• 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