Timber Harvesting
Teijo Palander, Yrjo Nuutinen, Arto Kariniemi, and Kari Vaatainen
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to develop an automatic time study method based on a
process-data model for single-grip harvesters, with inputs based on data automatically collected by the
harvesters onboard computer. The method integrates the phases of the work cycle into components under
conditions in which the work phases may overlap to varying degrees. During the work phase analysis, we found
that process-data models differed under similar work conditions because work phases could not be completely
separated during the automatic recording of data. We therefore used the combined data provided by manual and
automatic timing to develop a new process-data model for a single-grip harvesters work. We also analyzed the
overlapping and simultaneous work phases to optimize the improved process-data model. The results were
satisfactory, and the method can be systematically used in time studies based on automatically recorded data by
modifying the process-data model using the approach described in this article. Adjustment of the model to
improve data-recording accuracy compared with manual time studies has great potential, but this must be
confirmed through additional harvesting experiments during work studies with different machines and in
different forests. FOR. SCI. 59(4):472 483.
Keywords: time and motion studies, single-grip harvester, process data, data management system
INCE THE INTRODUCTION of the first single-grip harvesters (hereafter, harvesters) in the Nordic countries in the 1970s, studies of the harvesters work
cycle have relied on the time study method. Since then,
these studies have expanded from the testing of new models
to determining the influence of the operating environment,
the operational efficiency of the integration of harvesting
with downstream processes such as forwarding harvesting
chains, operator skills, and the dynamics of human-machine
systems. Research methodologies have evolved greatly
since the introduction of these machines (Figure 1).
In the 1970s and 1980s, time studies were mainly conducted using digital watches (International Labour Office
1981). In the mid-1980s, field computers started to replace
digital watches and paper forms in time studies because they
provided opportunities for measuring the time elements of a
work cycle in more detail and more accurately (Harstela
1988). During the 1990s, numerous time studies of harvesters were conducted using handheld field computers (e.g.,
Kellogg and Bettinger 1994, Eliasson 1998), and these
devices remained essential into the 2000s (Karha et al.
2004, Puttock et al. 2005, Kariniemi 2006, Spinelli and
Visser 2008, Ovaskainen 2009). Since the 1990s, digital
video cameras have been used to record harvester performance and working techniques (Vaatainen et al. 2005,
Ovaskainen et al. 2006, Nurminen et al. 2006, Nakagawa et
al. 2007). In the 2000s, it became possible to collect time
study data automatically using a harvesters computer connected to channels such as the controller-area network
Manuscript received February 1, 2012; accepted September 1, 2012; published online October 4, 2012; http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.12-009.
Teijo Palander (teijo.s.palander@uef.fi), University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland. Yrjo Nuutinen (yrjo.nuutinen@metla.fi), Finnish Forest Research
Institute. Arto Kariniemi (arto.kariniemi@metsateho.fi), Metsateho Oy. Kari Vaatainen (kari.vaatainen@metla.fi), Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Acknowledgments: The research reported in this article was partially funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (decision number
40197/09) and Metsateho Oy.
Copyright 2013 by the Society of American Foresters.
472
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
473
474
(clearing) within the work phase in which the operator swings the harvesters felling head toward the tree
and fells the undergrowth using the heads saw. However, undergrowth may also be removed by pressing
the felled tree against the vegetation or by dragging
the tree instead of using the harvesters felling saw. In
these cases, the operation is not registered correctly. A
prefelled tree can also cause confusion between the
gripping the stem phase and the felling phase because
the felling cut was made before the processing phase.
If the tree to be felled is sufficiently branchy, the butt
must be delimbed before the felling cut so that the
harvester head can grip the stem. This operation
should be included in the gripping the stem phase
because it is involved in the preparation for felling and
is not part of the felling.
2.
3.
