Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Estimating harvesting productivity and cost on second-growth coastal sites in British Columbia Jukes, W. D. 1995

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-0366.pdf [ 8.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075169.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075169-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075169-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075169-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075169-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075169-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075169-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075169-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075169.ris

Full Text

ESTIMATING HARVESTING PRODUCTIVITY  AND COST ON SECOND-  G R O W T H C O A S T A L S I T E S IN B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A  by W.D. JUKES, R.P.F. B.S.F., The University of British Columbia  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES D E P A R T M E N T OF FORESTRY We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A July 1995 ©W.D. Jukes  KCV  8-10-95 ;11:24AM  B Y : fclNJULbWOOD  In presenting this degree  thesis In partial  fulfilment  -*CANF0R : [ 604 ] 281 - 2485 : # 3  of the requirements  for an advanced  at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make It  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission lor extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted department  or  by his or  her representatives,  It  by the head of my  is understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/8fl)  ABSTRACT  In 1991 the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada and the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia initiated a four year cooperative project for the Canadian Forest Service to estimate harvesting system productivity and costs for clearcutting second-growth coastal sites of British Columbia. The overall objectives were to develop productivity and cost prediction models for common harvesting systems operating in second-growth stands and to design a framework for a model to select the best harvesting system for a given area based on costs.  Two harvesting operations in coastal second-growth forests on Vancouver Island were monitored. This included mechanical and manual felling, and primary timber extraction with combinations of modified hydraulic log loaders (excavator-forwarders) and long-boom loaders (super-snorkels). Studies measured machine productivities and identified factors that influenced machine performance.  Model framework design incorporated production functions derived from time studies, optimal placement of roads and landings, and machine and operating costing methods.  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF T A B L E S  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  vii  LIST OF EQUATIONS  viii  LIST OF APPENDICES  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  x  1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVES  1 3  2.0 R E V I E W OF L I T E R A T U R E 2.1 INDUSTRY S U R V E Y 2.2 L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW OF PRODUCTION A N D COST STUDIES 2.2.1 Falling Methods 2.2.2 Data on Falling Methods 2.2.3 Primary Extraction - Skidding, Forwarding and Yarding 2.2.4 Data on Primary Extraction : 2.2.5 Processing - Merchandising and Bucking 2.2.6 Loading 2.3 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D S U M M A R Y OF PRODUCTION A N D COST STUDIES ;  7 7 9 10 12 13 14 17 18 19  3.0 TIME STUDIES OF SECOND-GROWTH H A R V E S T I N G OPERATIONS 24 3.1 H O L B E R G S T U D Y 24 3.1.1 Shift Level Study of Hand Falling at Holberg 25 3.1.1.1 Description of hand falling at Holberg 25 3.1.1.2 Data collection methodology 26 3.1.1.3 Analysis and interpretation of hand falling data 27 3.1.1.4 Results 28 3.1.2 Detailed Timing Study of Excavator-forwarding at Holberg : Serpentine Pattern 28 3.1.2.1 Description of excavator-forwarding at Holberg : serpentine pattern 28  iii  3.1.2.2 Data collection methodology 32 3.1.2.3 Analysis and interpretation of excavator-forwarding data : serpentine pattern 34 3.1.2.4 Results 36 3.1.3 Detailed Timing Study of Excavator Log-alignment for Subsequent Grapple Yarding at Holberg 39 3.1.3.1 Description of excavator log-alignment at Holberg 39 3.1.3.2 Data collection methodology 40 3.1.3.3 Analysis and interpretation of log-alignment data 41 3.1.3.4 Results 42 3.1.4 Detailed Timing Study of Super-snorkeling at Holberg 42 3.1.4.1 Description of super-snorkeling at Holberg 43 3.1.4.2 Data collection methodology 44 3.1.4.3 Analysis and interpretation of super-snorkeling data 45 3.1.4.4 Results 47 3.2 B U C K L E Y B A Y STUDY 49 3.2.1 Detailed Timing Study of Mechanical Falling at Buckley Bay 51 3.2.1.1 Description of falling at Buckley Bay 52 3.2.1.2 Data collection methodology 53 3.2.1.3 Analysis and interpretation of mechanical falling data at Buckley Bay 54 3.2.1.4 Results 55 3.2.2 Detailed Timing Study of Excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay : Perpendicular pattern , 57 3.2.2.1 Description of excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay : perpendicular pattern 59 3.2.2.2 Data collection methodology 61 3.2.2.3 Analysis and interpretation of excavator-forwarding data : perpendicular pattern 62 3.2.2.4 Results 64 3.3 S U M M A R Y OF TIME STUDIES A N D A N A L Y S E S 65 4.0 SECOND-GROWTH TIMBER H A R V E S T I N G M O D E L D E V E L O P M E N T 4.1 T H E M O D E L F R A M E W O R K 4.1.1 The Framework Design 4.1.2 Transformations within the Module 4.1.2.1 Machine and operating costs 4.1.2.2 Cost of road and landing locations 4.1.2.3 Productivities 4.1.3 Model Development Summary ;  5.0 CONCLUSIONS  68 69 70 72 73 76 78 79 81  iv  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES  LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of production and cost studies for second-growth harvesting operations .. 19 Table 2: Summary of stand and site characteristics and production information by area 27 Table 3: Wood handling statistics for excavator-forwarding : serpentine pattern 35 Table 4: Excavator-forwarding work elements on a per cycle basis : serpentine pattern 36 Table 5: Summary of log-alignment data 41 Table 6: Descriptive statistics for super-snorkeling aligned wood 46 Table 7: Descriptive statistics for super-snorkeling as-felled wood 46 Table 8: Cruise estimates by area at Buckley Bay 50 Table 9: Descriptive statistics for mechanical felling and bunching within the six sub-areas . . 55 Table 10: Descriptive statistics for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern 63 Table 11: Timing studies and respective analysis conducted for this thesis 67  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Excavator-forwarding - serpentine pattern 29 Figure 2: Excavator-forwarding at Holberg 30 Figure 3: Excavator-forwarding at Holberg 31 Figure 4: Excavator-forwarding area at Holberg 32 Figure 5: Excavator-forwarding productivity as affected by average tree volume (m3) (machine utilization 94%) 38 FigUre 6: Excavator log-alignment at Holberg 40 Figure 7: Super-snorkel at Holberg 43 Figure 8: Super-snorkel productivity for aligned and as felled wood 49 Figure 9: A C L 771B Feller Buncher at Buckley Bay 51 Figure 10: Feller buncher at Buckley Bay 52 Figure 11: Estimated falling productivity for A C 77IB feller buncher 56 Figure 12: Excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay 58 Figure 13: Excavator-forwarding - perpendicular pattern 59 Figure 14: Excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay 60 Figure 15: Excavator-forwarding productivity as affected by volume per hectare: perpendicular pattern 65 Figure 16: Model framework design 71  vii  LIST OF EQUATIONS Equation [la]: Excavator-forwarding: serpentine pattern - determining the number of passes required to forward wood to roadside 36 Equation [lb]: Excavator-forwarding: serpentine pattern - determining time required to forward one tree to roadside 37 Equation [2]: Excavator-forwarding: serpentine pattern - production model 38 Equation [3]: Cycle time equation for super-snorkeling aligned wood 45 Equation [4]: Cycle time equation for super-snorkeling as-felled wood 46 Equation [5]: Predicted total turn time equation for super-snorkeling aligned wood 47 Equation [6]: Production model for super-snorkeling aligned wood 47 Equation [7]: Predicted total turn time equation for super-snorkeling as-felled wood 48 Equation [8]: Production model for super-snorkeling as-felled wood 48 Equation [9]: Mechanical falling production model 56 Equation [10]: Total outhaul time equation for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern . . 62 Equation [11]: Total inhaul time equation for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern ... 63 Equation [12]: Production model for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern 64 Equation [13]: Capital cost annuity formula 75 Equation [14]: Interest formula 75 Equation [15]: Insurance formula 76 Equation [16]: Matthews' total logging cost equation 77  viii  LIST OF APPENDICES A P P E N D I X 1: Trials of two feller-bunchers in coastal B.C. FERIC Technical Note TN-57. .. 87 A P P E N D I X 2: Production and performance of mechanical felling equipment on coastal B.C.: Timbco feller-buncher with Rotosaw head, FERIC Technical Note TN-85 88 A P P E N D I X 3: Harvesting Economics: hand falling second-growth timber, FERIC Technical Note TN-98 89 A P P E N D I X 4: Comparison of three harvesting systems in a coastal British Columbia secondgrowth stand, FERIC Technical Report TR-73 90 A P P E N D I X 5: Ground skidding second-growth timber in coastal British Columbia: a case study, FERIC Special Report SR-60 94 A P P E N D I X 6: Productivity and profitability of the Madill 122 when grapple yarding B.C. coastal second-growth timber, FERIC Special Report SR-48 95 A P P E N D I X 7: Productivity and profitability of grapple yarding bunched B.C. coastal secondgrowth timber. FERIC Special Report SR-54 96 A P P E N D I X 8: Bunch yarding with radio-controlled chokers in coastal British Columbia second-growth timber, FERIC Special Report SR-63 97 A P P E N D I X 9: Effect of falling techniques on grapple yarding second-growth timber, FERIC Technical Note TN-107 98 A P P E N D I X 10: Harvesting economics: grapple yarding second-growth timber, FERIC Technical Report TR-75. 99 A P P E N D I X 11: Harvesting Economics: two case studies of a Cypress 7280B swing yarder. FERIC Technical Note TN-115 100 A P P E N D I X 12: Machine Costing Worksheet and Example 101  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the people at MacMillan Bloedel's Northwest Bay Division, Western Forest Product Ltd.'s Holberg Division, and the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. Special thanks goes to Bjorn Andersson for his assistance throughout this project. Funding for this project was obtained through the Canadian Forest Service under the Canada / British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement (FRDAII).  x  1.0 INTRODUCTION  In 1991, the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC) and the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia (UBC) initiated a four-year cooperative project under contract to Forestry Canada to estimate harvesting system productivity and costs for clearcutting second-growth coastal sites of British Columbia (B.C.). This thesis reports the first phase of this project.  For the purposes of this thesis, a second-growth forest is defined as a stand that is less than 150 years old and originated following a harvesting operation or following natural disturbances such as fire, severe wind storms, or insect infestation. Old-growth forests are any stands not included in the second-growth definition. Coastal British Columbia is the physiographic region defined by Valentine et al (1978) that includes the Coast, the Cascade and the Insular mountain ranges and the Georgia and Hecate depressions.  Harvesting in coastal B.C. has predominantly occurred in old-growth stands. Old-growth stands are often associated with high volumes of merchantable timber, large trees, high degrees of decadence, and over-maturity. As harvesting operations on the coast of British Columbia continue, more of these old-growth stands are being converted to managed stands of second-growth timber. Some of the second-growth stands that originated between 1840 and 1940 are now being considered for harvest. In 1985, it was estimated that 2 3 % of the harvested volume in the Fraser, Soo, and Sunshine Coast Forest Districts, as well as southern portion of the Arrowsmith Forest District was  1  from second-growth stands. Approximately 12% of the 1985 provincial annual allowable cut (AAC) was harvested from these areas. In 1995, forecasts suggest that 3 2 % of the A A C will be secondgrowth timber and by the year 2005 second-growth cutting may be as high as 4 7 % of this area's harvest. Currently 1 million cubic metres of second-growth is being harvested annually in British Columbia. Within 12 years the A A C of second growth timber will more than double to nearly 2.3 million cubic metres. Forecasts suggest that under current conditions there are only 20 to 30 years of harvestable old-growth remaining for most coastal operations (Sauder, 1988).  The transition from harvesting old-growth to second-growth is creating new operational challenges for the forest industry in British Columbia. There is a consensus within the forest industry that traditional old-growth harvesting methods will be less productive in second-growth stands, primarily due to smaller tree sizes. Some of these methods may not be economically viable options for second-growth harvesting operations. On the other hand, the smaller trees found in second-growth stands make it feasible to use mechanical harvesting equipment and systems such as feller-bunchers and grapple skidders.  There is concern about the way second-growth stands are to be harvested in the future. Problems include economic, environmental, and mechanical factors. Aside from the belief that existing harvesting systems will be less productive and more costly in second-growth stands, there is heightened concern about the environmental impacts that these systems may generate. Issues, such as high old-growth stumps and sparse suitable guyline stumps, also need to be addressed before harvesting can proceed. 2  However, selecting an economically optimal system for harvesting second-growth stands is presently difficult because of the limited information available on the cost and productivity associated with the different harvesting methods in these types of stands. Productivity and cost analyses must therefore be done on both traditional coastal and other harvesting systems to determine what systems would be best suited for harvesting second-growth stands. Because of variable stand and terrain conditions, even in managed second-growth stands, these analyses must relate productivity and cost to common operating conditions.  1.1 OBJECTIVES  To promote a cognizant selection of harvesting systems that are best suited for second-growth stands, the objectives of this thesis were to:  •  develop production functions and cost estimates for a selected series of harvesting systems operating in second-growth stands.  •  devise a replicatable and effective method of study and analysis for the respective systems.  •  design a framework for a model to select the best harvesting system for a given area based on costs.  There are many advantages to a second-growth timber harvesting model. The framework designed in this thesis primarily establishes a foundation for a computer model to assist in determining the  3  method of harvest, development of road networks, fiscal budgets, one to five year plans and harvest scheduling. The model framework will be designed with the following objectives:  •  to analyze harvesting system productivity and cost on a clear cut opening basis, using specific machine, stand, site and operational inputs,  •  to provide options to exchange harvesting system components within the model for system comparisons,  •  to adapt the modular structure suggested by Webster and Goulet (1978) to easily enable changes, revisions and additions of the constructed model,  •  to target forest engineers and production supervisors as the user group of the model,  •  to be used for planning purposes, and  •  to be incorporated within a decision support system.  The level of detail is determined by the objectives of the model framework. Determining the level of detail for the model involves compromises and should be uniform across the model. Three levels of detail are identified by Webster and Goulet (1978). The first level incorporates using mean times for harvesting phase activities. The use of mean times is an efficient programming task but reflects the least amount of detail. Although mean times do not quantify environmental and operational factors, they are easy to collect and are often readily available. The second level of detail involves regression models. Regression analysis for the formulation of harvesting productivity models finds the significant variables that correlate with productivity. Advantages and disadvantages to this level of detail also exist. The regression uses the factors that most affect productivity to predict system  4  or machine productivity but the significant factors identified will unlikely estimate the total outcome. The third level of detail, the least desirable for programming effort, is finding a theoretical distribution that best represents the data. This level will expose the model to factors beyond what the data contains. However for a planning tool such as the second-growth harvesting model this level is not beneficial. Simulation of this kind is most beneficial for scheduling systems and interactions between phases within the systems. Although this level of detail has its merits, it does not fulfil the objectives of this thesis. The advantages of relating stand and site characteristics to harvesting productivity while balancing and acceptable level of detail is an appropriate approach for regression analysis. However, i f insufficient data are collected the usage of mean times may  be  required.  