Evaluation of technological improvements in bundling units for the collection of eucalyptus logging residues on steep terrain in Spain
Abstract
Aim of the study: The objective of this study was to evaluate recent technological improvements to forest bundlers: a new cutting device with shears and a mechanism which allows the bundling pressure to be changed by the driver.
Area of study: eucalyptus plantations in Northern Spain.
Material and Methods: Several time studies were performed in order to compare and calculate productivity depending on the machine: John Deere bundler working with the traditional chainsaw and Monra bundler equipped with the technological improvements of shears and adjustable bundling pressure.
Research highlights:
- Significant differences were found between cutting devices (shears and chainsaw) and between the Monra working at maximum pressure and at lower pressure.
- Shears were shown to be a more robust and reliable cutting device, with 1.02 cutting attempts per bundle compared to 1.55 with chain saw. The use of shears made the loading more efficient as it eliminates the need to shake the residues before feeding the bundler. A great advantage of this technological improvement is that it can be incorporated into other machines and thus improve bundling efficiency.
- In spite of this, working at standard bundling pressure, the productivity of the Monra bundler is only 3.2 per cent higher than that of the John Deere due to the fact that in the latter bundling is faster and it produces bundles with significantly more dry mass.
- For the Monra bundler, the option of producing lighter bundles further reduced productivity compared to when standard weight bundles are produced. However, it would be of interest to study the effect of the machine working at various pressures in order to optimize the work system. It is possible that working at higher pressures would have advantages in terms of increasing transport efficiency.
Keywords: bundler; time study; shear; cutting device; slash collection; forest biomass.
Downloads
References
References
Abbas D, Current D, Phillips M., Rossman R, Hoganson H, Brooks K, 2011. Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: A synthesis of environmental considerations. Biomass and Bioenergy 35(11): 4538-4546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.029
Agudo R, 2010. Empacado discontinuo a pie de tocón de residuos selvícolas: gestión integral de biomasa forestal. Doctoral Thesis. Universidad de Córdoba. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba, Campus de Rabanales. Ctra. Nacional IV, km. 396, 14071 Córdoba. Available in http://www.uco.es/publicaciones.
Aijälä O, Kuusinen M, Halonen M, 2005. Metsäenergiapuun korjuu uudistushakkuualoilta -ohjeisto. Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapio, Helsinki. 14 pp.
Andersson G, Nordén B, 1996. Baling av trädrester—En systemanalysis, Skogforsk, Stencil 06–20.
Andersson G, Nordén B, 2000. Fiberpac 370 – Systemstudie komprimering av avverkningsrester. Arbetsrapport 448, Skogforsk, Uppsala. Sweden.
Balboa M, 2005. Biomasa arbórea y estabilidad nutricional de los sistemas forestales de Pinus pinaster Ait., Eucalyptus globulus Labill. y Quercus robur L. en Galicia. Doctoral Thesis. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Cuchet E, Roux P, Spinelli R, 2004. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate forests of France. Biomass and Bioenergy 2004; 27: 31–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.10.006
Eliasson L, 2011. Follow-up of the John Deere logging residue bundler. In: Efficient forest fuel supply systems. Composite report from a four year R&D programme 2007-2010 (Thorsén Å, Björheden R, Eliasson L. eds). Skogforsk. Available in http://www.skogforsk.se/contentassets/13f65170eaa5477b842f4d2f3de7b282/ess-2007-2010-eng-low.pdf
EurObserver´ER, 2015. Solid Biomass Barometer-EurObserver´ER, January 2015. Available in http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/stat_baro/observ/baro225_en.pdf
IDAE, 2011. Evaluación del potencial de energía de la biomasa. Estudio técnico PER 2011-2012. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio of Spain 196 pp.
Johansson J, Liss JE, Gullberg T, Björheden R, 2006. Transport and handling of forest energy bundles-advantages and problems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(4): 334-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.07.012
Kärhä K, Vartiamäki T, 2006. Productivity and costs of slash bundling in Nordic conditions. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 1043-1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.12.020
Laitila J, Kilponen M, Nuutinen Y, 2013. Productivity and cost-efficiency of bundling logging residues at roadside landing. Croat. J. For. Eng. 34 (2): 175-187.
LAUBRASS Inc. 2007. UMT PLUS ® Software. User's Guide. Umt Manager and StatUmt programs, Version 16.7. 197 pp.
Lofgren A, 2004. A comparison of three systems for extraction and transportation of logging residues after final felling. Students reports 74, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, section of Forest Technology, Umeå.
McDonald T, Stokes B, McNeel J, 1994. Effect of product form, compaction, vibration and comminution on energywood bulk density. In: Preparation and Supply of High Quality Wood Fuels. IEA Task IX Proceedings. Research Note 278. Garpenberg, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Pp. 6-23.
Olsen E, Hossain M, Miller M, 1998. Statistical Comparison Of Methods Used In Harvesting Work Studies. Research Contribution 23. Forest Research Laboratory. Oregon State University. 45 pp.
Patterson DW, Pelkki MH, Steele PH, 2008. Productivity of the John Deere slash bundler in removing in-forest residues from pine harvest sites in the mid-South: four case studies. Forest Products Journal Vol 58. No 7/8: 31-36.
Rummer B, Len D, O'Brien O, 2004. Forest residues bundling project: new technology for residues removal. Auburn, AL: US Forest Service, Forest Operations Research Unit, Southern Research Station. 20 pp. Available in http://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/strategy/bundling/documents/bundler_report_final.pdf.
Sánchez-García S, Canga E, Picchi G, Nati C, 2011. Analysis of the procurement of eucaliptus residues with bundling technology. 44th International Symposium on Forestry Mechanisation (FORMEC). Graz, Austria. 5 pp.
Sanz F, Piñeiro G, 2003. Aprovechamiento de la biomasa forestal producida por la cadena monte-industria. Parte I: Situación actual y evaluación de sistemas de tratamiento. Revista CIS-Madeira 10: 6-37.
SAS Institute Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT®. 9.1. User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
SKOGSSTYRELSEN, 2008. Rekommendationer vid uttag av avverkningsrester och askåterföring. [Recommendations for harvest of logging residues and ash return], The Swedish Forest Agency, Meddelande 2. 33 pp.
Spinelli R., Magagnotti N., Picchi G, 2011. A supply chain evaluation of slash bundling under the conditions of mountain forestry. Biomass and Bioenergy 36: 339-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.11.001
Steele PH, Mitchell BK, Cooper JE, Arora S, 2008. Bundled slash: A potential new biomass resource for fuels and chemicals. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol 148: 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12010-007-8117-8
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
