Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
• Wood production ~15 million m³/y• % 29 of which by Pinus brutia Ten. • 12-18 million piece timber logs• (CTL) harvesting method / stump site
Cutting Extraction Hauling
Felling Delimbing Bucking Debarking
Background
The industrial logs must be debarked to;- keep the wood losses to save raw material,- reduce the weight of the log by drying,- minimize the coefficient of friction,- facilitate the process of transport,- prevent damage caused by insects - reduce storage defects, - contribute to needs of organic matter,- reduce eradication of bark debris
Debarking methods:I. Manuel methods / hand tools (axe, knife, and spud),II. Mechanical methods with debarking machines, III. Chemical matters, andIV. Water pressure and friction techniques
Debarking time = 50-80 % of the cutting time for 1 m³ log
Unit price of 1 m³ are calculated according to cutting time
Unit Price per 1 m³= Unit Cost x Standardized Time
• Cost minimization of 1 m³• Time saving• Environmentally sound • Employment capacity• Health and safety• Productivity, etc.
Which is the most appropriate?Problem
The selection of appropriate debarking technology for pine logs at the stump site.
• to specify useful and systematic assessment method• to develop a criteria and indicators set for analysis• to compare different debarking techniques• to highlight the use of (AHP) when selecting debarking technology
Scope
Aims
Three different debarking techniquesMaterial
Technology Main Tool Component
Manuel1 Worker 1 Co-worker 1 Axe
Manuel1 Worker 1 Co-worker 1 Log spud
Motor-Manuel1 Operator 1 Co-worker 1 Chainsaw1 Debarker head
Data and information * Technical properties, working techniques, costs, productivity, etc.* Previous researches, literature, reports, field survey, and unstructured interview on workers.
Selection of appropriate technology• Ranking, weighting- sum method, and Analytic Hierarchy Process/AHP were used in MCDM. • All tabulation, ranking, and AHP analysis were achieved by using of MS Excel spreadsheets.
Three debarking tools and working techniques
Method
Debarking technique should be;
- technically possible, - economically feasible, - environmentally sound, - institutionally acceptable, - socially agreeable, - biodiversity respectful, - silviculturally acceptable, - locally controlled, - cost effective, - labor intensive, - reasonably flexible, - reliable, etc.
Criteria/C Economical/C1 Environmental/C2 Social/C3 Technical/C4
Indicators/I
Operational costs Soil compaction Employment capacity Reliability
Fixed costs Erosion Opportunities Access to resource
Capital investment Nutrient losses Dependency to rules Availability
Productivity Hydrological cycle Hygiene Locally controllable
Profitability Water quality Health and safety Reasonably flexible
Energy requirement Waste matter Training requirement Cleanliness
Emission Regional development Work and product quality
Biological diversity Work load Precision requirement
Forest health
Planning requirement
Dependency to conditions
Criteria and indicator sets
STEP 1
A gradation/rating scale was improved to determine relative importance for quantitative comparison between 1 and 9.
STEP 2
It was determined the priority value of the main criteria by pairwise comparison method.For pairwise comparison matrix, the relative appropriateness value (for eigenvector) was produced.
This step was repeated for indicator set in each criterion
STEP 3
Alternative debarking technologies were rated respect to each indicator by pairwise compasion matrix, and relative value vector was obtained.
