Yale University

Mudslide Prevention on Deforested Hillsides

Deliverable 10
MENG 488L

Engineering Experimentation

Authors: Kyle Kenagy, Mariel Rosenberg, Jordan Young

Date: 17 April 2019

Motivation:
 The testing process for our product will evaluate three essential research questions
comparing our product to the existing method of planting trees (shoveled hole and hand-
planting):
1. How quickly can trees be planted?
2. What is the level of hole quality and is it conducive to tree survival?
3. How does the tool function in different soils/inclinations?
The first question is motivated by efficiency; the key aspect of the “Plug and Chug” that
makes it a worthwhile product is that it can plant more trees in the same time as a traditional
shovel, meaning that a deforested hillside can be more quickly replanted in the process of
preventing mudslides. Therefore, it must be proven that our product works faster than a shovel
and hand-planting method. The test statistic for this will be the difference in the average number
of time per planting of each sapling.
The second and third question are both related to constraints of our product. While the
trait that makes the “Plug and Chug” valuable is its efficiency, it is also necessary that it can
create a hole of equal or greater quality in, at minimum, the same conditions as the shovel
method. It is already known that the shovel method functions on slopes, in nearly any soil, and
creates a hole that will lead to a surviving tree. The motivation for questions #2 and #3, then, is
to verify that the “Plug and Chug” maintains these necessary constraints met by the shovel
method, while also making improvements in efficiency.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure:

The apparatus for our experiment is simply the two tools to be tested (a shovel and the
“Plug and Chug”), a testing area, and an adequate supply of seedlings. In total, the test will
require 16 seedlings, one shovel/carrying bag setup, and one “Plug and Chug”.
The procedure of this test is designed to allow all three research questions to be
evaluated during the same experiment. The experiment requires three group members, two of
whom will operate the tools, and the third to make measurements and observations of hole and
planting quality for each seedling planted. The experiment will be performed as follows (written
for a general case, though in this instance both volunteers and the evaluator will be the three
group members):
Two volunteers will be randomly selected to operate the tools for 8 seedling plantings, or
a single full planting-tube’s worth. The test is performed this way since, in this case, we only
have one planting tube, and so would not be able to efficiently exchange the tube and continue
planting as one would be able to in the field. A coin flip will decide which volunteer uses which
tool first. The volunteers will then receive written instructions on their tool, familiarize themselves
with it, and ask questions of the evaluator. The shovel planting technique will be as described in
The Practice of Silviculture : Applied Forest Ecology (Ashton). Once the evaluator determines
both volunteers understand how to use their assigned tool, they will be supplied with seedlings
and the planting period will begin. The volunteers will be told to plant efficiently, but carefully,
ensuring each seedling is properly planted, and to work at a pace they could sustain for a 2 hour
work period.
The evaluator will then observe the volunteers’ work over the planting period while
recording the time at which each seedling is planted by each tool, and making observations on
each seedling after it has been planted. These observations will serve to evaluate the hole and
planting quality in the following categories:
- Adequate depth: The pot should not extend above the soil.
- Seedling intact: The seedling should have no visible signs of damage and the packaged
soil should remain in the pot.
- Secure in ground: The pot should be closely surrounded by soil on all sides and not be
at risk of tipping or dislodging
These categories will be rated on a scale of 0-2 where 0 is incorrectly planted or unsurvivable, 1
is a “rough job” but potentially survivable, and 2 is a correctly planted seedling that will survive.
For context, in regular field work, every seedling planted should receive a 2 without much extra
effort.
After all seedlings have been planted, the volunteers will be given 15 minutes rest, then
switch tools. After switching they will repeat the instruction and familiarization until the evaluator
once again determines both volunteers understand how to use their new tool. Then another 8-
seedling planting period will be performed with the evaluator continuing to make measurements
and rating observations.
In the ideal case, this test would be performed with many volunteers. However, for our
purposes, two group members will be the “testers” and we will instead perform the test with both
group members using each tool. Again, in the ideal scenario, a greater number of tests would
be performed. However, due to the seedling pots deteriorating quickly with each planting, and
the limited number of pots available, a maximum of two tests can be performed before the
results began to be skewed by the deteriorating seedling pots.

Results:

Tool Time (s) Depth (0-2 scale) Intact (0-2 scale) Secure (0-2 scale)

Plug and Chug 25.75 0.8125 1.8125 0.75

Shovel 37.357 2 2 2
Table 1: Mean results in each testing category averaged over all 16 trials for each tool

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value Eta^2

RunNo. 1 494 494 12.39 0.004 0.1644747794
device 1 946.5 946.5 23.74 0 0.3151323456
subject 1 258.5 258.5 6.48 0.024 0.08606625603
HoleNo(RunNo. 14 699.8 49.99 1.25 0.345 0.2329948394
)
Error 13 518.4 39.87
Total 30 3003.5
Table 2: General Linear Model Effect Size Analysis and Eta^2
(Higher Eta^2 = greater effect size)

