Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 4% CUBIC FOOT AS A NATIONAL LOG-SCALING STANDARD 4 £.F. Rapraeger (pe PA LS LET . Fees a NOVI- 1951 | ey emi Bt cin SEF OE ES SAIL LIE ELI DELETES 7 NOLLICn = Rocky Mountain Forest G Range Experiment @tation Missoula Montana George M-Jemison, Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE STATION PAPER NO. 24 JUNE 1950 THE CUBIC FOOT AS A NATIONAL LOG-SCALING STANDARD By E. F. Rapraeger June 1950 Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Missoula, Montana INDEX Tntroduction seceoveccccccccer cctv cececcecececce cess eceorsoneesenceee Construction of board-foot log PuleS eeccocce cece cccces cscscsserv0eo The need for a common Standard cecwcrcrcorrcecoseccessesccvccces voces Is a universal log rulle practicable? ccasecccccccceasccessccsecescce ee hEMicupe—O@v LOC SCALANC 6 ..cles cclccicice cewiciesicls ecies ce pes cee An advantage tO SCALETS ceccccccesceccccecvesscecsececvecc sesece An advantage to manufacturers coceccccecevescscccos coe cccecccere An advantage to log haulers ..c.ccccecccecvccccseses soccccscecece An advantage GO employees sec. scecccervccccccccecserecceccesssevess An advantage to SCIENFISTS 2.2.0 cece cece cece s00s 00 00 s0sccce cece Converting cubic feet to other units of measure o.cecoccccccccscccer Change to cubic-foot scaling could be gradual e.cccsccocccoccsoccece Teenie cin applying the Cubic £OCb 0. «sccecceecieniececococeseseoes Diameter measurement - top end, butt end, or middle? o.ccccecccee EAverace and "narrow" GQiameter. ....cccce cess ececececosecceosece The "nearest" and the "lower" inch cocccceccccce socccecccveecvces Detcrmineyl pn OF LENstA cisscc - oe cccsecsie cepeseisieccios 6cectooece ce Dednetbigns far GeLecth’ 1... cece cores cnc esse cee ncesecesvcccccecee Cb Gee NCIS Sa Cad or dd dbO06 GOGO OUIOG UONL0 C5 dd On COO OD UDOOO OOOO” DHE sr Orm Of | CCE) sclclece s/c's oleic 0 «\ es eles elslaivicicicic eos ce sce eeedece Construction of a cubic-foot Tule 26. rececccerceccesecrc cerccccesc0ee How much taper allowance? cescccacecccccscssscecs coe cseseccores The computation of cubical Volume 6. ..ccercccsescsceccccccesceece Selected bibliography ocececerccccosceccecncs cevcce che seerecccecsces =j- 22 25 1 THs CUBIC FOOT AS A NATIONAL LOG-SCALING STANDARD ie F. Rapraeger INTRODUCTION That board—foot log rules inadequately serve their purpose in determining the quantitative contents of logs has been recognized to a greater or lesser extent ever since the first rule came into being over & centry ago, Whoever invented the second rule probably did so because the first was in disrepute or was not widely accepted, But providing a log rule which would be widely used proved te be no easy task, Apparently there were many diverging opinions pertaining to log rules, for in succeeding years forty or fifty more were devised, old ones were remodeled, and hybrid rules were con- structed by combining the best or worst features of existing rules. Since the number of rules and their inconsistencies led to endless confusion, many were discarded and passed into oblivion. Not more than a dozen are still in wide commercial use. Using these has now become a custom, albeit often a bad one, Undoubtedly most makers of board—foot log rules intended them to show with & reasonable degree of accuracy the number of board feet of lumber that could be obtained from logs of different sizes, These estimates were called "board feet log scale." Though the similarity in name creates an impression that board feet log scale and board feet of lumber are identical, actually there are decided differences, A board foot of lumber is a piece 1 foot wide, 1 foot long, and 1 inch thick. Equal in volume to one twelfth of a cubic foot, it makes an exceedingly con- venient unit for measuring the volume of boards. lLumbermen have used this standard for years and found it satisfactory, It should not be inferred from anything said herein that a new standard is advocated for measuring lumber, Unlike a board foot of lumber, however, the board foot log scale is an ambiguous unit of no certain size, Sawmill men have learned that the board— foot scale of a run of logs is apt to be merely a rough criterion of the yield of lumber, There is usually some disparity between the log scale and the lumber tally, the amount depending on the size of the logs, the log rule used, who saws the logs and how, and various other factors, If the yield of lumber exceeds the log scale, the excess is called overrun, If a shortage occurs, it is called underrun, The amount of the overrun or underrun cannot be foretold unless similar logs have been sawed in the same mill. Many manufactories which produce products other than lumber (pulp,veneer,etc.) have also learned from experience that the board foot log scale is ambiguous. They find that the relationship between 2 log's size (cubic volume) and its 1/ This Paper was originally published January 31, 1940 as an unnumbered mimeographed release of the Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station board foot scale is so variable that the board foot log scale becomes a meaningless standard in their industry, There seems to be no answer to the question; How large is a board foot log scale? Then too, the number of log rules in use furnishes further confusion because different rules show different board-foot contents for the same logs. The discussion which follows proposes that log volumes should be measured in cubic feet, Before this standardization can be accomplished, it must have the approval of men who are concerned with log buying and selling, Their consent must be freely given or the plan cannot become effective. The writer hopes they will study in a fair, impartial manner the viewpoint presented herein, Needless to say, this viewpoint is the writer's own and not necessarily that of his associates, CONSTRUCTION OF BOARD=FOOT LOG RULES Log rules are usually constructed from diagrams or from a mathematical formula, In addition, they are occasionally constructed from lumber tallies or by modifying existing rules, Diagram Rules Rules of this type are based on diagrams drawn to scale, which show the volume of boards that can be obtained from logs of different diameters after allowing for waste. The Scribner is one of these diagram rules. Constructed in 1846, it is a relic of old-fashioned sawmill practices and, though still in use, is becoming out of date, Many improvements have been made in sawmills since 1846, and as might be expected high overruns are now