Processing. Several operations can confuse the division of the recorded times during processing. The stem
can break during felling, in which case a small piece
must be cut from the first log to remove the damaged
part of the stem, and the activity should be included
under processing, not felling, despite the activation of
the heads felling saw. Furthermore, a tree that divides
into two stems near the stump must be separated into
two stems by a new felling cut. During cross-cutting,
the first cut might not suffice, leading to a requirement
for additional cuts. When the top of a stem or a whole
unmerchantable tree is fed through the felling head
and the diameter is too small to produce a merchantable log, the time should not be recorded as processing
because there is no output (defined as producing a
volume of merchantable wood). Sometimes stem feeding is conducted using only boom movements without
activating the feed rollers, and, in this case, the feeding time and the length of the stem cannot be recorded
by the automatic systems. The endpoint of processing
can also be defined in two ways: the final cross-cut of
the stem or return of the harvesters felling head to an
upright position. Which of the two definitions should
be used has not yet been defined in the existing time
study standards and is still being debated.
obtained for each processed stem, which must be systematically organized (i.e., divided among the work phases which
may overlap to varying degrees). The overall purpose of the
present study was to examine both automatic and manual
recording of the time consumption during a harvesters
work cycle to increase our understanding of the potential for
automatic recording during time studies and to identify
situations in which manual recording can provide insights
into better ways to allocate automatically recorded time
data. The study also aimed to identify the advantages of
automatic time studies.
We conducted a study in which the focus was to find
common characteristics, models, and new theoretical ideas,
methods, and concepts by analyzing two recording alternatives (automatic versus manual) under similar work conditions. In an experimental study strategy, tests are used as a
means of researching different phenomena. In our study, we
identified the key components that should be quantified
empirically (based on observations of the harvesters work)
instead of assuming from the start what those components
should be (Eisenhardt 1989, 1991, Dyer and Wilkins 1991).
We used the PlusCan datalogger for automatic recording
and visual observation by a researcher using a handheld
field computer for manual recording. We used the processdata model of Kariniemi and Vartiamaki (2010) as the basis
for the automatic recording, because this model had been
developed especially for use with automatic timing.
Our objective was to develop a systematic method for
recording details of the effective work time of a harvester
that would support the use of a process-data model. The fact
that harvesting machines operate so rapidly that accurate
manual time study is impossible, combined with the presence of many overlapping time elements, makes an automatic solution essential. The fact that the CAN bus data are
readily available permits such a solution. In this article, we
also describe the modifications required to the process-data
model to allow the use of the CAN bus data and especially
the allocation of all (overlapping) time elements within the
models hierarchical data structure. We used principal components analysis in the final stage of the work phase analysis to optimize the allocation of times among work phases.
One goal of our study was to develop a general model that
met the criteria of Spinelli et al. (2010) and would therefore
facilitate the use of automatically recorded data without
requiring researchers to develop a specific model for each
combination of machine and stand conditions.
Process-Data Model
The process-data model of Kariniemi and Vartiamaki
(2010) was developed specifically to use the data provided
by the CAN bus of a harvester; in this study, we refer to this
as the process data. Process data include detailed information about harvester operations such as the stem dimensions, time consumption during each phase of the harvesters work, machine movements, and fuel consumption. We
defined the time phases in the process-data model using the
idealized work cycle (Figure 2). The time study material
was recorded from Ponsse, Timberjack, and Valmet harvesters and comprised 200 stems per harvester. The structure of the original process-data model is described in
Figure 3.
The model consists of three hierarchical levels: the level
1 work phases in the hierarchy, the work cycle elements
within these phases (level 2 phases), and the components of
these work cycle elements (level 3 phases). The total work
time for each processed tree equals the combined time
consumption of the level 1 work phases. In levels 2 and 3,
the level 1 work phases are subdivided into smaller work
cycle elements, and the time consumption of each level 1
work phase equals the sum of the work cycle elements at
lower levels of the hierarchy. In the original model, all work
phases are considered to be separate, which means that the
time consumptions do not overlap.
In level 1 of the hierarchy, the work phases are gripping
the stem, felling, and processing. Tables 1 and 2 define
the start and end points of the level 1 work phases and
their work cycle elements. The time consumption during
gripping the stem is calculated as an average value for the
processed trees at each working location or in each stand,
whereas felling and processing times are recorded for
each tree. Here, we used the definition of Kariniemi
(2006), who described the working location as an idealized
Forest Science 59(4) 2013
475
Figure 3. Flowchart for a process-data model describing the relationships between the different work
phases during a harvesters work (Kariniemi and Vartiamaki 2010).
Table 1.
Moving forward
Extend the boom and grip
Felling
Definition
This phase was recorded when the harvester was driving forward, but not when the
harvester was in motion during the felling or processing work phases.
