-Notes Field ENGINEERING INFORMATION

advertisement
ENGINEERING
FIELD
A
NOTESTECHNICAL
REPORTS
DATA RETRIEVALMANAGEMENT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
PIP
1
NUMB ER
12
-Notes
Field
Portable Bridges for Use
1
Logging Roads
Washington
Office
FOREST SERVICE
_
News
DECEMBER 1978
U1S
U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
E5T5EM...
nrrc
ENGINEERING
10 Number
Volume
contained
FIELD NOTES
has
12
been developed
of employees
and its
contractors
respon-sibility
Information
of
the
United
Federal
cooperating
for
The
use of
The
the
or service
be construed
or policy
except
not
use
its
of this information
names
use does not
by the United
this
publication
is
an official
States Department
as
represents
the
recommended
personal
or approved
Because
by FSM references.
and engineering
technicians
should
intended
in
constitute
assumes no
by other than
for
its
own
employees.
the information
and
endorsement or approval
of Agriculture
to the exclusion
suitable.
publication
must not
engineers
guidance
Department
Service
Agriculture-Forest
and State agencies. The Department of Agriculture
may be
the
for
of
trade firm or corporation
that
text in
publication
interpretation or
product
of others
this
of the reader. Such
convenience
of any
in
States
exclusively
opinions
of the respective
procedures
of the type
read each
of material in the
issue
however
for engineers.
FOREST SERVICE
U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Washington
mandatory
D.C. 20013
author and
instructions
publication
this
publication
all
is
PORTABLE BRIDGES FOR
ON LOGGING ROADS
Frank
Regional
W.
Muchmore
Structural
R-10
P
USE
E
Engineer
INTRODUCTION
native log stringer
many years the blast rock-decked
bridge has been the mainstay bridging system for logging roads
This system has been used almo
in southeast Alaska.
primarily because of the abundance of hair
Sitka Spruce logs near the bridge sites. r--rt has been very
bridges from these native materials.
economical
to construct
thiss
to loggers for constructing
Cost allowances
type.dt bridge
linear
foot.
have ranged from $50 to $80 per
-ecc-lu-sively
e
high-qual-ity
For
trans-ported
Suitable logs for stringers are
times are changing.
to locate
and are having to be
becoming more difficult
distances.
Also increasing
over increasingly
longer
pressure is being applied to protect fishery resources from
of log stringer
caused by replacement
the
cyclic disturbance
However
bridges.
Rock and soil used for deck material can be spilled into the
streams during installation and removal. Only the highest
quality logs are suitable for bridge stingers and loggers
are realizing that these high-quality logs are worth more at
the
head-rig than when left in the woods to span creeks.
repre-sents
It is estimated
that about 1.5 million board feet of prime
logs are used for log stringer bridges each year in southeast
Alaska.
end product price this
Estimating $350/MBM
worth of finished lumber
the equivalent
of over $525000
Perhaps there is a better use
being left in the woods yearly.
for these prime logs
purpose of this paper is to explore the concept
reusable bridges as an alternative to the
portable
native
log stringer bridges.
The
1
of using
use of
R-10 ROAD SYSTEM
interconnec-ted
of the
logging roads in Region 10 are on the islands of
Alexander
Archipelago thus the region has no
With the few exceptions on
land transportation
network.
to any
the
larger islands most road systems are not connected
and are normally used exclusively
for log hauling
communities
activities.
Most
the
yield management
required road access for successive
with only sporadic and
on 10- to 50-year cycles
between
is questionable
that such
use
entries.
It
minor
very
use can truly justify the
installation of permanent
bridges
on arterial and/or
collector routes under these circumstances.
Sustained
entries
be-comes
Installation and removal of temporary log stringer bridges
alternative in these cases.
However in
a more viable
some cases installation and removal of log stringer bridges
has resulted in unacceptable
resource damage with respect to
salmonids and/or water quality.
A type of bridge
that could
with
minimum
disturbance
to
be
installed
and
removed
easily
the
stream banks and bottom but that could be left in place
for extended periods
of time if needed appears to solve these
In
problems.
addition if such bridges were reusable the
high-quality logs which to date have been used for bridge
could enter the economy as
stringers and then discarded
lumber products.
fin-ished
FOR PORTABLE
REQUIREMENTS
Bridges
to
be
classified
in
BRIDGES
portable
as
should
be
weight
1.
Light
2.
Durable
3.
Corrosion-resistant
4.
Repairable
5.
Easily and rapidly
unskilled
crews
6.
Handled
7.
Adaptable to many
conditions.
and sturdy
if
with
damaged
installed and
normal
logging
different
2
removed
equipment
with
and
config.rations
and
listed characteristics
virtually rule out concrete
which
are heavy and difficult to repair if
superstructures
Also larger-size bridges would require larger
damaged.
in the
cranes for installation than are normally available
would
not
be
Timber girder bridges likewise
very
woods.
holes etc. are not
practical because handling damage
The
above
re-pairable.
meet all the above de
Steel bridges however can effectively
If modular
sirable characteristics.
systems mai_e up of smaler
are used for the longer spans 5G7 ft- to 120 ft
components
of individual
onents Is- ll
o
the weight
15.-14m
5-m
witiuri the
lifting capacity of readily available equipment.
