Effect of Cutting Bill Requirements on Lumber Yield in a Rip-First Rough Mill
Keywords:Cutting bill requirements, lumber yield, rip-first rough mill, response surface, interaction between cutting bills and yield
AbstractIn recent years, producers of solid wood dimension parts have emphasized improvements in lumber yield, focusing primarily on lumber grade and cutting technology rather than cutting bill design. Yet, cutting bills have a significant impact on yield. Using rip-first rough mill simulation software, a data bank of red oak lumber samples, and a cutting bill that resembles those used in industry, we determined the effect of changes in part size within an existing cutting bill and the impact of part-quantity requirements on yield. The results indicated that cutting bill requirements have a large influence on yield when the shortest part length in the bill is changed. Medium-length part sizes also affect yield except when the cutting bill requires an unlimited number of small parts; in this case, yield always will be high. When an all-blades-movable arbor is used, length changes in the bill affect yield more than changes in width. This study reveals our current lack of understanding of the complex relationship between cutting bill and lumber yield, and points out the yield gains that are possible when properly designed cutting bills are used.
Anonymous. 1979. Who is managing your rough mill? Furniture Manufacturing Management25(1):27.nAnonymous. 1984. Furniture parts at half the cost. Furniture Design & Manufacturing56(12):49-52.nAnonymous. 2000. 1999 cost of doing business survey. Wood Component Manufacturers Association. Marietta, GA.nAraman, P. A., C. J. Gatchell, and H. W. Reynolds. 1982. Meeting the solid wood needs of the furniture and cabinet industries: Standard-size hardwood blanks. Research Paper NE-494. USDA Forest Service, North-eastern 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, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, for BC Wood Specialties Group, Surrey, BC, Canada.nBrunner, C. C., D. A. Butler, A. G. Maristany, and D. Vanleeuwen. 1990. Optimal clear-area sawing patterns for furniture and millwork blanks. Forest Prod. J.40(3):51-56.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., J. K. Wiedenbeck, and D. E. Kline. 1998. Character-marked furniture: Potential for lumber yield increase in rip-first rough mills. Forest Prod. J.48(4):43-50.nBuehlmann, U., J. K. Wiedenbeck, and D. E. Kline. 1999. Character-marked furniture: Potential for lumber yield increase in crosscut- first rough mills. Forest Prod. J.49(2):65-72.nCarnieri, C., G. A. Mendoza, and W. G. Luppold. 1993. Optimal cutting of dimension parts from lumber with a defect: A heuristic solution procedure. Forest Prod. J.43(9):66-72.nDunmire, D. E. 1971. Predicting yields from Appalachian red oak logs and lumber. Oak Symposium Proceedings. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.nEnglerth, G. H., and D. R. Schumann. 1969. Charts for calculating dimension yields from hard maple lumber. Research Paper FPL 118. USDA Forest Service, Forest Prod. Lab., Madison, WI.nGatchell, C. J. 1985. Impact of rough-mill practices on yields. Pages 146-156 in J. C. White, ed. Eastern hardwood: The source, the industry, and the market. Proc. Symposium, 9-11 September 1985, Harrisburg, PA. Forest Prod. Research Society.nGatchell, C. J., R. E. Thomas, and E. S. Walker. 1998. 1998 Data bank for kiln-dried red oak lumber. Research Paper NE-245. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nHallock, H. 1980. Cutting yields from standard hardwood lumber grades when gang-ripping. Research Paper FPL-370. USDA Forest Service, Forest Prod. Lab., Madison, WI.nHansen, E., V. S. Reddy, J. Punches, and R. Bush. 1995. Wood materials use in the U.S. furniture industry: 1993 and 1995. Center for Forest Products Marketing Report, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 19 pp.nHarding, O. V., and P. Steele. 1997. RIP-X: Decision software to compare crosscut and rip-first rough mill systems. Wood Sci. Technol.31(5):367-381.nKline, D. E., A. Widoyoko, J. K. Wiedenbeck, and P. A. Araman. 1998. Performance of color camera-based machine vision system in automated furniture rough mill systems. Forest Prod. J.48(3):38-45.nManalan, B. A., G. R. Wells, and H. A. Core. 1980. Yield deviations in hardwood dimension stock cutting bills. Forest Prod. J.40(1):40-42.nMeyer, C. J., J. H. Michael, S. A. Sinclair, and W. G. Luppold. 1992. Wood material use in the U.S. wood furniture industry. Forest Prod. J.42(5):28-30.nThomas, R. E. 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, R. E. 1995b. ROMI-RIP: ROugh Mill RIP-first simulator. General Technical Report NE-206. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nThomas, R. E. 1997. ROMI-CROSS: ROugh Mill CROSScutfirst simulator. General Technical Report NE-229. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nThomas, R. E. 1999. A guide for using ROMI-RIP 2.00, a ROugh Mill RIP-First Simulator. General Technical Report NE-259. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA.nThomas, R. J. 1965. Analysis of yield of dimension stock from standard lumber grades. Forest Prod. J.15(7):285-288.nVlosky, R. P. 1996. Profile of furniture manufacturers in the U.S. South: Structure and industry growth factors. Wood Fiber Sci.28(4):450-460.nWengert, E. M., and F. M. Lamb. 1994. A handbook for improving quality and efficiency in rough mill operations: Practical guidelines, examples, and ideas. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.nWest, C. D., and B. G. Hansen. 1996. Informal yet sleek furniture please. Asian Furniture2(5):16-21.nWiedenbeck, J. K., and E. D. Kline. 1994. System simulation modeling: A case study illustration of the model development life cycle. Wood Fiber Sci.26(2):192-204.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.