Winsauer and Underwood (1980) have identified six phases for the creation of a simulation model: 1)  define the problem and objectives,  2)  study the physical systems and determine the discrete components of each operation,  3)  construct flow charts for each system and input and output pathways and develop module criteria,  4)  convert the flow chart to computer code,  5)  collect input data and verify the model, and  6)  make research runs under the conditions to be studied.  Considering Winsauer's and Underwood's plan this study is presented in four phases: 1) review of literature; 2) data collection of specific systems; 3) analysis of the data collected; and 4) model  5  framework development. A review of literature reporting second-growth harvesting studies outlines what systems have been studied and how the respective production data may be incorporated into a decision support model. The section containing data collection describes system operation and how data were collected to relate productivity with site specific variables. The analysis of the data presents production equations as functions of specific site and stand factors. Logical regression equations are explored.  Phases 2 and 3 are presented concurrently. The model development phase  of this thesis establishes the framework and rationale for a prototype model to estimate productivity and cost for second-growth harvesting systems used on British Columbia's coast.  6  2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE  This section is a review of harvesting systems used in second-growth stands. The purpose is to:  2.1  •  identify methods currently used for harvesting second-growth stands on coastal British Columbia,  •  summarize existing research and studies on harvesting second-growth stands, and  •  identify data gaps among the existing studies to target for study.  INDUSTRY SURVEY  A telephone and mail survey of B.C. coastal timber harvesting operations was conducted in the fall of 1991. The purposes of this survey were first, to define second-growth stand parameters (the ranges of tree diameters, numbers of stems per hectare, gross volumes per hectare, stand ages, tree heights, topographic slopes and terrain) and second, to determine available harvesting systems. This information helps identify systems that should be targeted for field studies and model development.  Eleven people from the forest industry, responsible for approximately 750,000 m  3  per year of  second-growth harvest from coastal British Columbia, were contacted regarding second-growth stands (Jukes, 1992).  Information collected indicates that second-growth coastal stand  characteristics are diverse. Second-growth stands projected for harvest during 1993 to 1998 on the  7  coast will range in age from 50 to 150 years, with gross volumes from 400 to 1100 m per hectare, 3  and with stand densities ranging from 200 to 900 merchantable stems per hectare. The diameter at breast height (dbh) will range from 15 to 150 cm and the tree heights from 20 to 60 metres. While slopes are typically gentle, some sites may contain slopes that exceed 80 percent. Terrain is prevalently even to rolling but stands that originated from fire or wind storms may contain broken and/or rocky terrain.  Aside from water quality, aesthetics, wildlife considerations and lumber market conditions, tree diameter or age normally determine second-growth harvesting schedules. On medium to good growing sites, second-growth stands will not be harvested before they have a minimum dbh of 45 cm (which is market dependent), while on poorer sites, the stands will not be harvested until they have reached culmination age (the point where the stand reaches the maximum average annual rate of growth). However, on all sites harvesting will not occur until market conditions produce a profit.  The survey also indicated that the equipment commonly used for the clear cut harvest of secondgrowth stands includes: 1) combinations of grapple yarding, long-boom loading and excavatorforwarding; 2) skidders and feller-bunchers; and 3) small highlead towers. Long-boom loading entails yarding short distances with a log boom loader equipped with a long steel boom. Excavatorforwarding involves hydraulic excavators travelling within a cut block and passing the logs towards the haul road.  8  2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW OF PRODUCTION AND COST STUDIES  A literature review was conducted to address the following questions relative to second-growth stands.  •  What systems are used to harvest second-growth?  •  What potential new systems might be studied?  •  What data are currently available for modelling system performance?  •  What data must be collected for modelling system performance?  Studies conducted in mainly coastal British Columbia, Oregon, Idaho and Washington were reviewed. However, studies in other parts of North America were considered i f undertaken in conditions similar to those found in coastal British Columbia second-growth stands. The following criteria were used to screen the literature: 1 ) the studies must have been done in stands having second-growth characteristics; 2) the equipment must be available to the coastal British Columbia industry, and; 3) the data presented must relate machine performance to the operating conditions. If production functions were not presented in the literature, averages from the studies are presented.  The literature review did not include studies conducted in interior British Columbia because of the differences in tree characteristics and soil conditions. Tree size, weight, height, shape and centre of gravity are typically different for similar species from the coast than from the interior. Coastal soil conditions such as moisture content, bearing capacity and trafficability are also unlike that found in  9  the interior.  The studies reviewed on harvesting second-growth stands included forestry publications, USDA Forest Service reports and FERIC reports. Studies on harvesting phases such as falling, primary extraction, processing and loading were reviewed and summarized if they met the predetermined criteria. The results of the literature review are briefly summarized.  2.2.1  Falling Methods  Falling methods for second-growth stands are either mechanical or manual. The method selected may not only affect the cost and productivity of the felling phase, but also the performance of subsequent phases in the operation.  Mechanically felled timber can be either directionally felled or placed in bunches, depending on the machinery used and the characteristics of the timber. The ability of mechanical felling equipment to place felled stems in bunches has been shown to reduce extraction costs for both cable yarding and ground-based systems by increasing load size per cycle (Peterson, 1986 and 1987b). However, the use of mechanical falling methods is limited by both terrain and tree size.  Specifically, the factors that preclude mechanical falling include the following: slopes that are too steep for the carriers to traverse; terrain that is too rugged or soft; tree diameter at stump height 10  exceeding felling head capacity; and obstacles such as old stumps and windfalls impeding carrier access. The felling machinery commonly available for work in second-growth stands can not work on slopes greater than 50%; however some second-growth stands that will be harvested within the next ten years contain slopes exceeding 80 percent. The effect of slope on productivity is an important factor to consider when determining the system to be used in second-growth harvesting.  Mechanical felling is also limited by tree diameter. The maximum felling capacity of most mechanical felling devices ranges between 50 and 60 cm, but some may handle trees up to 85 cm diameter at stump height (DSH). However, the practical maximum tree size for feller-bunchers, machines capable of controlling the placement of severed trees, also depends on lifting power. The practical size for a feller-director, only capable of controlling falling direction, depends on tree size alone.  Stands that contain trees too large for mechanized harvesting may not require complete manual felling. A two-pass system, where machinery fells timber within its capabilities and a faller manually fells the remaining stems, is a viable alternative. Such system combinations may also be suitable in stands with obstacles, (eg. large old-growth stumps) that restrict machine access. Manual felling operations are seldom limited by tree size or terrain conditions. However, they can be constrained by cost and breakage factors. Also, manual falling techniques can not produce bunches of stems as feller-bunchers can, and consequently the performance of the subsequent extraction phase may be less efficient.  11  2.2.2 Data on Falling Methods  Three studies on mechanical falling and one study of manual falling in second-growth stands were reviewed (McMorland 1982 and 1985, and Peterson 1986 and 1987a) (Appendices 1,2,3, and 4). The studies involved feller-bunchers operating in stands with average tree diameters around 30 cm dbh with slopes ranging from 0 to 38 percent. A l l but one of the feller-bunchers in the studies were equipped with shear felling heads, which are now undesirable to the industry due to log splitting damage caused by the shears. No production functions were provided; however the feller-buncher studies identified several stand factors that affected the performance of the machines. McMorland (1982) found that the presence of old-growth stumps and windfalls significantly increased the amount of time the machine spent clearing access paths in the stand. To resolve this problem, McMorland suggested that the front idler be raised to increase carrier mobility. Other limitations to the machines were associated with tree size. In a second study, McMorland (1985) observed that even though a machine was able to sever the trees, it may not be able to lift and adequately control the trees while bunching. In this study, the average tree size was 0.56 m . He suggested that a short3  stick boom be utilized to facilitate lifting the large trees. Peterson (1986) found that hand fallers were required to fell trees with stump diameters greater than the felling head capacity (50 cm).  Only one manual falling study pertinent to this project was found in the literature. Peterson (1987a) undertook a detailed study of hand falling on a second-growth stand with an age of 110 years, a density of 778 merchantable trees per hectare and a slope range of 0 to 52 percent. He developed 12  production functions relating total cutting time to stem diameter for Cedar (Thuja Plicata Donn.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), and Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.). However, Peterson's cutting time production function only accounted for 4 0 % of the total falling activities, because elements of walking from tree to tree, preparing escape routes etc. were not included in the production function and were only modelled as a proportion of total time.  There are several detailed falling studies that need to be conducted to determine costs and productivities as a function of stand and site characteristics. I found no available production functions satisfying the predetermined criteria for mechanical falling and hand fallers working on sites with slopes in excess of 52 percent.  2.2.3 Primary Extraction - Skidding, Forwarding and Yarding  Extracting the stems from the felling site to the decking area is the second harvesting phase. Processing of logs at the felling site prior to primary extraction is optional for extraction. Two common methods of primary extraction of second-growth timber in British Columbia are groundbased skidding and cable yarding.  Ground-based systems are limited to uniform and rolling terrain with slopes generally less than 40 percent. Studies have shown that site disturbance on steep slopes may make certain second-growth sites unsuitable for ground-based systems. Harvest areas sensitive to soil compaction and water 13  quality may also be unsuitable for the use of ground-based systems. Systems that are currently available include rubber-tired skidders, steel tracked skidders, flexible tracked skidders, crawler tractors, forwarders, and excavators (Jukes, 1992).  Cable yarding systems suitable for second-growth stands on British Columbia's coast include yarding cranes, long-boom loaders, highlead towers and skyline systems. Cable yarding systems have commonly been used to harvest old-growth stands that contain larger logs from sites with steeper slopes than are expected on second-growth sites. Therefore, it is not necessary to determine upper operating limitations for these systems. However economical break-even points must be established between ground-based and cable yarding systems to determine which are best suited for harvesting second-growth stands on a site specific basis.  2.2.4 Data on Primary Extraction  Peterson (1986) (Appendix 4) studied the productivity of rubber-tired skidders extracting mechanically felled and bunched wood. Additional operating conditions for the site included slopes ranging from 0 to 19%, and turn sizes averaging 3.72 m (3.96 pieces). Peterson noted that the 3  amount of breakage that would normally occur when pulling the trees into lead was decreased by orienting the butts of the trees toward the landing during the falling process.  Rogers and MacDonald (1989) (Appendix 5) examined the productivity of skidders in hand felled 14  timber. Operating conditions included slopes ranging from 0 to 3 5 % with an average 1 2 % favorable skidding grade and the presence of old-growth stumps that obstructed travel. A detailed time study was conducted on a rubber-tired skidder and a shift-level study was undertaken on a crawler tractor on the same site. From the detailed time study data, a production function was generated predicting total-turn time of the rubber-tired skidder as a function of skidding distance. The authors concluded that ground skidding is a viable alternative to cable yarding on some coastal British Columbia sites.  No production studies for excavator-forwarding  second-growth timber were found. However,  Fischer (1986) studied the production of excavator-forwarding old growth Douglas-fir on slopes up to 6 0 % with an average yarding distance of only 18 metres. The average spacing between haul roads for two-way roadside forwarding was 56 metres. In addition, Fischer implied forwarding secondgrowth may be beneficial. The tree-length wood requires less handling than processed timber. Also, tree-length wood allows for greater forwarding distances between swaths. Fischer also suggested that the accumulation of the log piles may impede productivity. In second-growth tree-length harvesting, high log piles may not form as quickly as in old growth harvesting for two reasons. Firstly, less pieces are piled and handled in second-growth tree-length harvesting and secondly, the piling of the logs is more compact as a result of the log diameters and air spaces between the logs.  Many studies have evaluated grapple yarders operating in second-growth timber (MacDonald 1987, 1988 and 1990, Peterson 1986, 1987b, 1987c, and 1988, and Howard 1991b) (Appendices 6, 7, 8, 4,9,10, and 11 respectively). The studies examined both yarding of bunched and hand felled timber on sites where the slope ranged from 0 to 52 percent. From the detailed timing analyses, production 15  functions for total-turn time were developed accounting for factors such as yarding distance and turn volume.  These studies suggest that large grapples are more productive than smaller grapples in secondgrowth since larger grapples hold more pieces per turn. It was also noted that the productivity of yarding bunched timber was noticeably greater than the productivity of yarding nonbunched timber on similar second-growth sites (MacDonald, 1987 and Peterson, 1987b and 1987c), mainly due to the large difference in turn sizes between the two methods.  In addition, Peterson (1986) noted that the increased cost of mechanical falling and bunching was more than offset by the savings from an increase in yarding production. However in subsequent studies Peterson (1987b) found that there was no significant time or cost differences in yarding prebunched or nonbunched turns of the same volume (1987c). Peterson (1986) observed that yarding individual pieces resulted in greater damage than yarding bunches. He also noted that very high oldgrowth stumps often resulted in breakage of the pieces in the turns (Peterson, 1988).  MacDonald (1990) monitored two Madill 044 swing yarders operating in bunched wood on slopes ranging from 0 to 50 percent. The machines were either outfitted with a dropline carriage, chokers or a grapple. For each configuration, production functions were developed predicting total turntimes given yarding distance and turn volumes. The study also concluded that the dropline carriage should be utilized in areas of poor deflection, poor visibility and long yarding distance.  16  Highlead yarding is an alternative system for yarding second-growth timber. Howard and Dodic (1989) compared actual versus predicted productivity and costs of highlead yarding of hand felled timber. A deterministic simulation program was used to predict the total production and cost within 3.4% of actual. However, the report is not directly comparable for this study since the volume was measured in Scribner rule board feet. No additional studies on highlead yarding of second-growth were located.  