l i c i e s for road maintenance, and lack of proper planning and supervision of the hauling operation. Preventive 104 maintenance of the tr u c k s should be implemented to avoid mechanical delays d u r i n g the h a u l i n g o p e r a t i o n . Furthermore, dump truc k s must be used i n s t e a d of f l a t b e d t r u c k s to haul g r a v e l r e q u i r e d to s u r f a c e or s t a b i l i z e the subgrade of the roads. The average l o a d i n g time of 1.98 hours, which accounted for 18.1% of the c y c l e time, shows that the manual l o a d i n g methods used to load the truc k s were not e f f i c i e n t . T herefore, mechanical l o a d i n g methods should be introduced to improve the p r o d u c t i v i t y of the f l a t b e d t r u c k s evaluated. Small l o g g i n g companies, however cannot a f f o r d the high c a p i t a l investment r e q u i r e d f o r l o a d i n g machines such as front-end l o a d e r s . The home-made jammer being used i n the yardin g o p e r a t i o n , should t h e r e f o r e a l s o be used i n the lo a d i n g operations i n order to reduce l o a d i n g times. The average per t r i p payload of 7.43 and 6.49 m3 for diesel-powered and gasoline-powered t r u c k s r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n d i c a t e s t hat the f l a t b e d t r u c k s hauled payload under t h e i r f u l l c a p a c i t y . This s i t u a t i o n r e s u l t s from the lack of knowledge about the u n i t l o g weight of the spe c i e s hauled, plus the presence of mudholes and r u t s on the f o r e s t roads. The s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s showed that by l o a d i n g the truck near i t s f u l l c a p a c i t y (9 m3) f o r every t r i p , the haul cost could be reduced by at l e a s t 17%. Therefore, upgrading of haul roads would lead to f u r t h e r improvements i n h a u l i n g e f f i c i e n c y through increased payload c a p a c i t y of the t r u c k s . 105 I t has been found t h a t there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n performance between g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d and d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s f o r the f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s : v e l o c i t y empty, v e l o c i t y l o a d e d , d e l a y , l o a d i n g and u n l o a d i n g t i m e . S i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r p a y l o a d per t r i p has been found f o r d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s than f o r g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s . Very expensive h a u l i n g c o s t s , between $18 .17/m 3 and $17 .29/m 3 have been found f o r d i e s e l - p o w e r e d and g a s o l i n e -powered t r u c k s r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the s h o r t one-way h a u l d i s t a n c e of 26 km. Under the e x i s t i n g o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , h a u l i n g l o g s w i t h 17-18 y e a r - o l d r e b u i l t , g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s was l e s s expensive than w i t h d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s from 4 to 6 y e a r s - o l d , f o r h a u l d i s t a n c e s (one-way) below 59 km. On the other hand, d i e s e l - p o w e r e d t r u c k s c o u l d be more c o s t e f f i c i e n t on one-way h a u l d i s t a n c e s g r e a t e r than 59 km. T h e r e f o r e , f o r the most c u r r e n t one-way h a u l d i s t a n c e (30-50 km) on f o r e s t r o a d s , the use of o l d g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s i s recommended. F u e l p l u s t i r e c o s t s amounted to 32% and 49% of the t o t a l h a u l i n g c o s t s f o r d i e s e l - p o w e r e d and g a s o l i n e - p o w e r e d t r u c k s r e s p e c t i v e l y . More e f f i c i