1. ERDC Knowledge Core
  2. Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
  3. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) - (before 9/1981 - present)
  4. Publication
  5. Special Report
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11681/46385
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBain, Rachel L.-
dc.contributor.authorYoung, David L.-
dc.contributor.authorKress, Marin M.-
dc.contributor.authorChambers, Katherine.-
dc.contributor.authorScully, Brandan.-
dc.creatorCoastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.)-
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-17T18:31:14Z-
dc.date.available2023-01-17T18:31:14Z-
dc.date.issued2023-01-
dc.identifier.govdocERDC/CHL SR-23-1-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11681/46385-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/46385-
dc.descriptionSpecial Reporten_US
dc.description.abstractThis study utilized automatic identification system (AIS) data to quantify vessel traffic patterns within a predominantly US port network from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2020, with the methods validated using independent data sets collected between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019. The analysis focused on South Atlantic Division (SAD) ports. AIS-derived data characterized individual ports’ traffic and port-to-port connectivity for the network. With foreign vessel entrances and clearances (E&C) data, the AIS-reported vessel characteristics enabled calculation of ships’ physical volume, which was a reasonable proxy for tonnage at many SAD ports. The PageRank algorithm was then applied to port-to-port traffic, revealing how individual ports participate in cargo movement through the network. PageRank scores also provided insight into the maritime supply chain beyond traditional traffic metrics. For example, many East Coast SAD ports ranked higher by PageRank than by raw tonnage. Because of the supply chain implications of shared vessel traffic, PageRank scores can augment tonnage metrics when prioritizing channel and infrastructure maintenance. Vessel volume, port-to-port connectivity, and PageRank scores reveal maritime supply chain resilience by identifying alternative destinations for cargo bound for disrupted ports, robustness across supply chains, and the effects of seasonality and disruptions.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville District.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAbstract .......................................................................................................................................................... ii Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................................................... v Preface ...........................................................................................................................................................vii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 5 2 South Atlantic Division (SAD) High Tonnage Ports ......................................................................... 6 2.1 Mobile Harbor, Alabama ................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Savannah Harbor, Georgia ............................................................................................. 7 2.3 Tampa Harbor, Florida .................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Charleston Harbor, South Carolina ................................................................................ 9 2.5 Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi ................................................................................... 10 2.6 Port Everglades Harbor, Florida ................................................................................... 11 2.7 Jacksonville Harbor, Florida ......................................................................................... 12 2.8 San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico ...................................................................................... 13 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Automatic identification system (AIS) data ................................................................. 15 3.2 Port areas ...................................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Determining arrivals and departures........................................................................... 17 3.4 Data filtering ................................................................................................................. 17 3.5 Vessel volume estimates ............................................................................................. 18 3.6 International visits ........................................................................................................ 19 3.7 PageRank ...................................................................................................................... 21 4 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Suitability of ship volume as a proxy for tonnage ....................................................... 23 4.2 Ranking of SAD ports within the US maritime transportation network ..................... 28 4.3 Accuracy of transits to the international node ............................................................ 34 5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 37 References ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix A: Location of All Ports Represented in the Maritime Transportation Network .......... 43 Appendix B: Assumed Minimum International Travel Time for all Pairs of States, Provinces, or Countries with AIS Coverage ................................................................................... 55 Appendix C: Results for All Retained SAD Ports ................................................................................... 59 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... 61 Report Documentation page-
dc.format.extent72 pages / 7.57 MB-
dc.format.mediumPDF-
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEngineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSpecial Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/CHL SR-23-1-
dc.rightsApproved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited-
dc.sourceThis Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat-
dc.subjectHarbors--Atlantic Coast (South Atlantic States)en_US
dc.subjectNavigation--Performanceen_US
dc.subjectShipment of goodsen_US
dc.subjectShips--Automatic identification systemsen_US
dc.titleUS port connectivity and ramifications for maintenance of South Atlantic Division portsen_US
dc.typeReporten_US
Appears in Collections:Special Report

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ERDC-CHL SR-23-1.pdf7.57 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record