This phase started when the boom began to swing toward a tree and ended when
the chain saw began the felling cut; thus, this phase also includes positioning the
harvester head at the base of the tree.
This phase started when the felling cut began and ended when the feeding and
delimbing of the stem started. Felling included the duration of boom movement
while the head was holding a cut tree to move it to a processing site at a
maximum distance of 3 m from the base of the tree.
This phase included the duration of felling the tree and moving the felled tree to a
processing site located more than 3 m from the base of the tree.
This phase started when the stem began feeding through the harvester head and
ended when the operator lifted the harvester head to an upright position after the
final cross-cut through the stem.
This phase included removal of undergrowth and unmerchantable trees from
around standing trees that must be felled.
This phase included gathering the logs into piles along the extraction trail.
This phase was recorded whenever slash was piled as a separate work phase (i.e.,
not as part of the processing phase).
This phase included bringing unmerchantable tops of stems to the extraction trail
after the final cut to produce the last log.
This phase included the period when the harvester was moving backward, but not
when the harvester was in motion during the felling or processing work phases.
This phase occurred when the operator moved the harvester head to the front of
the machine before moving forward.
Table 2.
During the gripping the stem phase, when the boom or the
harvester head is motionless due to reasons such as work
planning by the operator or a machine breakdown, the time
is included in the pause 1 phase. Felling is split into felling
and pause 2. Felling starts when the felling cut begins and
ends when the stem feeding starts. Pause 2 is defined as a
time phase during which the machine, boom, and harvester
head are motionless. Processing is divided into stem feed,
pause 3a, arrangement of the products, and pause 3b. The
processing time of each log is split into feeding the stem and
pause 3a. Feeding the stem starts when the stem begins
moving through the harvester head and ends when the
feeding of the log stops. Pause 3a is the time phase during
log processing when the machine, the boom, and the harvester head are motionless. Arrangement of the products
includes operation of the boom and harvester head, and
pause 3b is the time phase without any harvester operations.
Arrangement of the products and pause 3b occur immediately after the processing of each log.
In level 3 of the hierarchy, the moving phase in level 2 is
divided into forward and backward movements. The positioning work phase equals the sum of the extend the boom
phase and the other 1 phase. Extend the boom begins
when the boom starts to swing toward a tree and ends when
the harvester head is resting against a tree. Other 1 includes
phases for clearing undergrowth and for arrangement of the
products around a tree to be felled or repositioning the head
to avoid an obstacle such as a large rock that prevents the
head from reaching the tree. The felling phase includes
the felling cut and felling control phases. Felling cut means
the cut that fells a standing tree, whereas felling control
means moving the felled tree to the position where it will be
processed. The feeding the stem work phase is broken down
into four phases: delimbing, reversing, cross-cutting, and
other 2. During delimbing, the branches are removed by
feeding the stem through the harvester head while the harvester head is moving forwards. Reversing occurs when the
harvester head is moving backward along the stem. Crosscutting includes time consumption during the cross-cut that
produces each log. Other 2 includes work not involving
delimbing or cross-cutting, such as piling logs. The arrangement of the products phase is split into bunching and other
3 phases. Bunching includes moving the stem to the most
convenient position for cross-cutting so that the logs will
form a single pile. Other 3 includes sorting the logs after the
Definition
Starts when the harvester or boom start to move and ends when
the felling cut begins.
Begins when the felling cut starts and ends when the stem
feeding starts.
Duration of the felling cut during felling.
Time from the start of feeding of the first log to ejection of the
final log from the head.
Harvester movement during the processing work phase.
Total time for processing the stem into logs.
Using the boom during the felling and processing phases but
excluding moving.
Using the boom at the same time as processing and moving.
feeding the stem phase and moving tops and branches. The
pause 1, pause 2, pause 3a, and pause 3b phases are split
into shorter phases based on their duration: break for a
pause 3 seconds, rest for a pause longer than 3 seconds
but shorter than 30 seconds, and stoppage for a pause 30
seconds.
477
Figure 4.
Flowchart for work phases describing the manually recorded work cycle.
3.
How does the process-data model describe the automatically recorded components of the work cycle?
Which time consumption components that we recorded manually can be added into the original
process-data model?