To model extraction phase methods that are available to coastal B.C.'s forest industry, several detailed studies must be conducted. There are no suitable production functions that relate productivity with stand and site characteristics for the following extraction methods: skyline yarding, long-boom loading, forwarding, excavator-forwarding, and skidding with a flexible tracked skidder.  2.2.5 Processing - Merchandising and Bucking  Processing may be conducted either mechanically or manually and may be carried out at the felling site, roadside or central landing. Literature shows that production is affected by the orientation of the logs and the piece size (Peterson, 1986) (Appendix 4). There are two studies conducted by Peterson that report the productivity of processing.  Peterson (1986) conducted a detailed study of mechanical and manual processing in three harvesting systems. They included grapple yarding bunched and hand felled wood, and rubber-tire skidding 17  bunched wood. Mechanical processing was monitored at roadside and at a landing, and manual processing was monitored at roadside. Mechanical processing of hand felled wood at roadside was found to be more expensive than processing mechanically felled and bunched wood at roadside. This was attributed to the fact that an extra loader was required to align all the hand felled wood in order to feed the processor effectively. In his second report, Peterson (1987a) (Appendix 3) studied selective hand-bucking and delimbing of second-growth wood larger than 60 cm at the felling site. Average combined delimbing'and bucking times are given by diameter class.  In both reports, Peterson did not report any production functions relating stand and site characteristics to productivity. However, until such information is required, Peterson's findings will be utilized. Processing methods that have not been studied include mechanical processing at the felling site prior to primary extraction and manual processing at a central landing.  2.2.6 Loading  Loading can be done with hydraulic loaders, front end loaders or cable loaders at roadside or at landings. Production is dependent upon piece size and orientation, while operational limits are determined by the specific equipment used.  Peterson (1986) (Appendix 4) studied different combinations of primary transportation and felling configurations for hydraulic loading mechanically processed wood at roadside and landing. 18  Hydraulic loading at roadside for manually processed wood was also studied. However only production averages were supplied.  No detailed timing studies conducted on front end loading or cable loading coastal British Columbia's second-growth timber were found. Although no production functions for loading were found by the literature review, there is no need to conduct any further studies on this harvesting phase. Loading is an operation that is unlikely to be affected by stand and site characteristics, therefore mean loading times will be satisfactory.  2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION AND COST STUDIES  Table 1 summarizes the published studies and targets required studies for the harvesting system productivity and cost estimation component of the model development in this thesis.  Table 1: Summary of production and cost studies for second-growth harvesting operations  PHASE:  PUBLISHED STUDY:  PRODUCTION FUNCTION AVAILABLE:  TARGETED RESEARCH:  Falling: Manual  /  /  •  Mechanical: bunched wood  /  • sawtooth felling head  non-bunched wood  19  PHASE:  Primary Extraction:  PUBLISHED STUDY:  bunched wood  non-bunched wood  PRODUCTION FUNCTION AVAILABLE: bunched wood  non-bunched wood  TARGETED RESEARCH:  bunched wood  non-bunched wood  Ground Based: rubber-tired skidder  •  •  /  /  steel tracked skidder flexible tracked skidder forwarder excavator  /  •  •  •  •  •  Cable Yarding:  /  grapple yarding highlead yarding  /  /  skyline yarding long-boom loader Processing: Manual: at felling site  selective bucking  at landing at roadside  /  Mechanical: at felling site at landing  /  at roadside  •  Loading: at landing  /  at roadside  /  Although there have been studies conducted on mechanical and manual falling, much research is still required to completely model this phase of harvesting. Available falling systems that will commonly be used for second-growth stand harvesting must be given priority. Even though there 20  are studies available on mechanized felling equipment, changes in the sawhead technology since these documented trials warrant that a new study on mechanical felling systems in second-growth timber be conducted to develop production functions. As previously mentioned, Peterson (1987a) reported cutting time production functions for hand falling. However, as Peterson reported, this only accounts for 4 0 % of the faller's activities. Studies should encompass all productive activities.  Aside from grapple yarding and ground-based skidding, there are also many primary extraction systems that have yet to be studied. Priority should be given to studying operations that are available to harvest second-growth timber. Targeted systems for study include: excavators forwarding logs to roadside; long-boom loader yarding; combined operations of ground-based and long-boom loaders; and highlead yarding. Studies should be directed at analysis of the productivity of these machines in various second-growth stands and their impacts on the site.  The application of excavator-forwarding (a.k.a. hoe-forwarding, hoe-chucking and shovel-logging) to harvest second-growth coastal stands is becoming more common. In the Pacific Northwest (PNW), this technique has been in used in old growth stands since the early 1970's (Blackmun, 1984). However this extraction technique, until recently, has only occurred in obscure, isolated operations on coastal B.C.. As little as five years ago, only pilot trials were taking place. It is now recognized as one of the premier methods for second-growth primary transport. This unique, ground-based harvesting system has proven that slow, methodical timber extraction can be profitable. However it is unclear what factors affect performance.  21  Forwarding and skyline yarding have not been targeted for study because these methods are not commonly utilized to clear cut second-growth stands in British Columbia and are currently not available for study. However, skyline yarding is widely used in the PNW  and will likely be a very  important harvesting system alternative in B.C..  Two unstudied processing methods were identified by the literature review. Manual processing at a landing is likely to be similar to manual processing at roadside and therefore has not been targeted for study. It is recommended that a study on mechanical processing at the felling site be conducted because the equipment is available and the effect on subsequent harvesting phases has yet to be quantified.  The characteristics of forest stands being harvested in British Columbia are changing as the amount of second-growth stands available for harvest increases. There is a need to identify what harvesting systems are best to harvest second-growth stands. Forecasts suggest that second-growth timber will comprise about 4 7 % of the volume harvested from mid-coastal British Columbia by 2005 (Sauder, 1988).  Emphasis must be placed on matching the system with the site, to improve production, and to lower harvesting costs on these second-growth sites. With cost and productivity models, various harvesting systems and methods can be evaluated so the most cost effective system of the studies can be selected for specific harvesting sites.  22  Five harvesting system studies have been targeted for long term evaluations; however only three studies were initiated within the constraints of this thesis. The studies included: 1) a feller-buncher equipped with a sawtooth felling head and manual falling; 2) an excavator forwarding hand felled or mechanically felled and bunched wood; 3) highlead yarding bunched and/or non-bunched wood; 4) a long-boom loader yarding bunched and/or non-bunched wood; and 5) a mechanical processor working at the felling site in stand and terrain conditions suitable for such an operation. The selected harvesting systems for this thesis included: 1) excavator-forwarding bunched and non-bunched wood; 2) mechanical and hand falling; and 3) long-boom loader yarding of excavator-aligned and as-felled wood.  23  3.0 TIME STUDIES OF SECOND-GROWTH HARVESTING OPERATIONS  Three systems operating at two locations were monitored as part of this research. The first location was at Holberg, a Western Forest Products Ltd. (WFP) logging camp situated at the northern tip of Vancouver Island. At Holberg, the second-growth stand was in a drainage known as the Simpson 611 area of Tree Farm Licence (TFL) #6. Harvesting systems studied at Holberg consisted of hand falling, long-boom loading and excavator-forwarding. The second location was at Buckley Bay, B.C.. The area at Buckley Bay is a privately managed forest unit owned by MacMillan Bloedel's (MB) Northwest Bay Division in east-central Vancouver Island. Harvesting at Buckley Bay was by a feller-buncher and excavator forwarders.  3.1  HOLBERG  STUDY  The second-growth stand at Simpson 611 was a 15-hectare area within the Wet Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone (CWH hypermaritime) (Ministry of Forests, 1988) which originated following a series of severe wind storms in 1908. The stand was comprised mostly of Balsam (Abies amabilis (Dougl.) Forbes) (54% of the net volume per hectare) and Hemlock ( 4 3 % of the net volume per hectare). Forests in this zone are typically subject to annual precipitation in excess of 350 cm. The dominant parent soils are ferro-humic podzols and poorly drained organic soils. Forest  24  productivity is typically more than 6.4 cubic metres per hectare per year (m /ha/yr) (Ministry of 3  Forests, 1988).  The entire stand was hand felled. Extraction methods included long-boom loading with a supersnorkel, excavator-forwarding, and excavator-forwarding/long-boom loading combinations. Hand falling was monitored using shift level information with detailed timing of the remaining operations. Sample logs were scaled from each of the systems and load slips were used to keep track of the total production by system. Harvesting occurred in early 1993. Descriptions of each operation, data collection methods, data interpretation and analyses will be discussed.  3.1.1 Shift Level Study of Hand Falling at Holberg  Although Peterson (1987a) reported cutting time as a function of tree diameter outside bark (dob) at breast height (1.3 m above ground) (dbh), estimating total falling productivity is difficult. Peterson's cutting time production function only accounted for 4 0 % of the total falling activities as other productive elements such as brushing, walking and limbing were not included in the production function. Additional shift level information was collected to help determine which stand and site characteristics influence productivity.  3.1.1.1 Description of hand falling at Holberg Falling was by 12 fallers from GLM contracting. Falling orientation was parallel to the contour. 25  Trees under 60 cm dbh were simply felled and left as tree length until they were at the sortyard. In second-growth, it is common to leave the trees full length to minimize the bucking. Larger trees, which comprised 4% of the number of trees within the stand, were selectively bucked. Selective bucking was defined for this operation as when the first one or two logs are bucked out of a tree. Each of the bucked logs ranged from 13 to 20 metres in length. Merchantable trees were defined as any tree of desired species, such as Hemlock and Balsam for this stand, with a dbh greater than 17.5 cm. The smallest top diameter inside bark acceptable by WFP'S standards was 15 cm.  Dave Weymer, the GLM falling supervisor (Pers. comm.) said falling productivity of any stand typically depends on the: 1) degree of decay within the stand; 2) slope of the area; 3) tree size; 4) amount of bucking required; 5) degree of underbrush or obstacles in the stand; and 6) branchiness of the trees. The degree of decay, amount of underbrush and obstacles, and the branchiness of the trees found in second-growth stands at this study site were minimal and therefore did not impede productivity. Bucking time was not significant because the majority of the trees were left full length.  3.1.1.2 Data collection methodology Cruise information available included: gross and net merchantable volumes per hectare, number of merchantable stems per hectare and average slope (Table 2).  Over a period of three months, the supervisor for GLM contracting recorded productive and nonproductive falling times to the nearest 15 minutes, for each of the small study areas (Table 2). For consistency with existing information, productive and non-productive elements were defined in 26  accordance with elements defined by Peterson (1987a). Productive time included time spent brushing, cutting, bucking, and moving between trees. Non-productive time included saw maintenance, chain sharpening, fuelling, visiting, safety meetings, rest breaks and waiting for wind to subside.  Table 2: Summary of stand and site characteristics and production information by area Size (ha.)  Gross merch. vol. (m /ha.)  Stand Density (Stems/ha)  Ave. slope (%) (range)  Ave. dbh (cm)  Ave. height (m)  Productiv e time (hrs/ha.)  Total scheduled time (hrs/ha.)  Productivity  A  1.6  1175  450  8 (0-24)  37.7  34.0  19.26  22.83  61.00  B  1.6  1197  575  33.6  33.8  22.74  25.97  52.64  C  2.3  1550  550  41.6  36.8  34.40  39.38  45.06  D  0.5  1549  475  46.7  40.9  29.59  33.69  52.35  E  2.4  1286  617  12 (5 - 20)  39.9  37.7  27.07  30.58  47.51  F  6.0  1211  433  18 (15-30)  42.4  38.0  24.71  27.81  49.01  Area  (0-1) 12 (7 - 16) (0- 10) 5  (m /PMH) 3  3.1.1.3 Analysis and interpretation of hand falling data To increase the database for hand falling, two areas were obtained from reports by Peterson (1986, 1987a) in addition to the productivity information collected from the six areas at Simpson 611. Analysis of the data from the eight areas was conducted to help determine which site and stand characteristics can be used to predict falling productivity. There were too few data points for multiple regression analysis. Correlation analysis was conducted between productivity and stand density, average slope, average gross piece size, and stand gross volume.  27  3.1.1.4 Results The correlations found between productivity and stand density (r = 0.51), slope (r = 0.44), average gross piece size (r = 0.30) and stand gross volume (r - 0.29) suggest that these elements do influence productivity and suggest that in future studies these factors should be measured.  3.1.2 Detailed Timing Study of Excavator-forwarding at Holberg : Serpentine Pattern  A n excavator-forwarder is a modified hydraulic excavator equipped with a grapple rather than a bucket.  Modifications include additional guarding and counterweight, raised undercarriage,  increased lifting capacity of the boom, widened and upgraded tracks, and a larger fuel tank. The machine studied at this site was a one-year-old John Deere 992 tracked excavator.  3.1.2.1 Description of excavator-forwarding at Holberg : serpentine pattern The excavator-forwarding pattern used at Holberg is known as the serpentine pattern (Figure 1). Prior to and concurrent with forwarding, a corduroy trail of woody debris is created by the excavator for travel to minimize site degradation (Lewis, 1989). According to the woods manager, fuel and maintenance access trails, which are perpendicular to the haul road, are also constructed approximately every 170 metres. Once forwarding is completed these trails are rehabilitated by removing the debris.  28  Access Trail START: Near the back of the operating area a swath of manually felled timber is cleared and piled into a windrow. Logs are picked up and swung to a windrow perpendicular to the haul road.  TJ  o o  "5 o  FINAL PASS: Log butts are aligned to face the haul road.  Swath Width  Figure 1: Excavator-forwarding - serpentine pattern  Beginning near the back of the cut-block boundary and travelling parallel to the haul road, the machine systematically clears a swath of felled timber. The forwarder picks up and swings logs in a direction perpendicular to the haul road, approximately 50 metres (the reach of the boom plus the length of the log) closer, creating a windrow in the direction of travel (Figure 2). Shorter, lower value pieces are commonly thrown or "chucked" to the piles (Figure 3). This swinging cycle is repeated until all the logs are windrowed along the roadside. This process requires the machine to pass through each swath once. 29  Figure 2: Excavator-forwarding at Holberg  The 2.5 hectare excavator-forwarding site consisted mostly of Area E (Table 2). The average slope was 1 2 % adverse towards the roadside. Terrain was even to slightly broken. The average tree size of 2.08 m determined by the cruise of Area E was confirmed by a random roadside sample of 102 3  trees. Roadside sample trees ranged from 0.13 to 9.86 m  3  in size. Volumes were found using  Kozak's (1988) taper equation.  Dimensions of the excavator-forwarding site included 150 metres of southeastern sideline, 180 metres of northwestern sideline, 185 metres of backline and 145 metres along the roadside. One access trail along the northwestern boundary was built for machine maintenance access. Three full 30  passes were required to forward the majority of wood within the southern section of the site, with additional forwarding required for wood along the northwestern sideline. See Figure 4.  