Project SLOPE1

WP 7 – Piloting the SLOPE demonstrator

Objectives

2

Demonstration of supply chains, implemented models and IT‐systems

Field demonstrations

Trade fairs

Stakeholder involvement

Training on the job

Tasks

3

T.7.1 Definition of evaluation methodology BOKU

T.7.2 Preparation of demonstrators ITENE

T.7.3 Trials and validation cycle BOKU

T.7.4 Training on the job CNR

Timeline

2014 2015 2016J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

T.7.1 D

T.7.2 D

T.7.3 M D M M

T.7.4

+5D

Duration: 24 months, workload: 83.5 months

Task leader: BOKU, participants: all

4

WP7: Piloting the SLOPE demonstrator

8‐9/jan/2014Kick‐off Meeting

Task 7.1 – Definition of evaluation methodology

Kühmaier M, Stampfer KInstitute of Forest Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

Activities and partners

6

Development of principles and guidelines for the evaluation of two mountainous forest supply chains (Whole tree, Cut‐to‐length) BOKU, CNR

Harvesting, chipping, transport, storage, quality management BOKU, CNR, KESLA, GRE, ITENE

Process flow diagrams BOKU

Work studies and performance rating BOKU, CNR, MHG

Multicriteria evaluation BOKU

Timeline and participants

D7.01 Protocol for the definition of evaluation methodology BOKU

Duration: 3 months, workload: 10.5 months

Task leader: BOKU (4.5)

Participants: CNR (1), KESLA (1.5), MHG (2),GREIFENBERG (0.5), ITENE (1)

7

2014 2015 2016J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Start: January 2015 End: March 2015

Dependencies between activities

T.7.1

WP2 Forestinformationcollection

T.7.2Preparation of demonstrators

WP3Harvesting

systems

WP4 Quality control

T.7.3 Trials and validation cycle

8

Risks

9

Focusing on a limited number of supply chain processes (bottlenecks)

Choosing a comprehensible, scientific but not to complicated evaluation methodology

Combining different evaluation approaches

Degree of automation Manual vs automatic recording

Guidelines for work studies

Magagnotti & Spinelli (2012)

10

Process flow diagram

K. Stampfer (2013)

Proc

essi

ngof

Mat

eria

l

11

Definition of work cycles

T. Palander (2013)

12

Process data models

Kariniemi and Vartiamäki (2010)

13

Multicriteria evaluation

Ecology

Impacts on SoilBearing pressure in kPa

Global Warming PotentialFuel consumption in kg CO2

equivalent

Stand damageDamage on remaining stand

in %

Economy

Value addedValue added in €

Relocation timeAggregation of harvesting

areas in %

Social

EmploymentDemand in Work Force in h

Working safetyInjury quota in n/1 Mio. m3

14

M. Kühmaier (2010)

Chain saw – hand Chain saw – forwarderChain saw – cable forwarder Chain saw – cable yarderHarvester – forwarderTracked harvester – cable yarder Tracked harvester – cable forwarderChain saw – skidderChain saw ‐ helicopter ‐ processor Chain saw ‐ cable yarder ‐ processor

M. Kühmaier (2010)

Multicriteria evaluation

Project SLOPE16

T 7.2 – Preparation of demonstrators

Trento, January 08th, 2014

Index17

1. Scope

2. Proposed Workplan

3. Time Schedule

4. Contact info

1. Scope18

This task aims to: Develop the experimental design of pilot tests. Define data to be gathered and sample size Ensure quality of field studies

To be developed from M16 to M19

Includes development of “D7.02 Protocol for the experimental design of demonstration activities” Due to month 19

Partners involved: all ITENE (leader), GRAPHITECH, CNR, KESLA, COAST, MHG, BOKU,

FLY, GRE, TRE

1. Scope19

Pilot in three different countries Italy ‐> CNR Austria ‐> BOKU Norway ‐> CNR and BOKU