Two basic types of steel portable bridges will be examined.
There may be other types of prefabricated structures that
would meet the basic requirements for portable bridges but
at this time.
they will not be considered
r
.
Figure
F-Z
Z.--Hami ton
and two 50-ft
12a19m
Bridge
15024ma
in
2
days.
with
The
3
40 ft.
spans--one
bridge was instaZZed
4
superstructure Bridge
Zog
for
3a--Moving Figure
E-Z
2.--Prepare
siZZ
Figure
CONSTRUCTION
HAMILTON
The Hamilton
developed
q1
called the
use on logging
COMPANY
E-Z
BRIDGES
nstruction
Company of Springfield Oregon has
ane
prebuilt steel bridge superstructure
Bridge suitable for permanent or temporary
roads.
Z
fabrica-tion
the
usual lagtime for
Installation is rapid without
The bridge
and
they can be moved and reused easily.
consists of steel girders with a treated timber deck
split
into two sections
longitudinally each section carrying one
The two sections
to each other by
wheel line.
are connected
bolted diaphragms.
They are designed for USES U80 loading
with impact and L90 loading without
impact and are available
steel or ASTM A-588
in either ASTM A-36 painted
Cor-10
steel
steel.
weathering
Bridges furnished in weathering
about 16 percent higher in price than those with painted
steel.
However from a durability and corrosion-resistance
standpoint the 16 percent additional cost will add many years
structure
in
the wet southeast
to the useful life of the
climate.
aver-age
Alas-ka
These
4.27
structues
or
4.8
rfl
can be
widths
Figure
4
furnished
for
the
in
either
off-highway
E-Z
a--Hamilton
5
14-ft. or 16-ft.
loadings.
logging
Bridge components
ACROW PANEL
The Acrow
World War
BRIDGES
BAILEY-TYPE
Panel
Bridge is the modern version of the famous
The extreme versatility of the
Bailey Bridge.
is
its
asset
The cantilever
system
greatest
launching method
is of particular
interest where it is important to avoid
stream disturbance.
Using the cantilever
launching method
of
length
can
be constructed
any
bridge
on one bank and
launched over rollers without the need for heavy lifting
equipment using a false nose which is later removed.
II
gird-ers
main girders are composed
of identical
5-f-L by 10-ft
Acrow panels which are pinned together
by 3010-q
end to
end
When gr ater load carrying capacity
is necessary the
panels can be connected
side to side to form continuous
from bank to bank on eit.he side of the bridge decking
Various widths as shown in Table 1 are available simply by
using different length floor beams transoms and a different
width of deck unit.
Timber decks or steel plate decks can be
used.
The
152m
Figure 5--Acrow Bridge
6
components
Table
1.
--Acrow Panel
Roadway
Standard
11
extra Wide
13
Ultra--Wide
15
Double-Fide
23
ft.
3
3.43m
ft.
6
4.13m
ft.
10
4.84m
ft.
8
7.23m
Bridge widths
Clearance
Between Tresses
Width
in.
12
ft.
4
in.
3.76m
3/4
1/2
1/2
in.
in
in.
15
17
24
ft.
S
ft.
11
3/4
ft.
11
in.
4.78m
5.48m
7.59m
in
in.
how-ever
In
some
cases the extra-wide structure
if a wider roadway
machines the ultra-wide
is needed
for
configuration
will
be
adequate
large yarders or other
should be considered.
re-quired.
Acrow panels also can be used vertically to form piers and
towers.
In
addition the equipment can be used for falsework
where temporary heavy support is
or for other applications
corrosion-resist-ance
nt
the
Hamilton Bridges durability and
The Acrow components
are not available
in
are impoiC
butto provide
s teý-_-l
weathering
they can be hot-dip galvanized
This procedure approximately
increased c.orosiou--resistance.
increase in
the useful life at about an 18 percent
quadruples
cost over panted components.
As
with
7
00
Figure 6 --Rigging Spar Tree to Zift
abutment cap Zog and end of bridge
across creek
super-structure
Figure
7
--Preparing beam
seats
Figure Bo--Building the crib
abutment
Figure 9a--Setting abutment--crib cap
9
Zog
10
Bridge Panel Acroua landing and
for used rollers 11a--Rocking Figure
launching
Bridge roiZers--Acrow on
panels Figure10a--Assembling
nose cantilevering
Figure 12--Launching
Acrow Pane Z Bridge
over stream
Figure 13.--Completed quadruple-single Acrow
2438m span
Bridge 80 ft.