Figure 3: Excavator-forwarding at Holberg. Shorter, lower value pieces are commonly thrown or "chucked" to the piles.  To determine machine utilization of excavator-forwarding, a Servis Recorder was mounted on the excavator. This device records when the machine is in operation and when the machine is at rest. Information was collected for a two-week period.  31  haul road  Figure 4: Excavator-forwarding area at Holberg.  3.1.2.2 Data collection methodology Each swath was timed separately because the accumulation of logs as they are forwarded to the roadside may affect the swing cycle times of the forwarding process. Elements recorded during data collection included: wood handling, on-site-moving, delays and other.  Wood handling was any operation involving wood transport such as swing cycles, forwarding-from-  32  swath and forwarding-from-windrow and arrangement of logs within the windrow or swath. Forwarding-from-swath was defined as time spent picking up a log from its felling site and placing it in the windrow pile. Forwarding-from-windrow was the movement of logs from the windrow pile to a windrow pile closer to the haul road. Arrangement of logs within the windrow or swath was defined as the operation of positioning or adjusting the logs to improve subsequent operations.  On-site-moving was either the construction or preparation of a trail or the travel of the machine within the site. The construction of the trail involved actions such as the placement of woody debris to facilitate transport. Travel of the machine occurred when the tracks of the carrier were in motion and wood handling ceased.  Delays were classified as either mechanical or non-mechanical. Mechanical delays included any delays resulting from mechanical failure or scheduled servicing. Non-mechanical delays included any delay that was not classified by the above. The timing element "other" included trail rehabilitation, debris removal, and any remaining action not previously classified.  The machine was observed working along four different swaths within the same opening. However, three of the passes extracted the majority of the wood from the area. It was necessary to segregate the final swath from the others because the machine spent extra time aligning the logs so that all log butts were facing the haul road to enhance subsequent loading.  During the pilot study, some machine operations occurred so rapidly that they were immeasurable.  33  Therefore, a continuous series of machine operations for each swath were recorded through systematic sampling. Detailed timing of the first swath was 6.82 hours, 2.98 hours for the second pass, 5.18 hours for the third, and 3.43 hours for the fourth pass.  Log-forwarding occurred throughout all four passes. During the third and fourth passes, when logs were placed at roadside, the log butts were aligned to face the haul road to improve subsequent loading.  3.1.2.3 Analysis and interpretation of excavator-forwarding data : serpentine pattern Although the objective for this detailed timing study was to derive a method of estimating excavatorforwarding productivity for a given site, the entire system must be considered in the analysis. The extraction of the stems by an excavator greatly affects the processing phase. According to the woods manager at Holberg, delimbing is typically not required once the trees are at roadside because the forwarding process has removed all of the branches.  The data collected precludes regression analysis between productivity and slope, stand density and stand volumes. Several additional studies must be completed to have a database large enough to adequately assess these factors. Nevertheless, a production model can still be derived using the detailed timing information.  The mean swing cycle forwarding time and the mean number of logs per cycle were determined for 34  each pass on this site (Table 3). A n F-test and a Duncan's multiple range test were conducted to determine i f significant differences exist among the means. Results indicated that cycle times per log for each the third and fourth passes are likely the same whereas all others differ. Efficiency of the second pass may have resulted from the windrow decks facilitating multi-log forwarding within a cycle thus the lower mean time relative to the first pass. However, the mean cycle times per log for the third and fourth passes were found to be likely equal, and longer than the first two passes. This is primarily due to these two passes involving log alignment at roadside.  Table 3: Wood handling statistics for excavator-forwarding : serpentine pattern Pass number  1  st  2nd •^rd 4*  No. of cycles  Mean cycle time per log (min.)  Standard deviation of cycle time per log (min.)  Range of cycle times per log (min.)  Mean number of logs handled per cycle  Standard deviation of logs handled per cycle  Range of logs handled per cycle  0.217  0 . 1 1 - 1.64  1.20  0.50  1-4  0.232  0.11 - 1.53  1.40  0.23  1-9  468  0.55  211  0.51  314  0.62  c  0.343  0.11 - 2 . 1 1 •  1.37  0.63  1 -4  172  0.65  c  0.361  0.13-2.26  1.28  0.62  1 -5  a  b  Symbols specify statistical equality. Where symbol 1 = symbol 2 these cycles were found to be statistically the same.  The remaining elements observed within each swath are expressed on a per cycle basis. This was achieved by summing the total time of each element within each swath and dividing by the number of cycles (Table 4). The construction of the maintenance trails was not monitored and therefore this operation can not be included in the production model.  35  Table 4: Excavator-forwarding work elements on a per cycle basis : serpentine pattern Mean swing cycle time (min.)  Arrangement of logs (min.)  On site move time (min.)  Trail preparation (min.)  Other  P  0.6597  0.01132  0.01607  2  0.7157  0.00611  3rd  0.8486  4*  0.8336  Pass number  t nd  Delays  (min)  Total productive time per cycle (min.)  0.13577  0.02812  0.85098  0.06212  0.02284  0.12839  0.01265  0.88569  0.03896  0.00000  0.01653  0.09019  0.02510  0.98042  0.09244  0.05465  0.02994  0.02360  0.02663  0.96842  0.02558  (min.)  Machine utilization, obtained from Servis Recorder charts and detailed timing information, was found to be 94%. No major delays (greater than 15 minutes) were observed but utilization was only monitored for about ten working days. Realized utilization rates may vary over greater periods of time and therefore historic machine data should also be used.  3.1.2.4 Results Referring to Tables 3 and 4, the production model for excavator-forwarding on this site was found by determining the number of passes required (Equation la) to forward logs to roadside. Equation [la]: Excavator-forwarding: serpentine pattern - determining the number of passes required to forward wood to roadside: x  Where: x round-up  =  round-up [ distance , I swath width ]  = =  the number of complete passes required to forward wood to roadside. the mathematical function rounding the calculated value up to an integer to determine the number of full passes required. the distance in metres to the backline from the haul road. the width of each pass or swath.  distance = swath width = h/l  h/  36  For example, at the study site, the southeastern sideline was 150 metres and the average swath width was 50 metres. Therefore the number of passes required was: x x  = =  round-up ( 150/50) 3  The northwestern sideline was 180 metres, therefore 4 passes were required.  To determine the excavator-forwarding time to forward one tree to roadside, the total productive time from Table 4 was prorated to a per tree basis. Timing information from the fourth pass, the closest pass to the haul road, was applied i f only one pass is required to forward the wood to roadside. Timing information from the third pass was added if two passes were required, as the third pass was the second closest to the haul road. This methodology was be followed to determine forwarding times for the remaining passes.  Equation [lb]: Excavator-forwarding: serpentine pattern - determining time required to forward one tree to roadside if x passes are required to forward one tree to roadside then total time (not including delays) is: if x if x if x if x  = = =  4 passes to roadside then CT =2.82 min. 3 passes to roadside then CT= 2.10 min. 2 passes to roadside then CT = 1.47 min. 1 pass to roadside then CT= 0.76 min.  Combining both Equations l a and l b with a site specific factor such as average tree volume and specific machine utilization rates the production rates by tree size were obtained (Equation 2 and  37  Figure 5).  Equation [2]: Excavator-forwarding: serpentine pattern - production model =  [ average  productivity  =  CT MU  = =  m / scheduled machine hour (SMH). the time required to forward one tree to roadside from Eq. la and lb. machine utilization %/100  productivity  tree volume (m ) / CT (min) ] * MU * 60 3  Where: 3  Figure 5: Excavator-forwarding productivity as affected by average tree volume (m3) (machine utilization 94%)  38  3.1.3 Detailed Timing Study of Excavator Log-alignment for Subsequent Grapple Yarding at Holberg  An excavator may also be used to enhance subsequent yarding by either bunching or aligning hand felled timber. The purposes of this function are three-fold: 1) intended to increase turn size, 2) decrease yarding cycle times, and 3) to minimize breakage. At the Holberg study site, only alignment of the stems was implemented. Due to the limited information, production was only be assessed at this point.  3.1.3.1 Description of excavator log-alignment at Holberg Log-alignment was done in a similar fashion to excavator-forwarding.  A tracked excavator  manoeuvred through the block in a serpentine pattern, aligning trees so that the butts were facing the haul road (Figure 6). Trails, made of woody debris, were concurrently constructed and rehabilitated upon completion. However, unlike excavator-forwarding, there was no accumulation of windrows; the logs were only aligned. Typically the logs are forwarded less than half of a pass (25 m) closer to the road.  39  Figure 6: Excavator log-alignment at Holberg  3.1.3.2 Data collection methodology Detailed and shift level timing of log-alignment by a John Deere 992D hydraulic loader was done at the Holberg site. To determine machine utilization, shift level timing was performed by attaching a Servis Recorder on the machine. Detailed timing was conducted by recording production elements consistent with the elements identified in excavator-forwarding. A total of 6.64 productive machine hours (PMH) were recorded.  The study site at which the excavator was operating was four hectares in size, slopes ranged from 10 to 30%, and the terrain ranged from even to rolling. Most of the logs were tree-length; however, 40  2 6 % were broken due to falling and 1 2 % were bucked prior to alignment. A post-yarding random sample of 81 logs was taken at roadside. The average volume at roadside was calculated using a taper function (Kozak, 1988) to be 1.44 m per piece, ranging from 0.07 to 8.49 m per piece. 3  3  3.1.3.3 Analysis a n d interpretation o f log-alignment data  Analysis of the timing data (Table 5) indicated that the wood handling element consumed 5 7 % of the productive time, on-site-moving was responsible for 3 6 % and "other" was 7 percent. Of the wood handling element, the majority of the time was spent aligning the logs. For the on-site-moving element, trail preparation was the major work element. Analysis also indicated that machine utilization was 72 percent. This is low due to the fact that major mechanical delays observed during the data collection distorted the small sample.  Table 5: Summary of log-alignment data Productive Work Element  Time per log (min)  Wood Handling  0.51 bunching  0.47  arranging  0.04  On-site-moving  0.32 new set-up  0.06  trail preparation  0.26  Other  0.06 remove debris  0.02  trail rehabilitation  0.03  miscellaneous  0.01  41  3.1.3.4 Results Productivity can be estimated by applying information from Table 5, average piece size and machine utilization. Approximately 67 logs (96.5 m ) per productive hour were aligned. Additional studies 3  must be conducted to determine how, if at all, stand and site characteristics affect productivity. In the interim, the information collected must serve as a best estimate to determine system productivity and costs.  3.1.4 Detailed Timing Study of Super-snorkeling at Holberg  A super-snorkel is a long-boom loader that is used for short yarding along the roadside. The supersnorkel studied was a six-year-old converted Madill 075 log loader on a track carrier (Figure 7). Conversion involved replacing the single log-boom with three sections of 12.2 metre steel pipes. The boom now extends to 46.6 metres from the centre of the machine. Effective yarding distance is limited primarily by the boom length and visibility. However, maximum yarding distance may exceed 46.6 metres because the operator is capable of casting the grapple beyond the end of the boom. This practice however was not witnessed during the study period. This machine may also double as a log loading machine. However, removal of the third section is required prior to the loading process.  42  Figure 7: Super-snorkel at Holberg  3.1.4.1 Description of super-snorkeling at Holberg The operator at Holberg was extremely proficient. His experience included 24 years of operating a cable loader prior to nine years of operating the super-snorkel. The operator stated that yarding productivity is affected by factors such as: slope and stability of the road on which the machine rests; clearance; terrain shape; visibility; obstacles such as high stumps; and piece size. He also stated yarding full tree length second-growth timber usually results in higher production than old-growth because the piece sizes are generally larger. 43  The function of the super-snorkel was two fold. Primary extraction was the major function. The secondary function was to orient the pieces to ensure that all butts were facing the road. WFP has found that this enhances the loading process. Log orientation was done simply by pulling the logs across to the other side of the road. The machine was employed over a range of slopes (0 to 30%), for uphill and downhill yarding, and used to extract previously aligned wood or wood left by the falling phase.  3.1.4.2 Data collection methodology Detailed timing was conducted for super-snorkel extraction of both excavator aligned and as-felledorientation wood. Timed elements included: outhaul, inhaul, move, deck, delay, and miscellaneous. Data collected also included yarding distance and the number of logs per turn. Outhaul was the period from when the grapple released a previously yarded log at roadside to when the grapple moved to where it had control of another log. Inhaul began when the grapple had control of a new log and ended when the log was yarded to roadside. No effort was made to record hook time since the element was immeasurable during initial observations, so this element was included in inhaul times. The decking element began after the log was yarded to roadside and ended when the log butt faces the road and the grapple was released. Move time was when the machine travelled along the road. Delay was defined as any period when the machine was idle. Any element not defined as a previous element was classified as miscellaneous.  Timing information for yarding both log-aligned wood and as-felled wood was kept separate. Timing was done by recording all elements within a randomly selected one hour period. Three 44  periods were recorded for each system. Coincidentally, the same number of cycles for each system were recorded.  To determine machine utilization, a Servis Recorder was mounted on the super-snorkel. The utilization over the study period was estimated to be 93 percent.  3.1.4.3 Analysis and interpretation of super-snorkeling data The objective of the detailed timing analysis was to relate operating variables with yarding productivity and to compare this yarding system with other extraction techniques. Least squares regression analysis was conducted to determine cycle time (outhaul plus inhaul time) as a function of yarding distance and number of stems yarded. Curvilinear regressions were selected to predict yarding cycle times in excavator aligned wood (R square value 0.48) and as-felled wood (R square value 0.42). Descriptive statistics of each operation are found in Tables 6 and 7. The regression equations for super-snorkeling excavator-aligned wood and as-felled wood are Equations 3 and 4, respectively.  Equation [3]: Cycle time equation for super-snorkeling aligned wood  predicted cycle time (min)  =  0.1744 + 0.000326 * [ D f  =  Yarding distance in metres.  R = 0.48 2  Where: D  45  Table 6: Descriptive statistics for super-snorkeling aligned wood No. of observations  Mean  Standard deviation  Range  Cycletimes (centi-min)  354  44.15  13.96  18 - 116  Yarding distance (m)  354  28.14  5.30  15.2 -39.6  Equation [4]: Cycle time equation for super-snorkeling as-felled wood predicted cycle time (min)  =  0.2463 + 0.000269 * [D]  2  R = 0.42 2  Where: D  =  Yarding distance in metres.  Table 7: Descriptive statistics for super-snorkeling as-felled wood No. of observations  Mean  Standard deviation  Range  Cycletimes (centi-min)  354  53.15  20.32  14- 123  Yarding distance (m)  354  31.73  7.96  12.2 -45.7  Deck and move times were accounted for in both production functions by allocating averages on a per cycle basis. The number of pieces per cycle, on the other hand, was significantly different between extraction types (a = 0.05). The different orientation of the logs for the respective configurations likely explains this phenomenon.  