|
|
|
| Home » Knowledge Base » Knowledge Base Article | Login | Become a Member | What's New | Site Map |
|
WOODWEB DISCLAIMS any and all RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITY for the accuracy and application of the information below. Readers agree to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided, and accept full responsibility for the application of this information. Read More ... |
|
|
Would you like to add information to this article? Interested in writing or submitting an article? Have a question about this article? Challenges in converting among log scaling methods. (Download the latest Acrobat Reader if required.) Challenges in converting among log scaling methods. (2003) The traditional method of measuring log volume in North America is the board foot log scale, which uses simple assumptions about how much of a log's volume is recoverable. This underestimates the true recovery potential and leads to difficulties in comparing volumes measured with the traditional board foot system and those measured with the cubic scaling systems used in most of the world. The relationships among these different scaling systems vary systematically with log diameter, as well as length, taper, defects, and measurement and utilization conventions. As average log size has declined in North America due to the replacement of virgin wood by plantation-grown timber, the discrepancies have become larger. This article deals with the factors that affect the translation of traditional board foot log volumes to cubic volume and weight equivalents. Author: Spelter, Henry. Source: Res. Pap. FPL-611. Madison, WI : U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 2003. 8 pages. Citation: Spelter, Henry. 2003. Challenges in converting among log scaling methods. Res. Pap. FPL-611. Madison, WI : U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 2003. 8 pages.. Have you reviewed the related Knowledge Base areas below? 
|
