CPT
Channel Portfolio Tool (CPT)
POC: Dr. Kenneth Ned Mitchell br\Kenneth.n.mitchell@usace.army.mil br\601-634-2022 br\US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) br\Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL)
Active URL (CAC authentication required): https://cpt.usace.army.mil/
Developmental URL (Corps machines only): https://itlgis01.usace.army.mil/CPTIWRWeb
CPT is developmental software that is updated frequently.
CPT User's Guide
- General Layout
- Comparing Sub-reaches within a Single Navigation Project
- Viewing Details of a Single Sub-reach
- Viewing and Explanation of Flow Tables
- Comparing Sub-reaches Across Multiple Navigation Projects
- Viewing and Explanation of Roll-up Tables
- Comparing Projects, Districts, and Divisions
Comparing Projects, Districts, and Divisions
Selection of entities to be ranked
As described in Section 2.2, the CPT user can specify the entities (Divisions, Districts, Projects, or Reaches) to be analyzed by selecting the respective tab on the CPT Home page. This section will present several examples of using this feature to quickly compare waterborne commerce figures at the Project, District, and Division levels, respectively.
After choosing Project-level analysis from the CPT Home screen, choose LRD from the Division menu and then select the Buffalo District (LRB). Next, select all LRB Projects, as shown in Figure 42.
br style=clear:both /
Tips for faster query times
Under the Preferences tab, select 2007 only to help with query times. When selecting Projects which much higher tonnage levels than those in LRB, it might be necessary to limit the query further by choosing a subset of traffic types and/or commodities.
Viewing of details for entries in Rankings table
Once Preferences have been saved, click the Rankings tab to see the LRB Projects compared to one another, as shown in Figure 43.
br style=clear:both /
As indicated by the absence of tabs, the CPT Flow and Rollup features are not yet available for the Project, District, and Division levels. Subsequent versions of CPT will likely incorporate the Rollup feature at these higher levels, while the Flow feature will remain at the Reach level of analysis for the foreseeable future. As with other Rankings tables discussed in previous sections, any entry can be clicked on for further details. Figures 44-46 show the tables and charts on the Details page for Cleveland, OH.
br style=clear:both /
Explanation of Details tables and charts
The figures in these tables are equivalent to those that would be obtained were the user to perform a Rollup query on all of the individual sub-reaches within the Cleveland project.
The draft profile charts for the Cleveland Project in Figs. 45 and 46 are interesting because they show that most of the $-value of cargo uses the deeper drafts available at Cleveland (26 - 27 ft). Furthermore, this high $-value is due to a comparably small amount of imported manufactured metals and flat-rolled iron and steel products, as can be determined by sorting the Harbor Details table by $-value. This information places a higher degree of importance on the deeper drafts at Cleveland Harbor than might otherwise be given.
br style=clear:both /
br style=clear:both /
Just as a demonstration of the insights that can be quickly gleaned using CPT to analyze the USACE navigation portfolio at the Division level, Figures 47 – 49 show the draft profile charts for tonnage for SWD, NAD, and LRD, respectively. Note that in each instance the Tonnage Mode under Preferences was set to Docked so as to get a better indication of cargo movements into, out of, and within each Division.
br style=clear:both /
br style=clear:both /
br style=clear:both /
Ranking of items with shoaling effects included
So far the examples presented in this guide have not included shoaling considerations, just to keep things straightforward while introducing the overall layout and functionality of CPT. However, for practical decision-support applications of CPT towards OM budget development, shoaling information needs to be included to help achieve rational allocation of funding. This section will describe how CPT can include shoaling considerations along with commerce data when ranking channels for maintenance dredge funding.
Explanation of Default Shoaling
Because controlling depths for the thousands of channel sub-reaches in the USACE navigation portfolio vary due to local hydraulic conditions, it is a significant information management challenge to include all of this data within comprehensive decision-support package for OM dredging. The CPT development plan calls for several mechanisms to be employed for inclusion of up to date shoaling conditions and channel limiting depths, including linkages to automated channel survey analysis packages, online historical datasets, and manual user upload of channel conditions via the CPT interface. Until these additions have been developed, CPT allows for inclusion of shoaling effects through use of a default shoaling parameter. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the default shoaling feature assumes a uniform shoaling rate across the entire grouping of selected channels (or Projects, Districts, etc.). The practical effect of employing this feature is that entities are now ranked in terms of the tons or $-value transiting at the deepest of maintained depths.
Interpretation of Rankings
To help demonstrate the effect of shoaling on the Rankings compiled by CPT, return to the Charleston Harbor, SC example used previously in Section 2. Use the Reach level analysis tab and select all of the sub-reaches in Charleston Harbor. Under the Preferences tab, uncheck the Ignore Shoaling box and set the Default Shoaling rate to 3 ft/yr by simply typing a “3” in the input box (do not enter units). Select only year 2007 to ensure consistency with the previous example, and save Preferences. The Rankings tab will reveal the table shown in Figure 50. Comparison of this table with that shown in Fig. 13 shows significant differences in the rankings once the focus is shifted to the deepest 3-ft of maintained depth in each channel.
br style=clear:both /
Another useful comparison to the previous example using Charleston Harbor is to generate .kml overlays for viewing in Google Earth. Use the default KML Settings under Preferences and export the Rankings table to KML. The resulting Google Earth view is shown in Fig. 51.
br style=clear:both /
It is very interesting to note that the Entrance Channel and other sub-reaches that were prominently shown in Fig. 18 when all cargo was included are now of secondary importance, in terms of tons transiting in the deepest 3 feet of maintained depth.
Using Details views to better understand final Rankings
Selection of the entry for Shipyard River in the Rankings table in Fig. 50, which carries roughly 1.8 million tons of cargo that would be disrupted by 3-ft of shoaling, will reveal the draft profile shown in Fig. 52.
br style=clear:both /