46  3.1.4.4 Results There is a larger slope of yarding distance on total turn time for super-snorkeling aligned wood 2  than for super-snorkeling as-felled wood. This may be explained by the difficulty in acquiring wood from the tight log decks left by the preceding log-aligning process. Also, higher volumes per turn may account for slower turn times. Super-snorkeling aligned wood resulted in an average turn size of 1.5 pieces compared to 1.1 pieces for super-snorkeling the as-felled wood. However there were no significant correlations found between turn size and turn time. Figure 8 shows the relationship between expected productivity and yarding distance.  In summary, super-snorkel total turn times for yarding aligned wood can be expressed as:  Cycle time (min): Deck time (min) : Move time (min) :  0.1744 + 0.000326 * 0.0962 0.0455  [D]  2  Equation [5]: Predicted total turn time equation for super-snorkeling aligned wood Predicted total turn time (min):  0.3161 +0.000326 *  [Df  R = 0.48 2  Where: Yarding distance in metres.  D  and productivity can be expressed as:  Equation [6]: Production model for super-snorkeling aligned wood Productivity (mi / SMH): 3  TS*MU* 60/(0.3161 +0.000326 *  [Df )  47  Where: TS MU D  = = =  Average turn size (m ) Machine utilization. Yarding distance in metres. 3  Total turn times for yarding as-felled wood can be expressed as: 0.2463 + 0.000269 * 0.0962 0.0455  Cycle time (min) : Deck time (min): Move time (min) :  [Df  Equation [7]: Predicted total turn time equation for super-snorkeling as-felled wood Predicted total turn time (min):  0.3880 + 0.000269 * [Df  R = 0.42 2  Where: D  -  Yarding distance in metres,  and productivity can be expressed as:  Equation [8]: Production model for super-snorkeling as-felled wood TS* MU* 60 / (0.3880 + 0.000269 *  Productivity (m / SMH): 3  [Df)  Where: TS MU D  = = =  Average turn size (m ) Machine utilization. Yarding distance in metres. 3  48  Productivity (m3/SMH) 240 200  5  10  15  20 25 30 Yarding Distance (m)  35  40  4—  X -  Super-Snorkeling Aligned Wood  Super-Snorkeling As-Felled Wood  45  Figure 8: Super-snorkel productivity for aligned and as felled wood  3.2 BUCKLEY BAY STUDY  The Buckley Bay second-growth study site was in an 80-year-old Douglas-fir stand that originated from harvesting. The study site at Buckley Bay was within the Wet Coastal Douglas Fir Biogeoclimatic Zone (CDF maritime) (Ministry of Forests, 1988). This site annually receives precipitation of up to 180 cm. The parent soil is a coarse humo-ferric podzol. The site was considered high in productivity bearing a typical site index of 43 metres for a 100 year reference age.  49  The stand comprised of primarily Douglas-fir with tertiary species including Western red cedar, Hemlock and Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum Pursh).  Cruising was completed by MacMillan Bloedel Woodlands Services to develop product yield estimates. The study site was composed of two separate but adjacent openings. The first opening (area A) was a long narrow strip cleared for a future Highway location. This block covered 35 hectares. The second area (area B) was 15 hectares. This area contained smaller timber and also required shorter extraction distances. Area statistics are found in Table 8.  Table 8: Cruise estimates by area at Buckley Bay Attribute  Area A  AreaB  Merchantable gross volume per hectare (m )  678  601  Merchantable stems per hectare (sph)  600  825  Average slope % (Range)  12 (7-16)  11 (5-21)  Average dbh (cm) (Range)  33 (12.5-92.5)  27 (12.5-87.5)  3  Falling occurred early in 1993. The two areas were felled by a feller buncher with trees exceeding the machine's capacity being hand felled (less than 1 tree per hectare). Extraction was by excavatorforwarders and processing was completed by hand. The system required minimal delimbing since the extraction process removed most of the branches. Long logs were bucked to a maximum length of 41 feet (12.5 m) to meet highway hauling constraints.  50  3.2.1 Detailed Timing Study of Mechanical Falling at Buckley Bay  Figure 9: A C L 77IB Feller Buncher at Buckley Bay.  Falling was done by Antler Creek Logging from Port Alberni. The feller buncher used (ACL 77IB) was originally built by Antler Creek Logging to fall and bunch steep, high elevation, old growth coastal stands. The machine was equipped with a tracked carrier, a self-levelling cab and a large Rotosaw felling head (81 cm capacity) (Figure 9). According to the operator, the machine can negotiate slopes up to 7 0 % and fall trees up to 90 cm diameter outside bark at the stump (dsh). Lifting capacity of the boom exceeds the demands of the work.  51  Figure 10: Feller buncher at Buckley Bay.  3.2.1.1 Description of falling at Buckley Bay Falling started at the backline and worked in strips parallel to the haul road (Figure 10). Bunches of stems were oriented perpendicular to the haul road with all the butts facing the road. Large trees (>75 cm dsh) were cut from two sides and their fall was directed with the boom of the machine.  52  Nonrnerchantable trees were simply pushed over to prevent coppice shoots from revegetating the site. Utilization was all trees greater than 12.5 cm dbh and top diameter inside bark of 10 cm.  According to the operator, factors that may influence productivity for this machine include tree size, stand density, soil conditions such as water content, and the number of nonrnerchantable stems. Large old-growth stumps did not appear to significantly affect operation. The machine either manoeuvred around the obstacles or, if required, removed them from its path.  The feller buncher was double shifted. The owner worked and trained a new operator during the day and an experienced operator worked the night shift. Timing was only conducted on the experienced operators.  3.2.1.2 Data collection methodology Falling operations in Area A were timed for over 11.7 hours. Data collected during the study included fell and bunch time, move time, delays and miscellaneous activities. Site and stand characteristics such as average dbh, tree volumes and slope were also recorded for each sub-area studied. This was achieved by collecting post-felling measurements within the sub-areas. The machine was equipped with an electronic Servis Recorder to determine machine utilization and tree count.  Fell and bunch time consisted of the time from when severed trees were placed in a bunch to when the new trees were severed and placed in a bunch. Move time was the period when the machine's 53  tracks were engaged independent of a felling or bunching activity. Delays were either mechanical or non-mechanical and were classified as major (> 15 min.) or minor. The miscellaneous work element represented any time not specified by the above classifications.  A l l consecutive mechanical falling activities within a period of time were recorded. This method of sampling was chosen for several reasons: work elements may affect subsequent activities; some individual operational activities were observed to be too quick for precise timing; and relating stand and site characteristics to machine productivity did not warrant finely detailed timing practices. Six blocks of timing were conducted ranging from 1 to 2.8 hours long depending on logical segments of the operation.  After a timing block was completed, the operating area was surveyed and the trees within were measured. Trees were scaled and volumes were calculated with local taper equations (Kozak, 1988) supplied by MB'S cruising department.  3.2.1.3 Analysis and interpretation of mechanical falling data at Buckley Bay Although the actual falling phase was analyzed, interaction with subsequent phases must also be noted. The bunching and alignment of the felled trees aided the extraction phase. Excavatorforwarding at Buckley Bay will be discussed in subsequent sections.  Investigations of the six sub-areas and the associated stand merchantable volume percent, stand 54  density, stand volume, tree volumes, tree dbh's, and tree heights were conducted to determine their effect on productivity. Time spent pushing nonrnerchantable trees over reduced production of merchantable stems. The nonrnerchantable content of the stand may significantly reflect the time spent on this activity. The time required to severe a tree is directly proportional to the cross sectional area to be cut. This may significantly affect the overall felling and bunching operation. However, only 5 % of the productive time was actually spent cutting. Pilot trial analysis indicated that the number of trees felled per hour had little variation.  3.2.1.4 Results Various transformations and combinations of the studied variables were used in a regression analysis. The relationship selected relates productivity (m per productive machine hour (PMH)) 3  with tree size (Equation [9]; R square value 0.75). Descriptive statistics are listed in Table 9.  Table 9: Descriptive statistics for mechanical felling and bunching within the six sub-areas stand density range (stems/ha)  310-590  stand volume range (m3/ha)  393 - 770  average tree volume range (m3)  0.77-1.77  machine productivity range (stems/PMH) machine productivity range (m3/PMH) breakage  87-132 98.6- 185.8 <1%  55  Equation [9]: Mechanical falling production model predicted productivity (m /PMH) 3  Where: vol  =  =  123.20 + 230.0 * log [ vol] 10  R = 0.75 2  the average gross volume per tree (m ) 3  Productivity (m3/PMH) 240 200  1.2  1.5  1.8  2.1  Mean Tree Volume (m3)  Figure 11: Estimated falling productivity for A C 77IB feller buncher.  Analysis showed that although larger trees result in higher productivity, the relationship between tree volume and production is not linear (Figure 11). This can be explained by larger trees having 56  more branches, thus increasing difficulty in bunching and falling control. The ability to accumulate small stems may also increase productivity to levels higher than expected for small stems.  Although this production model has been derived from only 6 samples, the model does help to identify a key predictive variable. However, additional studies quantifying characteristics such as slope and stand density are necessary.  3.2.2 Detailed Timing Study of Excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay : Perpendicular pattern  Excavator-forwarding is a relatively new method of extraction, and techniques and systems are still being tested to determine their effectiveness. At Buckley Bay, MacMillan Bloedel is using a feller buncher / excavator-forwarder system (Figure 12) for second-growth harvesting. If successful, this system may prove to be the preferred choice method for harvesting second-growth timber on flat to gently sloping sites.  57  Figure 12: Excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay.  Similar to the operation at Holberg, MB utilizes hydraulic excavators to forward logs to roadside. The machines studied at Buckley Bay included a Hitachi EX400 L L and a John Deere 992 LL. Both were modified hydraulic excavators similar to the machines used at the Holberg site.  Area A sloped from the backline to the haul road at approximately 10 percent. The terrain was even and the soil was a coarse well drained sandy loam. Some corduroy trails were required for the machine to traverse small wet areas. MB'S cruise indicates the study area had an average gross tree size of 1.7 m , ranging from 0.1 to 6.3 cubic metres per tree, and a stand density of 443 merchantable 3  stems per hectare. Stand characteristics were provided by the cruise compilation. 58  3.2.2.1 Description of excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay : perpendicular pattern The excavator-forwarding pattern utilized at Buckley Bay is known as the perpendicular or up-andback pattern (Figure 13). Beginning at roadside and heading perpendicular to the haul road, the excavator would pile the trees to either side of the machine's path creating two windrows of logs. The machine would grapple the logs at the butt and drag them nearer to the haul road orientating them parallel to the direction of machine travel (Figure 14). Fischer (1986) described this method as the swing-drag technique. No "chucking" or the throwing of logs was observed. At the backline of the block, the machine would reverse direction and forward the log piles towards the haul road.  START: Create windrow and trail  Move up to end of block, creating windrows on either side.  FINISH: Return to road with stems piled at roadside.  M  Distance to back line  •  Figure 13: Excavator-forwarding - perpendicular pattern. 59  As with excavator-forwarding at Holberg, delimbing requirements were minimal. The dragging of the trees removed nearly all the branches.  Figure 14: Excavator-forwarding at Buckley Bay.  The perpendicular excavator-forwarding pattern best suits areas where trees have been mechanically felled and bunched. Advantages of orienting and bunching trees prior to extraction include minimizing breakage by grabbing the butt end of the tree; the bunches are oriented in a way that eases transport; and grappling mechanically felled trees is easier than hand felled trees.  60  Warren Gionet (Pers. Comm.), the woods foreman at MacMillan Bloedel, stated that distances from the haul road to the backline of the block have historically ranged from 80 to 120 metres. At this study site, such distances significantly exceeded all previous operations. The furthest distance observed was 220 metres.  3.2.2.2 Data collection methodology Detailed and shift level timing studies were conducted. Similar to other shift level studies, machine utilization was determined by attaching Servis Recorders to both machines. Detailed timing studies were conducted using a Palm hand-held computer. Elements recorded include: wood handling, onsite-moving, delays and other.  Wood handling was any operation involving wood transport. This included grappling, dragging the wood closer to the haul road and piling the wood in preparation for the next pass. On-site-moving consisted of either construction or preparation of a trail for travel. Placement of woody debris (puncheon) for trails was minimal as this site was well drained with coarse soils. Travel of the machine occurred when the tracks of the carrier were moving and no wood handling occurred. Mechanical delays included fuelling, scheduled service and mechanical failure. Non-mechanical delays included any delay not classified above. This may have included radio communication and personal delay by the operator. The element "other" included trail rehabilitation, cleaning and any action not previously classified.  61  A turn started at the haul road, working to the backline, and then returning to roadside. Seven complete turns were timed. Turns were broken down into set-ups and moves. Set-up was defined as when the tracks of the machine are disengaged and forwarding is undertaken. A total of 61 setups were collected for inhaul operations. Distances were collected with a hip chain by following the machine through the turn. Upon completion of the turn, a sample of logs was scaled and gross volume was recorded.  3.2.2.3 Analysis and interpretation of excavator-forwarding data : perpendicular pattern Analysis of data provided 83 outhaul and 61 inhaul set-up observations. Regression analysis was used to formulate a model predicting excavator-forwarding time from the haul road to the backline and to determine total outhaul time as a function of forwarding area. The forwarding area was the width of the forwarding swath multiplied by the distance from the haul road (Figure 13). Total timings were used because the operations and number of pieces handled at each individual set-up greatly influenced subsequent times at the set-ups. Variable travel distances between set-ups precluded precisely determining the work required at each set-up. Previous actions may have also improved or impeded subsequent handling of the trees. Stand density was assumed constant throughout all observations. Descriptive statistics are found in Table 10. Equation 10 was selected (R square value 0.77).  Equation [10]: Total outhaul time equation for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern predicted total outhaul time (min)  =  0.006559 * area processed (m ) R = 0.77 2  2  62  Where: area processed  =  the total distance (m) from haul road to set-up point multiplied by the swath width (m)  Formulation of a model to predict forwarding times for the inhaul direction also incorporated total timings. On inhaul, at each set-up the excavator-forwarder must handle all trees forwarded from the previous operating area plus the new trees from the current operating area. Regression analysis was used to determine inhaul time as a function of total forwarding distance from the backline to the haul road. Equation [11] was selected (R square value 0.90).  Equation [11]: Total inhaul time equation for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern predicted total inhaul time (min)  0.3154 * forwarding distance  =  2  R = 0.90 2  Where: forwarding distance  =  the total distance (m) from backline to current set-up point.  Table 10: Descriptive statistics for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern  Outhaul  Inhaul  Mean cycle time per log (min.)  Standard deviation of cycle time per log (min.)  Range of cycle times per log (min.)  Mean swath width (m)  Mean move distance (m)  Range of move distance (m)  0.29  0.187  0.00-1.08  22.9  13.3  2-38  0.18  0.044  0.07 - 0.28  19.3  18.3  Mean total distance to backline (m)  Range of total distance to backline (m)  149.6  13-200  5-38  Travel time between set-ups can be determined by applying the average move time per metre. This 63  value was found to be 0.002354 min/m. Machine utilization was found to be 91 percent.  3.2.2.4 Results Even though the model was significant (a = 0.05), caution must be applied when extrapolating the model beyond the data from which it was derived. This model does not account for physical machine limitations. Combining inhaul and outhaul equations with travel time and area calculations the production model for excavator-forwarding is given as Equation [12]. Figure 15 shows the effect of forwarding distance and volume per hectare on productivity.  