Technical Economic Enviromental SocialTechnical 1.00 1.00 7.00 5.00Economic 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00Enviromental 0.14 0.20 1.00 0.33Social 0.20 0.20 3.00 1.00
Ranking Indicators Rlblty. Accs. Res. Avablty Lcl. Ctrl. Rsl. Flex. Clean. W.&P.Qlt Prcsn. Pln.& Org. Dpnd. Cnd.5 Reliability 1.00 0.33 0.20 3.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 3.00 4.00 22 Access to resource 3.00 1.00 0.50 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 9.00 3.001 Availability 5.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 6.00 4.00 3.00 9.00 9.00 4.007 Locally controllable 0.33 0.50 0.14 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.33 2.00 3.00 26 Reasonably flexible 0.50 0.33 0.17 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 4.00 24 Cleanliness 2.00 0.50 0.25 2.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 3.00 4.00 23 Work and product quality 2.00 0.50 0.33 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.009 Precision requirement 0.33 0.20 0.11 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 2.00 210 Planning or organization requirement 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.58 Dependency to conditions 0.5 0.333333 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.5 0.333333 0.5 2 1
Intensity of importance in AHP methodology Appropriateness grading scale
Rating Definition Definition Rating
1 Equal Equally appropriate 1
3 Somewhat more Somewhat more appropriate 3
5 Much more Much more appropriate 5
7 Very much more Very much more appropriate 7
9 Absolutely more The most appropriate 9
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate Intermediate appropriateness 2, 4, 6, 8
Productivity Log Debarker Axe SpudeLog Debarker 1 7 5Axe 0.142857143 1 0.333333Spude 0.2 3 1
Method Implementation of AHP
STEP 4 The priority vector of the each indicator set was multiplied by relative appropriateness value and acquired the total weighted eigenvector for each alternative respect to indicators
X
STEP 5
The consistency of the matrix of order n is evaluated. Comparisons made by this method are subjectiveand the AHP tolerates inconsistency through the amount of redundancy in the approach. If thisconsistency index fails to reach a required level then answers to comparisons may be re-examined. Theconsistency index, CI, is calculated as:
CI= (Lmax. – n)/(n-1)
Lmax. is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgement matrixThis CI can be compared with that of a random matrix, RI. The ratio derived, CI/RI, is termed theconsistency ratio, CR. T. Saaty suggests the value of CR should be less than 0.1.
STEP 6
The rating of each alternative is multiplied by the weights of the indicatorsand aggregated to get local ratings with respect to each criterion. The localratings are then multiplied by the weights of the criteria and aggregated to getglobal ratings.
Economic O.C. F.C. C.I. Prod. Profit. E.R.Log Debarker 0.096 0.057 0.057 0.724 0.142 0.057Axe 0.619 0.649 0.649 0.083 0.525 0.295Spude 0.284 0.295 0.295 0.193 0.334 0.649
Indicators PriorityOperational costs 0.2186Fixed costs 0.2733Capital invest. 0.2772Productivity 0.1096Profitability 0.0852Energy requirt. 0.0361
Criteria Priorities
Technical 0.431Economic 0.399
Environmental 0.059
Social 0.111Lmax= 4.124 CI=0.041 CR=0.042
Indicators of Economic Criterion Priorities
Operational costs 0.2186Fixed costs 0.2733Capital investment 0.2772Productivity 0.1096Profitability 0.0852Energy requirement 0.0361
Lmax= 6.645 CI=0.129 CR=0.097
Indicators of Ecological Criterion PrioritiesSoil compaction 0.099
Erosion 0.279Nutrient losses 0.072
Hydrological cycle 0.154
Water quality 0.245
Waste matter 0.041
Emission 0.03
Biological diversity 0.025
Forest health 0.056
Lmax= 10.191 CI=0.149 CR=0.096
Indicators of Technical Criterion Priorities
