|
|
|
Steve Pilkerton, John Garland, John Sessions, Ben Stringham |
|
|
|
Department of Forest Engineering |
|
Oregon State University |
|
|
|
|
OR-OSHA Worksite Redesign Grant |
|
Sampson Rope Technologies, Ferndale WA |
|
Beth Dodson Coulter - OSU FE |
|
Milo Clauson - OSU Forest Products |
|
OSU Student Logging Crews; 1999, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
Evaluate potential to replace steel wire rope
for improved worker ergonomics and logging efficiency |
|
Quantify heart rate exertion and recovery |
|
Laboratory strength tests of ropes, knots, and
end connectors |
|
|
|
|
Disability Claims: |
|
27 percent are chokersetters, rigging slingers,
and hooktenders |
|
37-50 percent of claims related to overexertion
and falls within this group |
|
45 claims, $13,000 avg., $580,000 |
|
50 claims, $ 20,000 avg, $1,000,000 |
|
Jaggers! |
|
Sustained exertion / musculoskeletal stress |
|
|
|
|
AmSteel-Blue (Sampson Rope Tech.) |
|
12-strand braided rope |
|
UHMWPE (ultra high molecular weight
polyethylene) |
|
Urethane coating (slippery) |
|
Floats, non-absorptive material |
|
Low stretch, 0.8 ft. in 100 ft. @ 30% BS |
|
High wear & flex-fatigue life |
|
Easy splicing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragging 150-ft. length, carrying as a coil
(steel = 111 lbs., synth. = 18 lbs.) |
|
4 % road grade, 25 % ridge slope, 45 % side
slope |
|
Climb & rig intermediate support tree |
|
Skidder bull line (winch line) |
|
Heart rate every 5 sec., task / recovery |
|
Task time |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying coil better than dragging rope |
|
With synthetic rope: |
|
heart rate decreased |
|
faster heart rate recovery |
|
task time decreased |
|
Climbing and rigging, minimal improvement |
|
Skidder bull line: stat. signif. difference by
rope type, slope, and gender |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Cordage Institute Standards |
|
10 load cycles to 50 % of ultimate,11th cycle to
failure |
|
|
|
Ropes:
Approach manufacturer’s specs |
|
Knots: 30 to 50 percent of ultimate |
|
Epoxy nubbins:
40 percent of ultimate |
|
|
|
|
|
Less lateral movement on failure, occasionally 1
strand intact |
|
Failure generally in rope, not in splice |
|
Twisters:
up to 8000 pound tension, achieved 75 percent of ultimate |
|
Used ropes: |
|
65 percent of original strength |
|
Diameter of rope increased (fuzzy) |
|
Dirt / debris in fibers (weight increase) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs 4 to 6 times more |
|
Skidder Bull line scenario: |
|
10 percent productivity increase |
|
4 to 5 more turns a day |
|
$ 50 - 100 more per day to contractor |
|
Capital investment for lower unit costs |
|
Newer product, limited production
quantities: Price decreases
possible |
|
|
|
|
Reduced need for more expensive system |
|
Increase lateral distance, decrease area in
skidtrails |
|
Decreased roading requirements |
|
Cable equipment set-up improvements |
|
Faster manual work |
|
Additional applications to be discovered |
|
|
|
|
Simulated payloads with synthetic skyline |
|
Increased payloads leads to increased
productivity and lower costs |
|
Example:
1500 foot span, zero chord slope, full suspension at midspan |
|
Greatest increase at low deflections, payloads
decrease with increased deflection |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDUSTRIAL FIELD TRIALS |
|
Static Lines:
Guylines, lift tree rigging lines |
|
Skidder Winch lines |
|
Log Truck wrappers |
|
Establish wear and damage criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
EVALUATE FURTHER POTENTIALS: |
|
Additional end connector testing |
|
Drum spooling and mechanics |
|
Running line applications |
|
Cable harvesting analysis software (LOGGERPC)
modifications |
|
Carriage slackpulling and tensioning |
|
Economic benefits as running lines |
|
|
|
|
Material strength suitable for logging
applications |
|
Improved safety, ergonomics, economics |
|
Upcoming research to describe and quantify
applications, limitations, useful life, and replacement criteria |
|
|
|
|
Expand on the foundations of wire rope and cable
harvesting research of the 1960’s and 1970’s |
|
Pick up the potential of synthetic sheaves /
blocks research of the 1980’s |
|
Advance the field with 21st Century materials
and applications |
|
Innovation in the hands of the practitioners |
|
|
|
|
|