Crackle

Team 07
Mei Han | Runing Guan | Aditi Chintapalli | Shalika Neelaveni | Ilia Kheirkhah

Project Proposal
MEAM 4450/4460 - MEAM Senior Design
September 2023 - April 2024
Team Members

Faculty Advisor

2
 Table of Contents
Need and Background 2
Challenges 3
Existing Solutions 3
Proposed Solution 5
Advantages of the Proposed Solution 5
Solution Characteristics 7
Engineering Standards 8
Concept Selection/System Definition 9
Analysis 13
Power Consumption & Range 13
Mechanical Design & Manufacturing 15
Sensors & Data Processing 16
Sealant Deposit and Quality 18
Engineering Opportunities 19
Logistics 20
Timeline 20
Cost 21
Safety and Testing 21
References 23
 Need and Background

Airport runway deterioration, caused by regular use and environmental factors, leads to cracks
and other damage in both concrete and asphalt surfaces. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) categorizes necessary repairs into maintenance such as crack sealing, and more extensive
rehabilitation such as overlays. Maintenance actions, although vital for extending a runway's life,
often go unfunded in repair grants provided by the FAA, especially for smaller airports [1].
Therefore, there is a need for cost-effective maintenance of airport runways while they are still in
good operational condition, so as to save from extensive and expensive repairs necessary after
runways have reached critical deterioration. Airport runway maintenance and repair, particularly
in addressing these preliminary smaller runway cracks, is a critical aspect of ensuring the safety
and efficiency of aviation operations.

Figure 1: Airport Runway Maintenance Flow Chart Adapted from GAO Report

The repair process typically involves several steps, including crack detection, cleaning, and the
application of sealant, which collectively determine the repair duration and its effectiveness. On
average, the repair process can take several days, leading to prolonged runway closures and
substantial operational disruptions. To address runway cracks, engineers often utilize a range of
specialized tools, including crack sealants, wire brushes, and melter. The choice of sealant and its

2
application lifetime play a crucial role in the durability of the repair, impacting the overall
longevity and efficacy of the maintenance process.

Challenges
The high costs associated with runway crack repair primarily stem from the extensive labor
involved in manual repair methods. Furthermore, the necessity of prolonged runway closures and
the dependence on specialized equipment contribute significantly to the financial burden. While
raw material costs do play a role, labor expenses and equipment operation are the primary cost
drivers in this process. The following is a breakdown of the cost of sealing cracks for highways,
based on Mazumder, et al. [2], which can be applied to airport runways as well:

Material Cost
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑆𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦 = 15, 444. 58 𝑓𝑡
2
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 = (0. 12 𝑖𝑛 × 0. 25 𝑖𝑛) = 0. 03 𝑖𝑛
2
(
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 (1 𝑓𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘) = 1 𝑓𝑡 × 0. 03/144 𝑓𝑡 ) = 0. 000208 𝑓𝑡3
3
𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 (15% 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒) = 0. 15 × (73. 31 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡 × 0. 000208)
= 0. 01748 𝑙𝑏/𝑓𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘
𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = $0. 68/𝑙𝑏
𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦 = 15, 444. 58 × 0. 01748 × 0. 68 = $183. 60
Labor Cost
# 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 4
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑟 = $22
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = ($22/ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 × 4) × 8 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = $704
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘 & 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦 = $250
𝐻𝑜𝑡 𝑀𝑒𝑙𝑡 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦 = $380

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦 = $183. 60 + $704 + $250 + $380 = $1517

% of Total Cost Spent on Labor = 87.90%

The impact of weather conditions, including thermal expansion and contraction, directly affects
the maintenance and repair of runways. Adverse weather can further exacerbate safety concerns,
particularly when workers are exposed to extreme temperatures or adverse weather conditions
during the repair process.

Existing Solutions
In the current landscape, the industry relies predominantly on manual solutions when fixing
runway cracks. When researching existing autonomous or semi-autonomous solutions, two
products stood out: the Robotic Maintenance Vehicle (RMV) and Minimelter. RMV is a large

3
robotic arm that automates most aspects of crack fixing (see Figure 2), reducing the need for
extensive manual labor. Minimelter, on the other hand, offers a budget-friendly alternative,
although its manual operation limits its efficiency in addressing some challenges (see Figure 3).
When it comes to autonomous crack-fixing robots, it seems that RMV occupies a significant
portion of the market. However, it is important to note that other solutions, potentially leveraging
varying degrees of automation and specialized repair techniques, may exist but have not been
explicitly addressed in this context.

Figure 2: Robot Maintenance Vehicle (RMV)

The Robotic Maintenance Vehicle (RMV) represents a significant advancement in runway

maintenance technology, by SealMaster. It is designed to minimize the need for manual
intervention, streamlining the repair process and reducing labor costs [3]. However, its
substantial size and complex design render it a significant financial investment for airports.
While its automated functionalities contribute to reducing the overall repair duration, the initial
investment required for implementing RMV can be substantial, posing a challenge for airports
with limited budgets. Despite its potential to optimize certain aspects of runway crack repairs,
the high initial investment required for RMV remains a notable consideration for airports looking
to upgrade their maintenance infrastructure.

