Timber extraction in mountainous areas characterized by steep terrain represents one of the most critical phases of forest operations, both in terms of operator safety and operational efficiency. In such conditions, cable yarder systems are widely adopted as an effective technical solution. Although several studies have examined the productivity of cable yarders, direct comparisons among different carriage types under standardized operating conditions remain limited. This study analyzes the performance and fuel consumption of three different types of carriages used in forest cable yarder operations: automatic, motorized, and self-propelled. The automatic carriage was evaluated under two different operational configurations: trailer-mounted and truck-mounted. The motorized carriage was employed in combination with a cable winch, while the self-propelled carriage was employed with a truck mounted yarder. The study was carried out for 300 work cycles for each configuration. The average delay-free work cycle ranged between 239.4 s and 370.7 s, while the productivity ranged between 10.2 t PMH-1 and 15.7 t PMH-1. The best overall performance was achieved by the motorized carriage, which consistently showed shorter cycle times and higher productivity. On average, productivity decreased by approximately 0.075 t PMH-1 per additional meter of extraction distance. The self-propelled carriage showed the best performance at short extraction distances, with the shortest cycle times and highest productivity up to approximately 130 m, whereas its efficiency declined markedly at longer distances. Fuel consumption varied substantially among carriage types and work configurations. Despite the operation of two internal combustion engines (one powering the winch and one mounted on the carriage), the motorized system showed competitive specific fuel consumption values (0.94 l t-1), reflecting its higher productivity. Overall, fuel consumption ranged between 6.5 and 17.8 l h-1, corresponding to specific fuel consumption values between 0.65 and 1.41 l t-1.
Comparative analysis of different carriage systems in cable yarding
Federico Bertone
First
;Marco ManzoneLast
2026-01-01
Abstract
Timber extraction in mountainous areas characterized by steep terrain represents one of the most critical phases of forest operations, both in terms of operator safety and operational efficiency. In such conditions, cable yarder systems are widely adopted as an effective technical solution. Although several studies have examined the productivity of cable yarders, direct comparisons among different carriage types under standardized operating conditions remain limited. This study analyzes the performance and fuel consumption of three different types of carriages used in forest cable yarder operations: automatic, motorized, and self-propelled. The automatic carriage was evaluated under two different operational configurations: trailer-mounted and truck-mounted. The motorized carriage was employed in combination with a cable winch, while the self-propelled carriage was employed with a truck mounted yarder. The study was carried out for 300 work cycles for each configuration. The average delay-free work cycle ranged between 239.4 s and 370.7 s, while the productivity ranged between 10.2 t PMH-1 and 15.7 t PMH-1. The best overall performance was achieved by the motorized carriage, which consistently showed shorter cycle times and higher productivity. On average, productivity decreased by approximately 0.075 t PMH-1 per additional meter of extraction distance. The self-propelled carriage showed the best performance at short extraction distances, with the shortest cycle times and highest productivity up to approximately 130 m, whereas its efficiency declined markedly at longer distances. Fuel consumption varied substantially among carriage types and work configurations. Despite the operation of two internal combustion engines (one powering the winch and one mounted on the carriage), the motorized system showed competitive specific fuel consumption values (0.94 l t-1), reflecting its higher productivity. Overall, fuel consumption ranged between 6.5 and 17.8 l h-1, corresponding to specific fuel consumption values between 0.65 and 1.41 l t-1.
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Book_Of_Abstracts_aissaunder40_2026.pdf
Accesso aperto
Tipo di file:
POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione
4.41 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
4.41 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