Equation [12]: Production model for excavator-forwarding: perpendicular pattern productivity (m / PMH) 3  =  vol/ha * swath width * d * 60 [( 2 * d) 10.002354] + 0.6559 * swath width * d+ 0.3154 * d  2  Where: vol/ha swath width d  ~  3  = =  the volume per hectare (m /ha) the width of the forwarding swath (m) = 21.1 m the distance from the haul road to the backline in metres  64  Figure 15: Excavator-forwarding productivity as affected by volume per hectare: perpendicular pattern. Swath width fixed at 21.1 metres.  3.3 S U M M A R Y O F T I M E S T U D I E S A N D A N A L Y S E S  Since Peterson's cutting time production function for hand falling (1987) only modelled 4 0 % of total faller's activities an initiative was undertaken to try to find what stand and site characteristics significantly influenced productivity. Due to the limitations of the database, regression analysis was not possible. However, correlations between productivity and stand density, slope, average gross piece size, and stand gross volume were determined. Data for mechanical falling were collected for 65  six sub-areas within study areas A and B at Buckley Bay. Regression analysis resulted in a production model relating tree volumes to productivity.  A detailed timing study was conducted on a log-alignment operation. Database limitations restricted regression analysis but production averages have been determined.  Two excavator-forwarding systems were studied. The first system included forwarding hand felled wood at Holberg by using the serpentine retrieval pattern. The second system consisted of forwarding mechanically felled and bunched wood at Buckley Bay by using the perpendicular pattern. For both studies production models were determined.  The production model for the  serpentine pattern incorporated average cycle times with the number of required passes to roadside. The production model for the perpendicular pattern was derived by using regression analysis. Productivity was estimated as a function of forwarding distance.  Two super-snorkel or long-boom loader studies were completed. The first study investigated yarding previously aligned wood whereas the second study investigated yarding as-felled wood. Using regression analysis production functions have been found for both systems by relating yarding distance to productivity.  Table 11 summarizes the timing studies and respective analyses conducted for this thesis.  66  Table 11: Timing studies and respective analysis conducted for this thesis. HARVESTING PHASE:  STUDY:  RESULTS:  Falling: Manual  shift level  established production averages and found correlations between stand and site characteristics and productivity.  detailed timing  derived production function incorporating tree volumes  Excavator log alignment  detailed timing  established production averages  Excavator-forwarding : serpentine pattern  detailed timing  derived production function incorporating number of required passes  Excavator-forwarding : perpendicular pattern  detailed timing  derived production function incorporating forwarding distance.  Super-snorkel:  detailed timing  derived production function incorporating yarding distances.  detailed timing  derived production function incorporating yarding distances.  Feller-buncher  Primary Extraction:  yarding aligned wood Super-snorkel: yarding asfelled wood  67  4.0 SECOND-GROWTH TIMBER HARVESTING MODEL DEVELOPMENT  The second phase of this project was to use the developed production models, along with those obtained through the literature review, in a second-growth timber harvesting model framework. Studies have shown that using empirical data to derive production functions for a series of harvesting operations and encoding them to conduct deterministic simulation analyses results in reasonably precise estimates (Howard and Dodic, 1988). The model design was based on existing modelling methods to accurately estimate productivity and cost for systems harvesting second-growth. The model framework was designed to have the computer model select the most cost effective system to harvest the stand by considering all associated conversion costs, such as falling, processing, extracting and road building costs. The model framework incorporates examination of each phase within the harvesting system and calculates the respective productivity and cost.  Selection of extraction systems is greatly influenced by road placement (Kelly and Dikken, 1978). Therefore, road construction must be considered. The model will accommodate either 1) a stand that has not been developed, (i.e. roads and block boundaries have not been located and constructed) or 2) a developed cut block with its roads built. Productivity and costs of using either the existing roads or the economically optimal placement of roads (ORS) and landings (OLS) may be examined. Revenues, value recovery, fibre utilization and site disturbance will not be considered at this time. However, research is being conducted to accommodate these options at a later date.  68  The intent of this model framework was to develop relative comparisons between systems for a defined stand of timber . The difference between estimated and actual costs can not be quantified until the model is verified and has a catalogue of production functions fully quantifying environmental and operational factors. The model framework was designed for use by production supervisors and forestry planners to assist in one to five year plans. The simulation of harvesting systems in stands could assist in determining budgets, system configurations, operator training requirements, road construction and scheduling.  The proposed prototype model framework adopted the modularity concept suggested by Webster and Goulet (1978). Production costs were kept separate from the production functions to allow for inflationary changes and different operational cost experiences. Several regression equations were developed in this thesis and by other researchers to predict production rates for second-growth harvesting activities quantifying both environmental and operational factors.  4.1 T H E M O D E L F R A M E W O R K  Webster and Goulet (1978) reported the concept of modularity. Modularity, in reference to a harvesting production model, segments the harvesting system into modules, treats these modules with compatible linkages and separates the data from the programming. This concept may be used to construct a flexible model that does not require extensive programming effort and experience.  69  Although this thesis and published literature provide many production functions, the library for the second-growth harvesting model is incomplete.  Harvesting phase activities (modules) such as  highlead yarding and mechanical processing can be added to the library when production functions become available. Production functions that better reflect technological changes can also be added to the library to maintain the utility of this model. Other considerations such as fibre utilization, site disturbance and value recovery will be addressed when information becomes available.  Modularity allows each harvesting activity to be treated separately. For example, falling is a harvesting phase included in different modules. Falling modules would include mechanical falling and hand falling. Treating each activity separately allows for easy validation and verification. Linkages between the modules must also be compatible. Units, data and logical attributes such as yarding bunched wood following a mechanical felling and bunching operation, must also be incorporated within the model framework. The second-growth timber harvesting model will incorporate harvesting activities from tree to truck. The wood may move through several different paths prior to loading. A modular design will enable each harvesting activity to logically address the data.  4.1.1  The Framework Design  The design of the framework of a model must begin with the description of information exchanges from the stand and site characteristics to the estimation of productivity and costs. The model 70  framework in Figure 16 was used for the design process.  Input Stand defined criteria (ie. volume per hectare, slope, terrain, piece size, mean tree volume, dbh)  I  Constraints Apply operational limits (ie. maximum slope, dbh, piece size, yarding distance)  I  Model or User Selection Determine available systems or phases based on criteria and constraints (ie. terrain, slope, piece size, dbh)  Segregation Split harvesting systems into appropriate harvesting phases  I  Computation Apply computational tranformations to harvesting phases (calculate productivity, ORS / OLS, costs)  I  Output Combine output from all data transformations of each phase and summarize  Figure 16: Model framework design  The framework design presented in Figure 16 is a general description of how the model will function.  The model operations will begin with quantifying input data of stand and site  characteristics. Second, the model will select systems that are capable of harvesting the area based on each system's constraints and characteristics of the stand and site. Constraints differ for each harvesting activity. These constraints result from environmental and operational factors such as terrain, slope, piece size and yarding distance. The constraints for each activity will be identified within the model by the user. The model will use the constraints to identify the systems that are capable of harvesting the stand in question. If only a portion of the stand may be harvested by a particular activity, it is recommended that the stand be stratified manually and treated as several stands to fully investigate all harvesting options. The next operation by the model will segregate the available systems into phases or harvesting activities to transform the input data into cost and productivity estimates. Output data for each activity will then be summarized into estimates for the second-growth harvesting systems.  4.1.2 Transformations within the Module  Each module will have three computational transformations. These include determining productivity from production functions, determining machine and operating costs of the activity, and determining the cost of road and landing locations.  72  4.1.2.1 Machine and operating costs Costing of harvesting activities will help determine the most cost effective harvesting system configuration. The objective of cost accounting for this model framework was to implement a standardized method to estimate the cost of owning and operating equipment and the cost of a harvesting activity. The method was used for relative comparisons of harvesting activity costs.  To select the most cost effective system for harvesting, phase costs must be determined. These costs include fixed and variable costs, ie. all costs accrued from buying, owning and operating equipment (Miyata, 1980). Miyata (1980), Rickards and Savage (1983), Bushman and Olsen (1988) and Howard (1991a) have all done extensive research of this subject. However Rickards and Savage (1983) and Howard (1991a) present investigations of tax laws and tax rates with a Canadian perspective.  A n after tax approach best represents the actual cost of the equipment with  consideration of how the initial investment affects the overall cash flow. The procedure to determine phase costs for the second-growth timber harvesting model will amortize cash flows to an hourly cost basis.  The model framework adopted methods developed by Rickards and Savage (1983) and Howard (1991a) with some minor revisions. To calculate the phase costs preliminary definitions must be presented. Fixed costs, as defined by Rickards and Savage (1983), "include all costs which are applicable to the ownership and operating cost of the piece of equipment whether or not the machine is actually working." This includes depreciation, insurance and licensing, interest on loan payments and opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are not seen as real costs by some and therefore may be 73  excluded. Variable costs are any costs that result from the machine operating. This includes operator's wages and benefits, fuel and oils consumption, repairs and maintenance, tires or tracks, replacement of cable and any other consumable. An example machine cost work sheet with equations can be found in Appendix 12.  Depreciation of a machine is perhaps the most significant cost of a new piece of equipment. Canadian tax law only recognizes the declining balance method (DBM) of depreciation. The  DBM  is subject to capital cost allowances (CCA) as determined by the federal government. Presently all major logging equipment is classified in CCA group ten. This allows the purchaser to write off 30 percent of the remaining value in any year except the first. In the first year Canadian tax law only permits half the C C A depreciation rate. The model will calculate the salvage value (the sale price of the depreciated item) to equal the same value as found by D B M  to avoid capital gains and taxes  outstanding due to such profits. However, if the item is sold for greater than the depreciated book value the profits will be taxed at the corporate rate.  To determine hourly depreciation costs Rickards and Savage (1983) presented an annuity formula that will be utilized in the model (Equation [13] ). He has also made provisions with the same equation to include opportunity costs or the cost of foregoing an alternative investment (usually a bank savings rate). Investment tax credits (ITC) have historically been offered by the federal government to encourage capital investment. This however has been eliminated. Nevertheless the model will still accommodate such an option if desired by the user.  74  Equation [13]: Capital cost annuity formula CC  =  [ NOI - NOI*d* t * 2+i - S * ( 1 - d*t ) * 1 i+ d 2 * ( 1 + /) i+ d ( 1 + /)  ] * i * (I + i 1 ( 1 + i ) -1  E L  E L  a  Where: CC NOI d t i S EL  = = = = =  Capital Cost in $/year Net Original Investment in $ C C A rate Tax rate Interest rate (may include inflationary or opportunity costs) Salvage value Expected life in years  Tax laws do permit interest deductions in the calculation of taxable revenue. Many companies prefer to finance equipment and therefore this option will be available within the model. Howard (1991a) has provided the necessary equations to determine interest charges (Equation [14] ).  Equation [14]: Interest formula ,  P » i I [ 1 - ( 1 * i )" '*"" ] . term - P  1 "  —  :  ;  term * SMH per year  Where: I P /  = = =  Interest paid per year Principal amount Loan rate  Insurance and license costs are usually expressed as a percentage of the value of the equipment. To determine the insurable value of the depreciating equipment as per D B M the model will incorporate Equation [15]. 75  Equation [15]: Insurance formula Ins. cost ($/hr)  = (( 1 - (CCA  rate) 12 ) * (In ( CCA rate )Y< * (CCA rate^'^ - CCA rate ) * PP * Ins. rate SH * EL 1  Where: CCA  rate  EL PP Ins. rate SH  D B M rate expressed as a decimal (0.30 for logging equipment). Economic life of the equipment. Purchase price. Insurance rate expressed as a decimal. Scheduled hours per year.  Variable costs such as wages, lubricants, oils and fuel are all incurred during scheduled operating hours. Wage benefits are usually expressed as a percentage of the wages. Such benefits include unemployment insurance premiums, pension plan payments and worker's compensation and health insurance contributions. A l l other consumables will also be accounted and expressed as cost per scheduled hour. Repairs and maintenance costs are likely the most difficult costs to determine. Historical data is the best source for determining these costs. These costs then can be entered into the model.  4.1.2.2 Cost of road and landing locations Research has been conducted to determine the economically optimal spacing of roads (ORS) and landings (OLS). Matthews (1942) first recognized the balance between primary transportation costs (yarding and skidding) and secondary transportation costs (construction of roads and landings). For the purposes of the second-growth timber harvesting model there are several assumptions that must be made to determine ORS and OLS. These include: uniform distribution of volume in the setting; primary transportation and road and landing construction are the only costs that affect optimal 76  spacing; the settings are regularly shaped; and single stand entry.  Matthews recommended and iterative procedure to determine the minimum total logging costs of an operation with respect to yarding or skidding distances (Equation [16]).  Equation [16]: Matthews' total logging cost equation Total Cost ($/m )  =  10 * Cr + Cs * ASD + Cf+ 10000 * CI Q*S Q*S*L  Cr Cs ASD Cf CI Q S L  = = = = = = = =  Road construction cost ($/km) Variable skidding cost ($/m /m) Average skidding distance (m) Fixed skidding cost ($/m ) Landing construction cost ($) Volume per hectare (m /ha) Road spacing (m) Landing spacing (m)  3  Where:  3  3  3  Peters (1978) proposed a direct solution by applying calculus. However both Matthews and Peters assumed that primary extraction costs varied linearly with skidding or yarding distances and that the average extraction costs occurred at average skidding distances (ASD). If the costs are not directly proportional with respect to skidding the use of equations using A S D are incorrect. For linear and nonlinear production functions Olsen (1983) presented a method for finding weighted averages of primary extraction times for roadside configurations by determining the centroid of the production function. For example, referring to Equation [ 4 ] the average weighted cycle time (min) for supersnorkeling as-felled wood is : 77  average weighted cycle time (min)  =  0.2463 + 0.00269 * yarding distance 3  2  For central landing configurations Sessions and Guangda (1987) proposed a method that calculates skidding costs from rectangular subareas. Olsen's and Sessions and Guangda's methods will be incorporated within the model.  