Debarking Productivity in Peatland Industrial Plantation Forest Harvesting Using Debark Ponton Darat (DPD) Gen 1 and Gen 2
Keywords:
DPD, debarking, harvesting, industrial forest plantion, PeatlandAbstract
Timber harvesting activities in Industrial Plantation Forests on peatlands require specialized techniques and machinery due to the soft, wet, and low-bearing-capacity soil conditions. One of the important stages in this process is debarking, which involves removing the bark before the wood is further processed. To support debarking activities on peatlands, first-generation (Gen 1) and second-generation (Gen 2) Debar Ponton Darat (DPD) are used, both of which have been developed in terms of design and operational systems. This study aims to compare the productivity and efficiency of debarking using DPD Gen 1 and DPD Gen 2 under relatively similar working conditions on peatlands in Riau Province. The research method employed a quantitative approach through direct field observations using time-study methods over 15 work cycles involving two operators, each using DPD Gen 1 and DPD Gen 2. The collected data included work time and the volume of wood successfully debarked, which were then analysed descriptively to determine productivity values in units of m³/hour. The results showed that the DPD Gen 1 had a higher average wood volume per cycle at 14.8 m³ compared to the DPD Gen 2 at 12.1 m³. However, the cycle completion time for the Gen 2 DPD was faster at 3.16 minutes compared to 5.08 minutes for the Gen 1 DPD. These conditions result in higher productivity for DPD Gen 2, reaching 15.3 m³/h, while DPD Gen 1 achieves 14.8 m³/h. The increase in productivity for DPD Gen 2 is thought to be influenced by the blade design, which is sharper and more densely spaced, making the bark peeling process faster and more efficient.
Downloads
References
[[1] Elias, Dasar-Dasar Permanenan Kayu. Makassar, Indonesia: PT Nas Media Indonesia, 2024.
[2] B. Sumawinata, G. Djajakirana, Suwardi, and Darmawan, “Understanding nutrient cycles as a key to sustainable forest plantation on tropical peatland in Indonesia,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 393, no. 1, p. 012029, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/393/1/012029.
[3] B. I. Setiawan, Soewarso, A. Wahyudi, I. Setiawan, dan B. Setiawan, "Biomass and carbon accumulations of acacia trees planted on tropical peatlands," IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 1025, p. 012008, 2022. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1025/1/012008.
[4] J. Uusitalo dan J. Ala-Ilomäki, "The significance of above-ground biomass, moisture content and mechanical properties of peat layer on the bearing capacity of ditched pine bogs," Silva Fennica, vol. 47, no. 3, art. no. 993, pp. 1-18, 2013, doi: 10.14214/sf.993.
[5] M. Eker, “Determining the appropriate tool for in-stand debarking with analytical hierarchy process,” Eur. J. Forest Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 85–92, 2022, doi: 10.33904/ejfe.1216881.
[6] A. Chahal and D. Ciolkosz, “A review of wood-bark adhesion: Methods and mechanics of debarking for woody biomass,” vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2019, doi: 10.22382/wfs-2019-xxx.
[7] S. Böhm, P. Baier, E. Amerhauser, C. Kanzian, T. Kirisits, and F. Holzleitner, “The effect of processor debarking on wood quality deterioration during the interim storage of Norway spruce logs,” Forest Ecol. Manage., vol. 586, p. 122672, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122672.
[8] N. Suhada, I. Lestari, E. Sribudiani, S. Somadona, B. S. Danu, and T. E. Pakpahan, “Productivity of debarking activities using land pontoon debark at PT. RAPP Pelalawan Estate,” J. Hutan Trop., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 596–608, 2025, doi: 10.20527/jht.v13i4.24175.
[9] E. Silitonga, H. B. Woesono, and D. S. Hadi, “Pengaruh umur alat terhadap produktivitas excavator pada kegiatan debarking di PT. TPL,” AGROFORETECH, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 543–549, 2025.
[10] P. A. Reynaldi and N. B. Puspitasari, “Perhitungan Standard Time menggunakan Metode Stopwatch Time Study pada Sistem Produksi Just in Time (JIT),” Industrial Engineering, vol. 13, no. 3, Jun. 2024.
[11] A. McEwan, R. Spinelli, dan S. H. Heikkilä, "Past, present and future of industrial plantation forestry and implication on future timber harvesting technology," J. For. Res., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 339–351, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11676-019-01019-3.
[12] O. Kunickaya, V. Shvetsova, E. Tikhonov, M. Kolominova, V. Borisov, D. Levushkin, M. Lavrov, dan N. Dmitrieva, "The Mathematical Modeling of Mechanical Group Debarking in a Barking Drum," Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 577–582, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.18280/mmep.090303
[13] M. A. Zyryanov and M. O. Yakusheva, "The introduction of modern woodworking equipment into the logging process as a tool to improve environmental management," BIO Web of Conferences, vol. 108, p. 14005, 2024, doi: 10.1051/bioconf/202410814005.
[14] R. Spinelli, B. Kovacs, P. Heger, D. Heilig, and N. Magagnotti, “First trial of a prototype chainflail delimber for the European short rotation poplar plantations,” Eur. J. For. Res., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 65–80, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10342-022-01497-x.
[15] R. A. Munis, R. O. Almeida, D. A. Camargo, R. B. G. da Silva, J. Wojciechowski, dan D. Simões, "Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Productivity of Harvesters: Mechanized Timber Harvesting in Brazil," Forests, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 1068, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/f13071068.
