Creating A Standardized and Simplified Cutting Bill Using Group Technology
Keywords:Rough mill, lumber yield, cutting bill standards, cluster theory
From an analytical viewpoint, the relationship between rough mill cutting bill part requirements and lumber yield is highly complex. Part requirements can have almost any length, width, and quantity distribution within the boundaries set by physical limitations, such as maximum length and width of parts. This complexity makes it difficult to understand the specific relationship between cutting bill requirements and lumber yield, rendering the optimization of the lumber cutting process through improved cutting bill composition difficult.
An approach is presented to decrease the complexity of cutting bills to allow for easier analysis and, ultimately, to optimize cutting bill compositions. Principles from clustering theory were employed to create a standardized way to describe cutting bills. Cutting bill part clusters are part groups within the cutting bill's total part size space, where all parts are reset to a given group's midpoint. Statistical testing was used to determine a minimum resolution part group matrix that had no significant influence on yield compared to an actual cutting bill.
Iterative search led to a cutting bill part group matrix that encompasses five groups in length and four groups in width, forming a 20-part group matrix. The lengths of the individual part groups created vary widely, with the smallest group being only 5 inches in length, while the longest two groups were 25 inches long. Part group widths were less varied, ranging from 0.75 inches to 1.0 inch. The part group matrix approach allows parts to be clustered within given size ranges to one part group midpoint value without changing cut-up yield beyond set limits. This standardized cutting bill matrix will make the understanding of the complex cutting bill requirements-yield relationship easier in future studies.
Anderson, J. D., C. D. Brunner, and A. G. Maristany 1992. Effect of sawing stages on fixed-width, fixedlength dimension yield. Forest Prod. J. 42(11/12):74-78.nAraman, P. A. 1982. Rough-part sizes needed from lumber for manufacturing furniture and kitchen cabinets. Research Paper NE-503. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA.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, 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.nBrunner, C. C., M. S. White, F. M. Lamb, and J. G. Schroeder 1989. CORY: A computer program for determining dimension stock yields. Forest Prod. J. 39(2): 23-24.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 1998a. Character-marked furniture: Potential for lumber yield increase in rip-first rough mills. Forest Prod. J. 48(4):43-50.nBuehlmann, U., D. E. Kline, and J. K. Wiedenbeck 1998b. Understanding the relationship of lumber yield and cutting bill requirements: A statistical approach to the rough mill yield estimation problem. Annual Meeting of the Forest Products Society. Technical Session Presentation, Merida Mexico, June 23, 1998.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.nBuehlmann, U., J. K. Wiedenbeck, and D. E. Kline 2003. Influence of cutting bill requirements on lumber yield in a rip-first rough mill. Wood Fiber Sci. 35(2):187-200.nBuehlmann, U., X. Zuo, and R. E. Thomas 2004. Linear programming and optimizing lumber quality composition in secondary hardwood dimension mills. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B, Short Communications in Manufacture & Design. Issue B1, Volume 2004:135-141.nCaron, M. 2003. Comparaison de l'optimisation selon le prix et selon le rendement matière dans les usines de débitage de composants de bois franc. Mèmoire de Maîtrise. Université Laval. Québec, Canada.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 Products Laboratory, Madison, WI.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.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, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.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.nHoff, K. 2000. Limitations of lumber-yield nomograms for predicting lumber requirements. General Technical Report NE-270. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Newton Square, PA. 8 pp.nLuppold, W. G. 1993. Decade of change in the hardwood industry. Pages 11-24 in Proc. Twenty-first Annual Hardwood Symposium of the Hardwood Research Council.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.nMontgomery, D. C. 2005. Design and analysis of experiments. 6th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. 660 pp.nReynolds, H., and C. Chell 1982. New technology for low-grade hardwood utilization: System 6. Research Paper NE-504. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA. 8 pp.nSinclair, S. A., R. J. Bush, and P. A. Araman 1989. Marketing hardwoods to furniture producers. Pages 113-119 in Seventeenth Annual Hardwood Symposium of the Hardwood Research Council.nSteele, P. H., and O. V. Harding 1991. RIP-X user's manual. MS Forest Products Utilization Laboratory. Decision Software Series 3. Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.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. 1996a. ROMI RIP: An analysis tool for rip-first rough-mill operations. Forest Prod. J. 46(2):57-60.nThomas, R. E. 1996b. Prioritizing parts from cutting bills when gang-ripping first. Forest Prod. J. 46(10):61-66.nThomas, R. E. 1997. ROMI-CROSS: An analysis tool for cross-cut-first rough mill operations. Forest Prod. J. 48(2):68-72.nThomas, R. E., and J. Brown 2003. Determining the impact of sorting capacity on rip-fist rough mill yield. Forest Prod. J. 53(7):54-60.nThomas, R. E., and U. Buehlmann 2002. Validation of the ROMI-RIP Rough Mill Simulator. Forest Prod. J. 52(2):23-29.nThomas, R. E., and U. Buehlmann 2003. Performance review of the ROMI-RIP Rough Mill Simulator. Forest Prod. J. 53(3): 80-85.nThomas, R. E., and J. M. Weiss 2006. Rough mill simulator version 3.0: An analysis tool for refining rough mill operations. Forest Prod. J. 56(5):53-58.nWeiss, J. M., and R. E. Thomas 2005. ROMI-3: ROugh MIll simulator 3.0 user's guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-328. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA.nWengert, E. M., and F. M. Lamb 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. 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.nWiedenbeck, J. K., J. Brown, N. Bennett, and E. Rast 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., U. Buehlmann, and R. E. Thomas 200x. Cost minimization through optimized lumber quality composition. European Journal of Operations Research (EJOR). (in review).nZuo, X., U. Buehlmann, and R. E. Thomas 2004. Investigating the linearity assumption used for solving the least-cost grade mix problem. Wood Fiber Sci. 36(4):547-559.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.