Figure 1. Diagram method of log=rule construction, obtained, particularly from small logs, The Scribner Decimal C rule, a variation and extension of the original Scribner, is used by the United States Forest Service, It is not more accurate than the original rule, oe Formula Rules Formula rules are based on a mathematical statement which gives the board-foot contents after making allowance for waste and other elements influencing lumber yields. One of the poorest rules of this type is the Doyle. Though the Doyle is used extensively, it is reputed to be one of the most inconsistent rules ever devised, One of the better rules which is based on a formula is the International, Hnbodied in it are allowances for log taper, saw kerf, slabs, edgings, and lumber shrinkage, There is no doubt that the International is better adapted to accurate work than most of the other log rules now in existence, Unfortunately it is seldom used commercially except in the New Ingland States, where it recently found favor, In most sawmills, logs measured with the International will under-run the scale, There is a tendency for small logs to give overruns. Those who wish to learn more about log rules and their construction will find considerable information in various textbooks on forest mensuration, Table 1 is also of assistance as it makes comparisons among a few of the best known log rules, THE NEED FOR A GOMMON STANDARD The timber industry, one of the largest in the nation with billions of doilars in investments, needs a common standard for figuring log volumes and for buying and selling timber, Log rules have flourished for a century but no standard has so far been evolved, It is probably true that this is the fault of the board foot log scale. It is so ambiguous and so indefinite that it fails to meet the requirements for a standard which can be used in common by sawnills, pulp mills, and other users of timber, Changing from one log rule to another seems to be merely a matter of jumping from the frying pan into the fire, or back again, The United States has many units of measure, among which are units of weight (ounce, gram, pound, ton), units of length (foot, mile, centimeter), and units of volume (cubic foot, gallon, board foot of lumber), to mention only a few, The board foot log scale differs from all these standards in three important respects: 1. There are as many definitions of a board foot log scale as there are log rules and log sizes, 2e No single log rule has ever been nationally accepted as a common standard. 3. Log rules which are accepted as standards in limited areas are replaced from time to time by other log rules. The basic assumption that a board foot log scale is approximately equal to a board foot of lumber creates innumerable difficulties and results in a multiplicity of log rules. Log rules are used today that did not exist 50 years ago. Rulesy old and new, fall into disrepute and are replaced aoe 4 r i, ui i Table 1.= Comparison of Log Rules foot logs for various log rules, expressed in board feet e of the International Log Rule volumes :Volumes of 16— Top :%_____and in pereentag Diameter: Inter- of Log :national Scribner Spaulding Doyle Holland Blodgett Humphrey inside :1/4-inch Decimal or or New or Barkin ekert C Maine Hampshire Vermont Inches : Bd. Bdo Per Bd, Pere. Bd, Per- Bd. Per- Bd, Per= Bd. Per— d 3 ft. ft. Cent foe Gene tt, Gent tho Cenc it. eent ft, Cent eens ue eee 6). 20 20 100 Ae. E20 20 100 26) 130), 32)) 51.20 Aes 30 30 100 Meee 9 30 31 103 35) le Se OT Bias LO BSD) 4/5 seve 16 40 ht 110 LS NOS 135. ros Ne: 50 LO 80 Sioa 25150 Bye ley 5. 108 53° 106 LO 65 60 92 577 36 55 68 105 66) 102) 67,103 aloe 80 70 88 63 79 h9 621 8 10h 78 98 80 100 M2 bles 95 80 68h Teo. 6h 67 105 11 92° 707" 96 VON ote lal) OO.” 37, 9h 82 St 70) 9120 mlOnn OG. 1920. lea Or, IVAN) scene Sale )eliaees tn LOW oh Le aOO. fs | LEONI bi 123) O13 OF Sore eG TO: 6s TOVCo lat. 7o. Lobe n@imn 139) 0l 87. (2,78 199 oie ee eeGO LOO. 69 LOM il SO. VIO wmooa ay lay 87. Ll 95 WE eee 2054. TOO" 88 TES Ol NGS C2. 2O5 OOmmeI7o. “86. 1927) o), ows S504 210. OF DIGIC SoL S85) (252 mlGi 197 86 216). Ol 1h og 260-7 81,0" 92 DESO O25. 87. DP NO 2170) )) 83.) 20 2 20.42 290" 250 97 P7695 1250.86 -302 viGime2hO ~ 83). 267 7.92 Aliens 20 S00 Oh. 808 995 9269 90 336 1005) 262. 82 293 92 poe eee oe Sh 9G 32h OL «| 363 | Ol 267. 81) 323, 91 Soe go eer 576. 96) 361. 99.) kOL 103313. 80 352, 90 Zine tee HOO” Oy Oe WOOT Ol 139 MelG3 tag a9 s WO) (36h. 90 eee CO OO 100° 19 98 Lh) 96 . L777 10k). 367" 60 216 90 ome ee0e 500". 100. 488 98 el °97 507 101397 79 45 90 Be ee 1 AD1,O 550. 102 Bee "9g 5990) 98 546 101) 426 979. 485. 90 OSes 505 8: 580 499 OOS moO SS) Ol), SOs oie Om 523) 1 (69 BOG e630. G10 | 97 Sle Or ioe sa 90, 657 UlOhmmn so 9948 560) So 3068-9675 660 98 656 97 676100 706 105 Si, 76 600 89 Be ase 20, (10. 99 (Binoy eestor | 755) TOommooY will | CON 1eg 32 ee OU 9G sys (O00 Bk O02 "79251030 592, 77, 683. 69 33 aad COMmOonN Toe Ot wots 103, (V6kS NOs Mmo2s 1 a7 125) 88 3h, ST eooO mn Gho 97 (900.103, 900 MOR coo, .76., 771) 188 eee 8505) 95), 607 97 4 9Ol WO 6949 103) 70k 76 S16. BS 36 G80 7920) 9. 950 97 10210 3026 105) 17k 76. 86h 88 Soe tS. 110 97 112k 97) 1225106 1209 105.) 670. ..75 1013 = 8s LO 10 1200 98 1985) 97 1296106 1261, 103. 91, 75.1067 ~ 67 1/ Adapted from "Converting Factors and Tables of Equivalents Used in Forestry," UeS. Dept. Agri, Misc. Publ. No. 225 why lia by others which are sometimes better but often worse. Though lumber is measured in 4 standard way by the board foot, there is no common standard for measuring log volumes and never has been, There seems to be little vossibility of constructing a board—foot log rule which will estimate the lumber tally reasonably eccurately in every sawnill. In devising sucha universal rule it becomes necessary to make numerous assumptions regarding factors that influence lumber yields. Among these factors are the following: 1, Products cut (inch boards versus timbers) 2, Saw kerf (thick saws versus thin) 3, Workmen (skilled enployees versus unskilled) 4. Machinery (good machines and well-fitted saws versus poor equipment) 5, Utilization (close utilization versus waste ful methods) 6, Remanufacturing (heavy footage losses in seasoning yard and planing miil versus light losses) Whatever assumptions are made will not be universally applicable, Each sawmill differs from its neighbor. Some have low standards of utilization and others high, Lumber yields vary accordingly, IS A UNIVERSAL LOG RULE PRACTICABLE? Is it practical to