What aspects of the process-data model should be
improved based on the answers to research questions
1 and 2?
Results
Automatically Recorded Times
In the first test, we examined the work phases of the
conventional process-data model (Figure 3). Table 3 summarizes the principal components of these work phases in
the improved process-data model. The overall work components in the actual automatic recording can be divided
into gripping the stem, manual processing, and automatic
processing. The gripping the stem component had only one
separate work phase that was not selected for any other
component (gripping the stem), whereas the manual and
automatic processing components both included several
work phases. These work components were not congruent
with the level 1 work phases of the original process-data
model (gripping the stem, felling, and processing). In addition, two of the three level 1 work components included
overlapping work phases.
The manual processing component was split into driving
during processing, using the boom during felling and processing, simultaneous driving and using the boom during
Table 3.
Results of the principal components analysis of the timber-harvesting phases with automatic recording.
Component
Variable
II
0
0.924a
0.568
0.905a
0.661a
0
0
0
2.4
36.2
III
0
0
0.651a
0
0
0.498a
0.813a
0.859a
2.1
21.5
Communalities
a
0.925
0
0
0
0
0.373
0
0
1.1
13.5
0.859
0.874
0.795
0.826
0.528
0.397
0.667
0.753
Total of components IIII
71.2
A Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used in the principal components analysis (weights of 0.3 have been replaced with a weight of 0).
Interpretation of the principal components: I, manual processing; II, automatic processing; III, gripping the stem.
a
The highest weightings for each main component.
Results of the principal components analysis of the timber harvesting with manual recording.
Component
Variable
Moving forward
Extend the boom and grip
Felling
Cross-cutting and delimbing
Clearing
Bringing the top to the strip road
Moving backward
Position the boom forward
Felling and bunching (3 m)
Clearing and positioning
Clearing and felling
Eigenvalue
Proportion of the variation explained (%)
I
0
0
0
0
0.0765a
0
0
0
0
0.862a
0.708a
1.8
17.1
II
0
0
0.921a
0
0
0
0
0
0.910a
0
0
1.7
15.6
III
a
0.788
0
0
0
0
0
0.612a
0.752a
0
0
0
1.6
14.7
IV
Communalities
0
0.781
0
0.723a
0
0.205
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
11.5
0.664
0.615
0.866
0.539
0.628
0.058
0.394
0.589
0.862
0.766
0.505
Total of components IIV
58.9
A Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used in the principal components analysis (weights of 0.2 have been replaced with a weight of 0).
Interpretation of the principal components: I, clearing; II, felling; III, gripping the stem; IV, processing.
a
The highest weightings for each main component.
Forest Science 59(4) 2013
479
Process-Data Model
In the third test, we investigated the changes required to
improve the original process-data model based on the answers to research questions 1 and 2. The potential work
phases that could improve the model were identified by
means of principal components analysis (Table 5), which
allowed us to combine the important work phases from the
manual and automatic recordings. The main work components were automatic processing, manual processing, clearing, moving, gripping the stem, felling, positioning, and
arrangement of the products. The level 1 phases in the
original model (gripping the stem, felling, and processing)
were congruent with the main work components revealed by
the principal components analysis. In addition, the manual
observations revealed manual processing, clearing, moving,
positioning, and arrangement of the products as additional
level 1 work phases. In level 2 of the original model, the
moving and positioning work phases included the extend
the boom and grip (manually recorded [M]), moving forward (M), and moving backward (M) phases.
The position the boom forward (M) phase occurs before
the harvester starts to move to the next working location.
This phase could not be incorporated in the original model
because the definition of positioning in the model only
Table 5.
Results of the principal components analysis of the timber harvesting with both manual and automatic recording.