2. Proposed Workplan20

1. Define variables to be gathered Contact with related partners

2. Design pilot tests Accordingly to project requirements and technology

capacities 1 design for location

3. Assign responsibilities

4. Develop guidelines

3. Time Schedule21

4. Contact info22

Juan de Dios Díaz juan.diaz@itene.com

Emilio Gonzalez egonzalez@itene.com

Patricia Bellver pbellver@itene.com

WP7: Piloting the SLOPE demonstrator

Kick‐off Meeting8‐9/jan/2014

Task 7.3 – Trials and validation cycle

Kühmaier M, Stampfer KInstitute of Forest Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna

Trials

SLOPE framework will be applied, tested andvalidated in at least two sites representing twooperative scenarios in three countries CNR, BOKU, KESLA,GRE, MHG, ITENE

Whole tree system on a fertile stand

Cut‐to‐length system on a less fertile stand

Austria, Italy and Norway

Support of Skogolandskap

Evaluating the performance before and afterimplementing SLOPE framework

2

Evaluation of data collectionmethods

Data collection viaremote sensing

and multispectralanalysis

UAV dataacquisition and

processing

Terrestrial laserscanning

Requirements Applicability Accuracy Additional effort Efficiency and economic improvements

Investigated processes

Treemarking via

RFID tags

Tree fellingby chainsaw

Extractingby cableyarder

ProcessingTimber

transport

Tree/Log/Biomass grading

Data collection

27

Terrain and stand characteristics Machine technology Time consumption Fuel consumption Product output Energy output Damage caused to trees and soil Log length and diameter measurement accuracy Operator experience, skills and motivation

Validation cycle (I)

28

Forest information system (FIS) Performance of timber supply systems CNR,

BOKU, GRAPHITECH, COAST, MHG, TRE

Comparison of FIS estimations and fieldmeasurements GRAPHITECH, COAST, MHG, TRE

Comparison with currently available ERPsystems MHG, ITENE

Validation cycle (II)

29

Human Machine Interaction KESLA, GRE

Quality control system CNR, BOKU

Accuracy of different data collection methodsunder different conditions COAST, CNR, TRE

RFID tag reading system and survival rate CNR,ITENE

Timeline and participants

Duration: 14 months, workload: 29 months

Task leader: BOKU (4)

Participants: GRAPHITECH (3), CNR (3), KESLA(3.5), COASTWAY (2), MHG (3.5), GREIFENBERG(3.5), TRE (3.5), ITENE (3)

D7.032 Demo reportfor data collection IIBOKU

D7.04 Demo reportfor quality controlBOKU, CNR

D7.05 Demo reportfor timber supplyperformance & ERPMHG

30

2014 2015 2016J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

D7.031 Demo report for data collection IBOKU

Dependencies between activities

T.7.3T.7.4 Trainingon the job

WP6 SystemIntegration

WP3Harvesting

systems

T.7.1Definition ofevaluation

methodologyWP2

Informationcollection

WP4 Qualityassessment

T.7.2Preparation ofdemonstrators

31

Risks

32

Completion of prototypes in a timely manner

Coordination of field measurements Hosting company, machine transfer, workforce,

weather conditions

Missing industrial partner in Austria

Measuring the data with standardized methods

Degree of automatization

Austrian case studies

0,77

2,05 2,09

5,55

2,05

5,43

1,06

2,80

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

Diesel [Liter/km] CO2 [kg/km] Diesel [Liter/m³] CO2 [kg/m³]

Tour saw mill Tour interim storage F. Holzleitner (2013)

Timber supply ‐ Diesel consumption

Examples of field trails

Input for further analysis such as optimizationmodels and vehicle routing algorithms

Attribute Figure

Chipper‐productivity 12.8 odt/hour

Average load 13.8 odt

Distance chipping site ‐ plant 54 km /1.4hours

Fuel consumption of truck 49.7 liters/100km

Fuel consumption of chipper 40.5 liters/hour

Annual utilization of chipper 1,990 hours

Transport productivity

F. Holzleitner (2013)

Implementation in GIS Time consumption/process

Driving time

Functional road class(FRC)/Route

Share of forest roads

Average speed/FRC

GIS‐based cost estimating

F. Holzleitner (2013)Decision support tool ‐ “Least Cost Surfaces” [€/m³]

Task 7.4 – Training on the job

Kick‐off Meeting 8‐9/jan/2014

Acceptance of operators

Crucial for project’s “afterlife” and commercial success of the system