recommend as a universal standard a board—foot log rule, comparable to the International, which embraces such high standards of utilization that only the nearly perfect sawmills could achieve the lumber yields it forecasts? It is probably true that such a high=-standard rule would be viewed with much apprehension, Many log buyers derive a sense of well—being from purchasing a thousand feet of logs, measured with their regular scale stick, and obteining therefrom 1,200 feet of lumber, These same buyers would less willingly purchase 1,300 feet of logs scaled by this high- standard rule and derive therefrom only 1,200 feet of lumber even though the cubic volume of the logs and their cash value are the same in each transaction, Overrun has long been considered "velvet" and a bonus for good manufacturing practice, even though it is generally known that a mill. would need to be intolerably obsolete and archaic to avoid obtaining an overrun if the customary scale rules are used, Furthermore, this so-called high-standard rule would have the same dis~ advantages which now attend the use of prevailing board-foot log rules. It would not eliminate the disparity between log scale and lumber tally a because the yield of lumber would still depend on who sawed the logs and howe It would not eliminate the perennial disputes on overrun except by substituting disputes on underrun, It would not be fair to log haulers who are concerned with the cubical contents (weight) they carry. It would not be applicable to the use of industries such as pulp mills which are concerned with the amount of wood in a log and not the volume of inch boards a sawmill might obtain, It would not be as fair as a cubic—foot rule to employees who are paid on a "per thousand" piecework basis, It would not be equally accurate for all species because some are utilized more closely than others, even in the same sawmill, It would not eliminate the pressure brought upon scalers, in iniquitous ways or otherwise, to scale toward a certain overrun, It would not be suitable for scientific purposes, In addition, it probably would not be consistent for all sizes of logs but, like the present-day rules, show different overruns or underruns for different log sizes, Also, it probably would not be of permanent value but become obsolete just as other log rules have become so, Such obsol— escence is caused mainly by (1) changes in machinery or manufacturing practice and’(2) changes in utilization which are brought about as business conditions change from good to bad, from bad to worse, or.vice versa, REASONS FOR CUBIC=FOOT LOG SCALING Many difficulties which attend the use of log rules in log scaling are susceptible of elimination by the adoption of a unit of measure such as the cubic foot, The logic of measuring a commodity such as wood in terms of its actual volume by the use of a unit which has the same size today as tomorrow, for a small log as a large, and the same size in Montana as in Maine or California, can scarcely be disputed, Logs would be sold on the basis of the wood contained therein, and whether they are made into inch boards, mine timbers, ties, shingles, excelsior, pulp chips, or cord wood is the prerogative of the purchaser, No assumptions as to certain products nor as to the intensity of manufacture need be made in cubic=foot sealing, Because the cubic foot is a simple, clearly defined unit of measure which everyone understands and which has the same size at all times and at all places, it is universally applicable to measuring logs of all sizes and species, logs in transit, logs in the market, or logs in any stage of handling, as well as standing trees, Converting cubic feet of logs to other classes of products (board feet of lumber, units of pulp chips, etc.) usually involves less conjecture than is the case in converting board feet log scale to these products, That the cubic foot measures the amount of wood in a log is, of course, indisputable, This makes it peculiarly adapted to industries which use wood in one form or another but do not produce lumber, In using the cubic foot there need be no assumptions as to products to be manufactured nor as to the intensity of utilization, What can be fairer? Why should it be assumed, as is done by board—foot log rules, that l-inch boards are the final product and that they will be manufactured in accord= ance with practices which were often obsolete at the time of the Spanish— American “ar? It is probably true that over three-fourths of the lumber sold in the United States is thicker or thinner than l-inch. There probably fe nea oe era ee ae — Pog herbee saat wae Fick ja ee sews‘ Rex ane wit pi setae 434 Fetal ie > te Sige’ et bap ait oe vie ty Paling ont: aye ib ¢ ~ ‘< et Ee a ‘unonig BAD 4 : Cathe bie ye il da le ae ae : ramet Paavo eed (abd ets iS Pet ee etal | ash ue bh Mes : Mae shied saad Ne: a dees ‘ “£4 2 ed : 2 hoe us Gita ee Pe ny ost are not a half dozen sawmills which produce l—inch boards entirely, and none of them produce these boards in accordance with standards prescribed by lead= ing log rules, An Advantage to Scalers It is probably true that when scalers use board—foot rules they are thinking of the intensity of utilization and of lumber as the final product. But if business conditions change from good to bad, there are changes in utilization because low-grade material in a log becomes unprofitable to handle, It is probably true thet scalers will be more at peace with the world if they scale logs in cubic feet, This system makes no assumption as to what products will be manufactured nor as to the intensity of utilization, The scaler can divorce himself from the job he creates in his subconscious mind of judging what the standard of utilization ought to be in different manu— factories, He can direct his attention to measuring diameters and lengths correctly and making logical deductions for defect, This is his job, nothing more, UL f In 4 recent article, Henri Roy of the Forest Service, Province of Quebec, declared that use of the cubic foot encourages scalers to do a better job of log measuring. He says: "The cubic method of measurement which we have adopted in Quebec, requires that the total mass of wed be tallied and reported separately from the amount to be subtracted for defects .e.. Thescaler is directed in such a way that he is no longer 2 judge of what the commercial standards of utilization ought to be; he has definite instructions to follow, enacted by official authorities and he must follow them, The result has been that the scaler now submits much closer tallies or, in other words, that the range of variation between different scales of the same log of wood is less, if scaled either a repeated number of times by the same scaler or by many scalersy ooo! An Advantage to Manufacturers The board=foot log rules are not as universally useful to the lumbering industry as is commonly supposed. Even the board foot of lumber is not used in all transactions. One large lumbering operation in Montana sells about one=third of its products on a piece basis, and converts from a piece to a board=-foot basis chiefly for bookkeeping purposes, There are many smaller mills in Montana and elsewhere which sell their products (ties, round and sawed mining timbers) on a piece basis entirely and never convert from a piece to a log-scale basis or even to lumber tally. 