Suitability of Various Volume Equations for Logs Volume Calculation

The optimal equation for calculating log volume should be practical, simple, and useful, and it should, above all, produce the most realistic result. The success of 11 alternative volume equations in calculating the volumes of eastern spruce logs of various lengths was compared as part of the study. The study employed 109 logs that were brought to Ardanuc Ferhatli Forest Depot for stacking. These 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m long logs had their diameters measured at 0.5 m intervals from the thick end, and the volume of each 0.5 m long section was computed using the Smalian equation, yielding the log volume closest to the truth. The calculated actual log volumes were then compared with the predicted volume values of 11 different log volume equations (including not commonly used equations such as Bruce, Patterson-Doruska, Centroid, Subneilid, and Two-end conic). The log volume equations with mean errors less than zero (p > .05) were ranked by mean error, mean absolute percent error, and percent total error. According to the results obtained, the Mean Error (MH), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Total Percentage Error (TPE) values of the most successful Smalian equation were found to be 0.099, 0.526, and 0.028, respectively, N-Riecke was 2, and the average of the diameters at the ends was 3, followed by the Huber and Centroid formulas.