Panel
pri-maril
im-pacts
materi-al
prac-tices
PROPOSAL
Since
FOR
INCLUSION
IN TIMBER
SALE
CONTRACTS
use of the portable bridges is being proposed
for prevention
of adverse impacts on water
quality and
fish habitat needs the following provisions of FSM 2431.24-8
are considered
applicable
the
When
it can be determined
that a temporary log
and
removed
stringer bridge cannot be constructed
without
control of erosion or adverse
adequate
on water quality and fish habitat needs and
that timber purchasers
or prospective
purchasers
have the capability of constructing
them bridges
of permanent
materials can be authorized.
Portable bridges are determined
to fall
into this category.
Available FRT funds can be used to furnish permanent
and construct
When
bridges under Timber Sale Contracts.
it is not feasible to use FRT funds accepted
industry
i.e. purchaser credit may be utilized.
R-10
ILOT
PROJECT
implement the use of portable bridges in R-10 a
in the add-on
pilot project was proposed and funding approved
FRT financing for FY-1977.
Seventeen
tentative
sites were
in the Tongass National
selected
Forest.
All of the
tentative
sites are within the two existing 50-year timber sales on
will
Suitable contract
modifications
specified
system roads.
be required to accomplish
the
installation of portable bridges
at these 17 sites.
The following
have been
procedures
to implement
this pilot project.
to
devel-oped
con-tract
Materials for the 17 bridges will be purchased
under a
administered
the
Office.
The
by
logistics of
Regional
materials
deliveries
several
coordinating
suppliers to five
by
different camps on two long-term sales would be extremely
to say the least.
Because of this it is proposed
difficult
that all bridge materials be delivered by the materials
to a central
point such as the GSA storage yard at
Auburn Washington.
sup-pliers
Divi-sion
The
two
timber
and
Alaska
Louisiana Pacific-Ketchikan
Lumber
Pulp Company
transport
periodically
heavy equipment and machinery to their logging camps by barge.
It is proposed to provide
a suitable cost allowance
in the
allow
the
the
sales
to
to handle
long-term
purchasers
shipment
of the bridge materials from the central storage yard to the
timing
bridge sites.
They are much better able to coordinate
purchasers
12
and transporting
to fit their construction
minimum of delays and conflicts.
unloading
with
a
schedule
Installation costs will probably be slightly higher but still
When
the
same range as for native
log stringer bridges.
abutments
are
their
construction
will
be
used
temporary log
similar to that required for log stringer bridges except that
the
beam seats level.
more care will be needed to construct
Installation costs should be allowed as a purchaser
credit
in the
timber sale.
allowance
in
Costs associated with removal storage and/or
transportation
be somewhat higher
than log
to another site will likewise
removal
costs.
The
removal
and
stringer bridge
storage costs
credit allowance
in the
should also be allowed as a purchaser
timber sale.
Appendix A summarizes the
use of portable bridges.
estimated
ECONOMIC
costs
associated
with
the
ANALYSIS
most cases for initial construction
the land manager must
choose from a log stringer bridge a portable
bridge or a
should
well
The
as
as can be
bridge.
know
permanent
manager
with
of
the
costs
associated
each
estimated
type
bridge so
that he can determine how much fish habitat and water quality
protection as well as other constraints are going to cost.
Of course other factors enter into this decision
such as
environmental
and
transportation
planning input
concerns
In
present-worth
as-sumptions
expediency.
The
following comparison is presented
method for comparing the costs.
outline the
Other methods
to
and
be
on the
equally valid depending
particular
may
The assumptions
conditions encountered.
used in this example
will probably not be valid for any particular
project.
ASSUMPTIONS
simplifying assumptions have been made for this
The basic comparison is made assuming that a 60-ft.
analysis.
18.29mbridge either permanent portable or log stringer
will be needed at a different site every 7 years.
For
sites will be assumed to be equidistant
from one
the
another that a
permanent
bridge or log stringer bridge
will be required at a different site every 7 years or that
the original 60-ft. 18.29m portable bridge will be moved
A number
of
simpli-fication
new
13
from one site to
as follows
1.
Service
2.
Service
35
next
the
life of
life of
years.
every
years.
7
portable
bridge
permanent
assumptions
The
is
35
years.
is more
bridge
than
port-able
value
3.
No
4.
Annual maintenance
cost equals $200
bridges and $100 for permanent
stringer bridges.
for
or
log
bridge will be needed for 7 years
particular
site then the road will
at
be
a
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
are
salvage
at
end
of
35
years.
A
Bridge
value.
stringer
logs will not
have
closed.
salvage
a
re-moved
Permanent
bridges
will be
left
in
place.
portable bridge will be
7-year period.
Logs will be
discarded.
Portable bridge will be removed
then installed at another site.
Log
stringer
at
Safety
or
of
end
characteristics
10.
End product value
equals $350/MBM.
11.
Portable
--
of
railing
not
considered.
for stringers
logs used
bridges.
