Comparison of Formulas for Estimating Volumes of Butt Logs of Appalachian Hardwoods

Abstract

A database comprising measurements of over 700 trees and logs of Appalachian hardwoods was used to compare the performance of five formulas (Newton, Huber, Smalian, Bruce, and that of the centroid method)for estimating the volumes of butt logs. In terms of bias and precision, the centroid method was clearly superior to all other methods. Bruce's formula performed better than Smalian's formula and is recommended for use when only the ends of butt logs are accessible for measuring diameter, as in log stacks. North. J. Appl. For. 13(1): 5-7.

TESTING ACCURACY OF BUTT LOG VOLUME ESTIMATED BY USING SEVEN FORMULAS FOR CALIBRAIN PINE ( Pinus brutia Ten )

“…Smalian's formula uses cross sectional area at the large end of the log (B) and at the small end of the log (S), and log length (L) to estimate log volume: Smalian: V= ((B+S)/2) L………………………….….. 1Smalian's equation is fairly accurate for upper logs, but tends to greatly overestimate the volume of butt logs Wiant et al (1996).…”

Measuring Butt Log and Middle Log Volume of Eucalyptus Camaldulensis Using Different Methods in Erbil Province

“…The result showed that equations of comparisons have no-significant result, Newton`s formula was superior to all other method in estimating of volume of the logs of wood. (Wiant et al, 1996) used five formulas (Newton, Huber, Smalians, Bruce, and Centroid) for estimating the volume of butt logs of Appalachian hardwoods (Quercus rubra, Quercus alba, Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer rubrum, and miscellaneous spp.) in West Virginia.…”