e n t engines must be examined and w e l l d e s i g n e d f o r e s t roads must be b u i l t to reduce these c o s t s . The s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s showed t h a t the low p r o d u c t i v i t y of the f l a t b e d t r u c k s c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d , and the h i g h h a u l c o s t c o u l d be decreased s u b s t a n t i a l l y by 106 i n c r e a s i n g truck speed, reducing the l o a d i n g time, reducing delay, and l o a d i n g the v e h i c l e to i t s c a p a c i t y i n every t r i p . The s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s a l s o r e v e a l e d that i f the round t r i p average speed could be increased from 8.64 km/hr to 12 km/hr and the l o a d i n g and d e l a y time could be reduced by 62%, the t r u c k s would be able to complete two t r i p s per day on a one-way haul of 26 km. Round t r i p speeds of 12 km/hr could be obtained through upgrading of e x i s t i n g road c o n d i t i o n s . The improvements should be accomplished through reshaping the road bed and p r o v i d i n g a crown, i n s t a l l i n g c u l v e r t s and d i t c h e s where needed, improving h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l alignment where p o s s i b l e , and m a i n t a i n i n g the f o r e s t roads p r o p e r l y . Moreover, proper decking with c r o s s t i e s and p l a n k i n g should be provided to the e x i s t i n g l o g b r i d g e s . I t i s recommended that f u t u r e f o r e s t roads be b u i l t with w e l l designed drainage s t r u c t u r e s and good h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l alignment to improve t r u c k i n g e f f i c i e n c y . Future economic f e a s i b i l i t y analyses w i l l be necessary to ensure investments i n improving e x i s t i n g f o r e s t road standards are j u s t i f i e d . Symphony spreadsheet software has proven to be an e x c e l l e n t t o o l f o r a n a l y s i n g c o s t s of the complex h a u l i n g system. A l s o i n t h i s study, the model DSR S e r v i s Recorder has proven to be a very u s e f u l instrument to record truck a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g the t r i p c y c l e . The c h a r t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can be done with a l i t t l e p r a c t i c e and some knowledge of the 107 p r o c e s s elements of the h a u l i n g c y c l e . S e r v i s Recorders w i t h a 24-hr c l o c k mechanism would have been b e t t e r f o r t h i s time s t u d y , because the t r u c k c y c l e time on some o c c a s i o n s took more than 12 hours. 108 LITERATURE CITED Adams, P.W. 1983. Maintaining woodlands roads. Oregon State University. Extension Service 1139. 12pp. Arostegui, A.V. 1982. Recopilacion y analysis de estudios tecnologicos de maderas Peruanas. Proyecto PNUD/FAO/81/ 002. Documento de trabajo No.2. Lima. 57pp. Baumgras, J. 1970. Configuration of Appalachian logging roads.U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Northeast. For. Exp. Stn. Research paper NE-198. 16pp. Berlyn, R.W. and R.E. Keen. 1964. A method of recording vehicle a c t i v i t y . Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada Woodlands Research Index No.148 Montreal, Quebec. 18pp. Brack, A. 1977. E l ambiente en que vivimos. E d i t o r i a l Salesiana. Lima-Peru. 395pp. Byrne, J.J., R.J. Nelson and P.H. Googins. 1960. Logging road handbook-the effect of road design on hauling costs. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Agriculture handbook No.183. Washington, D.C. 65pp. Campos, R. 1983. Estructura de los costos de extraccion y transporte de madera r o l l i z a en la Selva Baja. Proyecto PNUD/FAO/PER/81/002. Documento de trabajo No.6. Lima. 71pp. Conway, S. 1982. Logging practices: principles of timber harvesting systems. M i l l e r Freeman Publications, Inc. San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a . Revised Edition. 