Advancing Log Volume Estimation: Comparison of Modern and Traditional Approaches

Abstract

Traditional and modern approaches were compared for determining oak sawlog volume under operational conditions. Manual measurement combined with cubic formulas (Huber, Smalian, Newton, and Hossfeld), standardized volume tables (STN 48 0009:2017), computed tomography (CT) scanning, mobile applications (iFOVEA Pro, Timbeter, LogStack LiDAR, and 3D Scanner App), and a handheld mobile laser scanner were evaluated. CT scanning provided a highly detailed geometric benchmark for comparative assessment, but it should not be interpreted as a measure of true solid volume. The Hossfeld model and Newton’s formula showed the closest agreement with CT‑derived volumes. Among bulk‑pile methods, iFOVEA Pro and LogStackLiDAR demonstrated the most balanced combination of internal consistency, speed, and operational usability. Timbeter and the 3D Scanner App showed lower detected volumes; however, these deviations cannot be interpreted as systematic without further analysis. Manual measurement remained accurate but was time‑consuming and sensitive to operator variability, whereas handheld laser scanning provided high‑fidelity results at the cost of increased time and expertise. Limitations of the study include a small sample size, the limited number of repeated measurements, and the absence of testing under variable environmental conditions. Future developments will likely focus on AI‑based log segmentation, GIS integration, and cloud platforms enabling real‑time data sharing.