Initial installation
.3048
x
60
transportation
ft.
and
cost
18.29m
equals
erection.
-- Reinstallation
cost
x 60
ft.
18.29m
equals
$5100.
ft.
$560/lin.
including
$33600
$85/lin.
ft.
.3048
.3048
-- Removal cost equals
$59/lin. ft.
60 ft.
18.29m
$3540 including
to the next site.
14
x
transportation
12.
Temporary
log
-- Material
--
-- Removal
$350/MBM
cost
x
20
$72/lin.
$4320.
cost
bridges.
$28/lin.
ft.
$7000.
MBM
ft.
.3048
.3048
60
x
60
ft.
ft.
per-cent
in-terest
18.29m
14.
cost
Installation
18.29m
13.
stringer
$1680.
x
0
Interest rates
percent 6 percent 10
and 15 percent.
The different interest
rates were used to show the sensitivity to
The Bureau of Budget
rate assumptions.
that a rate of 6 percent be used to
specifies
The minimum attractive
compare alternatives.
rate of return at financial institutions is
Fifteen percent was also used as
10 percent.
rate for comparison purposes.
a sensitivity
per-cent
Inflation of all
per year.
costs
assumed
was
at
2.5
man-ager
such
The foregoing analysis could be refined by considering
additional factors as increasing scarcity of suitable native
other appropriate
factors.
However
log stringers and/or
based on the assumptions made for this analysis the land
could be shown the following conclusions
1.
2.
For the
the present worth
35-year time period
of the five bridges compare as shown in Table 4.
environ-mental
These
costs
can
then
related
be
to
the
impacts fish habitat and water quality
protection concerns
safety considerations etc.
fu-ture
de-fined.
to
allow
a
more
rational
decision-making
process.
CONCLUSION
After
of the R-10 pilot
completion and evaluation
of this type of bridge
structure will be
In
the meantime the following procedures
for the pilot project.
use
used
1.
Bridge superstructures
contract
and
delivered
in the Seattle area.
15
will
to
a
project
further
are being
under
purchased
central storage area
be
2.
3.
pro-posed
with the purchasers they will
Upon agreement
and
install
the
transport
bridges at the 17
sites.
Purchaser credit will be allowed
for this work.
re-quire
avail-able
cred-it
transporta-tion
Should
additional sites be identified which
this type of structure
and none are
for reuse from the
available
pilot project
FRT funds may be used to purchase the bridges.
If
FRT funds are not available purchaser
may be allowed for the purchase
and
installation of portable bridges.
FSM
See
2431.24-8.
16
Table
60-Ft.
Permanent
2.--Present
Bridges
worth
calculations
0%
6%
10%
15%
Initial Construction
Annual
Maintenance
79000
79000
79000
79000
7-Yr.
79700
79558
79487
79416
94800
59479
44225
30990
175322
139473
124005
110590
Construction
Year
Maintenance
7yr
111390
46479
26666
13689
21-Yr.
7yr
Subtotal
Construction -- Year 8
Annual
Maintenance
7yr
14-Yr.
Subtotal
--
15
Annual
700
822
966
558
436
487
293
416
184
341
177
287678
186293
150848
Construction -- Year 22
Annual
Maintenance
7yr
130883
1135
36321
16078
6047
28-Yr.
Subtotal
266
107
81
124360
36
419696
222880
167033
130443
Construction -- Year 29
Annual
Maintenance
7yr
153788
1334
28383
9695
2323
64
16
35-Yr.
574818
251471
176792
132782
Initial Construction
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
Removal
7
33600
1400
33600
33600
33600
2767
2135
7-Yr.
39160
37483
36709
7191
1645
4887
4512
3355
2162
1287
52883
45029
41938
39406
8449
3525
2023
1038
Subtotal
Subtotal
Portable
60-Ft.
Steel
Bridges
7yr
Subtotal
Installation -- Year 8
Maintenance
7yr
Annual
Removal
14-Yr.
--
Year
14
Subtotal
Installation -- Year
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
Removal
21
15
7yr
21-Yr.
Subtotal
Installation -- Year 22
Maintenance
7yr
Annual
Removal
28-Yr.
--
Year
28
Subtotal
Installation -- Year
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
Removal
35
29
7yr
35-Yr.
Total
208
4160
1933
5743
1116
872
587
1689
354
776
69008
50925
45091
9928
2755
2271
6748
682
974
1220
35996
2351
368
691
162
305
40911
459
1320
213
468
135
87955
55533
46992
41577
11666
2153
735
129
203
416
1032
282
60
59134
48138
41872
2669
7929
110219
533
832
1564
72
32
Table
3.--Present
60-Ft.
Temporary
Stringer Bridges
worth
calculations
10%
15%
0%
6%
Initial Construction
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
Removal
7
11320
11320
11320
1974
1313
1013
416
742
7-Yr.