432pp. Corvanich, A. 1979. Logging road construction and simple techniques of logging operations in Thailand. Contained in Report of the FAO/Norway training course of logging operations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp.21-26. David, E. 1983. E l transporte terrestre de madera en la Selva Central. Proyecto PNUD/FAO/PER/81/002. Documento de trabajo No.8. Lima. 66pp. Ewing, D.G. and G.T. LeBlond. 1984. Using Symphony. Que Corporation Indianapolis. 701pp. FAO. 1974. Logging and log transport in t r o p i c a l high forest. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 90pp. 109 Fisher, J.E. and D.W. Taber. 1975. Logging road and skid t r a i l construction. Proceedings of a workshop held at Tuppe Lake, NY by the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. 43pp. Folkema, P.G. and E. Heidersdorf. 1981. Shift l e v e l a v a i l a b i l i t y and productivity: Revised manual for co l l e c t i n g an reporting f i e l d data. Forest Research Institute of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. 13pp. Frisk, T. 1978. La extraccion f o r e s t a l en e l Peru. Ministerio de Agricultura y Alimentacion-Proyecto FAO 6/PER/01/I. Lima. 100pp. Frisk, T. 1979. Informe tecnico de extraccion f o r e s t a l . Ministerio de Agricultura y Alimentacion-Proyecto FAO 6 /PER /01/I Cooperacion en Extraccion y Entomologia f o r e s t a l . Lima. 61pp. Garland, J.J. 1983a. Planning woodlands roads. Oregon State University. Extension Service Circular 1118. 12pp. Garland, J.J. 1983b. Designing woodlands roads. Oregon State University. Extension Service Circular 1137. 24pp. Garland, J.J. 1983c. Road construction on woodlands properties. Oregon State University. Extension Service Circular 1135. 12pp. Haussman, R.F. and E.W. Pruett. 1973. Permanent logging roads for better wodlot management, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, State and Private forestry. Northeastern area, Upper Darby, PA. 47pp. Henrich, R.F. 1976. Problems in forest road construction in t r o p i c a l high forests. Contained in Technical report of FAO/Austria. Training course on forest roads and harvesting in mountainous forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome. pp.153-164. Hush, B., C.I. M i l l e r and T.W. Beers. 1982. Forest mensuration. John Wiley & Sons. New York. Third Edition. 402pp. Instituto Nacional de P l a n i f i c a c i o n . 1981. Programa de desarrollo de la Selva Central. INP, Lima. 87pp. Johnson, L.W. 1978. Maintenance considerations for mainline logging roads. Journal of logging management. Vancouver, B.C. 67pp. Leigh, J.J. 1984. Evaluation of cable logging systems in Peruvian t r o p i c a l mountain forests. Unpublished MF 110 thesis Department of Forestry, University of Toronto. Ontario. 166pp. Lu i s s i e r , L.J. 1961. Planning and control of logging operations. Laval University, Quebec, Canada. 135pp. Malleux, J. 1982. Recursos forestales. Contained in Peru Forestal. Proyecto PNUD/FAO/PER/81/002. Lima. pp.33-38. Martin, A. J. 1971. The r e l a t i v e importance of factors that determine log-hauling costs. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA. Research paper NE-197. 15pp. McNally, J.A.1974. Logging and log transport in man-made forests in developing countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 134pp. McNally, J.A. 1975. Truck and t r a i l e r s and their application to logging operations. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton. 200pp. McNally, J.A. 1977. Planning forest roads and harvesting systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 148pp. Miyata, E. 1980. Determining fixed and operating costs of logging equipment. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, North Central forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota. General Technical Report No. NC-55. 16pp. Nelson, L. 1974. Manual for trouble shooting and repair of the DSR Servis Recorder. Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada. 19pp. Ogle, P. 1982. Company taps r i c h forests but faces many problems. World Wood, 23(7): 15-17. Reynel, C. 1984. Un vocabulario para de s c r i b i r y nombrar a los arboles en la lengua Campa-Ashaninca. Revista Forestal del Peru, 12(1-2):81-97. Romero, R. 1983. La Selva Central: situacion actual y perspectivas para su desarrollo f o r e s t a l . Proyecto PNUD /FAO/PER/81/002. Documento de trabajo No.11. Lima. 144pp. Silv e r s i d e s , C.R. 1981. Well planned road system a forest management plus. World wood, 22(13):13-15. Smith, D.G. and P.P.Tse. 1977a. Logging trucks: comparison of productivity and costs. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. Tech. Rep.No. I l l TR-18. 43pp. Smith, D.G. and P.P.Tse. 1977b. Logging trucks: comparison of productivity and costs. Supplement:Detailed methodology. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. 66pp. Smith, D.G. 1981. Computer-aided comparison of 5, 6 and 7 axle log trucks for long distance highway hauling. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. Tech. Rep. No.TR-49. 56pp. Stenzel, G., T. Walbridge and K. Pearse. 1985. Logging and pulpwood production. John Wiley & Sons, U.S.A..Second Edition. 358pp. Universidad Nacional Agraria, La Molina. 1982. Evaluaci'on e inventario f o r e s t a l de los recursos naturales de Chanchamayo y Satipo. Convenio UNA/Proyecto Especial Pichis-Palcazu. Lima. 162pp. Walpole, R.E. 1982. Introduction to s t a t i s t i c s . Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. Third Edition. 521pp. Wilson, M.H. 1985. Economic Review. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Canadian Government Publishing Centre. Ottawa, Canada. 18 0pp. 112 A P P E N D I C E S 113 APPENDIX 1 TRUCK TRIP REPORT D a t e F o r e s t C o m p a n y C u t t i n g A r e a T r u c k - e n g i n e t y p e : G a s o l i n e D i e s e l . T r u c k N o M o d e l T r i p No H a u l i n g D i s t a n c e (km) R i d e r . . O P E R A T I O N W a r m u p L e a v e p a r k i n g L e a v e u n l o a d i n g a r e a B e g i n m a i n f o r e s t r o a d B e g i n s e c o n d a r y f o r e s t r o a d A r r i v e a t b u s h l a n d i n g L e a v e q u e u e B e g i n l o a d i n g E n d l o a d i n g L e a v e b u s h l a n d i n g B e g i n m a i n f o r e s t r o a d B e g i n p u b l i c r o a d A r r i v e u n l o a d i n g a r e a L e a v e q u e u e B e g i n u n l o a d i n g E n d u n l o a d i n g 114 Page 2. OTHER DELAYS Cause L o c a t i o n Begin x X M C • End • PAYLOAD Log No. Max.diam. (cm) Min.diam (cm) Length (m) Species Vo1ume (m 3) kg/m3 kg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL 115 APPENDIX 2 TRUCK PURCHASE PRICE INFORMATION A. New Diesel-powered trucks Truck Model DODGE DP-500 Truck purchase pr ice in Peruvian soles(January 1981) 11, 486,000 Truck purchase price in U.S. dollars (January 1981) 32,5391 Truck purchase price in Canadian dollars(January 1981) 38,7442 Truck August purchase ; 1985 price in current Canadian dollars of 54,5053 B. Old Gasoline i-powered trucks Truck Model FORD F-600 4 Truck purchase price in Peruvian soles(December 1981) 5, 000,000 Truck purchase pr ice in U.S. dollars (December 1981) 9,878s Truck purchase pr ice in Canadian dollars(December 1981) 11,707s Truck August purchase 1985 price in current Canadian dollars of 14,6403 1 Based on an exchange rate of 1 US$= 352.99 Peruvian soles in January 1981 reported by International Monetary Fund, 1981. International Financial S t a t i s t i c s , 34(5):315. 2 Based on an exchange rate of 1 US$= 1.1907 Canadian dollars in January 1981 reported by Bank of Canada Review (January 1983).ppS127. 