Lars Lars

Dr. Lars Lars

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

33Years (1994-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2005 in Silva Fennica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
LLLars Lars
Lars Lars
In Swedish forestry, final felling is usually done by a harvester and a forwarder. These machines are heavy and the risk for rutting and soil compaction can be considerable under unfavourable soil conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of forwarder tyre inflation pressure on rutting and soil compaction after final felling. Three levels of forwarder tyre pressure were studied, 300, 450 and 600 kPa, after 2 and 5 machine passages. The first passage was driven with a 19.7 Mg harvester, and the second to fifth passages with a fully loaded forwarder totalling 37.8 Mg. Rut depths were not significant affected by tyre pressures but increased significantly with the number of machine passages. Soil density was significantly increased by 0.075 Mg m–3 by the harvester passage. Soil density increased significantly with increasing number of forwarder passages, and tyre pressure did not significantly influence this increase but the interaction between number of forwarder passages and tyre pressure was almost significant. Data suggest that density increases occur earlier in the 600 kPa treatment than in the other treatments. Only parts of an area harvested are trafficked in a normal harvesting operation. Outside the research area approximately 12.5 per cent of the area harvested was covered with ruts. On primary strip roads, which are heavily trafficked, soil compaction cannot be avoided by reducing the tyre pressure. On secondary strip roads, not passed more than once by the forwarder, a low forwarder tyre pressure may reduce soil compaction.

2 January 2014 in International Journal of Forest Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PAPierre Ackerman
Pierre Ackerman
HBHelmer Belbo
Helmer Belbo
LLLars Lars
Lars Lars
AJAnjo de Jong
Anjo de Jong
ALAndis Lazdins
Andis Lazdins
JLJohn Lyons
John Lyons
Since the late nineteenth century when high-cost equipment was introduced into forestry there has been a need to calculate the cost of this equipment in more detail with respect to, for example, cost of ownership, cost per hour of production, and cost per production unit. Machine cost calculations have been made using various standard economic methods, where costs have been subdivided into capital costs and operational costs. Because of differences between methods and between national regulations, mainly regarding tax rules and subsidies, international comparisons of machine costs are difficult. To address this, one of the goals of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action FP0902 was to establish a simple format for transparent cost calculations for machines in the forest biomass procurement chain. A working group constructed a Microsoft Excel–based spreadsheet model which is easy to understand and use. Input parameters are easy to obtain or possible to estimate by provided rules of thumb. The model gives users a simultaneous view of the input parameters and the resulting cost outputs. This technical note presents the model, explains how the calculations are made, and provides future users with a guide on how to use the model. Prospective users can view the model in the Supplementary Material linked to this article online.

1 November 2007 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LLLars Lars
Lars Lars
IWIwan Wästerlund
Iwan Wästerlund

1 July 2017 in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MGMohammad Reza Ghaffariyan
Mohammad Reza Ghaffariyan
Mark BrownMark Brown
Mark Brown
MAMauricio Acuna
Mauricio Acuna
JSJohn Sessions
John Sessions
TGTom Gallagher
Tom Gallagher
GEGustaf Egnell
Gustaf Egnell

1 July 2003 in Journal of Terramechanics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GBGunnar Bygdén
Gunnar Bygdén
LLLars Lars
Lars Lars
IWIwan Wästerlund
Iwan Wästerlund

1 January 2013 in Silva Fennica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Raffaele SpinelliRaffaele Spinelli
Raffaele Spinelli
Eugenio CavalloEugenio Cavallo
Eugenio Cavallo
LLLars Lars
Lars Lars
AFAlessio Facello
Alessio Facello
The study compared the effect of chipper type on productivity, power demand, fuel consumption and product quality. Tests were conducted on two commercial chipper models, a disc and a drum chipper. Both chippers had the same diameter capacity, were applied to the same tractor and fed with the same feedstock types. Fifteen replications were conducted per machine and for each of four different feedstock types, reaching a total of 120 tests. The disc chipper had a higher energy efficiency and used 19% less fuel per unit product, possibly due to its simpler design, integrating comminuting and discharge system in one synergic device. In contrast, the drum chipper was 8% more productive, since it cut with the same energy all along the length of its knives. The drum chipper produced smaller chips, with a higher incidence of fines. Feedstock type had a strong effect on productivity, energy efficiency and product quality. The effect of feedstock type was mainly related to piece size, and may be stronger than the effect of chipper type. Further studies should determine the effect of blade wear on the relative performance of the two chipper types.