13994
13191
12820
12478
15961
10014
7546
5218
2319
1026
611
184
328
33096
24667
21270
18208
18754
7825
4490
2305
Log
7yr
700
Subtotal
Installation -- Year
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
14
Removal
8
7yr
14-Yr.
Installation
Year
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
Removal
21
21-Yr.
822
Subtotal
--
15
7yr
802
55541
33635
26305
20739
22036
1135
3202
6115
2707
1018
81914
40642
29341
21857
25893
1334
3762
4779
1632
450
112903
46118
22
Installation -- Year 29
Maintenance
7yr
--
35-Yr.
Total
Year
Table
35
4.--Comparison
Permanent
5
Portable
5
Temporary
Bridges
Bridges
Bridges
266
626
107
222
208
489
of present
0%
5
341
2725
Subtotal
Annual
Removal
293
11320
177
368
7yr
28-Yr.
487
436
966
Subtotal
Installation -- Year
Annual
Maintenance
-- Year
28
Removal
558
worth
6%
81
145
36
64
64
16
134
28
31170
22351
for 35
years
10%
15%
574818-
251471
176792
132782
110219
59134
48138
41872
112903
46118
31171
22351
18
APPENDIX
The
B
are estimated
following
C
transporting
bridges.
A.
costs
A
A
involved
in
furnishing
and
installing
removing portable
D
Furnishing Materials
Table
1.--Portable bridge materials costsl
Hamilton
Description
Length
E-Z
Bridge
COR-10
Acrow
Bridge
Panel
Galvanized
Ultra-4.27m
14-Ft.
16-Ft.
ExtraWide
---9.14m
structures
designed
U-80 and
for
U-102
with
loading
L-90 occasional
overload.
$12000
$12500
40-ft.
16000
16500
$25300
$30500
50-ft.
21000
21600
30600
36800
60-ft.
31400
32100
43200
50400
70-ft.
38500
42200
50100
58300
80-ft.
52900
56200
57000
66200
90-ft.
---
---
79800
90100
100-ft.
---
---
88500
99800
15.24m
18.28m
21.34m
24.38m
27.43m
30.48m
1
Estimated F.O.B.
Wide
30-ft.
12.19m
All
4.88m
Seattle
as
of January 1977.
19
---
B.
900-hp 912.a
600-ton 544
Estimated
tip
tug
Load
and
round
unload
Transportation
estimated 100
Total
bridge
Average
30-ft.
Current
lin.
Assume
a
trucks
-
at
hrs.
$750/day
allowance
14
x
2
36400
x
6
$
hauling
$40/hr.
1080
x
$18200/trip
for
4500
-
4000
44900
329.18m
ft.
.3048
cost/ft.
Installation
1.
at
1300/day
weeks
2
4-destination
length
Recommended
Seattle
approximately
each
crane
1100/day
200/day
trip to
2-Seattle
days
$
3lf barge
Estimated 2 trips at
400
tons 362.87t
Tug and barge total
C.
from Timber Sale
Shipping Costs for Base Year 1975
Appraisal Handbook.
44900
10
$41.57
3048m
$40/ft.
Costs
9.14m
bridge temporary abutments.
portable
temporary bridge
ft.
.3048
that
2/3
--
cost
of
allowance
ALP Sale.
is
is
$72.35
in abutments.
Abutments
Installation
2/3
x
30
Additional
planks
Subtotal
cost
$72.35
9.14m
ft.
material
etc.
abutments
20
_
x
$
1450
150
1600
per
b
Superstructure
Installation Hamilton-type
Crane - 1 day at $750
Crew - 2 days at $350
Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50
End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00
Miscellaneous
materials
Subtotal
$
1950
superstructure
Installation total
30-ft. 9.14m Hamilton-type
c
Installation
$3550
Acrow-type
crane - 16 hrs. at $35
Hydraulic
3
Crew
days at $350
Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50
End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00
Miscellaneous
materials
Installation total
30-ft. 9.14m Acrow-type
2.
750
700
180
170
150
$
560
1050
180
170
140
$2100
$3700
abut-ments.
60-ft.
18.28m
Current
temp
ft.
lin.
Assume
a
1/2
portable
bridge temporary
rary bridge allowance
3048m -- ALP Sale.
of
cost
is
in
is
$72.35
per
abutments.
Abutments
Installation
60
ft.
Additional
Subtotal
$72.35
18.12m
materials
abutments
21
x
1/2
x
planks etc.
$2200
200
$2400
b
Superstructure
Installation
Hamilton-type
Crane - 1 day at $750
Crew - 2 days at $350
Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50
End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00
Miscellaneous
materials
Subtotal
$
$1950
superstructure
Installation total
60-ft. 18.12m Hamilton-type
c
$4350
Acrow-type
Installation
crane - 24 hrs. at $35
Hydraulic
Crew - 4 days at $350
Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50
End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00
Miscellaneous
materials
Subtotal
superstructure
Installation total
60-ft. 18.12m Acrow-type
3.