Component
Variables
Moving forward, M
Extend the boom and grip, M
Felling, M
Cross-cutting and delimbing, M
Clearing, M
Bringing the top to the extraction trail, M
Moving backward, M
Position the boom forward, M
Felling and bunching (3 m), M
Clearing and positioning, M
Clearing and felling, M
Gripping the stem, A
Driving during processing, A
Using the boom during felling and
processing, A
Simultaneous driving and using the boom
during processing, A
Felling, A
Sawing during felling, A
Sawing during processing, A
Processing, A
Eigenvalue
Proportion of the variation explained (%)
II
III
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.917a
0
0
0
0
0.714a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.415
0
0
0
0.792a
0
0
0.750a
0
0
0
0
0.897a
0
0.575a 0.504 0.495
0
0.896a
0
0.639a
0
0
0
0.475a
0.795a
0
0
0.910a
0
0
2.8
2.5
2.3
14.7
13.3
12.1
IV
VI
VII
0.793a
0
0
0
0
0
0.814a
0
0
0.950a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.977a
0.540a
0
0
0
0.649a
0
0
0
0
0.834a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.762a
0
0.397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Communalities
0.690
0.699
0.942
0.849
0.591
0.960
0.350
0.590
0.928
0.682
0.587
0.812
0.873
0.855
0.834
0
0
0
0
2.1
10.9
0
0
0
0
1.7
8.8
0.502
0.313
0
0
1.5
7.7
0
0
0
0
1.1
5.3
0.685
0.421
0.636
0.843
Total of components IVII
72.8
A Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used in the principal components analysis (weights of 0.3 have been replaced with a weight of 0).
The highest weightings are presented in boldface for each main component. Interpretation of the principal components: I, automatic processing; II, manual
processing; III, clearing; IV, gripping the stem; V, felling; VI, positioning; VII, arrangement of the products.
a
The highest weightings for each main component.
480
Discussion
Assessment of the Study
We recorded the work phases of a single-grip harvester
in parallel using automatic and manual recording techniques. This let us compare the information value of both
techniques. Statistical methods were successfully used in
analysis, although the experiment of this study does not
offer the possibility for statistical generalization. The experimental study strategy applied in our study was to describe the potential method for automatic and manual timing
to reach a better understanding of the automatic time study
method. Although we collected enough data to have confidence that our results are statistically valid (i.e., that they
can be generalized to other machines and stands), the purpose of our study was not to collect statistics on cycle times,
but rather to identify the optimal allocation of cycle times
within an improved process-data model. Using the strategy
of Dyer and Wilkins (1991), we were able to analyze the
automatic and manual timing data from the studies by
Vaatainen et al. (2005) and Kariniemi and Vartiamaki
(2010).
The problem of discrete work phases in the manual
timing was avoided by analyzing additional subphases of
the level 1 work phases using data collected automatically
by a datalogger attached to the machines data bus. There
was significant overlap among the work phases. We therefore used principal components analysis to provide a statistical basis for the use of partial scales (i.e., partially overlapping work phases). This analysis revealed several key
underlying factors that would not have been identified using
the original process-data model or by using completely
automated time study methods such as the one introduced
by McDonald and Fulton (2005).
481
Conclusions
In this article, we presented the results of three representative time studies of single-grip harvesters. We used the
results to develop an automatic time study method with an
improved ability to capture the key components of the
harvesters work cycle. This method can be used to adjust
the original process-data model of Kariniemi and Vartiamaki (2010) to account for different time studies under
similar harvesting conditions. To adjust the model for different stands, managers can reorganize the accurate time
data gathered by this systematic method. The benefit of our
approach is that it can identify the most important work
phases from large amounts of time study data. The principal
components analysis identified the optimal reorganization
of the model using an objective and statistically valid
method. The improved process-data model is superior to the
original because it can record simultaneous work phases
that overlap to varying degrees. This is an important advantage for mechanized and semiautomated work operations,
for which both the machine operator and the harvesters
computer may control certain actions. Adjustment of the
model to improve data recording accuracy has great potential in future forestry work, but this must be confirmed
through additional time studies under different working
conditions.
Literature Cited
ARLINGER, J., S. BERGEK, L. HULT, B. LARSSON-SNYGG, B, MORENIUS, AND J. SONDELL. 2010. Operational monitoring of forest
machines under working conditionDefinitions and implementations to time concepts and repair causes with in Stanford
frameworkVersion 2.9. Skogforsk, Uppsala, Sweden. 19 p.
ANEN
BJORHEDEN
, R. 1991. Basic time concept for international comparisons of time study reports. J. For. Eng. 2(2):3339.
CAN IN AUTOMATION. CAN history. Available online at
www.can-cia.de/index.php?id161/; last accessed May 28,
2012.
CATTELL, R.B. 1966. The scree test for the number of factors.
Multivar. Behav. Res. 1:245276.
