Validation of the Standardized and Simplified Cutting Bill
Keywords:Cutting-bill requirements, lumber yield, rip-first rough mill, fractional-factorial design, standardized, simplified Buehlmann cutting bill, model validation
AbstractThis research validated the framework for the standardized and simplified cutting bill presented in an earlier paper. The cutting bill validation was carried out in two ways. First, all 20 of the cutting bill's part groups were examined to determine if significant yield influences resulted from changing specific part sizes within the boundaries of a given part group. Second, five cutting bills from industrial operations were fit into the framework of the cutting bill, and the simulated yields from these industrial cutting bills were compared with the fitted cutting bills. Yield differences between the two were calculated and tested for significance. Tests revealed that the standardized and simplified cutting bill framework performed as designed. The maximum yield difference observed was 2% and the average less than 1%. Clustering the industrial cutting bill part requirements according to the cutting bill framework led to an average absolute yield deviation between the original cutting bills and the clustered cutting bills of 3.25%. These results show while cutting bill part-size requirements can be clustered into part groups, yield differences of a certain magnitude are introduced by so doing.
Anderson JD, Brunner CD, Maristany AG (1992) Effect of sawing stages on fixed-width, fixed-length dimension yield. Forest Prod J 42(11/12):74-78.nAraman PA, Gatchell CJ, Reynolds HW (1982) Meeting the solid wood needs of the furniture and cabinet industries: Standard-size hardwood blanks. Research Paper NE-494. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA.nBC Wood Specialties Group (1996) The technology of computerized cut-off saws: A buyer's guide. The Brandon P. Hodges Productivity Center, Raleigh, NC, for BC Wood Specialties Group, Surrey, BC, Canada.nBuehlmann U (1998) Understanding the relationship of lumber yield and cutting bill requirements: A statistical approach: Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-91298-173331/'>http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-91298-173331/nBuehlmann U, Wiedenbeck JK, Kline DE (1998) Character-marked furniture: Potential for lumber yield increase in rip-first rough mills. Forest Prod J 48(4):43-50.nBuehlmann U, Wiedenbeck JK, Kline DE (1999) Character-marked furniture: Potential for lumber yield increase in crosscut-first rough mills. Forest Prod J 49(2):65-72.nBuehlmann U, Wiedenbeck JK, Kline DE (2003) Influence of cutting bill requirements on lumber yield in a rip-first rough mill. Wood Fiber Sci 35(2):187-200.nBuehlmann U, Zuo X, Thomas RE 2004. Linear programming and optimizing lumber quality composition in secondary hardwood dimension mills. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Engineering Manufacture. Part B, Short Communications in Manufacture & Design. Issue B1, Volume 2004:135-141.nBuehlmann U, Wiedenbeck JK, Noble R, Kline DE (2008) Creating a standardized and simplified cutting bill using group technology. Wood Fiber Sci 40(1):29-41.nGatchell CJ, Thomas RE, Walker ES (1998) 1998 Data bank for kiln-dried red oak lumber. Research Paper NE-245. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nHamilton ED, Butler DA, Brunner CC (2002) Cutting to order in the rough mill: A sampling approach. Wood Fiber Sci 34(4):560-576.nThomas RE (1995a) ROMI RIP: ROugh MIll RIP-first simulator user's guide. General Technical Report NE-202. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nThomas RE (1995b) ROMI RIP: ROugh MIll RIP-first simulator. General Technical Report NE-206. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nThomas RE (1996a) ROMI RIP: An analysis tool for rip-first rough-mill operations. Forest Prod J 46(2):57-60.nThomas RE (1996b) Prioritizing parts from cutting bills when gang-ripping first. Forest Prod J 46(10):61-66.nThomas RE, Brown J (2003) Determining the impact of sorting capacity on rip-fist rough mill yield. Forest Prod J 53(7): 54-60.nWengert EM, Lamb FM (1994) A handbook for improving quality and efficiency in rough mill operations: Practical guidelines, examples, and ideas. R. C. Byrd Hardwood Technology Center, Princeton, WV.nWiedenbeck J, Brown J, Bennett N, Rast E (2003) Hardwood lumber widths and grades used by the furniture and cabinet industries: Results of a 14-mill survey. Forest Prod J 53(4):72-80.nZuo X, Buehlmann U, Thomas RE (2004) Investigating the linearity assumption used for solving the least-cost grade mix problem. Wood Fiber Sci 36(4):547-559.nZuo X, Buehlmann U, Thomas RE (2008) Cost minimization through optimized lumber quality composition. Eur J Oper Res (submitted for publication).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.