3 Based oh increases of the t o t a l Consumer Price Index (12.5, 10.8, 5.8, 4.4 ) for the period 1981-1984 reported by the Honourable Michael H. Wilson Minister of Finance of Canada in Economic Review, A p r i l 1985.pp32. 4 Trucks b u i l t in 1966 116 5 Based on an exchange r a t e of 1 US$= 506.17 Peruvian s o l e s i n December 1981 reported by I n t e r n a t i o n a l Monetary Fund, 1982 . I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , 35(3) :321. 6 Based on an exchange r a t e of 1 US$= 1.1851 Canadian d o l l a r s i n December 1981 reported by Bank of Canada Review (January 1983).ppS127. 117 APPENDIX 3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS A. TESTS OF HYPOTHESES 1. VELOCITY EMPTY (km/hr) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck X i = 10.59 X a = 10.11 S i = 1.2724 S a = 1.1536 n i =25 n 2 = 29 1.1 Test concerning v a r i a n c e s „ a a Ho : CTi = era Ha. : c r i 4 <J\ o = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : f > (24,28) = 2.17 / < f i - « / 2 ( 24,28 ) = 1 / i W a ( 28, 24 ) = 1/2.1967 • 0.4552 / = 1.6189/1.3308 = 1.2166 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho 1.2 Test concerning means Ho : Mi = Ma or Ma. - Ma = 0 Hi : Mi - Ma > 0 o = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t > t . n i + n 2 - 2 t > 1.645 (Xi - X a) - (Mi - M» ) t = <*) Sp V l / n i + l / n a j ( n i - 1 ) S i + ( n 2 - l ) S a S p = (a) rii + n 2 -2 Sp = 1.2099 t = 1.4537 118 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho and conclude that there i s not enough evidence t h a t the v e l o c i t y empty of diesel-powered t r u c k s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the v e l o c i t y empty of g a s o l i n e -powered t r u c k s . 2. VELOCITY LOADED (km/hr) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck X i = 7.58 X 2 = 7.27 S i = 0.6773 s 2 = 0.7970 n i = 25 n 2 = 29 2.1 Test concerning v a r i a n c e s 1 1 Ho : ffi = CTa H i : a\ * cr* a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : / > i W a ( 2 4 , 28 ) = 2 .17 f < f i - o ^ a ( 2 4 , 2 8 ) = 1 / i W a ( 28, 24 ) = 1/2 .1967 = 0.4552 f = S i / S a f = 0.4587/0.6352 = 0.7221 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho 2.2 Test concerning means Ho : Ma- = Ma or M i - M» = 0 H i : M i - M= > 0 ct « 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t > t . n i + n 2 - 2 t > 1.645 Sp = 0.7441 t = 1.5261 119 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho and conclude t h a t the v e l o c i t y loaded of diesel-powered t r u c k s l s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the v e l o c i t y loaded of g a s o l i n e powered t r u c k s . 3. LOADING TIME (hr) Diesel-powered truck X i = 2.06 S i = 0.5444 rii = 25 3.1 Test concerning v a r i a n c e s 2 a. Ho : a x = 0*2 Ha. : c i * cr* ot = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : / > f - ^ 2 (24,28) = 2.17 f < / i - . / 2 (24,28) = l / f . ^ a (28,24) = 1/2.1967 = 0.4552 / = s i / s 2 3 f = 0.2964/0.2006 = 1.4776 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho 3.2 Test concerning means Ho : Ua. = u 2 or u x - u a = 0 Hi : Mi - u 2 > 0 a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t > t«. ni+n 2-2 t > 1.645 Sp = 0.4948 t = 1.1108 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho and conclude that there i s not enough evidence t h a t the l o a d i n g time l s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between both types of t r u c k . Gasoline-powered truck X 2 = 1.91 S a = 0.4479 n 2 = 29 120 4. UNLOADING TIME (hr) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck X i = 0.32 X a = 0.31 S i = 0.0999 s 2 = 0.0813 n i = 2 5 n 3 = 29 4.1 Test concerning v a r i a n c e s 1 z. Ho : C i = a a Hi : cj\ # al a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : f > f . / j (24,28) = 2.17 f < f i - . / 2 (24,28) = l / f . / 2 (28,24) = 1/2.1967 = 0.4552 / = S i / Sa f = 0.01/0.0066= 1.5121 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho 4.2 Test concerning means Ho : H i = Ma or Mx - Ma = 0 Hi : Mi " Ma > 0 a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t > t« ni+n 2-2 t > 1.645 Sp = 0.0904 t = 0.4053 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho and conclude t h a t unloading time i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between diesel-powered trucks and gasoline-powered t r u c k s . 