1/ Roy, Henri 1938. Log Scaling in Quebec, Journal of Forestry, vol. 36, Ne 10 c) pp ® 969-975 e = a7 Though lumber is still the most important product of the forest, it should not be forgotten that over one-half of the timber consumed in the United States is utilized for products other than lumber, Among these products are pulp, plywood, veneer, shingles, cooperage, fuelwood, excelsior, char— coal, and wood distillates, Some of these uses are growing by leaps and bounds, It is estimated that the pulp and paper industry used 1,215,000,000 ~ cubic feet of wood in 1930 (roughly, the equivalent of 6-3/4 billion board feet) and will use twice that quantity by 1950. Board—foot log rules are of little value to many wood—using industries. Pulp manufacturers, for example, are concerned with the actual amount of wood rather than a hypothetical yield of leinch lumber, because they use the entire volume in making chips or groundwood pulp, Log rules are poor indicators of cubical contents because they presuppose that lumber is the final product and that its manufacture entails considerable waste alle SL i Wy} ‘Miscellaneous (2,533,000,000 cubic feet) a a 12 Pulpwood * (2,623,000,000 cubic feet) oa SSS Selo < Fuelwood 5 8 | (4,003,000,000 cubic feet) is 6 F eae humm Orn So Ane Seas Benen 7 o a I (e) J od § Ele Tice Lumber A ; (6,207,000,000 cubic feet) o-| 1 Source of datas Senate Doc. No». 12, 73rd Congress Figure 2. Prospective timber requirements. in the form of sawdust, slabs, and edgings, Pulp manufacturers need a unit of measure which tells then how much wood there is in a log, Board= foot log rules do not do this, Cubic measure does. as . BF han?) ic * y aT on inv LR | : Aa A by yc SOA) Bae phe EME pi MPR To" aw al C log The figure shows the number of im. he Seribner Dec q cubic feet per thousand board feet for 16-foot logs of different diameters. Small logs contain much more wood per thousand feet than large logs. Figure 3 illustrates the relationships between t rule and the cubical contents of logs, eo 08 oof @0 98 oe} ©6 20 got oo G09 0 290 of OOf ©6 66 cet oo ge Gof ov 65 Go eo oe set eo of 5 ec ee eo @0 oo we oe oo eo oe ee eo ee eo oe oe ee eo ec eo | eo eo oe ee oe ° , ° ec eo oe ee oo eo eo ° | | go ee 2 . ° ° ec @e eo ee oo eo eo : o © > . ec} eo eo oo eo oo oo | s ° | eo oo os oo 2° 20 1 . ! : ‘ ; £ ; | | oe eo 00 oo 0 Of BO GO 206 ac oo 08 67 99 of Oe alTBOS SoT 1ees W red yooz oOTqnd jo Lequny 2h 28 Sy 36 Ae) as 20 Log diameter -— Inches | 16 2 by log diameter, based on Scribner Decimal C rule. Relation of cubic volume to board feet log scale, Figure 3, aL TS Pa hh? ee aaa FD wt, large Ney aie of cubic feet per thousand board feet in small logs constitutes one of the worst defects of log rules and militates against the use of young forests, The incongruity is so neatly hidden that its existence is seldom recognized and compensated for by a higher price per thousand feet. Then too, a shrewd buyer may assume that the extra wood is part of the overrun bonus to which he should be entitled, The practical effect of the inconsistency, how= ever, is that independent loggers leave small trees and logs in the woods because their board—foot scale is so low that they furnish no profit. A large waste of snall timber results where stumpage is cheap and clear cutting is practiced, k An advantage to Log Haulers Reasons for adopting the cubic foot extend into businesses associated with the timber industry, Those who haul logs (steamship lines, railroads, motor truckers) will probably agree that cubical content provides a better base for rates than a thousand board feet log scale, There is precedent in this respect, Many steamship lines on the Pacific Coast have successfully used the Brereton rule for several years in determining the contents of log eargos, The Brereton rule, printed in "The Practical Lumberman" (see the bibliography on the last page), is essentially a cubic-foot rule, Railroad rates for logs are occasionally on a carload basis though usually on a thousand—feet—log—scale basis. In either case the rate per carload or per thousand feet depends primarily on weight, Railroads haul tonnage, If it is worth 30 cents a ton to haul logs between two points, and a thousand feet of logs as ascertained by tests averages four tons in weight, the rate becomes $1.20 per thousand board feet. Though the rate books quote figures on a per-thousand—feet basis, somewhere among the calculations is the fact that logs average so much weight per thousand board feet and it is worth so much per ton to haul them, Cubic volume is not a perfect criterion of weight, quite true. In many ~ species, small logs contain high percentages of the heavy sapwood. Also, butt logs are often heavier than average, Though these variations occur, the basic fact exists that cubic volume is a better expression of weight than board—foot volumes. As was shown previously (figure 3), small logs contain more wood per thousand board feet and, of course, they weigh more. Since they weigh more they are hauled to market cheaper because, as mentioned previously, the rate is determined on the basis of weight and then converted to thousand board feet log scale, An Advantage to Fmployees In many places, the job of making trees into logs is on a piece—-work basis, the earnings of employees depending on their output, Though different systems are in effect, it is common practice to pay a flat rate per thousand feet log scale for logs produced, Tests show that if outputs were measured in cubic feet, the results would be more equitable to employee and employer alike, ~_LO= ie ay gS be day wy v Table 2 gives a comparison of earnings in different sizes of Idaho white pine timber, with the volumes