Correspondence Analysis as a Tool Towards Optimizing the use of White Birch in the Panel Industry
Keywords:White birch, short-length, conventional-length, rough mill, crosscut-first, rip-first, yield, cutting order, grade, comparative parts distribution, correspondence analysis
This study examines parts distribution for lumber sawn from conventional-length and short-length logs. Select, No. 1 Common, and No. 2A Common white birch lumber was simulation-processed using both ripfirst and crosscut-first processing methods with a typical panel-industry cutting order. A white birch database was developed and used to simulate crosscut-first and ripfirst rough mills and determine the effects of the species physiomorphological characteristics on yield.
ROMI-RIP and ROMI-CROSS simulations show that conventional-length lumber offers the greatest production flexibility because it is able to produce long and wide components. These components can be broken down into combinations of shorter length parts. Lumber from the short log sawmill produces a greater variety of components in order to maximize part yield from the lumber.
Correspondence analysis determined that lumber grade and processing method are the two variables explaining most of the variability in component production. Overall lumber type (from conventional—versus short log sawmill) contributed less among the sources of variability in the model. When component distributions were analyzed on a per grade basis, lumber type was more important than process choice in explaining component variability, for the highest and lowest grade lumber. For No. 1 Common lumber, the process explained relatively more of the variability in comparison to the other grades.
Buehlmann, U. 1998. Understanding the relationship of lumber yield and cutting bill requirements: A statistical approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 209 pp.nClausen, S.-E. 1998. Applied correspondence analysis: An introduction. Sage University Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; No. 07-121. Sage Publications. 69 pp.nClément, C., R. Gazo, R. Beauregard, and T. Lihra. 2004. Rough mill yield comparison between conventional and short length white birch lumber. Forest Prod. J. (submitted for publication). 35 pp.nDevore, J. L. 1987. Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, 2nd ed. Brooks, Monterey, CA 1987. 672 pp.nGatchell, C. J. 1991. Yield comparisons from floating blade and fixed arbor gang ripsaws when processing boards before and after crook removal. Forest Prod. J.41(5):9-17.nGiguère, M. 1998. Guide du sciage des billons de feuillus durs. [A guide to sawing short-log hardwood. (in French). Direction of the Forest Products Development, Ministry of Natural Resource, Government of Québec. 27 pp.nGreenacre, M. J. 1993. Correspondence analysis in practice. Academic Press Inc., London, UK. 195 pp.nHamner, P., B. Bond, and J. Wiedenbeck. 2002. The effects of lumber length on parts yield in gang-rip-first roughmills. Forest Prod. J.52(5):71-76.nMNRQ. 1996. Ressources et Industrie forestières. Portrait stastiques. [Resource and Industry. A statistical portrait. (in French)] 1996 ed. Ministry of Natural Resource, Government of Québec. 142 pp.nSteele, P. H., J. Wiedenbeck, R. Shmulsky, and A. Perera. 1999. The influence of lumber grade on machine productivity in the rough mill. Forest Prod. J.49(9):48-54.nThomas, R. E. 1997. ROMI-CROSS: ROugh MIll CROSScut-first simulator. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-229. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nThomas, R. E. 1999. ROMI RIP 2.0 user's guide: ROugh MIll RIP-first simulator. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-259. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nWiedenbeck, J. K. 1992. The potential for short length lumber in the furniture and cabinet industries. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 255 pp.nWiedenbeck, J. K. 2001. Deciding between crosscut and rip-first processing. Wood Wood Prod.106(9):100-104.n
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.