5. DELAY (As % of productive time) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck X i = 33.73 Xa = 30.01 S i = 14.6900 s a = 13.8376 n i = 2 5 n a = 29 121 5.1 Test concerning v a r i a n c e s Ho I ffi = aa Ha. : ul ^  a l a • 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : / > S<*s* (24,28) = 2.17 f < / i — ^ a (24,28) = l / f . ^ a (28,24) = 1/2.1967 = 0.4552 f = S i / S a f = 215.7600/191.4782 = 1.13 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho 5.2 Test concerning means Ho : H i = Ha or Uo. - U 2 = 0 H i : Ua. - u 2 > 0 a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t > t« ni+n 2-2 t > 1.645 Sp = 14.2368 t = 0.9575 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho and conclude that there i s not enough evidence that the de l a y i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between both types of t r u c k . 6. PAYLOAD 6.1. PAYLOAD VOLUME (m 3) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck X i = 7.43 X a = 6.49 S i = 1.4124 S a = 1.0872 n i = 2 5 n 2 = 29 6.1.1.Test concerning v a r i a n c e s „ l z Ho : a i = aa H i : a l * a l a = 0.05 122 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : / > (24,28) = 2.17 / < f i - / i (24,28) = 1/fo .^x (28,24) = 1/2.1967 = 0.4552 f » s i / S a $ = 1.9950/1.1819 = 1.6880 D e c i s i o n : Accept Ho 6.1.2 Test concerning means Ho : Ua. = Ma or M i - Ma = 0 Hx : M i - Ma > 0 a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t > t« ni+n 3-2 t > 1.645 Sp = 1.2479 t = 2.7603 D e c i s i o n : Reject Ho and conclude that the payload volume (m3) of diesel-powered t r u c k s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the payload volume of gasoline-powered t r u c k s . 6.2 PAYLOAD WEIGHT (kg) Diesel-powered truck Gasoline-powered truck X i = 6310.40 Xa = 5768.62 S i = 1379.25 S a = 888.0223 na. = 25 n 2 = 29 6.2.1 Test concerning v a r i a n c e s Ho : era. = era Ha. : a l 3d CT| a = 0.05 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : / > f . ^ a (24,28) = 2.17 / < f i - . ^ a (24,28) = 1 / f - ^ a (28,24) = 1/2.1967 = 0.4552 f = s\ / S a 123 S = 1902337/788583 = 2.41 D e c i s i o n : Reject Ho. 6.2.2 Test concerning means Ho : Ma- » Ma or Mi ~ M= = 0 Hi : Mi - Ma > 0 a = 0.05 When ( s l / n i + s1/n a ) 2 Degrees of freedom (V) = (2 ( s \ / n i ) 2 ( s 2 / n 2 ) 2 n i - 1 n 2 - l V = 40 C r i t i c a l r e g i o n : t ' > 1.645 (X1-X2) - (Mi - Ma ) (2) V t s i / n i ) + (s* 2/n 2) t ' = 1.6858 D e c i s i o n : Reject Ho and conclude that the payload weight (kg) of diesel-powered t r u c k s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the payload weight of gasoline-powered t r u c k s . B. LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS 1. TRAVEL TIME EMPTY (Y) IN HOURS Dependent v a r i a b l e : T r a v e l time empty (Y) Independent v a r i a b l e : one-way h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e (X) C o e f f i c i e n t of det e r m i n a t i o n ( r 2 ) C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (r) Estimated constant term Standard e r r o r of estimate Regression c o e f f i c i e n t 0.487074 0.697907 0.482558 0.251564 0.07690 124 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE REGRESSION SOURCE OF VARIANCE DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF F TEST FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES Regression 1 3.12495 3.12495 49.3792 Residuals 52 3.29080 0.06328 Total 53 6.41575 2. TRAVEL TIME LOADED (Y) IN HOURS Dependent variable: travel time loaded (Y) Independent variable: one-way hauling distance (X) Coefficient of determination ( r 2 ) : 0 .614408 Correlation c o e f f i c i e n t (r) : 0 .783842 Estimated constant term : 0 .143634 Standard error of estimate : 0 .328159 Regression c o e f f i c i e n t : 0 .129954 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE REGRESSION SOURCE OF VARIANCE DEGREES OF FREEDOM SUM OF SQUARES MEAN OF SQUARES F TEST Regression 1 Residuals 52 Total 53 8.92276 5.59978 14.5225 8.92276 0.10768 82.857 1 Walpole, E.R., 1982. pp.321. 2 Walpole, E.R., 1982. pp.311. APPENDIX 4 PLAN VIEW AND PROFILE OF FOREST ROADS SURVEYED PROJECT i MAIN3 SCflLE i 1 i 1000 TITLE i PLAN VIEW DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-HaulIng study to cn PROJECT i MAIN4 SCALE i 1 i 10019 TITLE i PLAN VIEW DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-HaulIng study 12*800.0— 12*320.0— 0 —12*50B.0 to oo 12+300 12+400 12+500 TRAVERSE s MAIN4 HORIZONTAL SCALE : 1 » 1500 VERTICAL SCALE t 1 » 300 TITLE : PROFILE OF MAIN ROAD DATE ( February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT t Peru-haul log study - - HORIZONTAL DISTANCE UI -1 i I t 1 I » « t I I I l__ t I l 12+600 12+700 12+800 PROJECT i MAIN6 SCALE i 1 i 1000 TITLE i PLAN VIEW DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY t David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-HaulIng study to o PROJECT i MAIN7 SCHLE i 1 i 1000 TITLE i PLAN VIEW DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT t Peru-HaulIng study I 10 -10 -20 J L J I L 19+400 19+500 19+600 TRAVERSE » MAIN7 HORIZONTAL SCALE i 1 i 1500 VERTICAL SCALE i 1 i 300 TITLE i PROFILE OF MAIN ROAD DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-haulIng study = - HORIZONTtt. DISTHMX l a ) -J I I t I I | I t I I I 1 1 1 1 19+700 19+800 19+900 PROJECT t SEC1 SCALE > 1 i 1000 TITLE « PLAN VIEW DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY t David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-HaulIng study 19+300 19+400 19+500 TRAVERSE i SEC1 HORIZONTAL SCALE t 1 I 1500 VERTICAL SCALE t 1 t 300 TITLE « PROFILE OF SEC. ROAD DATE t February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Paru-HoulIng study - - HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (a) -J I h I I I I t I I I 1 1 1 L 19+600 19+700 19+800 r-» CJ PROJECT I SEC2A SCALE l 1 i 1000 TITLE t PLAN VIEW DATE I February 4 1986 DRAWN BY t David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-Haul Ing artudy -10 -20 -30 J I I I L" I I I I L L 22+700 22+800 22+900 TRAVERSE « 5EC2A HORIZONTAL SCALE i 1 t 1500 VERTICAL SCALE i 1 « 300 TITLE t PROFILE OF SEC. ROAD DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-HaulIng study - - HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (el -j i i t i i i i — b i 1 1 1 1—L 23+0 23+100 23+200 I PROJECT i SEC3D SCALE s 1 t 1000 TITLE i PLAN VIEW DATE t February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-HaulIng study : j S 25*200 25*300 25+400 I TRAVERSE i SEC30 HORIZONTAL SCALE « 1 • 1500 VERTICAL SCALE i 1 i 300 TITLE i PROFILE OF SEC. ROAD DATE t February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT « Peru-HaulIng study ~ - HORIZONTAL DISTANCE lm) ^ J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t i • r • 25+500 25+600 25+700 to co 1 —23*950.0 PROJECT « SEC3C SCALE i 1 i 1000 TITLE « PLAN VIEW DATE t February 4 1986 DRAWN BY i David Aquino Y. COMMENT : Peru-HaulIng study TRAVERSE i SEC3C HORIZONTAL SCALE t 1 t 1500 VERTICAL SCALE i 1 i 300 TITLE t PROFILE OF SEC. ROAO DATE i February 4 1986 DRAWN BY t David Aquino Y. COMMENT i Peru-Haul I no. study 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075146/manifest

Comment

Related Items