DYER, W.G., AND A.L. WILKINS. 1991. Better stories, not better
constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 16(3):613 619.
EISENHARDT, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14(4):532550.
EISENHARDT, K.M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs: The
case for rigor and comparative logic. Acad. Manage. Rev.
16(3):620 627.
ELIASSON, L. 1998. Analyses of single-grip harvester productivity.
PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Ume, Sweden. 24 p.
FPINNOVATIONS. 2012. MultiDAT general description. Available
online at tinyurl.com/26u7585; last accessed May 28, 2012.
HARSTELA, P. 1988. Principle of comparative time studies in
mechanized forest work. Scand. J. For. Res. 3:253257.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE. 1981. Introduction to work
study. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. 442 p.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF FORESTRY RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS.
1995. Forest work study nomenclature. International Union of
Forestry Research Organisations, Vienna, Austria. 16 p.
JOHN DEERE. 2008. TimberOffice: Timberlink. Available online at
www.timberoffice.com/english/products/timberlink/; last accessed May 28, 2012.
KAISER, J.L. 1960. The application of electronic computers to
factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Measure 20:141151.
A , K., E. RONKK
26(4):329 338.
AINEN
NUUTINEN, Y., K. VA AT
, A. ASIKAINEN, R. PRINZ, AND
J. HEINONEN. 2010. Operational efficiency and damage to sawlogs by feed rollers of the harvester head. Silva Fenn.
44(1):121139.
AINEN
D. ROSER
. 2008. The accuracy of manually recorded time study
data for harvester operation shown via simulator screen. Silva
Fenn. 42(1):6372.
OLSEN, E., M. HOSSAIN, AND M. MILLER. 1998. Statistical comparison of methods used in harvesting work studies. Oregon
State University, Research Contribution 23, Forest Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 31 p.
OVASKAINEN, H. 2009. Timber harvester operators working technique in first thinning and the importance of cognitive abilities
on work productivity. PhD thesis, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland. 62 p.
OVASKAINEN, H., J. UUSITALO, AND T. SASSI. 2006. Effect of edge
trees on harvester positioning in thinning. For. Sci. 52(6):
659 669.
PALANDER, T., H. OVASKAINEN, AND L. TIKKANEN. 2012. An
adaptive work study method for identifying the human factors
that influence the performance of a human-machine system.
For. Sci. 58(4):377389.
PALMROTH, L. 2011. Performance monitoring and operator assistance systems in mobile machines. PhD thesis, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland. 114 p.
PELTOLA, A. 2003. IT-time for Mechanised Forest Work Study.
2nd Forest Engineering Conference 1215 May 2003, Vaxjo,
Sweden. Skogsforsk Arbetsrap. 536:107112.
PUTTOCK, D., R. SPINELLI, AND B. HARTSOUGH. 2005. Operational
trials of cut-to-length harvesting of poplar in a mixed wood
stand. Int. J. For. Res. 16(1):39 49.
SAMSET, I. 1990. Some observations on time and performance
studies in forestry. Commun. Norwegian For. Res. Inst. 45.5.
80 p (in Norwegian with an English summary).
SKOGFORSK. 2010. StanForD. Available online at www.skogforsk.
se/en/About-skogforsk/Collaboration-groups/StanForD/; last
accessed May 28, 2012.
SPINELLI, R., B.R. HARTSOUGH, AND N. MAGAGNOTTI. 2010. Productivity standards for harvesters and processors in Italy (statistical data). For. Prod. J. 51(4):54 61.
SPINELLI, R., AND R. VISSER. 2008. Analyzing and estimating
delays in harvester operations. Int. J For. Eng. 19(1):36 41.
SPSS, INC. 1988. SPSS-X users guide, 3rd ed. SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL.
TIKKANEN, L., H. OVASKAINEN, T. PALANDER, AND L. VESA. 2008.
TimberLink as a tool for measuring the fuel consumption of a
harvester. P. 70 71 in The Nordic-Baltic conference on forest
operations, Suadicani, K. (ed.) Forest & Landscape, Working
Papers 30, Denmark. Available online at www.docstoc.com/
docs/95433278/The-Nordic-Baltic-Conference-on-ForestOperations; last accessed May 28, 2012.
AINEN
483
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.