100-ft.
30.48m
Current
temporary bridge
portable
lin.
ft.
.3048
Assume
1/2
of
a
750
700
180
170
150
cost
is
in
840
1400
180
170
110
$2700
$5100
bridge
is
allowance
ALP Scale.
--
$
$72.35
per
abutments.
Abutments
Installation
100
ft.
Additional
Subtotal
$72.35
30.48m
materials
abutments
22
x
1/2
x
planks
etc.
$3600
200
$3800
b
Superstructure
Installation
Hamilton-type
Crane - 32 hrs. at $35
Crew - 5 days at $350
Dump truck - 8 hrs. at $22.50
End loader - 8 hrs. at $21.00
materials
Miscellaneous
Subtotal superstructure
Installation total
100-ft.
30.48m Hamilton-type
4.
9.14m
18.28m
27.42m
$7900
90
.3048
$87.78/ft.
Acrow-type
$16000
190
9.14m
18.28m
30.48m
58.80m
$3700
5100
7200
$16000
.3048
$84.21/ft.
Recommended
Removal
1.
at
at
at
ft.
Cost
d
$7200
$3550
4350
$7900
at
at
ft.
30-ft.
60-ft.
100-ft.
190-ft.
c
$3400
Hamilton-type
30-ft.
60-ft.
90-ft.
b
180
170
180
costs
Average
a
$1120
1750
Installation
Average
$85/lin.
ft.
.3048
Costs
Hamilton-type
Crane - 1 day at $750
Crew - 1 day at $350
- 1 day at $200
Backhoe
Truck - 1 day at $360
Miscellaneous
Removal total Hamilton-type
23
$
750
350
200
360
140
$1800
2.
Acrow-type
crane - 2 days at
Hydraulic
Crew - 2 days at $350
- 1 day at $200
Backhoe
Truck - 2 days at $360
Miscellaneous
Removal total Acrow-type
3.
Average
a.
b.
c.
removal
$280
$
200
720
120
$2300
costs
Average
Acrow
Average
cost
length
$2300
80
Hamilton length
Average
cost
$1800
45
80
24.38m
ft.
$28.75/ft.
ft.
Average
45
ft.
$40/ft.
ft.
removal allowance
Suggest average
of $36/lin.
ft.
.3048m
24
560
700
.3048
13.72m
.3048
WASHINGTON
OFFICE
CONSULTATION
AND
Walter
Assistant
WATER
CONSERVATION
NEWS
STANDARDS
Furen
Director
E.
IN
FEDERAL
FACILITIES
President Carter transmitted his Water Policy Reform Message to
That message announced a broad set
the Congress in June 1978.
on four key problem
of policy initiatives concentrating
areas
1.
2.
Enhancing
Federal-State
water
Making the
efficient.
project
cooperation.
planning
process
more
con-servation.
new
National
3.
Providing
4.
Increasing environmental sensitivity
resources planning and management.
a
emphasis on
water
in water
con-servation
Actual
implementation of these initiatives breaks down into
One
many separate elements each having very dif erent needs.
of these elements
is water
addressed in problem are/f3
in Federal facilities.
The Forest Service
as the
with
the
of
the
lands
from
which
a
management
agency charged
of
the
Nations
water
resources
major portion
originate
should take the lead in conserving
water and eliminating its
This responsibility is especially
nonessential
use.
in relation to the Water Policy Reform Message
and the
severe water shortages that recently affected
a good portion
of the Nation.
signifi-cant
--possible
There
both as official
many measures that can be adopted
and
to
indicate
and
as personal commitment
our concern
policy
-to
Some
but
all
participate.
willingness
certainly not
measures are as follows
are
1.
Curtail washing
of
vehicles.
25
2.
3.
4.
re-duced
Eliminate
amount of
The
curtail watering of lawns.
water required for lawns can be
by using flood irrigation instead of
lawn sprinklers.
If
flood irrigation is not
then
lawn
possible
sprinkling at night or on
will
a cloudy
reduce
water loss resulting
day
from evaporation.
or
Install flow limiting devices on faucets and
showers.
A saving
can be expected of about
one-third
for faucets and about one-half for
showers.
Reduce the quantity of water stored in toilet
flush tanks by adjusting the valve
float or the
of
the
water-filled
container
in the
placement
tank.
tank
stores
4
Normally a
gallons 15.14
liters of water a total of about 5 1/2 gallons
flush-ing.
re-duced
20.82
liters
is discharged
in
a single
Some experimentation
to
may be necessary
determine how much the tank capacity
can be
and
still provide for effective
toilet
it is reasonable
to expect
flushings however
that 1/2 to 1 gallon 1.89 to 3.79 liters of
water can be saved per flush.
Bricks or other
similar objects
should not be placed in the
flush tank to displace water volume because they
and damage the
toilet mechanism
may deteriorate
af-ter
or
plumbing.
5.
