The Influence of Cutting-Bill Requirements on Lumber Yield Using a Fractional-Factorial Design Part II. Correlation and Number of Part Sizes
Keywords:Cutting-bill requirements, lumber yield, rip-first rough mill, fractional-factorial design, interaction between cutting-bill requirements and yield, influence of part size and quantity on yield
Cutting-bill requirements, among other factors, influence the yield obtained when cutting lumber into parts. The first part of this 2-part series described how different cutting-bill part sizes, when added to an existing cutting-bill, affect lumber yield, and quantified these observations. To accomplish this, the study employed linear least squares estimation technique. This second paper again looks at the influence of cutting-bill requirements but establishes a measure of how preferable it is to have a given part size required by the cutting-bill. The influence of the number of different part sizes to be cut simultaneously on lumber yield is also investigated.
Using rip-first rough mill simulation software and an orthogonal, 220-11 fractional-factorial design of resolution V, the correlation between lengths, widths, and 20 part sizes as defined by the Buehlmann cutting-bill with high yield was established. It was found that, as long as the quantity of small parts is limited, part sizes larger than the smallest size are more positively correlated with high yield. Furthermore, only 4 out of the 20 part sizes tested were identified with having a significant positive correlation with above average yield (65.09%), while 10 were found with a significant negative correlation and above average yield. With respect to the benefit of cutting varying numbers of part sizes simultaneously, this study showed that there is a positive correlation between yield and the number of different part sizes being cut. However, Duncan's test did not detect significant yield gains for instances when more than 11 part sizes are contained in the cutting-bill.
Araman 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. 27 pp.nBox GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS (1978) Statistics for Experimenters. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 653 pp.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) Charactermarked furniture: Potential for lumber yield increase in rip-first rough mills. Forest Prod J 48(4):43-50.nBuehlmann U, Wiedenbeck JK, Kline DE (2003a) Influence of cutting bill requirements on lumber yield in a rip-first rough mill. Wood Fiber Sci 35(2):187-200.nBuehlmann U, Bumgardner M, Schuler A, Christianson R (2003b) How can the U.S. wood products industry compete? Wood Wood Prod 108(1):37-44.nBuehlmann U, Zuo X, Thomas RE (2004) Linear programming and optimizing lumber quality composition in secondary hardwood dimension mills. Proc I MECH E Part B, J Eng Manuf 218(1):143-147.nBuehlmann U, Kline DE, Wiedenbeck JK, Noble R (2008a) The influence of cutting bill requirements on lumber yield using a fractional factorial design-Part I: Linearity and least squares. Wood Fiber Sci 40(4):599-609.nBuehlmann U, Wiedenbeck JK, Noble R, Kline DE (2008b) Creating a standardized and simplified cutting bill using group technology. Wood Fiber Sci 40(1):29-41.nBuehlmann U, Kline DE, Wiedenbeck JK, Noble R (2008c) Validation of the standardized and simplified cutting bill. Wood Fiber Sci 40(2):202-213.nDraper NR, Smith H (1981) Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. NY. 709 pp.nGatchell CJ (1985) Impact of rough-mill practices on yields. J. C. White, ed. Eastern Hardwood: the source, the industry, and the market. Pages 146-156 in Proc of symposium, 9-11. September, 1985, Harrisburg, PA. Forest Products Research Society.nGatchell CJ, Thomas RE, and 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. 60 pp.nLawson PS, Thomas RE, Walker ES (1996) Optigrami V2 users's guide. Gen Tech Rep NE-222. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. 46 pp.nMays DP (1995) Class notes: Statistics in research II. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.nNHLA (2007) Rules for the measurement and inspection of hardwood and cypress. National Hardwood Lumber Association. Memphis, TN. 136 pp.nOtt RL (1993) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. 4th Edition. Duxbury Press. Belmont CA. 1173 pp.nSchuler A, Buehlmann U (2003) benchmarking the wood household furniture industry: A basis for identifying competitive business strategies for today's global economy. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech Rep GTR-NE-304. 18 pp.nThomas RE (1995a) ROMI RIP: ROugh MIll RIP-first simulator user's guide. Gen Tech Report NE-202. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. 72 pp.nThomas RE (1995b) ROMI RIP: ROugh MIll RIP-first simulator. Gen Tech Rep NE-206. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. 26 pp.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. 107 pp.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 (200x) Cost minimization through optimized lumber quality composition. Eur J Oper Res (submitted).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.