Productivity Estimates for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern Timber Harvests

Similar documents
2008 Council on Forest Engineering (COFE) Conference Proceedings: Addressing Forest Engineering Challenges for the Future Charleston, June 22-25, 2008

Results of biomass harvesting in Alabama

DESIGNING AND TESTING A SMALL-SCALE BIOMASS HARVESTING SYSTEM IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES

Improving Woody Biomass Feedstock Logistics by Reducing Ash and Moisture Content

Integrating Large-Scale Biomass Harvesting into the US Wood Supply System

PRODUCTIVITY AND COST OF TWO METHODS OF TRANSPORTING ENERGYWOOD FROM STUMP TO LANDING IN A TREE-LENGTH SOUTHERN PINE CLEARCUT

Results of biomass harvesting in Missouri

Loading Productivity of Untrimmed and Trimmed Pulpwood

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF WOODY BIOMASS HARVESTING IN SOUTHEASTERN MISSOURI

INTEGRATING WOODY BIOMASS INTO THE U.S. SOUTH WOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

Harvesting Small Trees for Bio-Energy. John Klepac, Bob Rummer, and Jason Thompson 1

Capacity of the Louisiana Logging Industry

IN-WOOD SCREENING OF WOOD GRINDINGS FOR BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK APPLICATIONS

IMPROVED SKIDDING FOR SMALL-SCALE BIOMASS HARVESTING SYSTEMS

Potential Impacts of Biomass Harvesting on Forest Resource Sustainability. Contact Information:

Factors that Affect Fuel Consumption in Logging Systems

Managing Logging Costs

In-woods Chipping. Popular in the early 1970 s Big demand for pulp fiber and wood for industrial fuel. WDSC 422 Chipping and Wetland Systems 1

Harvesting Forest Biomass by Adding a Small Chipper to a Ground-Based Tree-Length Southern Pine Operation

Productivity of a Ponsse Ergo Harvester Working on Steep Terrain

Productivity of a Ponsse Ergo Harvester Working on Steep Terrain

High Tonnage Harvesting and Skidding for Loblolly Pine Energy Plantations

Forest Harvesting in Virginia

Factors that Affect Fuel Consumption in Logging Systems

High Tonnage Harvesting and Skidding for Loblolly Pine Energy Plantations

Productivity and utilisation of an in-field chipping harvest system in an unmanaged blue gum coppice stand in Western Australia

Welcome to the Council on Forest Engineering(COFE) Publications Website

There are 368 million dry tons of biomass available

Production, Cost and Chip Characteristics of In-Woods Microchipping

Utilization and Cost for Animal Logging Operations

Elemental Time Studies

2013 Carbon Sequestration of Georgia Timberland

Comparing Productivity and Costs of Two Beetle-killed Stand Harvesting Methods in Northern Colorado

In-woods Treatment of Forest Residues for Productions of Quality Feedstocks. Anil Raj Kizha. and Han-Sup Han

IMPLEMENTING RESIDUE CHIPPERS ON HARVESTING OPERATIONS FOR BIOMASS RECOVERY. Jaspreet Aulakh

Mathew Smidt, Ph.D, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Forest Operations Phone: ,

Comparison of Four Harvesting Systems in a Loblolly Pine Plantation

What is Thinning? The most challenging logging chance faced by a harvesting system. The objectives of thinning are to: Thinning vs.

Loblolly pine rotation age economic comparisons using four stumpage price sets

CHARLES CORY DUKES. (Under the Direction of W. Dale Greene) ABSTRACT

Whole tree transportation system for timber processing depots

Biomass chipping for eastern redcedar

EFFICIENCY OF BIOMASS HARVESTING IN POOR QUALITY STANDS OF EUCALYPTUS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

4/23/2018. Ways to Improve Profitability. Improving Logger Production Profitability. Case Study Facts. Case Study Facts

Factors that Affect Fuel Consumption and Harvesting Cost. Jonathan Tye Kenney

Follow that tractor: What truck-mounted GPS tells us about log truck performance

Improving Logger Production Profitability

Optimizing the Use of a John Deere Bundling Unit in a Southern Logging System

Assessing the Potential for Biomass Energy Development in South Carolina

Harvesting Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) in Eastern Oregon - A Case Study

IMPACT OF INITIAL SPACING ON YIELD PER ACRE AND WOOD QUALITY OF UNTHINNED LOBLOLLY PINE AT AGE 21

Transportation is not only the most public aspect of log extraction

Series Paper II Why Selling Your Best Southern Pine Trees in a First Thinning Can Make Sound

Timber Marketing Strategies

Introduction to forest biomass harvesting and logistic systems

Project Summary: Application of a Trailer Mounted Slash Bundler for Southern Logging

Timber Measurements Society Coeur d Alene Idaho April, 2018

HARVESTING PRODUCTIVITY AND DISTURBANCE ESTIMATES OF THREE SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS ON THE DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST, KENTUCKY

Production and Economic Analyses of Woody Biomass Utilization for Energy

2004 Council on Forest Engineering (COFE) Conference Proceedings: Machines and People, The Interface Hot Springs, April 27-30, 2004

PRODUCTIVITY OF A TREE LENGTH HARVESTING SYSTEM THINNING PONDEROSA PINE IN NORTHERN ARIZONA

ARCHIVE. Costs and Trends of Southern Forestry Practices Methods.