in the table computed on both a board—foot log scale and a cubic-foot basis. When average earnings equal 100, the range in earnings on a board-foot log scale basis is from 55 for small timber to 116 for large, or a spread of 61 units, On a cubic—foot basis the range is from 63 to 110, or a spread of only 47 units, which is 23 percent less than the board—foot basis. Table ae Diameter Scribner Cubic feet, breast high Decimal C rule gross volume ee@tsss 2 gross scale basis _ basis Inches Percent Percent 10=13 55 63 14-16 75 8h 17=20 92 98 21-2), 105 105 25 & up 116 110 Wt, average 100 100 An Advantage to Scientists Where exactness is required, as in scientific work, volumes computed by using board—-foot log rules give very uncertain answers, Then too, if results must be expressed in terms of a number of log rules, computations must be repeated, which adds to the work, The uncertainty of answers obtained by using board—foot log rules can best be illustrated by an example, The example chosen for illustration deals with the growth of a tree which contains one 16—foot log whose diameter was 6 inches in 1900 and 9 inches in 1930, the rate of growth being 1 inch per decade, as show in table 3. Volumes for this tree on a board foot (Seribner Decimal C) basis and on a cubic=foot basis are also shown, as well as the percent of increase in volume, by decades. oat i Weta ) nate ie: i j in Siew pitts. f 3 ron. = it f = tx i } ie | ars ee ee : rr i eee ae + est cee r y Sues oe eee, pe A i vir . An idaduemce -Beivy nel 24 vada We oie a jessie S 4 1605 3 hdc d ; 4 o . 4 ' ru y" ; hie: ae hn ht awe alas Pik Ear ; y Sy tae : ; : fer 3 a ie ; =r es Bey } a ee ty ¥ { ia 7 = mrs Se ee, Table 3. Tree growth by-decades, expressed_in board feet log scale and cubic feet. Wear sseoccesocvcebercoveces 1900 1910 1920 1930 Diameter, top end of log = inches en00e¢0000000 6 id g 9 Volume, Scribner Decimal C rule = board feet eocoe 20 30 30 L0 Volume = cubic feet eoooce a0 563 6.7 8.3 Percent increase in volume by decades, board-foot basis; 1900-1910, 50 percent; 1910-1920, 0 percents; 1920-1930, 33 percent. Percent increase in volume by decades, cubic-foot basis; 1900-1910, 32 percent: 1910-1920, 26 percent; 1920-1930, 2h percent. Evidently the percent increase in volume on a cubic-foot basis is much more meaningful than the increase shown by the board=foot basis. According to the board-foot basis, the tree grew by leaps and bounds during the first decade, then stopped growing for one decade, and in the next decade again leaped ahead, Actually, the rate of volume growth was decreasing each decade as the gubic-foot basis shows. It might also be mentioned, in passing, that since the Scribner rule, as well as many others, gives high overruns for small logs it naturally follows that small logs are so badly underscaled that they cannot be handled profitably, The end result is poor utilization of top logs in large trees. The use of young timber is also penalized, and though this may be fortunate in some cases, it is unfortunate in others, As time goes on and the supplies of virgin timber wane, more and more dependence must be placed on young forests. CONVERTING CUBIC FEET TO OTHER UNITS OF MEASURE Log volumes in cubic feet can be converted to the unit of measure appropri- ate to each manufacturing plant with often less uncertainty and difficulty than is now the case in converting board feet log scale to board feet of lumber, board feet log scale to cords, or board feet log scale to units of pulp chips or to other measures, The all-important question that sawmill men will ask when cubic=—foot scaling is proposed iss "What converting factor must we use? How many board feet of lumber will a cubic foot of logs produce?" =12~ Ea aia Ee 2: 4 rib: hae seed om ue * = i ede yey hte esate, bresttah: tok ube aah Sawmill men will find that little surmise or conjecture is involved in determining the board foot~cubic foot ratio, This ratio can be computed very easily by comparing the yield of lumber with the cubage of the logs. The number of board feet of lumber per cubic foot of log gives the board foot-cubic foot ratio, just as the mumber of board feet of lumber per board foot log scale gives the overrun (percent) ratio. Typical ratios appear in table 4, ae Table 4. e :Board foot-: Over=3: Location : of : Species scubic foot ; run : Log rule Montana. West, white pine 730 1,2. Sexribs Dee. Arizona. Ponderosa pine Gireae 1405" Ba Montana Do 7618 121) Bo Oregon Do Tolk 1410) Do Oregon Do 7956 1,02 Bo S.Carolina Toblolly pine 5950 1.27 Doyle Montana Ingelmann spruce 6.94 1.09 Serib. Dec.C Oregon Douglas fir 7.69 to De Oregon Do 7.48 Tglt5 Bo Virginia Hardwoods 5099 1.30 Doyle Virginia Do 6.30 LAGE IN) Wisconsin Do 6,68 1,16 Serib. Dec. © Y/ By the "board foot-cubic foot" ratio is meant the number of board feet of rough-green lumber produced per cubic foot of log. By the "overrun ratio! is meant the number of board feet of rough-green lumber produced per board foot log scale. As table 4 shows, the board foot-cubic foot ratio is not the same for all mills and runs of timber any more than overrun percent is the same in all instances, In fact, the board foot-cubic foot ratio depends upon the same factors that influence overrun percent. Converting factors for products other than lumber can be worked out just as simply. Many of the measures used in the timber industry, such as the cord (128 stacked cubic feet) and the unit (200 cubic feet, gross volume), are companions of the cubic foot. Their relation® to solid cubic feet for some common products is given in table 5.6 Meee Pby: ae: a ‘ee is tema ib. Nel aed Bet ig: 5 iar Rt ce i Bes eee oh nig his : aay bie Z es ee! “ty: Ree alee Tae hee Hee REL. eae Br lA Pet say ce Pe a Paes Oa . prod ag + ee Be oe ; cs cas a +a Ly ee ee ee a eee ne vate ™ ‘ ie ate e > ; ’ ey a ot Pau ak ba karte : rt aie F wir ghee me river eae \ M ~ roe G / pa Ph tai is wii oe oe Ray te > Paani iy ae Ae ee nye cove x HF githaest viata eye Mice oh hee i mo a a 7 PAP as d as eis pe pk: Bi ious oy ee Tonal 5 a nf: Aon es 4g a ie fet: es oat ai ig? i ¥ a ) . Peet nf Pn bas < Table 5. Approximated/ equivalents for various measures-/ and_ products = ; Number of : Ratio of : : * solid ; solid Material ; Measure = oubic feet : contents * tn measure 3 Sawdust ooveesooeoe Unit 80 ? 802200 or Zap Sawdust and shavings, mixed o6. Unit 57 573200 or 365 Hogged fuel oeccson Unit 73 733200 or 207 Pulp Chips geasecee . UTS 67 673200 or 3.0 Fuelwood—edsings and slabS gccecesoe Gord 80 803128 or 166 Forest fuelwoodecee Cord 90 903128 or leh 1/ These figures, being averages, are subject to variation. 