An Analysis of the Differences among Log Scaling Methods and Actual Log Volume
Log rules estimate the volume of green lumber that can be expected to result from the sawing of a log. As such, this ability to reliably predict lumber recovery forms the foundation of log sales and purchase. The more efficient a sawmill, the less the scaling methods reflect the actual volume recove...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Forest products journal 2017-07, Vol.67 (3-4), p.250-257 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 257 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3-4 |
container_start_page | 250 |
container_title | Forest products journal |
container_volume | 67 |
creator | Thomas, R. Edward Bennett, Neal D |
description | Log rules estimate the volume of green lumber that can be expected to result from the sawing of a log. As such, this ability to reliably predict lumber recovery forms the foundation of log sales and purchase. The more efficient a sawmill, the less the scaling methods reflect the actual volume recovery and the greater the overrun factor. Using high-resolution scanned log data and the RAYSAW hardwood log sawing simulator, we compared recovery results for a 32-log sample with data from other mills and examined the overrun factors for common log scaling methods. With the sample logs, we saw underruns as low as −31.9 percent and overruns as high as 159.4 percent depending on log rule and log characteristics. Given the measurement accuracy of laser profiling systems and computing speed, it is relatively easy to determine log volume and recovery both quickly and with heretofore unknown accuracy. The log rules commonly in use today were all developed over 100 years ago: Doyle in 1825, Scribner in 1846, and International ¼-Inch in 1906. Both the logs from the forest and processing methods and equipment in the mills have changed since then. As such, the log rules are not as relevant to modern mills and today's timber supply as they once were. Given modern developments in laser measurement systems, mill operators have much better tools available to access log supply. |
doi_str_mv | 10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00039 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1928309135</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A503262629</galeid><sourcerecordid>A503262629</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d2a9f743306a6e9a2bbaf6c484038d5e7bd416b4d54794ec152455c1c55812d93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkU1r3DAQhkVpodu0514NuUaJZH2tjybbJC3bNpAmVyHLI6-CLaWSfci_r7IpJIFlYGaYed6B4UXoKyWnlBHFzi6uf-ANphITQljzDq1qpiRuJFPv0YoQKrDiin1En3K-L4gSsl6hX22o2mDGx-xzFV0176DaeOcgQbCQKzPFMFTbOFQ31oy-9D9h3sW-bEJftXZezLhf38VxmeAz-uDMmOHL_3qEbi--_Tm_wtvfl9_P2y22nNIZ97VpnOKMEWkkNKbuOuOk5WtO2LoXoLqeU9nxXnDVcLBU1FwIS60Qa1r3DTtCx893H1L8u0Ce9X1cUvkja9rUa0YaysQLNZgRtA8uzsnYyWerW0FYLUs83cIHqAECJDPGAM6X8Rv-9ABfoofJ24OCk1eCbsk-QC4p-2E358EsOb_Fz55xm2LOCZx-SH4y6VFTovdW62K13mgq9d5q9g9o4peS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1928309135</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Analysis of the Differences among Log Scaling Methods and Actual Log Volume</title><source>Allen Press Journals</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Thomas, R. Edward ; Bennett, Neal D</creator><creatorcontrib>Thomas, R. Edward ; Bennett, Neal D</creatorcontrib><description>Log rules estimate the volume of green lumber that can be expected to result from the sawing of a log. As such, this ability to reliably predict lumber recovery forms the foundation of log sales and purchase. The more efficient a sawmill, the less the scaling methods reflect the actual volume recovery and the greater the overrun factor. Using high-resolution scanned log data and the RAYSAW hardwood log sawing simulator, we compared recovery results for a 32-log sample with data from other mills and examined the overrun factors for common log scaling methods. With the sample logs, we saw underruns as low as −31.9 percent and overruns as high as 159.4 percent depending on log rule and log characteristics. Given the measurement accuracy of laser profiling systems and computing speed, it is relatively easy to determine log volume and recovery both quickly and with heretofore unknown accuracy. The log rules commonly in use today were all developed over 100 years ago: Doyle in 1825, Scribner in 1846, and International ¼-Inch in 1906. Both the logs from the forest and processing methods and equipment in the mills have changed since then. As such, the log rules are not as relevant to modern mills and today's timber supply as they once were. Given modern developments in laser measurement systems, mill operators have much better tools available to access log supply.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-7473</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2376-9637</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00039</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Madison: Forest Products Society</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Allometry ; Analysis ; Computer simulation ; Data recovery ; Economic aspects ; Efficiency ; Experiments ; Forest products ; High resolution ; Lasers ; Lumber ; Lumber industry ; Management ; Methods ; Mills ; Sampling methods ; Sawing ; Sawmill equipment ; Sawmills ; Scaling ; Studies ; Timber ; Timber supply</subject><ispartof>Forest products journal, 2017-07, Vol.67 (3-4), p.250-257</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Forest Products Society</rights><rights>Copyright Forest Products Society 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d2a9f743306a6e9a2bbaf6c484038d5e7bd416b4d54794ec152455c1c55812d93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thomas, R. Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Neal D</creatorcontrib><title>An Analysis of the Differences among Log Scaling Methods and Actual Log Volume</title><title>Forest products journal</title><description>Log rules estimate the volume of green lumber that can be expected to result from the sawing of a log. As such, this ability to reliably predict lumber recovery forms the foundation of log sales and purchase. The more efficient a sawmill, the less the scaling methods reflect the actual volume recovery and the greater the overrun factor. Using high-resolution scanned log data and the RAYSAW hardwood log sawing simulator, we compared recovery results for a 32-log sample with data from other mills and examined the overrun factors for common log scaling methods. With the sample logs, we saw underruns as low as −31.9 percent and overruns as high as 159.4 percent depending on log rule and log characteristics. Given the measurement accuracy of laser profiling systems and computing speed, it is relatively easy to determine log volume and recovery both quickly and with heretofore unknown accuracy. The log rules commonly in use today were all developed over 100 years ago: Doyle in 1825, Scribner in 1846, and International ¼-Inch in 1906. Both the logs from the forest and processing methods and equipment in the mills have changed since then. As such, the log rules are not as relevant to modern mills and today's timber supply as they once were. Given modern developments in laser measurement systems, mill operators have much better tools available to access log supply.