Store and reuse the water and detergent that
is drained from an automatic clothes
washer
the wash cycle.
Reusing the water may save
25 percent of the approximate
25 gallons
94.63
liters required for a complete cycle.
6.
Curtail or
dish-washers.
dish-washers.
eliminate the use of automatic
Manual washing
of dishes should. save
at least 50 percent of the
13 to 19 gallons
49.21 to 71.92 liters of water used per day by
the average
household in their automatic
wa-ter
discom-fort
7.
Check for and repair underground water pipe and
plumbing fixture leaks.
Leaky faucets pipes
valves etc. can waste large quantities of
over a 24-hour period.
em-ployees
of these
items may cause some inconvenience
Adoption
minor hindrances however
and/or
as Forest Service
it is our responsibility to promote opportunities
the better use of existing water supplies.
26
for
IMPROVEMENTS
TECHNOLOGICAL
Heyward
Assistant
Taylor
Director
For-estry
collabo-rated
LOW-VALUE
TIMBER
HARVESTING
Center and the
Development
Engineers from the Equipment
Sciences Laboratory in Missoula Montana have
of a bunching
for two-stage
in the development
concept
cable yarding that would make low-value timber harvesting
profitable.
cab-le
oper-ation
Buncher
Concept
bunching vehicle would be
bunching low-value timber into a corridor
The buncher
for later yarding with a simple grappler yarder.
vehicle.m
ves itself by powered sheaves along a suspended
and//co
tains a skidding winch to perform the bunching
the
It can easily be
1.
positioned anywhereon
7Fg.
remains
fixed
while
it
stems
Fig.2.
here
skidding
cables
In exe tionally difficult
terrain the cable canbeelevated
can readily pass.
by intermediate supports which the buncher
A
self-propelled radio-controlled
used efficiently
Engineers from the two organizations
proved the technical feasibility of
buncher
vehicle.
have
designed
model
built and
of
the
sav-ings.
lim-ited
cumber-some
a
working
from both foreign and domestic sources indicates
cost
bunching before yarding can result in significant
However bunching methods in difficult terrain are
winches
that are
to skid-mounted
or hand-carried
slow and potentially dangerous.
Evidence
that
is much safer and
The buncher
vehicle
easier to maneuver than
a skid-mounted
or hand-carried
winch.
Moreover because it is
in
workers do not have to install snatch blocks
elevated
trees adjoining the corridor to provide lift for the logs or
stems.
27
Powered
Sheaves
Skidding
Winch
ý
Ar
.
ox
Radio
Controlled
yard\ýýý
Vehiclet
Figure
1.--A radio-controlled vehicle
is used
Zow-value
timber.
for bunching
re-sidual
per-mits
can be moved at will it can be manuevered
Because the buncher
along the cable to eliminate hangups and reduce damage to
This maneuverability
also
trees in partial cuts.
stems to be brought into and aligned with the corridor in
neat piles creating an ideal arrangement for later yarding.
With the stems bunched in the corridor a simple grapple yarder
can then transport this material to the landing.
The average
number of stems per yarding cycle could be greatly increased
due to bunching.
per-cen
Cost
Savings
multifunctional
cable yarding
on
system anticipate
doubling
with-butncreasing daily costs resulting
Compared to
work
the
Tale 1
28
systems engineers
production
in savings
rates
of
50
Powered
Chain
Sheaves
Drive
Hydraulic Motor
0
v
0
O
Skyline
Radio
0
Receiver
Gas Tank
0
Solenoid
Valves
110
/
Pump
Hydraulic
Hydraulic Motor
Air-cooled
Industrial
Radio
Transmitter
Engine
Winch
Figure 22-eCutazway
Reservoir
drazazng
Line
self-propelled
radio-controlled bunching
vehicle
Table
1.--Multifunctional
Multifunctional
$200000
$400/day
Yarder
yarding costs
Buncher
Vehicle
Grapple Yarder
Labor
4-man
crew
$600/day
One
2-man
crew
One
3-man
crew
$750/day
200
Daily
stems
400
vs.
two-stage yarding costs.
$50000
$100/day
$100000
$200/day
buncher
yarder
25%
in
reduction
machine cost
increase
20%
stems
100%
increase
Produc-
stems
tion
landing
Cost/Stem
$5.00
in
costs
labor
at
in
the
50% reduction
$2.60
in
cost/stem
Applications
is designed
bunching vehicle
primarily for bunching stems
into a corridor for later yarding.
It
is this application
that offers attractive
cost savings in the selective
cutting
of low-value
timber.
The
The
could be operated
bunching vehicle
as a multifunctional
as
well.
One
worker
yarder
would be at the landing to unhook
the
logs while the other would set chokers in the woods.
Both workers
would have radios to control the buncher
during
these separate operations.
This application
would not be
routinely as it is doubtful it offers significant
economic
over a multifunctional
advantages
system.
situations may arise that make this capability
ad-vocated
Neverthe-less
benefic-ial.
com-mon
In many situations bunching
and
felling can be combined.