HARVESTING BIOMASS TO IMPROVE LOW-VALUE BEECH DOMINATED HARDWOOD STANDS IN MAINE

Production and cost of harvesting, processing, and transporting small-diameter ( 5 inches) trees for energy

An Analysis of the Feasibility of Forest Biomass Production from Pine Plantations in Georgia Josh Love, Forest Utilization Department April 2011

Systems Dynamics Simulation To Improve Timber Harvesting System Management

December Abstract

Appalachian Wood Energy Innovations Conference Asheville, NC August 2016

Forest Bioenergy and Biofuels Integration: Sustainability, Energy Balance and Emissions from Forest Restoration in the Southern Rocky Mountains

Southern Pine Tree Size Dynamics Where s the Pulpwood? (Potential Diameter-class Imbalance in Southern Pines)

REVIEW OF THE NEAR TERM MARKET AND GREENHOUSE

Gary Miller, Research Forester USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station Morgantown, WV 26505

NEW HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY IN FOREST FUEL PROCUREMENT

A User s Guide for Western Biomass: Software to Calculate Cost. and Production of Biomass Harvesting, Processing, and.

Equipment Selection for Mechanical Fuels Treatments: A Flow Chart Approach

Full-tree harvesting system aids forest management

Alabama Agricultural Experiment" Station David H. Teem, Acting Director Iuotin 573. Auburn University Auburn University, Alabama November 1985

Motor-Manual CTL Harvesting Techniques of Fast Growing Eucalyptus Plantations - Thailand

Mohawk Forest Resource Assessment

Timber Sale Appraisal Bad Ham Sale KL

Baling Fireline and WUI Fuels Reduction Woody Biomass: Alternative to on-site Chipping. Jim Dooley Mike Perry Jason Perry

Bundling Logging Residues with a Modified John Deere B-380 Slash Bundler

Environmental assessments of woody biomass feedstock for bio-jet fuel production

Enclosure (7) Wood Fiber Supply Assessment: US Marine Corps, MCIEAST New Bern, Jacksonville, and Kenansville NC. FiberAnalytics

1. Introduction Purpose Methods and activity locations Data collection Overview of collected data...

Evaluating the system logistics of a biomass recovery operation in northern California

Economics and Logistics of Biomass Utilization: The Superior National Forest

Snip & Skid: Partial Cut Logging to Control Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations in British Columbia

Economic and Life-Cycle Analysis of Forests Carbon Sequestration and Bioenergy Production in Central Hardwood Region

LOGGING METHODS for WISCONSIN WOODLANDS. A landowner s guide to timber harvesting in Wisconsin s forests

Feedstock Pathways for Bio-Oil and Syngas Conversion Pathways

Timber Measurements Society Portland, 2017 Logging Utilization in Oregon and Washington Eric Simmons

MODELING GROUND-BASED TIMBER HARVESTING SYSTEMS USING COMPUTER SIMULATION

TEL FAX

CHAPTER 3 FEEDSTOCK AGGREGATION

Pine Plantation First Thinning & Final Harvest Sealed Bid by Pay-As-Cut Alabama Tracts - 4 Tracts (604 Sale Acres) Autauga County, Alabama

Use of synthetic rope in the extraction of stems and wholetree in a radiata pine thinning on steep terrain in the North of Spain

Growth Response and Economics of Herbaceous Weed Control in Loblolly Pine Stand Management. 29 May 2008

The Prevalence and Operational Feasibility of Utilizing Pre- Commercially Thinned Pine as a Woody Biomass Energy Source

Forest Management Planning for Marketing Forest Products

Transcription:

Productivity Estimates for Chippers and Grinders on Operational Southern Timber Harvests Addison Aman, Graduate Research Assistant Shawn Baker, Research Professional Dale Greene, Professor Center for Forest Business, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2152 ABSTRACT Growth in bioenergy interests in the southeastern United States has created a need for costeffective woody biomass harvesting systems. Three operational systems were evaluated for their potential production and cost: horizontal grinders fed with residue from roundwood harvests, horizontal grinders fed with residue from clean chipping harvests, and whole tree chippers fed entire stems. We evaluated three contractors operating each of the three system types over the course of one week each. Hourly production did not differ significantly between the three systems, but per ton costs were lower for the grinding operations than for the chipping operation. Hauling capacity and per acre volume removal were highly influential on costs. INTRODUCTION Renewable energy sources are receiving increased attention as more is understood about worldwide petroleum reserves, the threat of global warming from rising CO 2 levels, and energy security issues (Turner 1999). Renewable energy sources will no doubt play a vital role in shaping the economy of the future as fossil fuel prices rise. Biomass is one source of renewable energy that is being closely examined nationwide and particularly in the Southeast. In this context, biomass is defined as plant material that can be used to fuel other processes. The southeastern United States, with over 30 million acres of land dedicated to managed pine plantations, is the largest producer of forest products in the country. These forests have the potential to play a major role in producing biomass feedstocks for various industries. The goal of this study was to study harvesting systems that can produce biomass feedstock in an efficient and economic manner. We examined systems that grind logging residues left behind after roundwood timber harvests (GRW) and after in-woods chipping systems that produce high quality chips for pulp and paper (GCC), as well as whole tree chipping systems that produce dirty chips (WTC). METHODS Site and Crew Characteristics All of the crews visited in this study were operating in either Alabama or Georgia on loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands. Three different operations of each 1

system type were observed for three to four days. Two of the WTC harvests were first thinnings while the third was a clearcut of a low-quality pine stand. Five of the grinder operations were following first thinnings, with the sixth, a GCC crew, following a clearcut. Pre-harvest inventories of stands to determine trees/acre and ton/acre estimates were not performed due to time and budget constraints. Crew sizes varied by operation type, with grinding crews using one or two employees and WTC crews employing a larger crew to handle the harvesting functions (Table 1). One GCC crew used four employees during the study period to fell residual hardwood stems and feed them to the grinder. This was not a typical operation for that crew. Available trucking capacity varied between two and five trucks. Table 1. Characteristics of forest biomass grinding and chipping systems in Georgia and Alabama studied during 2009-2010. Crew Type Crew Size No. of Trucks Chipper/Grinder WTC 4 5 Morbark 50/48 WTC 5 4-5 Precision Husky WTC 2366 WTC 4 4 Morbark 30/36 GRW 1 4 Peterson 4710B GRW 1 5 Vermeer HG 6000 GRW 2 3 Morbark 4600 XL GCC 4 4 Peterson 4700C GCC 2 4-5 Peterson 4700B GCC 1 2 Morbark 3800 Time Study Techniques Elemental time studies were performed at each of the sites that were visited. The studies typically lasted three to four days, or until approximately 30 truckloads were observed and recorded. Work sampling was conducted by recording the activity of each piece of equipment every two minutes throughout the day. These data were combined by harvest system type to calculate utilization rates and identify causes of delays. We grouped the delay categories into trucking related delays and non-trucking delays to assess the impact of available trucking on production. Work categories that were grouped under non-trucking delays include: waiting on trees/chipper/loader, mechanical delays, miscellaneous delays, and operational delays. The time required to load each truck was recorded along with the length of any delays that prolonged the loading process. Total number of bites or swings of wood required to feed the chipper or grinder were also recorded. Mill scale tickets were used to record the weight of each load. This information was used to calculate average tons/scheduled machine hour (SMH) and tons/productive machine hour (PMH) for each of the three system types observed. Cost Analysis Two modified versions of the Auburn Harvest Analyzer were used to create cost estimates for grinder and whole tree chipping systems (Tufts et al. 1985) on a green ton 2

basis. The assumptions that were used in the cost analysis of the grinding and chipping systems are available from the author. RESULTS Machine Utilization Analysis Chipper/grinder utilization was the highest for WTC systems with a utilization rate of 44% (Figure 1). Both grinder systems had a slightly lower utilization rate of 38%. The utilization of the chipper/grinder could have been greatly increased if trucking related delays could have been avoided. These delays were the highest for the GRW and GCC systems with a rate of 49%. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% WTC GRW GCC Other Delays Trucking Related Delays Chipping/Grinding Figure 1. Utilization rates for chippers or grinders for each of the systems studied. Delays are categorized by trucking related and other delays. While trucking related delays were not as significant for WTC systems, in this study chippers had more mechanical delays than grinder systems with a rate of 11%, compared to 4% for GRW crews and 9% for GCC crews (Figure 2). Overall, mechanical delays did not greatly reduce production for any of the systems studied. Knuckleboom loaders were used by every system that was observed except for one GRW crew. On grinding crews they were typically teamed with front-end loaders that piled material within reach of the knuckleboom and loaded the chipper/grinder when possible. Knuckleboom loader utilization rates 42%, 32%, and 33% on the WTC, GRW, and GCC crews, respectively. Combined loading and piling utilization rates for front-end loaders on the GRW and GCC crews were 38% and 51% respectively. Feller-bunchers and skidders were used by the WTC systems because harvests occurred concurrently with the chipping operation. Feller-buncher utilization was excellent with an 3