Reliability 0.073Access to resource 0.162Availability 0.269Locally controllable 0.051Reasonably flexible 0.073Cleanliness 0.075Work and product quality 0.11Precision requirement 0.04Planning requirement 0.021Dependency to conditions 0.039Lmax= 10.577 CI=0.064 CR=0.040
Indicators of Social Criterion Priorities
Employment capacity 0.3158Opportunities 0.0326
Dependency to legisltn 0.0219
Hygene 0.0715
Health and safety 0.2246
Training requirement 0.0589
Regional development 0.057
Work load 0.1865
Lmax= 9.014 CI=0.145 CR=0.098
Results Priorities of criteria and indicator sets , from pairwise compasion
Economic Criterion Indicators
Alternatives
Ope
ratio
nal
Cos
t
Fixe
d C
ost
Cap
ital
Inve
stm
ent
Prod
uctiv
ity
Prof
itabi
lity
Ener
gy
Req
uire
men
t
Tota
l Ei
genv
ecto
r
Wei
ghte
d To
tal
Eige
nvec
tor
Log Debarker 0.096 0.066 0.057 0.724 0.142 0.066 0,189 0.146
Axe 0.619 0.623 0.649 0.083 0.525 0.311 0,470 0.557
Spud 0.284 0.311 0.295 0.193 0.334 0.623 0,342 0.297
CR = 0.065 0.062 0.062 0.049 0.040 0.062CR < 0.1
EnvironmentalCriterion Indicators
Alternatives
Soil
Com
pact
ion
Eros
ion
Nut
rient
Lo
sses
Hyd
rolo
gica
l C
ycle
Wat
er Q
ualit
y
Was
te m
atte
r
Emis
sion
Bio
logi
cal
Div
ersi
ty
Fore
st H
ealth
Tota
l Ei
genv
ecto
r
Wei
ghte
d To
tal
Eige
nvec
tor
Log Debarker 0.214 0.142 0.631 0.648 0.106 0.052 0.053 0.070 0.074 0.232 0.248
Axe 0.429 0.525 0.299 0.230 0.260 0.316 0.474 0.580 0.283 0.351 0.355
Spud 0.357 0.334 0.070 0.122 0.633 0.632 0.474 0.350 0.643 0.417 0.397
CR = 0.017 0.041 0.049 0.003 0.029 0.098 0.017 0.025 0.049
Comparison matrix of the alternatives with respect to indicators of each criterion
CR < 0.1
Social Criterion Indicators
Alternatives Empl
oym
ent
Cap
acity
Opp
ortu
nitie
s
Dep
ende
ncy
to
Legi
slat
ion
Hyg
iene
Occ
upat
iona
l H
ealth
and
Sa
fety
Trai
ning
R
equi
rem
ent
Reg
iona
l D
evel
opm
ent
Wor
k lo
ad
Tota
l Ei
genv
ecto
r
Wei
ghte
d To
tal
Eige
nvec
tor
Log Debarker 0.052 0.633 0.118 0.057 0.083 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.150 0.089Axe 0.592 0.260 0.501 0.295 0.193 0.669 0.669 0.243 0.398 0.374Spud 0.356 0.106 0.380 0.649 0.724 0.243 0.243 0.669 0.452 0.506
CR = 0.047 0.029 0.003 0.062 0.049 0.005 0.005 0.005
TechnicalCriterion Indicators
Alternatives Rel
iabi
lity
Acce
ss to
R
esou
rce
Avai
labi
lity
Loca
lly
Con
trol
labl
e
Rea
sona
bly
Flex
ible
Cle
anlin
ess
Wor
k an
d Pr
oduc
t Q
ualit
y
Prec
isio
n R
equi
rem
ent
Plan
ning
R
equi
rem
ent
Dep
ende
ncy
to C
ondi
tions
Tota
l Ei
genv
ecto
r
Wei
ghte
d To
tal
Eige
nvec
tor
Log Debarker 0.111 0.064 0.723 0.106 0.106 0.057 0.104 0.623 0.074 0.071 0.204 0.271
Axe 0.588 0.669 0.216 0.633 0.633 0.295 0.231 0.239 0.643 0.748 0.490 0.387
Spud 0.301 0.267 0.061 0.260 0.260 0.649 0.665 0.138 0.283 0.180 0.307 0.254CR = 0.003 0.022 0.008 0.029 0.029 0.061 0.065 0.029 0.049 0.022
Comparison matrix of the alternatives with respect to indicators of each criterion
Criteria Technical Economic Environmental Social Total Eigenvector
Final PriorityPriorities 0.431 0.399 0.059 0.111
Log Debarker 0.271 0.146 0.248 0.089 0.188 0.200
Axe 0.387 0.554 0.355 0.374 0.417 0.451
Spud 0.254 0.299 0.397 0.506 0.363 0.308
Decision matrix and solution vector respect to MCDM by using of AHP
Concluding Remarks
• The results is based on general information but not site specific.• Stand-based or site-specific information presents different and more consistent results.• Chainsaw mounted log debarker can be suitable inadequate labor force, intensive work, need
to time, thin barked trees, abundance chainsaw, etc.,. • If the cost calculation procedure is achieved, then, both log debarker (for thin barked logs) and
axe (for thick barked logs) can be used with together• If the trees are cut in the spring or thinning or tending operations will be performed, log spud
can be available.
Technically Feasible
Economically Viable
Environmentally Sound
Socially Acceptable