2/ The "unit" is a measure for bulky materials and contains 200 cubic feet gross volume, The standard cord is h by 4 by & feet and contains 128 cubic feet, CHANGE TO CUBIC=FOOT SCALING COULD BE GRADUAL Changing the method of log measurement from board feet log scale to cubic feet need not be done overnight. Certain agencies might blaze a trail for others to follow, The United States Forest Service, for example, might lead the way and prescribe use of the cubic foot in future sales of national forest timber, Such a change would be gradual and should not apply to existe ing contracts, There is no doubt that changing from board feet log scale to cubic feet will, of course, introduce some difficulties, Many cruises of standing timber are on a board—foot—log~scale basis, To be usable, these cruises must be con verted to cubic feet by using an appropriate converting factor, In most cases the accuracy of cruises is not essentially affected by using a convert— ing factor provided it is reasonably appropriate, In the forest survey of the northern Rocky Mountain region timber cruises are expressed on both a board—foot—-log=scale and a cubic-foot basis, the change being effected by using converting factors which show the number of board feet log scale (as indicated by volume tables) per cubic foot. mh. TECHNIC IN APPLYING THE CUBIC FOOT When the cubic foot is used for determining log volumes a variation is apt to occur, just as in board=foot scaling, unless the measuring stick is applied in the same way by all scalers, Quite often logs are measured | several times, at various stages of handling between stump and sawmill, They may be scaled in the woods to determine the output of log-makers and again at the landing as they are loaded on railroad cars or trucks; they may also be measured by the log-hauler, by the person who owned the stump= age, by the buyer and the seller of the logs, and again by the buyer when they enter his sawmill, These several determinations will not be in reason= able agreement unless measuring technic is uniform, There are certain to be differences of a few percent if some scalers ignore fractional inches in measuring diameters and others round off fractions to the nearest inch above er below the actual diameter, When logs are not round, further discrepancies occur if seme scalers measure the narrow diameter and others take measure— ments at right angles to each other, Establishing standards for intelligently determining the cubical contents of logs is equally as important as establishing a standard unit of measure, To insure uniformity, the following standards for measuring diameters and lengths and for determining merchantability are suggested, No new procedures are involved, Similar procedures have been used in board—foot scaling for almost a century. Diameter Measurement = Top imd, Butt End, or Middle? When log diameters are being measured, speed is often of prime importance, Logs often come %o the scaling point by the truckload, carload, or train— load, The iaulers are in a rush for their empties, and the scaler must measure diameters in a simple, convenient way. In view of these hurry—up conditions it has become the custom in board=foot scaling to measure only one diameter and this at the top end of the leg. Since it is just as logical for this same procedure to be followed in commercial cubic—foot sealing, it is recommended that diameters be measured at the top end of each log inside the bark. Since all logs are not round, there is some leeway in measuring the diameter ef logs that are eccentric, In such cases it should be the practice to de= termine the diameter by taking the average of two measurements at right angles to each other, as sketched in figure 4, When logs are sealed in the water, eccentric logs invariably float. with the narrow diameter at right angles to the water line, Though the narrow diameter is the most convenient to measure, care should be taken to determine the average. aug pad rae o ¥: iA i; ie biel Sia ie ner ‘saan ayubnel erie 128s tT. pel ake pity Seis ah wre pata Sur og RRR Figure 4, Method of determining the average diameter of @ log. The importance of measuring diameters correctly is shown in figure 5, Here is a portrayal of the difference which results when a diameter is measured too high or too low. Measuring the diameter and the length of a log correctly is the most important part of an accurate scaling job. Inexperienced men should be able to do this as correctly as old-timers because the measuring is purely mechanical and calls for no special skill or technical knowledge, Gross scales will agree closely if diameters and lengths are measured carefully. be. vy # % I Mi Ra hag ou Cres nye av 60 5 (o) 4, tas ys ae Ee ce 3 2 i: Fe : I . ed qu bale Es ee) 10 = : eee - one Pee 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 «4. 30) 16S) 56 Log diameter--Inches Pereent decrease or increase Oo fav) Figure 5. Increase or decrease in log volumes caused by measuring diameters 1 to 3 inches high or low. ay | eth et *% The "Nearest" and the "Lower" Inch Another point on which procedure should be uniform is when diameters fall between inches, In such cases fractional inches should be rounded off to the nearest inch above or below the actual diameter, Logs with a diameter exactly halfway between inches should be placed in the lower inch class, With this system, logs with diameters from 16.0 up to 16.5 inches would be placed in the 16-inch class; logs with diameters over 16,5 and up to 17.0 would be placed in the 17-inch class. It is poor practice to neglect fractions and scale to the lower inch, Some scalers do this, however, on the assumption that this makes an allow— ance for hidden defect or, if logs are to be river-driven, for the wear and tear they will receive in the stream, Whether these are legitimate deductions might well be questioned. Even so, the time to make legitimate deductions is after the gross scale has been determined by measuring the log's diameter correctly. Scaling to the lower inch is poor practice be- cause it results in a gross scale which is intentionally low, Determination of Length Invariably logs are bucked a few inches longer than their nominal length, the excess being the trimming allowance, Ordinarily the trimming allow ance should not be scaled, If the trimming allowance is excessive a penalty scale may be invoked by the owner of the timber, but that is another matter. Deductions for Defect If all logs were straight and sound, scaling would be simple, This happens seldom, however, hence deductions must be made for cull material. In cubie-foot scaling, as in board~foot scaling, deductions should be made for defects which render wood unfit for use, No deductions should be made, however, for knots, burls, spiral grain, coarse grain, snall pitch pockets, light sap stain, and similar imperfections which may affect the quality of the wood but not its quantity. Quantitative defects can be roughly classified as follows: 1. Interior defects: internal decay, heart shake, pitch ring, pitch seam, etc. 2e Periphery defects: sap rot, season checks, worm holes, cat face, roughness, etc. 30 Crook defects: sweep or crook and crotch. 