Figure 1: Average seedling planting time at 95% confidence interval

Figure 2: Seedling pots planted by Plug and Chug

Conclusions:
 The goals of this test were to determine if the Plug and Chug can both equal the
effectiveness of a traditional shovel in planting quality and versatility and, furthermore, improve
on the efficiency of the shovel method.
Planting time, being a purely numerical quantity, is the most clear result: as shown in
Fig. 1, the Plug and Chug is definitively faster than the shovel method, with no overlap in the
95% confidence interval. On average the Plug and Chug is about 11.5 seconds faster per
seedling planted. Over the course of a 2 hour work shift that comes out to 87 more seedlings
planted over the traditional shovel. Furthermore, from the results of an eta-squared effect size
analysis performed using software on Dr. Booth’s computer (results in Table 2), the difference in
tool is by far the greatest influence on the time values, further supporting this conclusion by
affirming that this significant difference in planting times is indeed due to the different tools and
not another change such as the user or trial order.
Further observations regarding planting speed were made that could not be quantified
by the general linear model due to insufficient data points and degrees of freedom. However,
both subjects noticed that the Plug and Chug became easier to operate further into the trial.
This was observed to be caused by the planting mechanism functioning more smoothly with
fewer seedlings stacked in the tube. However it cannot be ruled out that this effect could also be
caused by a “learning” process, where the user gains comfort with the tool over the course of
the trial. While careful experimentation and observation suggest the first explanation, the
learning effect can only be ruled out statistically with a larger dataset.
Of equal importance to the increased efficiency is the ability of the Plug and Chug to
plant with equal quality and versatility to the traditional shovel. Contrary to the efficiency
questions, where the product excelled, the results in the quality category revealed weaknesses
of the product. Table 1 illustrates that in the categories Depth and Secure the Plug and Chug
scored significantly lower than the shovel which scored perfect 2s. While the scores for the
shovel method are not surprising, as it is expected that the current method is able to repeatedly
produce perfect plantings, the lower scores for the Plug and Chug mean that the seedlings
planted in the test have a lower chance of surviving. This trend is motivated almost entirely by
the fact that the auger on the Plug and Chug did not reach to an adequate depth, and, therefore,
the seedling pots could neither be deep nor secure enough. Figure 2 depicts an example of the
inadequate depth.
Beyond the depth issue, though, the tool performed well: planting the seedling with the
soil and plant intact. Additionally, while separate data points were not taken on sloped vs. flat
ground, the test was performed on a patch of soil that started on an incline and flattened out
halfway through the planting run. No discernable difference was observed between the stability
or function of the tool between the inclined and flat ground.
The overall result of this experiment was positive in terms of the efficiency question, but
revealed weaknesses in the Plug and Chug’s ability to dig to an adequate depth. In the short
term, this will lead to adjustments of the digging subsystem to allow the auger to reach the
correct depth. Additionally, before this product could be marketed and sold, more
experimentation would be needed in order to obtain more data points and, consequently, more
fleshed out statistics.
Recommendations:

The preparation for and results of the experiment illuminated many avenues of
improvement for our design. The most important of these will be ensuring that our device makes
a hole that is sufficiently deep. We plan to extend the distance the auger can travel and thereby
increase the depth of the holes it produces. Additionally, we will secure the auger to the chuck
at a higher point which will increase the depth the auger is able to reach. As we do this, we will
make the casing around the auger and chuck more robust. The 3-D printed endcap that protects
the system snapped while the device was in use. It did not prevent operation of the device, but it
is not desirable in the long term. We plan to increase the wall thickness of the endcap to
increase its strength. Finally, our tests showed that seedlings that were dispensed from the
dispenser tube earlier performed worse and were deformed. We plan to stiffen the plant pots
with the addition of biodegradable rods buried under the soil.
References:

“Introduction,” Confidence Intervals. [Online]. Available: http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-

Modules/BS/BS704_Confidence_Intervals/BS704_Confidence_Intervals_print.html.
[Accessed: 17-Apr-2019].
Ashton, P. Mark S., and Matthew J. Kelty. The Practice of Silviculture : Applied Forest Ecology,
John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central
Appendix: Data from all trials

Run 1 Plug and Chug Shovel

User Kyle Jordan
Time Depth Intact Secure Time Depth Intact Secure
Hole #1 12 1 2 1 33 2 2 2
Hole #2 21 1 2 1 28 2 2 2
Hole #3 24 1 2 0 29 2 2 2
Hole #4 22 1 1 1 32 2 2 2
Hole #5 23 1 2 1 36 2 2 2
Hole #6 28 1 2 1 30 2 2 2
Hole #7 30 1 2 1 22 2 2 2
Hole #8 37 1 2 1 30 2 2 2
Average 24.625 1 1.875 0.875 30 2 2 2

Run 2 Plug and Chug Shovel

User Jordan Kyle
Time Depth Intact Secure Time Depth Intact Secure
Hole #1 18 1 2 1 44 2 2 2
Hole #2 37 0 1 0 52 2 2 2
Hole #3 29 1 2 1 52 2 2 2
Hole #4 29 0 2 1 50 2 2 2
Hole #5 30 0 2 0 50 2 2 2
Hole #6 29 1 2 1 32 2 2 2
Hole #7 21 1 1 0 33 2 2 2
Hole #8 22 1 2 1
Average 26.875 0.625 1.75 0.625 44.714 2 2 2