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Allometry</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Data recovery</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Forest products</subject><subject>High resolution</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>Lumber</subject><subject>Lumber industry</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mills</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Sawing</subject><subject>Sawmill equipment</subject><subject>Sawmills</subject><subject>Scaling</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Timber supply</subject><issn>0015-7473</issn><issn>2376-9637</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptkU1r3DAQhkVpodu0514NuUaJZH2tjybbJC3bNpAmVyHLI6-CLaWSfci_r7IpJIFlYGaYed6B4UXoKyWnlBHFzi6uf-ANphITQljzDq1qpiRuJFPv0YoQKrDiin1En3K-L4gSsl6hX22o2mDGx-xzFV0176DaeOcgQbCQKzPFMFTbOFQ31oy-9D9h3sW-bEJftXZezLhf38VxmeAz-uDMmOHL_3qEbi--_Tm_wtvfl9_P2y22nNIZ97VpnOKMEWkkNKbuOuOk5WtO2LoXoLqeU9nxXnDVcLBU1FwIS60Qa1r3DTtCx893H1L8u0Ce9X1cUvkja9rUa0YaysQLNZgRtA8uzsnYyWerW0FYLUs83cIHqAECJDPGAM6X8Rv-9ABfoofJ24OCk1eCbsk-QC4p-2E358EsOb_Fz55xm2LOCZx-SH4y6VFTovdW62K13mgq9d5q9g9o4peS</recordid><startdate>20170701</startdate><enddate>20170701</enddate><creator>Thomas, R. Edward</creator><creator>Bennett, Neal D</creator><general>Forest Products Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170701</creationdate><title>An Analysis of the Differences among Log Scaling Methods and Actual Log Volume</title><author>Thomas, R. Edward ; Bennett, Neal D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d2a9f743306a6e9a2bbaf6c484038d5e7bd416b4d54794ec152455c1c55812d93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Allometry</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Data recovery</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Forest products</topic><topic>High resolution</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>Lumber</topic><topic>Lumber industry</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mills</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Sawing</topic><topic>Sawmill equipment</topic><topic>Sawmills</topic><topic>Scaling</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Timber supply</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thomas, R. Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Neal D</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Business: Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest products journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thomas, R. Edward</au><au>Bennett, Neal D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Analysis of the Differences among Log Scaling Methods and Actual Log Volume</atitle><jtitle>Forest products journal</jtitle><date>2017-07-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>3-4</issue><spage>250</spage><epage>257</epage><pages>250-257</pages><issn>0015-7473</issn><eissn>2376-9637</eissn><abstract>Log rules estimate the volume of green lumber that can be expected to result from the sawing of a log. As such, this ability to reliably predict lumber recovery forms the foundation of log sales and purchase. The more efficient a sawmill, the less the scaling methods reflect the actual volume recovery and the greater the overrun factor. Using high-resolution scanned log data and the RAYSAW hardwood log sawing simulator, we compared recovery results for a 32-log sample with data from other mills and examined the overrun factors for common log scaling methods. With the sample logs, we saw underruns as low as −31.9 percent and overruns as high as 159.4 percent depending on log rule and log characteristics. Given the measurement accuracy of laser profiling systems and computing speed, it is relatively easy to determine log volume and recovery both quickly and with heretofore unknown accuracy. The log rules commonly in use today were all developed over 100 years ago: Doyle in 1825, Scribner in 1846, and International ¼-Inch in 1906. Both the logs from the forest and processing methods and equipment in the mills have changed since then. As such, the log rules are not as relevant to modern mills and today's timber supply as they once were. Given modern developments in laser measurement systems, mill operators have much better tools available to access log supply.</abstract><cop>Madison</cop><pub>Forest Products Society</pub><doi>10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00039</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0015-7473 |
ispartof | Forest products journal, 2017-07, Vol.67 (3-4), p.250-257 |
issn | 0015-7473 2376-9637 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1928309135 |
source | Allen Press Journals; Business Source Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Accuracy Allometry Analysis Computer simulation Data recovery Economic aspects Efficiency Experiments Forest products High resolution Lasers Lumber Lumber industry Management Methods Mills Sampling methods Sawing Sawmill equipment Sawmills Scaling Studies Timber Timber supply |
title | An Analysis of the Differences among Log Scaling Methods and Actual Log Volume |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T02%3A10%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Differences%20among%20Log%20Scaling%20Methods%20and%20Actual%20Log%20Volume&rft.jtitle=Forest%20products%20journal&rft.au=Thomas,%20R.%20Edward&rft.date=2017-07-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=250&rft.epage=257&rft.pages=250-257&rft.issn=0015-7473&rft.eissn=2376-9637&rft_id=info:doi/10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00039&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA503262629%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1928309135&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A503262629&rfr_iscdi=true |