4.7 Article

Computation of Strip Road Networks Based on Harvester Location Data

期刊

FORESTS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f13050782

关键词

strip road variables; GNSS location data; Kalman filter; network computation; harvesting quality assessment

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland [173/03.02.02.00/2016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to develop an automatic method for computing strip roads in harvested stands based on harvester's stem-specific location data. The method was validated and applied to operational stand data, demonstrating its accuracy and potential for automation of quality management and harvesting operations.
The location information of strip roads in thinnings and the numerical variables of strip roads are one aspect of timber harvest quality information. The ideal of automatic quality management for mechanized logging is that the quality of the harvest is calculated and reported based on data collected by forest machines. At present, quality data is collected by means of laborious, manual, field-based, post-harvest measurements. The aim of this study was to develop an automatic method to compute the strip roads of the harvested stands after harvesting, based on the stem-specific location data of the harvester. Subsequently, the strip road variables were computed from the strip road networks. The computed strip road networks were validated with 21 manually recorded field references. The method was also applied to operational stand data, including 544 harvested stands collected from Southern Finland. The results showed that the computation method produces well-located, stand-specific strip road networks from which strip road variables can be accurately determined, covering the whole stand. Thus, the method promotes the automation of quality management and reporting. The computed strip road networks can also support harvester operator work during the harvesting and, later, the automation of harvesting operations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据