4, Operating defects: breakage, end broom, slab, split, etc. =] B= yy tie ay eee any ee ey dep te * Seb Wind cana tins tac & bogus Adicio ae ay bie Cat ahh one 4 as? ; a aa is Logs are seldom consistent in their imperfections and show different stages of defect and merchantability, As a result no rules for making reductions can be applied inflexibly, The amount of deduction to make is backed by - the good judgment of scalers who are familiar with the timber before then, its characteristic defects, and the way it cuts out. Ordinarily reduction for defect can be made in one of three ways, namely: 1. By reducing the diameter (for sap rot, etc,) 2. By reducing the length (for butt rot, etc.) 3. By use of diagrams (for most internal defects) The first two methods are self-explanatory. If sap rot or similar peripheral defects are present, a reduction in diameter is appropriate, A reduction in length often fits the following: butt rot, stump (heart) shake, sweep, crook, crotch, and end broom, Most internal defects (interior decay, pitch ring, pitch seam, heart check, etc.) are best handled by diagrams and the diagram formula. The formula which applies is: Deduction (cubic feet) — Width (inches) x Thickness (inches) x Length (feet) ~WxTxtl; for a rapid mental calculation the formula can be Peabateds. Deduetion = ava and divide by 10 (point off one decimal place). A similar formula which makes allowance for 1/h—inch saw kerf applies to scaling with board—foot log rules. This formula is: Wx TxL J deduction LS (board feet of lumber). ~19— NC cians ee HMM mee RO Ber ics Tor MEE He Deduction in board feet of lumber is 22 X17. or 17. MS) : Deduction in cubic feet is 3 x 12 x7 and divide by 10, or 1.8. Wy Figure 6, Method of deducting for defect by using diagrams « Culling Logs The definition of a cull log is largely a local affair which need not be discussed here in detail. Merchantability veries with different species, with business conditions and other factors, In cubic-foot scaling as in board=foot scaling there should, of course, be merchantability or minimum grade specifications which state that to be merchantable a log must have a minimum length of so many feet, a minimum diameter of so many inches, and not over a stated percentage of cull material, Definitions of merchant- ability which now apply to board=foot scaling will in all probability be applicable in cubic-foot scaling. The Form of Record Hach scaler should make a record of the logs he scales, This record shouid include the essential details for each log, such as the species, diameter, length, amount of defect, and net volume, Listing the log number, gross volume, and kind of defect is optional. The form of record might be some— what like the following: -20— ¢ : : : De: Net volume : Log : Dia.: Lgth.:Gross: duc-:__ by species aon Noo : : : Vole: tion: WP:DF:WL:PP:Spr,: Kind of defect fe PLO Lee On tw fo tee Se “0 Gat face Pine lige She Na Gs Spl nmcuurst ic S51 $ 3 On om s) eielemmoeas 6 of. $38 ¢ Shake in, ea Na Leis as Y Fan aS oo Ba gue tee Panola! realigtes A record in a scalebook of important details serves two purposes: 1. It is a guarantee of satisfactory work from the scaler and a guarantee to the buyer and the seller that the work has been carefully done. When a complete record is required of the species, diameter, length, cull de— duction, and net volume, the scaler will be more apt to make these measure— ments carefully. Then too, the buyer and the seller, knowing what these measurements are, can if necessary recheck them for a group of logs. 2. it serves as the basis of eliminating the personal element in scaling, If timber is defective, scaling is often a matter of individual judgment; and since one unproved opinion is as good as another, it seems desirable to have procedures rendered as uniform as possible by frequent check scales made by a competent individual whose job it should be to maintain a high scaling standard within the organization, Check—scaling is more effective when the data for each log are completely recorded, since causes for variation can then be corrected, CONSTRUCTION OF A CUBIC-FOOT RULE How Much Taper Allowance? Since many of the board-foot log rules in use assume that the contents of a leg are contained in a cylinder having a diameter equal to the top diameter of the log, it becomes necessary when long logs are scaled to apportion them into as equal lengths as possible, and scale the parts separately after making allowance for taper, Some of the better built board=foot log rules have an ailowance for taper incorporated in the rule which makes it unnecessary to scale long logs in short lengths. Taking into account convenience, practicability, and accuracy, no better principle can be followed in constructing a commercial cubic-foot rule than to do as was done in making the best board—foot rules; choose the top end of logs as the place for diameter measurement and incorporate a taper allowance in the rule, A‘taper of 0,5 inch in 4 feet is about average for every timber type in the United States, This matter of taper was thoroughly discussed with James W. Girard, assistant director of the forest survey. Mr. Girard has —2le eruised in every important timber type in this country and undoubtedly knows more about the form of trees and their taper than any other individual, A taper of 0.5 inch in 4 feet is applicable to almost all timber types with the possible exception of old-growth southern pines, some species of hard— wood in the Mississippi delta, and some very short (stunted or open grown) second growthe Even to these 2a 0,5—inch taper can be applied without much inaccuracy. The old-growth southern pines (longleaf, shortleaf, loblolly, and slash) usually taper at the rate of 0,4 inch in 4 feet. Some but not all of the Mississippi