Cited by 10Forest Biomass Utilization and ManagementWood Residue Utilization and Solid BiofuelsAgricultural Engineering and Mechanization

Productivity of a prototype truck-mounted logging residue bundler and a road-side bundling system

Open access
Lindroos, Ola, Matisons, Magnus, Johansson, Petter, Nordfjell, Tomas·2010·Silva Fennica

Abstract

When recovering logging residues (LR) for bioenergy its density should be increased before road transport, otherwise a low proportion of the trucks’ load capacity will be used. One way this can be currently done is to compress LR into bundles that are forwarded to roadside landing. A less well-developed alternative is to forward loose LR and bundle it at landing. In the presented study, a prototype specifically developed for road-side bundling was found to produce larger, heavier bundles than bundling machinery intended for in-field use (mean length, diameter and raw bulk density 4.7 m, 0.8 m and 285 kg m, respectively, with 299–445 kg oven dry matter per bundle). The machine was also at least 30% more productive than previously described in-field bundling systems, producing 14–19 bundles per productive work hour (PWh), equivalent to 5.2–7.8 oven-dry tonnes PWh. Bundles were estimated to use 67–86% of an LR truck’s 30 tonnes load capacity, similar to proportions used when transporting loose LR. However, a continuous feeding and compressing process would probably almost double productivity, while longer bundles would enable full use of truck load capacity. With such improvements bundling at road-side could provide a viable alternative to current LR-recovering systems.–3–1

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14214/sf.148

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Corresponding costs of Can.$77/ODt for a slash system and Can.$84/ODt for a bundle system were estimated by Lindroos et al. (2010), which tally with the costs in the study presented here, despite excluding relocation costs.

    “Corresponding costs of Can.$77/ODt for a slash system and Can.$84/ODt for a bundle system were estimated by Lindroos et al. (2010), which tally with the costs in the study presented here, despite excluding relocation costs.”

    From Costs, CO2 Emissions, and Energy Balances of Applying Nordic Slash Recovery Methods in British Columbia (2011) · cites this paper as Lindroos et al. 2010

    The Methods section (page unavailable) describes a cost comparison of loose logging residues and bundling systems, and section 3.4 discusses the estimated cost differences. The available Table 8 passage does not show the cost figures, so Can.$77/ODt and Can.$84/ODt cannot be verified; the paper also does not state that relocation costs were excluded. Whether those estimates tally with the citing authors’ study is their own comparison, not a finding attributed to Lindroos et al. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Andersson, G., Asikainen, A., Björheden, R., Hall, P. W., Hudson, J. B., Jirjis, R. et al. 2002. Production of forest energy. In: Richardsson, J., Björheden, R., Hakkila, P., Lowe, A. & Smith, C. (eds.). Bioenergy from sustainable forestry, guiding principles and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publish- ers. p. 49-124.
  2. Angus-Hankin, C., Stokes, B. & Twaddle, A. 1995. The transportation of fuelwood from forest to facility. Biomass and Bioenergy. 9(1-5): 191-203.
  3. Björheden, R. & Eriksson, L.O. 1989. Optimal storing, transport and processing for a forest-fuel supplier. European Journal of Operational Research. 43(1): 26-33.
  4. Cuchet, E., Roux, P. & Spinelli, R. 2004. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate for- ests of France. Biomass and Bioenergy. 27(1): 31-39.
  5. Hakkila, P. & Parikka, M. 2002. Fuel resources from the forest. In: Richardsson, J., Björheden, R., Hak- kila, P., Lowe, A. & Smith, C. (eds.). Bioenergy from sustainable forestry, guiding principles and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publish- ers. p. 19-48.
  6. Jirjis, R. 1995. Storage and drying of wood fuel. Bio- mass and Bioenergy. 9(1-5): 181-190.
  7. Johansson, J., Liss, J.-E., Gullberg, T. & Björheden, R. 2006. Transport and handling of forest energy bundles -advantages and problems. Biomass and Bioenergy 30(4): 334-341.
  8. Jylhä, P. & Laitila, J. 2007. Energy wood and pulp- wood harvesting from young stands using a pro- totype whole-tree bundler. Silva Fennica. 41(4): 763-779.
  9. Kärhä, K. & Vartiamäki, T. 2006. Productivity and costs of slash bundling in Nordic conditions. Bio- mass and Bioenergy. 30(12): 1043-1052.
  10. Nordfjell, T. & Liss, J.-E. 2000. Compressing and drying of bunched trees from a commercial thin- ning. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 15(2): 284-290.
  11. Nurmi, J. 2007. Recovery of logging residues for energy from spruce (Pices abies) dominated stands. Biomass and Bioenergy 31(6): 375-380.
  12. Öhlund, A. 2003. Productivity study in bundling log- ging residues and small stems with WoodPac. Mas- ter's thesis, Department of Silviculture, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå. (In Swedish with English summary).
  13. Pettersson, M. & Nordfjell, T. 2007. Fuel quality changes during seasonal storage of compacted logging residues and young trees. Biomass and Bioenergy 31(11-12): 782-792.
  14. Ranta, T. & Rinne, S. 2006. The profitability of trans- porting uncomminuted raw materials in Finland. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30(3): 231-237.
  15. Spinelli, R. & Magagnotti, N. 2009. Logging residue bundling at the roadside in mountain operations. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 24(2): 173-181.
  16. Stampfer, K. & Kanzian, C. 2006. Current state and development possibilities of wood chip supply chains in Austria. Croatian Journal of Forest Engi- neering 27(2): 135-145. Total of 25 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindroos, O., Matisons, M., Johansson, P., & Nordfjell, T.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Venue
Silva Fennica
Published
2010
Volume
44
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0037-5330 (ISSN-L)
  • 2242-4075
OpenAlex
W1785607325
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Silva Fennica (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Epsilon Open Archive (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet biblioteket (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Doria (University of Helsinki) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • SNS Nordic Forest Research
  • European Regional Development Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Forest Biomass Utilization and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Wood Residue Utilization and Solid Biofuels
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
Keywords
logging residues, biomass feedstock, bulk density, biomass recovery, machine productivity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review