While the trees are felled and the limbs removed by one worker
the
second worker could bunch them.
this fashion the
In
problem of stems being poorly aligned for skidding
to the
corridor is eliminated.
Finally when
vehicle
could
bunching
lay out
completed in a corridor the buncher
strawline for rigging the yarder.
is
a
30
unre-lated
There
problems
may be many other general transportation
that this concept
could solve.
to timber harvesting
re-covery
Objective
The
this effort is to achieve more efficient
this buncher
concept
wood resource by developing
used
buncher
vehicle
could
be
built
and
where
the
point
risk.
The timeframe for this
reasonable
economic
will depend on the extent of the funding.
objective
of
devel-opment
of
to
a
with
the
31
OPERATIONS
Harold L. Strickland
Assistant Director
had a
most of you are aware the RPA Act of 1974 PL93-378
road
construction
significant
impact on the Forest Service
This law for the first time since the passage of the
budget.
Act of 1964 requires the Forest Service
beginning in
FRK-R
F
977 to get Congressional authorization prior to using
In
essence this ends
chaser credit for road construction.
p
unlimited use of purchaser credit.
the
As
The
pur-chaser
con-strained
law led to
1.
2.
two
major decisions
OMB directed the Forest Service
credit within the Forest
budget.
to include
Service
credit would
that purchaser
Congress determined
the year
be available
for obligation only during
for which
it was appropriated.
responsi-bility
decisions
immediately placed a tremendous
on the engineering
Engineers now have to
organization.
estimate purchaser
credit needs 2 years in advance
knowing
that if they overestimate
it will be
at the
expense of other
program areas.
These
two
ex-ceeded
estima-ting
credit needs
FY-1977 and FY-1978 estimated purchaser
And although
actual needs by $50 million each year.
in accurately
there are a number of variables involved
the
credit needs 2 years in advance
accuracy
purchaser
of estimates
must improve because of the amount of money
Perhaps one way to improve the accuracy of estimates
learned from small business
is to capitalize
on the knowledge
In
in-volved.
re-duce
turnbacks
Each
during
the
past
time there is a small
credit available
purchaser
elected to build
purchaser
this surplus perhaps
of small business turnbacks
if we estimate
an example
2
years.
the
amount of
business turnback
road -- had the
for a particular
To
it -- becomes
a surplus.
our 2-year history
we should review
As
and
use it to our advantage.
credit needs to be
our purchaser
32
pur-chaser
our 2-year history indicates wecan expect $5
$20 million and
work our request for
million to $7 million in turnback
Of course
$15 million.
credit should be approximately
risk but it may be one worth taking.
this is a calculated
man-aged
The intent of this article has been to make you more aware
credit is now an appropriated
fund just as
that purchaser
As such purchaser-credit
must be
FRT has always been.
in the
same way that we have always managed FRT.
33
U.
S.
GOVERNMENT
PRINTING
OFFICE
1979
280-914/8
INVITATION TO READERS OF
FIELD NOTES
Every
reader
you would
of an article for Field Notes.
author
a potential
is
a news
you have
If
item or
ac-curate
short article
Material
share
to
with
we
Service engineers
invite
you
send
to
for
it
Field Notes.
in
publication
like
submitted
the
to
Office for
Washington
should
publication
be reviewed
by the
Washing-ton
Office
Regional
respective
to
and of
informative
see
the
that
interest
to
information
Forest
is
current
timely
FSM 7113.
Service Engineers
technically
The
length
may vary from several short sentences to several typewritten
however short articles or news items are preferred. All material submitted to the
Office should be typed double-spaced and ideally all illustrations should be
submitted
material
drawings
Field Notes
is
distributed from the Washington
Area Headquarters
mailing
Coordinator
also
to
increase
the
their
should
Regional
R-1
Melvin
R-2
Royal
R-3
original
If
to
all
you
Engineering
your
office.
Regional
are not
Station
currently
and
on the
Data Systems
issues are
of
back
Copies
Technical
Office.
submit material
for
publication
or questions
concerning
Field Notes
Coordinators
Dittmer
M.
Ryser
Juan Gomez
Coordinators
retirees.
Manager or the Regional
number of copies sent to
available from the Washington
Field personnel
to
Office
Office directly
and Forest Service
Forests
ask your
list
pages
or negatives.
prints
glossy
of
should
direct
R-4
Ted Wood
R-9
Fred Hintsala
R-5
Walt
Weaver
R-10
F.
W.
R-6
Kjell
Bakke
Al
Colley
R-8
Bob Bowers
questions
concerning
WO
format editing
problems to
Forest
Service
Engineering
Attn
P.O.
-
USDA
Staff
Gordon
L.
RP-E Bldg
Rome Editor
Box 2417
Washington
Telephone
D.C. 20013
Area Code
703
235-8198
Baxandall
publishing dates
and other
Download