Although using nonlinear production functions may provide a superior approach, extrapolation beyond the range of data collected must be treated with caution. If extrapolation is necessary it is advised that linear functions only be used. Any time production functions are used to estimate results beyond the range of data that they were derived from, uncontrollable inaccuracies may bear serious consequences. The model will have bounds placed on the production functions.  4.1.2.3 Productivities For the harvesting activities that have production functions available, prediction of productivity is straight forward. For activities that currently do not have production functions, averages must be used. Some of these averages have been produced in this thesis, others may be entered by the user.  For primary extraction the determination of skidding and yarding productivity is found simultaneously with ORS and OLS calculations. Average cycle times found by Olsen's technique (1983) with the determination of average turn sizes establish productivities. Where average turn sizes are required for the production functions, results from the detailed timing studies may be  78  incorporated or the user may enter historical information specific to that operation, stand and site.  If road networks already exist it may be unnecessary to determine ORS and OLS.  The average  yarding costs will still be calculated using Olsen's (1983) and Sessions and Guangda's (1987) methods, however, the road and landing spacings will be fixed.  4.1.3 Model Development Summary  With the proposed framework design the second-growth timber harvesting model will determine machine and operating costs, productivities and ORS and OLS based on stand and site characteristics. The framework adopts the modularity concept thus allowing easy additions of production functions due to technological changes and system availability.  Expansion to  accommodate fibre utilization, site degradation and value recovery by systems may be incorporated with the transformation calculations.  Machine and operating costs can be easily determined with a few key values incorporated into the machine costing worksheet found in Appendix 12. Depreciation, interest expenses, insurance costs and cost of consumables are all quantifiable with the equations supplied. The cost and determination of optimal placement of roads and landings can be calculated through Olsen's (1983) method of determining average primary extraction times to roadside configurations and the method used by Sessions and Guangda (1987) for central landing configurations. Once ORS and OLS have been 79  determined harvesting productivities are determined through the production functions supplied.  80  5.0 CONCLUSIONS  The overall objectives of this thesis were to develop productivity and cost prediction models for common harvesting systems operating in B.C. coastal second-growth stands; and to design a framework for a model to select the best harvesting system for a given area based on costs.  A n industry survey and literature review were conducted. The industry survey identified the characteristics of the second-growth stands that will be harvested shortly. Information collected indicates that these stands are diverse. Consequently equipment needs are varied. Commonly used clear cut harvesting systems include combinations of mechanical and manual falling, excavatorforwarding, long-boom loaders yarding, highlead and grapple yarding, and mechanical processing.  The literature review identified which harvesting systems have already been studied and respective production functions produced.  Considering future, system demands and current research  publications, five harvesting system studies were targeted for long term evaluations; however, only three studies were completed within the constraints of this thesis. The studies included: 1) a fellerbuncher and manual falling; 2) an excavator forwarder; 3) highlead yarder; 4) a long-boom loader yarding; and 5) a mechanical processor. The harvesting systems studied within this thesis included: 1) excavator-forwarding bunched and non-bunched wood and aligning logs for subsequent yarding; 2) mechanical and hand falling; and 3) long-boom loader yarding of excavator-aligned and as-felled wood. 81  Detailed timing studies were conducted at two harvesting operations on Vancouver Island. Studies measured machine productivities and identified factors that influenced machine performance. Production functions have been produced for mechanical falling, excavator-forwarding perpendicular and serpentine retrieval patterns, and super-snorkeling aligned and as-felled wood. Production averages have been determined for log-alignment and manual falling.  A model framework was designed to determine machine and operating costs, productivities and the economical placement of roads and landings by incorporating stand and site characteristics. A machine costing worksheet has been provided in the appendix.  82  BIBLIOGRAPHY Blackmun, T. 1984. Logger's fast working crew "has as much pride as I do ". Forest Industries 84(06):22-23. Bushman, P. and E.D. Olsen. 1987. Determining costs of logging-crew labour and equipment. Forest Research Laboratory, OSU, Corvallis. Research Bulletin 63. 22p. Fisher, J.G. 1986. Logging with a hydraulic excavator: A case study. OSU Dept. of Forest Eng. Unpublished Master's Thesis. 72 p. Gionet, Warren. 1992. Personal communications. Buckley Bay, B.C. Howard, A.F. and D. Dodic. 1989. Highlead yarding productivity and costs in coastal British Columbia: predicted vs. actual. West. J. Appl. For. 4(3):98-101.  Howard, A. F. 1991. Improved accounting of interest charges in equipment costing. Journal of Forest Engineering. 2(2): 41-45.  Howard, A. F. 1991. Production equations for grapple yarding in coastal British Columbia. West. J. Appl. For. 6(1):7-10.  Jukes, W.D. 1992. Estimating harvesting productivity and yield in second-growth sites in British Columbia: a literature and research review. FERIC Contract Report. Western Division, Vancouver. 24 p. Kelly, K. J. and Dikken, J. 1978. Road spacing influences the selection of skidding equipment. C P P A 79(11):101-109. Kozak, A. 1988. A variable-exponent taper equation. Can. J. For. Res. 18:1363-1368. Lewis, T. 1989. Hoe forwarding-site degredation considerations. Technical report written for WFP, Vancouver. MacDonald, Jack. 1987. Productivity and profitability of the Madill 122 when grapple yarding B.C. coastal second-growth timber, FERIC Special Report SR-48. 37 p. MacDonald, Jack. 1988. Productivity and profitability of grapple yarding bunched B.C. coastal second-growth timber, FERIC Special Report SR-54. 30 p.  MacDonald, A.J. 1990. Bunch yarding with radio-controlled chokers in coastal British Columbia second-growth timber. FERIC Special Report SR-63. 20 p. 83  McMorland, Bruce. 1982. Trials of two feller-bunchers in coastal B.C. FERIC Technical Note TN57. 22 p. McMorland, Bruce. 1985. Production and performance of mechanical felling equipment on coastal B.C.: Timbco feller-buncher with Rotosaw head. FERIC Technical Note TN-85. 23 PMatthews, D.M.  1942. Cost control in the logging industry. McGraw-Hill, New York.  Ministry of Forests. 1988. Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia 1988. Columbia. 1 p.  Province of British  Miyata, S. 1980. Determiningfixedand optimal costs of logging equipment. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. U.S.F.S., General Technical Report NC-55. 16 p. Olsen, E.D. 1983. Avoiding two errors in estimating logging costs. Forest Research Laboratory, OSU, Corvallis. Paper 1553. 4 p.  Peters, PA. 1978. Spacing of roads and landings to minimize timber harvest cost. For. Sci. 24(2) 209-217.  Peterson, J.T. 1986. Comparison of three harvesting systems in a coastal British Columbia secon growth stand. FERIC Technical Report TR-73. 52 p.  Peterson, J.T. 1987a. Harvesting Economics: handfalling second-growth timber. FERIC Technical Note TN-98. 12 p.  Peterson, J.T. 1987b. Effect of falling techniques on grapple yarding second-growth timber. FERI Technical Note TN-107. 8 p. Peterson, J.T. 1987c. Harvesting economics: grapple yarding second-growth timber. Technical Report TR-75. 28 p.  FERIC  Peterson, J.T. 1988. Harvesting Economics: two case studies of a Cypress 7280B swing yarder. FERIC Technical Note TN-115. 20 p.  Rickards, J. and G.D. Savage. 1983. Costing mechanical equipment - McNally revised. Logging Operations Group, CPPA. 16 p. Rogers, R.E. and A.J. MacDonald. 1989. Ground skidding second-growth timber in coastal British Columbia: a case study, FERIC Special Report SR-60. 20 p.  84  Sauder, E.A. 1988. Future logging equipment needs in coastal B.C. (1989-2005). FERIC Special Report SR-49. 44 p. Sessions, J. and L. Guangda. 1987. Deriving optimal road and microcomputer programs. WJAF 2(3): 94-98.  landing spacing with  Valentine, K.W.G., P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Lavkulich (editors). 1978. The soil landscapes of British Columbia. British Columbia Min. Environ. Victoria, B.C. Winsauer, S.A. and Underwood, J.N. 1980. Computer simulation of forest harvesting systems, development, and application. Transactions of ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich., The Society. Mar-Apr 1980. V23(2):317-323. Webster, D.B., D.V. Goulet. 1978. Modularity - a concept in simulation methodology. IUFRO proceedings 1978. Wageningen, Netherlands. Weymer, Dave. 1992. Personal communications. Holberg, B.C. Workers'Compensation Board. 1986. Fallers'and Buckers'Handbook. WCB Eighth Edition. 111 p.  of British Columbia.  85  APPENDICES  86  A P P E N D I X 1: McMorland, Bruce. 1982. Trials of two feller-bunchers in coastal B.C. FERIC Technical Note TN-57. Machinery studied: • •  Caterpillar 225/235 equipped with 51 cm capacity shear. Drott 40 equipped with 51 cm capacity shear.  Stand: slope: average tree volume: average dbh:  average 13%. 1.10m  3  30.0 cm  Results: • • • • •  production: 71 m V P M H ; 64.5 trees/PMH between 25 and 30% of total time was spent in path-clearing functions; this is notably higher than non-coastal trials - 0.27 min. vs 0.09 min. direct felling times (swing loaded, position and cut, swing empty) are comparable to non-coastal bunchers tree size has little effect on positioning the head and cutting times (but total time is different). barberchairing was observed due to dull shear blades  Suggestions: • • • •  assign a permanent handfaller to fall oversized trees and make bucking cuts through windfalls and old-growth stumps. move as few things as possible with the machine, ie path-clearing - choose the path of least resistance. utilize a levelling cab for better cutting. a raised front idler would increase carrier mobility.  Conclusions: •  the detailed time study indicated that the tree size has little effect on head positioning and cutting time.  87  A P P E N D I X 2: McMorland, Bruce. 1985. Production and performance of mechanical felling equipment on coastal B.C.: Timbco feller-buncher with Rotosaw head. FERIC Technical Note TN-85. Machinery studied: • •  Timberjack Timbco Model 2518 Hydrobuncher with cab levelling ability. Rotosaw felling head with 56 cm capacity.  Stand: age: slopes: average tree volume: average dbh: merchantable volume per hectare: merchantable stems per hectare: type of logging:  110 years old. 50% of site between 0 - 10% ; 50% between 10 - 20%. 0.58 m  3  30.0 cm 520.0 m 898.5 clearcut  3  Results: • • •  flat ground does not necessarily mean that the terrain is smooth; there were difficult areas for the machine to manoeuvre about. coastal trees are taller and heavier than trees in the interior that have corresponding diameters at breast height therefore there is a need for stronger, more powerful machinery to be utilized on the coast. due to the mass of the trees a short stick boom is preferred. (3.35 m)  production: volume per P M H : 35.4 m productive time ratio: 65.8% 3  Conclusions: • • • •  Rotosaw head performed well. Timbco feller-buncher was unsuccessful due to lack of power and inappropriate manoeuvrability. carrier frame and carrier hydraulics accounted for 60% of all repair hours. author considered this machine trial unsuccessful.  88  A P P E N D I X 3: Peterson, J.T. 1987a. Harvesting Economics: handfalling second-growth timber. FERIC Technical Note TN-98. Stand: age: approximately 110 years old. slope: range: 0 to 52% terrain: rolling. volume per hectare: 713 m (gross); 665 m (net) stems per hectare: 778 volume per tree: 0.92 m (gross) 3  average:  23%.  3  3  Results: • • • •  wood was directionally handfelled parallel to haul road. trees under 60 cm were simply felled. trees over 60 cm were selectively bucked; the first one or two logs were bucked and the top was left to be processed at roadside. 5% of the trees were over 60 cm.  cutting time by diameter class for all species: diameter class midpoint (cm)  cut time / tree (min)  limb / buck (min)  12.5  0.22  22.5  0.40  0.04  0.27  32.5  0.56  0.04  0.70  42.5  0.88  0.07  1.33  52.5  1.16  0.23  2.22  62.5  1.45  0.42  3.20  72.5  1.72  0.60  4.48  82.5  2.99  0.63  7.46  gross merch. volume (m / tree) 3  0.04  -  Production Functions: species  cutting time equation  Cedar Douglas-fir Hemlock A l l species  -0.5519 + 0.0345 -0.0027 + 0.0274 -0.1822 + 0.0243 -0.3056 + 0.0283  xd xd xd x6?  where d is diameter in cm Conclusions: • •  selective bucking reduced delimbing and bucking times from 15% of total time down to 4.5 percent. falling costs are sensitive to diameter classes.  89  A P P E N D I X 4: Peterson, J.T. December 1986. Comparison of three harvesting systems in a coastal British Columbia Technical Report TR-73.  second-growth stand.  FERIC  Study: •  detailed time studies were conducted on three systems.  System 1: • • • •  timber was mechanically felled and bunched timber by a Case 1187 equipped with a 50 cm Drott shear head. a Madill 084 grapple yarder with a Hitachi UH14 mobile backspar yarded wood to roadside and windrow. roadside processing was done either manually or by a Hahn II Harvester. Processing at a landing was conducted by a Hahn Harvester. loading was done by a Poclain or Barko log loader.  Stand: age: volume per hectare: stems per hectare: slope: terrain:  110 years, 566 m (gross); 518m (net), 939. range: 0to38% rolling. 3  3  average:  18%.  Falling: •  trees under 50 cm were mechanically felled and bunched at a 45 degree angle to the yarding road. Trees greater than 50 cm were handfelled. Trees less than 60 cm were left as full tree, larger trees were selectively bucked. Case 1187 feller-buncher  handfaller  average tree size (m )  0.54  2.50  trees / PMH  70.6  18.6  235.8  151.3  3  volume / 8 hr shift (m ) 3  Yarding: •  two grapple sizes were used: 244 cm and 269 cm.  productivity: average piece size: average yarding distance: pieces/turn: pieces / P M H : turns / P M H : m /PMH: m / 8 hr shift: 3  3  0.59 m 70.7 m large grapple: 2.36 large grapple: 110.9 49.6 63.7 390.6 3  small grapple: small grapple:  1.75 92.4  ave.: ave.:  2.18 107.9  Processing: •  one or two buckers worked in conjunction with a Poclain log loader during manual processing.  (continued)  90  roadside - manual  landing - Hahn  roadside - Hahn II  average tree volume (m )  0.53  0.53  0.53  no. trees / PMH  101.8  125.8  83.1  m / 8 hr shift  115.7  391.8  192.9  productive tine ratio (%)  26.8  74.0  55.0  manual processed - Poclain  mechanically processed - Barko  mechanically processed - Poclain  average piece volume (m )  0.57  0.46  0.52  no. loads / hr  1.34  1.96  1.24  m / 8 hr shift  262.7  569.8  299.2  3  3  Loading:  3  3  System 2: • • • •  all timber was handfelled perpendicular to yarding road. a Madill 084 grapple yarder with a Hitachi UH14 mobile backspar yarded wood to roadside and windrow. roadside processing was done either manually or by a Hahn II Harvester. Processing at a landing was conducted by a Hahn Harvester. loading was done by a Poclain or Barko log loader.  Stand: age: volume per hectare: stems per hectare: slope: terrain:  110 years, 713 m (gross); 665 m (net), 778. range: 0 to 52% rolling. 3  3  average:  23%.  Falling: •  trees less than 60 cm were left for full tree, larger trees were selectively bucked.  productivity: trees / P M H : volume / 6.5 hr shift (m ): 3  45.2 204.5  Yarding: productivity: average piece size: average yarding distance: 76.6 m pieces / turn: 269 cm grapple: average pieces / turn: 1.41 pieces / P M H : 269 cm grapple: average pieces / P M H : 65.2 turns / P M H : 46.2 m / PMH: m / 8 hr shift: 342.4 3  0.91 m  3  1.85  244 cm grapple: 1.40  165 cm grapple: 1.26  80.8  244 cm grapple: 65.5  165 cm grapple: 46.1  59.3  3  (continued)  91  Processing: •  one or two buckers worked in conjunction with a Poclain log loader during manual processing. roadside - manual  landing - Hahn  roadside - Hahn II  average tree volume (m )  0.82  0.82  0.82  no. trees / PMH  75.5  102.6  78.9  m / 8 hr shift  172.9  535.3  162.7  productive tine ratio (%)  34.9  79.0  32.0  manual processed - Poclain  mechanically processed - Barko  mechanically processed - Poclain  average piece volume (m )  0.63  0.57  0.70  no. loads / hr  1.34  1.95  1.33  in / 8 hr shift  310.7  533.5  327.7  3  3  Loading:  3  3  System 3: • • • •  timber was mechanically felled and bunched timber by a Drott 50 equipped with a 50 cm Drott shear head. skidding was done with grapple and choker skidders to a landing. processing was done by a Hahn Harvester. loading was done by a Barko log loader.  