delta hardwoods and bottomland hardwoods in the South have a heavy taper which averages 0,6 inch in 4 feet. The short second growth referred to has 0.6—inch taper, but from a type standpoint is unimportant. It is recognized, of course, that all the logs in a tree may not have exactly the taper presupposed by the cubic-foot rule adopted 1or use, Top logs are apt to have more taper than average end contain slightly more volume than the rule indicates, In most commercial scaling, however, the slight variations which will occur because individual logs deviate slightly from the average shape seem to be of slight importance. The Computation of Cubical Volume A careful inspection shows that the surface lines lengthwise of a log are not perfectly straight but usually slightly curved, In the majority of logs the curving shows convexity and the shape of the entire log is comparable to that of a frusttm of a paraboloid, illustrated in figure 7. Such being the ease, the cubical volume of logs can be computed by use of the Smalian formula, which gives the volume of the frustum of a paraboloid based on its length and end areas, The formula reads: Ve A # a, where ny" is the volume, "A" the area of the large end, "a" the trea of the small end, and "LL" the length, Figure 7, The frustym of a paraboloid. A paraboloid is a solid generated by revolving a parabola on its axise uO2= ev Somer we ae May peed . ’ ay. Gee Thus a 16—foot log with a top end diameter of 12 inches (area 0.7854 square feet) and a large end diameter of I, inches (area.1.0690 square feet) has a volume of 15 cubic feet, computed as follows: v= 1 (Qo7854 ¥ 140690 _) 16 = 1,,8352, rounded off to 15. Table 6, which follows, was prepared in the manner just described, except that a taper allowance of 0,5 inch for each 1, feet of log was arbitrarily used, Similar tables can be prepared using tapers of O.4 inch and 0.6 inch or any taper, for that matter, which is appropriate for the scaling conditions encountered. —23- ¥ } : By } 1e 69S VV 98e 60 663 Gas 6ge VE 666 Vic 006 48T VAT TOT 67T 4st 98T STT SOT 6 98 ad 69 ie) vs avy 7 GS Og Ge 0g Svs 98 60% 662 94S T9¢e SVS TS? 9TS 206 68T 94T v9T oSt Ort 6eT 6Tt 60T 66 06 Ts Gu S9 8S TS aid 8S ah Le Ge 6T Gee 80 62 946 T92 972 oG6 STs 0S T6T 647 99T SST ave oat ool ott 30T oo 90% T6¢ G4e T9¢ 976 62S 8Té G0¢ o6U OST 89T 9ST SVT GST vel Vit SOT GOS 88 GUS 6S StS Tae 8Te S0¢ S6T TST 69T BGT 4VvT 9aT 9eT SPIE LOT G82e O46 9S¢ Eve OS? &US VO? S6T TST 69T 8ST 8tT Let eT 60T 0oT T92 998 8ve Gos Sa? OVS Zee 4ee 1é Ste 00¢ 20g 88T T6T 4aT 64T 49T 89T 4ST ect A4PVT 49T AST SET Set 6TT Gils ORE OTT dOrL _{WoTAoemIoe 04 Joefqns ete peqsTt SeuUNTOA SVS O&e 8Te 408 96T gst Val vot VST CVT 9ET 4et ett OTT e0T SERENOIN G MOY gee GO? 98T 89T ola evel acl esOgIb leg 7st -2c9t eSL T6T G4T 6ST PPL OST S9T OST 9&T O4T 9ST svt 8eT T9t 4&4vT PET Ter TSl 62T 9@T VIT Svt OST ST AT Got get Tt COL Get IT VOT &6 aq hiGe HONE 7afs) (44) 60T 06 GOT 98 86 18 G6 «ad 88s Gd ve 669 64 G9 G4 89 O04 8g sh ENS eo ig 8S 87 VS GY 0S e7 4y 665 Gv 69¢ Ov af 4G Of VS 82 La ge 8e 8 oc a Ge ~—SCOBTT. Le ain Sr Su 9t ST Vue Gk sl: OL tm 6 6 d 8 9 9 S S v v g & 6 Cu 89 g9 {e3) 8S GS 3S 6 97 av TY 8S GE ES to 8g 96 ve oS 0g 8ST aT wW cj oo @@ ce 08 ¢08 6¢9 @8 ®8 cf @8 @€9 08 88 C8 CO 89 68 oe se 99 08 Of 88 809 08 6 68 200 @@ ce 2% 89 00 ce & MW £9 ac io) ci Ol MH Hid oO & O & Ty_aodey 7 OV s s ro Vowel ‘dou SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Belyea, Harold Ce, and T, Robert Sheldon 1938, Some anomalies in the board foot measurement of logs. Journal of Forestry, vol, 36, no. 10, PPe 963~969 ry Brereton, Bernard 1925, The Practical Lumberman, 5th edition, Seattle, Washe 144 ppe, illus. Rapraeger, He Fe 1932. Cubic measurement of pulpwood logs. Pacific Pulp and Paper Industry, vol. 6, noe 7. 1938. Isn't cubic measure logical? Univ. of Wash. Forest Club quarterly, vol. ll, noe 2, pps 22=2he Roy, Henri 1938. log scaling in Quebec, Journal of Forestry, vole 36, no. 10, ppe 969-9756 255 LIST OF PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS IN THIS SERIES Station Paper __ No. at * A preliminary study of root diseases in western white pine, Dy, Johny Bheilsteh OC EIOo. 2 * Possibilities of partial cutting in young western white pine, by E. F. Rapraeger. Jan. 1940. B Blister rust control in the management of western white pine, by Kenneth P. Davis and Virgil D. Moss. June 1940. 4 Possibilities of wood-pulp production in the northern Rocky Mountain region, by E. F. Rapraeger. Mar. 1941. 5) Results to date of studies of the durability of native woods treated and untreated, by C. N. Whitney. Rev. Jan. 1946. 6 Changes in Benewah County forest statistics, by Paul D. Kemp. July 1947. iq A guide for range reseeding on and near the national forests of Montana, by C. Allan Friedrich. Oct. 1947. 8 Pole blight - a new disease of western white pine, by Ce A. Wellner. Nov. 1947, 9 Management practices for Christmas tree production, by Ce Ae Wellner and A. Le Roe. Nov. 1947. 10 The merits of lodgepole pine poles, by I. Ve. Anderson. Nov. 1947. Tae Tables for approximating volume growth of individual trees, by R5 We Kemp and Me Bie Metcalf. Mare 1948. We Forest resource statistics, Cascade County, Montana, by H. J. Pissot and E. F. Peffer. Apr. 1948. 13 Forest resources of northern Montana, by C. VW. Brown and W. Ce Hodge. June 1948, 14 List of publications available for distribution or loan, 1910 through 1947. NRM station. June 1948 ah) Review of published information on the larch-Douglas fir forest type, py Russell K. LeBarron. Nov. 1948. 16 Development of a blister rust control policy for the national forests in the Inland Empire, by Donald N. Matthews and S. Blair Hutchison. Dec. 1948. * Out of print. Loan copies may be obtained upon request. Station Paper Noe Ly Disintegration of girdled western hemlock and grand fir, by Austin E, Helmers., Dec. 1948. 18 Suggested Montana Douglas-fir Christmas tree standards, by S. Blair Hutchison and Ben M. Huey. Jan. 1949. 19 * The possibilities of modifying lightning storms in the Northern Rockies, by Vincent J. Schaefer, Jan. 1949. 20 Forest resources of southern Montana, by We Ce. Hodge, Ce We Brown, and T. L. Finch. May 1949. PAL Forest resources of northeast Washington, by Paul D. Kemp, and H. ds Pissot. May 1949. 22 Ponderosa Pine Bibliography, by Arthur L. Roe, and Kenneth N. Boe. March 1950. 23 Forest resources of south central Montana, by T. Le Finch, We Ce Hodge, and M. Ee. Metcalf. April 1950. * Out of print. Loan copies may be obtained upon request,