average rate of 76% for the systems observed. Skidder utilization was a bit lower than the felling machine with a rate of 57%. Part of the reason for this is that most operations used more than one skidder, but we were only able to observe one of them given our manpower in the field. Therefore wood may have still been skidded to the deck even though the machine we were observing was idle/off. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% WTC GRW GCC Non mechanical Delays Mechanical Delays Chipping/Grinding Figure 2. Utilization rates for chippers or grinders for each of the three systems studied. Delays are categorized by mechanical and non-mechanical delays. Production Rate Analysis We summarized the production rates for the three system types on both a potential production (tons/pmh) and observed production (tons/smh) basis (Figure 3). Neither average production per SMH nor per PMH differed siginificantly between the three systems (p > 0.05). 4

120 100 80 60 40 Tons/SMH Tons/PMH 20 0 WTC GRW GCC Figure 3. Comparison of tons/smh and tons/pmh for the three forest biomass harvesting systems observed. System Cost Analysis - Whole tree chipping systems had the highest calculated cost per green ton of delivered material with $21.26. The larger crew sizes needed to fell and extract trees for the chipper added substantial cost, particularly given the small diameter of felled stands (less than 8 inches DBH). Grinder systems had lower delivered costs per green ton with $21.18 for GCC operations and $20.25 for GRW operations. GCC operations required more effort on the part of both the knuckleboom and the front-end loader to accomplish the same production rate as the GRW operations, driving costs slightly higher. Sensitivity analyses were performed on a variety of key inputs for each of the system models that were created. Ton per acre removals were examined for grinding and whole tree chipping systems separately because they differ drastically from one another. Removals between 3 to 15 tons/acre of residual material represent a typical range for the grinder operations that were observed. The delivered price per ton falls by $2.55 as the per acre removals increase to 15 tons (Figure 4). The same trend occurs for WTC systems over a typical removal range of 20 to 100 tons per acre (Figure 5). The delivered price decreases $1.65 as the removals increase to the maximum of 100 tons/acre. 5

$/ Green Ton $22.00 $21.50 $21.00 $20.50 $20.00 $19.50 $19.00 $18.50 GRW GCC $18.00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tons/Acre Figure 4. Delivered material cost estimates for increasing ton/acre removals for biomass harvesting systems using grinders and chippers. $23.00 $/ Green Ton $22.50 $22.00 $21.50 WTC $21.00 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Tons/Acre Figure 5. Delivered material cost estimates for increasing ton/acre removals for whole tree chipping systems The limited availability of trucking caused increases in haul distances to have a very large effect on the delivered cost of material for each system type (Figure 6). As haul distance increases from 50 to 120 miles the delivered cost of material rises by $18.13 for WTC systems and $17.01 for grinder systems. Additionally, payload maximization is important to maximize trucking efficiency (Figure 7). Decreases in total payload cause substantial increases in delivered costs. 6

$40.00 $/ Green Ton $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 WTC GRW GCC $15.00 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Haul Distance (miles) Figure 6. Delivered material cost for increasing haul distances (miles) for all 3 system types. $28.00 $26.00 $/ Green Ton $24.00 $22.00 $20.00 WTC GRW GCC $18.00 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 Load Size (tons) Figure 7. Delivered material cost for increasing truck load weights (tons) for all 3 system types. CONCLUSIONS All three systems showed relatively low chipping or grinding machine utilization during our study period. The availability of trucks was a major contributing factor in the grinding operations. While trucking was also a factor in the chipping operations, feller-buncher utilization averaged over 75%, suggesting that felling capacity is very close to limiting when 7

using one feller-buncher to feed a full-sized chipper in the smaller stands typically being used for biomass-only harvests. Productivity was statistically equal between the three systems, but the additional machinery and personnel needed to produce whole-tree chips drove the cost per green ton higher for the WTC crews. All three systems were sensitive to changes in trucking availability, payloads, and per acre tonnage removals. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by a grant from the Georgia Traditional Industries program. The authors also wish to acknowledge the cooperation of all harvesting contractors in this project as well as Plum Creek Timber Company for their assistance. LITERATURE CITED Tufts, R.A., B.L. Lanford, W.D. Greene, and J.O. Burrows. 1985. Auburn harvesting analyzer. The COMPILER Forest Resources Systems Institute, Florence, AL. 3(2):14-15. Turner, J. A. (1999). "A Realizable Renewable Energy Future." Science 285(5428): 687-689. 8