Stand: age: volume per hectare: stems per hectare: slope: terrain:  110 years, 609 m (gross); 550 m (net), 560. range: 0tol9% rolling. 3  3  average:  12%. ,,  Falling: •  trees under 50 cm were mechanically felled arid bunched at a 45 degree angle to the yarding road. Trees greater than 50 cm were handfelled. Trees less than 60 cm were left for full tree, larger trees were selectively bucked. Drott 50 feller-buncher  handfaller  average tree size (m )  0.70  3.62  trees / PMH  70.3  13.8  313.0  162.4  3  volume / 8 hr shift (m ) 3  Skidding: productivity: average piece size: average pieces / turn: pieces / P M H : turns / P M H : m /8hrshift: 3  0.94 m 3.96 34.2 8.66 181.2  3  (continued)  92  Processing: •  mechanical processing at a landing was done by a Hahn Harvester.  productivity: average tree volume: no. trees / P M H : volume / 8 hr shift: productive time ratio:  0.63 m  3  95.7 328.1 68%  Loading: • wood previously mechanically processed, loaded by Barko log loader. productivity: average piece volume (m ): no. loads / hr: 11.85 m / 8 hr shift: 437.6 i 3  0.57  3  Conclusions: • • • •  less residue in systems 1 and 3 due to: use of a feller-buncher; and yarding and skidding bunches. system 3 was the lowest cost per cubic metre. the increase in cost per piece due to mechanical felling is more than offset by the savings from increased production of grapple yarding. roadside processing of handfelled wood was more expensive than roadside processing bunched wood due to the orientation required for the logs to be fed into the machine.  93  A P P E N D I X 5: Rogers, R.E. and MacDonald, A.J. 1989. Ground skidding second-growth timber in coastal British Columbia: a case study. Special Report SR-60.  FERIC  Machinery studied: • •  Caterpillar D 4 H custom skidder; Caterpillar 518 rubber tired cable skidders: 1981 and 1987. A detailed time study was conducted for ten days on the 1987 518 skidder and a shift level study on all three machines occurred over four months.  Stand: range: 0 to 35% even to rolling.  slope: terrain: average piece size: volume per hectare: obstacles: Results: • •  average:  12%.  1.36 m 577 m (net) old-growth stumps. 3  3  timber was directionally handfelled and left unbucked to maximize tree length skidding. average skidding grade - 12% favourable.  Shift level:  production / PMH  (m ) 3  pieces / PMH production / 8 hr shift utilization  (m ) 3  (%)  availability  (%)  1987 Cat 518  1981 Cat 518  Cat D4H  28.2  24.6  15.6  20.7  18.1  11.5  192  161  117  85.0  82.1  93.8  94.2  95.0  95.3  Detailed time study: average piece size: production / P M H : pieces / P M H :  1.06 m 28.9 m 27.2  3 3  Production Functions: travel-empty-plus-travel-loaded time: fixed skidding time: minor delays:  0.46 + 0.0166 xd 6.55 0.48  Total turn time (min):  7.49 + 0.0166 x d  where d is skidding distance in metres. Conclusions: ground skidding is a viable alternative to cable yarding on some Coastal sites. operations should take advantage of drier periods of weather in order to achieve maximum productivity.  94  A P P E N D I X 6: MacDonald, Jack. 1987. Productivity and profitability of the Madill 122 when grapple yarding B.C. coastal second-growth timber. Special Report SR-48.  FERIC  Stand: age: slope: terrain: piece size: volume per hectare: obstacles:  originated in 1890's from logging, range: 0 to 50% average: 5%. flat. range: 0.12-8.17 m average: 0.75 m 343 m (net) old-growth stumps. 3  3  3  Results: •  timber was directionally handfelled.  shift level study: 79 shifts production: productive time ratio: availability: production / P M H : pieces / P M H :  detailed time study: 233 m / 8 hr shift 83.4% 88.5% 34.7 m 46.0 3  turns / P M H : pieces / P M H : prod, m / P M H : 43.0  47.8 57.3  3  3  Production Functions: outhaul: inhaul: fixed time: moves and delays: Total turn time (min):  0.02 + 0.00249 x d -0.06 + 0.00332 x d 0.56 0.30 0.82 + 0.00581 x d  where d is yarding distance in metres. Conclusions: • •  large grapple held small logs better than the small grapple; large grapple dropped turns 5% of the time whereas the small grapple dropped turns 7.4% of the time. turn time and yarding distance had only minor influences on yarding profit.  95  A P P E N D I X 7: MacDonald, Jack. 1988. Productivity and profitability of grapple yarding bunched B.C. coastal Special Report SR-54.  second-growth timber.  FERIC  Machinery studied: • • •  Washington 118A yarding crane with mobile backspar. Three different grapple sizes were used; 270 cm, 230 cm, and 200 cm. The 230 cm grapple was not used long due to the unfavourable characteristics of balance. Timber was mechanically felled and bunched.  Stand: age: slope: terrain: piece size: merchantable volume per hectare:  78 years old. average 5%. flat. 0.07 - 6.62 m 382 m  range:  3  average:  1.12 m  3  3  Results: Shift level duration: production: average piece size: machine utilization: machine availability:  5 weeks 62.1 m V P M H ; 56.5 stems/PMH l.lOmVtree . 83.3% 85.8%  Detailed time study - turn volumes were scaled duration: number of pieces per turn: average butt diameter: average turn volume: number of turns per P M H : number of pieces per P M H : volume per P M H :  2 weeks 2.9 30.7 cm 3.1m 27.8 81.4 86.5 m 3  3  Production Functions: outhaul and inhaul: hookup, unhook and deck: moves: minor delays:  0.25 + (0.00455 + 0.00030 xv)xd 0.56 0.64 0.15  Total turn time (min.): 1.60 + (0.00455 + 0.00030 xv)xd d is yarding distance in metres; v is volume in cubic metres. Conclusions: • •  identified the need to determine optimal bunch sizes for different grapple sizes. compared results with hand-felled timber on a similar site; productivity for yarding bunched wood is noticeable greater.  96  A P P E N D I X 8: MacDonald, A.J. 1990. Bunch yarding with radio-controlled chokers in coastal British Columbia second-growth timber. Special Report SR-63.  FERIC  Machinery: two Madill 044 yarding cranes were monitored where radio controlled, self releasing chokers were used for yarding mechanically felled and bunched timber. Stand: volume per hectare: piece size: slope range: terrain:  420 m range: 0.11-5.02 m 0 to 50% gently rolling. 3  3  average:  1.12 m  3  Results: Y 56 with dropline carriage  Y 54 with two chokers  Y 54 with grapple  average turn volume (m )  6.2  6.5  2.5  stems / PMH  60  70  133  m'/PMH  75.3  71.1  108.2  average yarding distance (m)  126  100  79  3  Production Functions: Y 56 with dropline carriage: outhaul-plus-inhaul time (min): walk, hook, unhook, deck time (min): move and minor delays time (min): Total turn time (min): Y 54 with two chokers and conventional butt rigging: outhaul-plus-inhaul time (min): walk, hook, unhook, deck time (min): move and minor delays time (min): Total turn time (min): Y 54 with grapple and conventional butt rigging: outhaul-plus-inhaul time (min): hook, unhook, deck time (min): move and minor delays time (min): Total turn time (min):  0.20 + 0.00818 x d + 0.0293 x v 3.05 0.49 3.74 + 0.00818 xd+ 0.0293 x v 0.38 + 0.00639 x d+ 0.0250 x v 3.06 1.26 4.70 + 0.00639 xd+ 0.0250 x v 0.03 + 0.00730 xd + 0.0117 x v 0.47 0.35 0.85 + 0.00730 xd+ 0.0117 x v  where d is yarding distance in metres; v is volume in cubic metres. Conclusions: productivity for long yarding distances of the choker system nearly match that of the grapple, for yarding distances over 175 m the dropline system should be more productive than the grapple, under favourable yarding conditions the choker system is a viable alternative for yarding bunches but its costs and productivity would, at best, equal that of a grapple system. However, the dropline system should be utilized for situations of poor deflection, poor visibility, or long yarding distances.  97  A P P E N D I X 9: Peterson, J.T. 1987b. Effect of falling techniques on grapple yarding second-growth timber. Technical Note TN-107.  FERIC  Machinery studied: •  Washington 108 swing yarder with 218 cm grapple and backspar.  Stand: Site 1: Vail Camp slope range: slope average: terrain: volume per tree: stems per hectare:  0 to 13% 5%. even. 1.50 m 458  3  Site 2: Johnson Creek slope range: 0 to 56% slope average: 28%. terrain: even. volume per tree: 1.64 m stems per hectare: 733 obstacles: some windfalls and oldgrowth stumps. 3  Results: •  compared grapple yarding productivity of feller-directed bunched and unbunched wood on the same site and grapple yarding productivity of feller-directed bunched wood on different sites. Vail Camp  Johnson Creek  unbunched wood  bunched wood  bunched wood  productivity (m /PMH)  88.5  97.6  51.9  trees/PMH  59.0  65.1  31.7  turns/PMH  41.9  33.6  24.3  1.4  1.9  1.3  2.1  2.9  2.1  m /8 hr shift  644.3  710.5  377.8  trees/8 hr shift  429.5  473.9  230.8  productive time ratio  95.8%  86.1%  92.7%  3  trees/turn volume/turn (m ) 3  3  •  bunched wood in Vail Camp was loosely bunched; Johnson Creek wood was partially bunched. Visibility at Johnson Creek was reduced to 50 m due to weather. Vail Camp - bunched wood  Johnson Creek - bunched wood  yarding phase  range (min)  mean (min)  SD (min)  range (min)  mean (min)  SD (min)  outhaul  0.04 - 0.68  0.25  0.12  0.09-1.04  0.48  0.15  hookup  0.05 - 2.99  0.39  0.30  0.10-2.89  0.49  0.42  inhaul  0.06-1.00  0.31  0.18  0.20-2.19  0.56  0.25  unhook  0.09-0.70  0.28  0.11  0.02 - 0.70  0.10  0.08  deck  0.07 - 2.38  0.47  0.16  0.12-3.23  0.73  0.59  Conclusions: •  bunching the wood results in greater productivity and a reduction in cost per piece.  98  A P P E N D I X 10: Peterson, J.T. 1987c. Harvesting economics: grapple yarding second-growth timber. Report TR-75.  FERIC  Study: •  The first site was felled by a Case 1187 feller-buncher equipped with a 50 cm Drott shear head. Bunches were placed at a 45 degree angle to the haul road. The second site was directionally hand felled parallel to the road. In both sites trees larger than 60 cm were handfelled and selectively bucked.  Machinery: •  1982 Madill 084 swing yarder with Hitachi UH14 mobile backspar.  Stand: handfelled area volume per ha. (m /ha.): stems per ha.: gross piece size, (m ): slope (%): terrain:  bunched area  713 (gross); 665 (net) 778 0.91 range: 0 to 52 average: 23 rolling  3  3  566 (gross); 518 (net) 939 0.59 range: 0 to 38 average: 18 rolling  Results: handfelled area average pieces per turn: m per P M H : production / 8 hr shift (m ):  1.4 63.7  3  3  bunched area  390.8  2.2 62.6 387.3  Production Functions: Handfelled wood: outhaul: inhaul: fixed: Total turn time (min): Bunched wood: outhaul: inhaul: fixed: Total turn time (min):  0.0323 + 0.0026 x d 0.0247 + 0.0035x6? 0.74 0.797 + 0.0061 x d 0.0296 + 0.0027 x d 0.0044 x d 0.69 0.7196 + 0.0071 x d  where d is yarding distance in metres. Conclusions: • • • •  there is no significant time or cost difference in yarding handfelled or bunched turns of the same size. bunching reduces the size of the economically viable log. there is a strong correlation between yarding time and yarding distance. the number of pieces and volume per turn had little effect on yarding times.  99  Technical  A P P E N D I X 11: Peterson, J.T. March 1988. Harvesting Economics: two case studies of a Cypress 7280B swing yarder. f e r i c Technical Note TN-115. Machinery studied: •  yarder worked in conjunction with Hitachi UH14 mobile backspar.  Stand: age: slope: terrain: piece size: volume per hectare: stems per hectare: obstacles:  originated in late 1920's. range: 13 to 45% average: 5%. rolling. range: 0.20 - 6.84 m average: 0.89 m 550 m (gross) 621 old-growth stumps. 3  3  3  Results wood was handfelled parallel to haul road and processed at stump, breakage occurred due to problems with very high old-growth stumps, volume per P M H : 46 m pieces per P M H : 51.6 average number of pieces per turn: 1.3 volume per 8 hr shift: 260.8 m 3  3  Production Functions: outhaul: inhaul: fixed time:  0.00302 x d 0.00317 xd 0.52  Total turn time (min.):  0.52 + 0.00619 xd  d is yarding distance in metres. Conclusions: •  the mobile backspar decreased the amount of time spent moving.  100  APPENDIX 12: Machine Costing Worksheet and Example Machine Name:  2 3 4 5  Machine Function: Machine Life (EL): 7 Scheduled Hours per Year (SH): 1200 Machine Utilization (U): 83  6  Purchase Price (P): 403000 "  7 8 9 10  Salvage Value (S): -0.85 (0.7)*<EL-1)*B6 ,  Inflation Rate (i): 4 Down Payment: 25 Loan Term: 7  11  Loan Rate: 12  12  GST and Sales Tax (st): 14  13 14 15 16  Investment Tax Credit (1TQ: 0 Capital Cost Allowance Rate (d): 30 Corporate Tax Rate (t): 46 Licencing and Insurance Rate (Ins): 2 Calculation in SMH or PMH?:  18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 | General I 36 37  Number of Operators Required (n): Wage of Operator 1 (Wl): 22.66 Wage of Operator 2 (W2): 17.76 Wage Benefits (WB): 35 Tires or Tracks?: Life Expectancy of Originals in P M H (LEO): 6000 Life Expectancy of Replacements in PMH (LER): 6000 Cost of Replacements in Dollars (CR): 10000 Annual Repair and Maintenance Cost (RC): 35000 Fuel Consumption (litres per SMH) (FCM): 24 Cost of Fuel per Litre in Dollars (FCL): 0.32 Oil Consumption (litres per SMH) (ROL): 0.114 Cost of Oil per Litre in Dollars (COL): 0.32 Lube Consumption (litres per SMH) (RLL): 0.07 Cost of Lube per Litre in Dollars (CLL): 0.32 Hydraulic Oil Consumption (litres per SMH) (RHL): 0.07 Cost of Hydraulic Oil per Litre in Dollars (CHL): 0.32  Scheduled Honrs/Year: - S H Productive Hours/Yean =SH»U/100  r38 ri9  Total SMH (life): -B36>EL Total PMH (life): -B37«EL  40 Capita] Cost Including the Effect of Taxes 41 Net Original Investment (NOI) in Dollars: -P'O-KST/lOO^P^lTC/lOO  I4342  Capital Cost(S/yr): -0<0).(Nffl (mwr(T/looy((ViMH i'lrjO))^ ,  r  Cost of Capital (S/SMH): -B42/B36 Interest Payments (J/yr): -((((B6 (1-B9/100)) (B11/100)V( 1-(I+B1 l/100y>-B10))*BIO-<B6 (l-B9/100)))/B10 ,  45 46 47 148 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  ,  ,  Interest Payments (VSMH): -B44/SH Interest Payments After Tax (S/yr): - ( l - B I S / l O O J ' b ^ Interest Payments After Tax (S/SMH): -B46/SH  License and Insurance Cost of Licence and Insurance (S/SMH): -(O.85)'(LN(B14/IQ0)) '-l ((B14/10Or(EL-l)-(BI4/IIKI)"-l)'BI6 B6/(EL'100 SH) /  ,  ,  ,  Operator's Wage and Wage Expense Operator's Wage (S/SMH): -B19+B20 Operator's Wage Expense (S/SMH): -B3l*B21/lO0  Tires and Tracks Number of PMH which Replacements will be Required: -B39-B23 Number of Replacements Required: -(B54/B24) Cost of Replacements (S/SMH): -B55'B25/B38  Repairs and Maintenance Cost of Repairs and Maintenance (S/SMH): =B26/SH  Fuel, Oil, Lubricants and Hydraulic Oil Cost of Fuel (S/SMH): -B27'B28 Cost of Oil (S/SMH): -B29*B30 Cost of Lube (S/SMH): -B31*B32 Cost of H.O. (S/SMH): -B33*B34  Other Consumables .(S/SMH):  67 Summary of Costs 68 Total After Tax Fixed Costs (S/SMH): =B43+B47+B49 69 Capital, Interest, Insurance, Licence 70 Total Variable Costs (S/SMH): =B51+B52+B56+B58+B60+B61+B62+B63+B65 71 Wages and Benefits, Tires and Tracks, R & M , Fuel, Oil, Lubricants, H.O., Other 72 73 Total Machine Cost (S/SMH): -B70+B68  101  A 1  Machine Name Machine Function Machine Life (EL) : Scheduled Hours per Year (SH) Machine Utilization (U) Purchase Price (P) Salvage Value (S) Inflation Rate (i) Down Payment Loan Term Loan Rate GST and Sales Tax (st) Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Capital Cost Allowance Rate (d) Corporate Tax Rate (t) Licencing and Insurance Rate (Ins) Calculation in S M H or PMH? Number of Operators Required (n) Wage of Operator 1 (WI) Wage of Operator 2 (W2) Wage Benefits (WB) Tires or Tracks? Life Expectancy of Originals in P M H (LEO) Life Expectancy of Replacements in P M H (LER) Cost of Replacements in Dollars (CR) Annual Repair and Maintenance Cost (RC) Fuel Consumption (litres per SMH) (FCM) Cost of Fuel per Litre in Dollars (FCL) Oil Consumption (litres per SMH) (ROL) Cost of Oil per Litre in Dollars (COL) Lube Consumption (litres per SMH) (RLL) Cost of Lube per Litre in Dollars (CLL) Hydraulic Oil Consumption (litres per SMH) (RHL) Cost of Hydraulic Oil per Litre in Dollars (CHL)  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 General 36 Scheduled Hours/Year 37 Productive Hours/Year 38 Total S M H (life) 39 Total P M H (life) 40 Capital Cost Including the Effect of Taxes 41 Net Original Investment (NOI) in Dollars 42 Capital Cost ($/yr) 43 Cost of Capital ($/SMH) 44 Interest Payments ($/yr) 45 Interest Payments ($/SMH) 46 Interest Payments After Tax ($/yr) Interest Payments After Tax ($/SMH) 47 48 License and Insurance 49 Cost of Licence and Insurance (S/SMH): 50 Operator's Wage and Wage Expense 51 Operator's Wage ($/SMH): 52 Operator's Wage Expense (S/SMH): 53 Tires and Tracks 54 Number of P M H which Replacements will be Required 55 Number of Replacements Required 56 Cost of Replacements ($/SMH) 57 Repairs and Maintenance 58 Cost of Repairs and Maintenance ($/SMH): 59 Fuel, Oil, Lubricants and Hydraulic Oil 60 Cost of Fuel ($/SMH) 61 Cost of Oil (S/SMH). 62 Cost of Lube (S/SMH). 63 Cost of H.O. (S/SMH). 64 Other Consumables Cost of (S/SMH) 65 66 67 Summarv of Costs 68 Total After Tax Fixed Costs (S/SMH): 69 Capital, Interest, Insurance, Licence 70 Total Variable Costs (S/SMH): 71 Wages and Benefits, Tires and Tracks, R & M , Fuel, Oil, Lubricants, H.O., Other 72 73 74 Total Machine Cost (S/SMH): 75  |  I  B Rock Master 7 1200 85 403000 40301 4 25 7 12 14 0 30 46 2 SMH  years • hours % $ $ % % years % % % % % % S M H or P M H  22.66 $ 17.76 $ 35 .% Tires 6000 6000 : 10000 55000 24 0.32 0.114 0.32 0.07 0.32 0.07 0.32 1200 1020 8400 7140  hours hours $ S 1/hr $ 1/hr $ 1/hr $ 1/hr $ SMH/yr PMH/yr hours hours  459420.00 43042.02 35.87 23049.76 19.21 12446.87 10.37  $ $/yr $/hr $/yr $/hr $/yr $/hr  2.26  $/hr  40.42 $/hr 14.15 $/hr 1140 P M H 0.19 0.23 $/hr 45 83 $/hr 7.68 0.04 0.02 0.02  $/hr $/hr $/hr $/hr $/hr  48.50 $/hr 108.39 $/hr  156.89  C  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075169/manifest

Comment

Related Items