4
 Figure 3: Minimelter by Crafco Inc.

Minimelter provides a budget-friendly option for airports seeking to minimize maintenance

costs. However, it requires complete manual operation, which can limit its efficiency in
addressing complex repair tasks and extending its overall repair duration [4]. The absence of
automated functionalities and adaptability to diverse weather conditions poses challenges for
achieving comprehensive and streamlined runway maintenance. While Minimelter offers a
financially viable solution for airports with budget constraints, its reliance on manual operation
highlights the need for more advanced and automated alternatives to ensure efficient and
effective runway maintenance and repair.

Proposed Solution
Our proposed solution distinguishes itself by significantly reducing labor costs through
streamlined autonomous operations, effectively minimizing the number of workers needed and
the duration of their involvement in the repair process. By eliminating the need for direct sealant
contact, our solution prioritizes the health and safety of the workforce, ensuring a secure and
hazard-free work environment. Moreover, its adaptability to diverse weather conditions
guarantees consistent and efficient operations, further reducing the overall operational costs
associated with runway crack repairs.

Advantages of the Proposed Solution

The integration of autonomous functionality not only optimizes labor utilization but also
minimizes the duration of runway closures, ensuring seamless and uninterrupted airport
operations. By significantly reducing the number of workers required and their exposure to
potential hazards, our solution effectively reduces labor costs and enhances the overall safety

5
standards in the repair process. Furthermore, its adaptability to diverse weather conditions
guarantees consistent and timely repairs, ultimately leading to a reduction in operational costs
and an increase in overall runway safety and efficiency. Additionally, our proposed solution has
been designed with portability in mind. Its portability makes it cost-effective and user-friendly,
offering airports an economically viable option for efficient and effective runway maintenance
and repair, even in budget-constrained situations.

In light of the challenges posed by current manual/traditional methods and the limitations of
RMV and Minimelter in runway crack repairs, the pressing need for an efficient, cost-effective,
and safe solution is evident. By prioritizing reduced labor costs, minimized downtime, and
enhanced safety measures, our proposed solution stands as a transformative step toward
streamlining the runway maintenance process, ensuring sustainable and secure aviation
operations for years to come.

6
 Solution Characteristics

The stakeholders provided solution characteristics based on the need in the industry, and include
the following: minimizing operational/setup time, saving labor costs, and fixing cracks
effectively.

Airport runways are highly maintained areas. Cracks are consistently monitored at airports using
the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Once the cracks reach a certain threshold PCI, workers are
called to repair these cracks. However, the time spent with manual labor and other existing
solutions in closing the runways, waiting for a crew to be brought in, and setting up the
equipment adds up and leads to more money lost by these airports. Therefore, this solution must
mitigate the operational/setup time to prevent the bottleneck in the repair process.

Furthermore, the labor itself is quite expensive. Where the material costs are relatively fixed in
the road repair industry, labor costs vary more, but make up a majority of the total overall
spending for road repair. By minimizing the need for trained laborers to conduct manual road
repair, an autonomous system would save significantly.

Finally, the proposed system must be able to fix cracks cheaply, but also effectively. Cracks pose
potential problems in airport runways, as the debris found around the cracks can be sucked into
airplane engines and can cause even more expensive airplane repairs. Temperature cycling
cracks, or those caused by thermal fatigue, are the most common on runways and can produce
this debris. Thus, sealing these cracks properly, in accordance with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) guidelines on crack repair for this type of crack.

7
 Engineering Standards

The FAA has specified guidelines for repairing cracks, which the proposed solution must follow.
The weather/temperature requirements are as follows [5]:
● Do not begin crack repair during inclement weather.
● The pavement temperature should be 50°F (10°C) and rise or meet the manufacturer’s
recommendations at the time of application of the crack sealing material.
● Do not apply sealant if moisture is observed in the crack.

To choose sealant in preparation:

● Consider your geographic area, climate, and past performance of the sealant
● Hot-applied sealants must meet the requirements of ASTM D6690 (Standard
Specification for Joint and Crack Sealants, Hot Applied, for Concrete and Asphalt
Pavements) [6]
● Cold-applied sealants must meet the requirements of ASTM D977 (Standard
Specification for Emulsified Asphalt) [7]

Finally, the repair procedure is extensive, including how to properly shutdown the runways,
cleaning the cracks, and inspecting the crack dimensions. Then, the actual repair can occur:
● Apply the sealant uniformly from the bottom to the top of the crack avoiding voids or
entrapping air.
● Make sure the surface of the sealant remains ¼ inch to ⅜ inch (6 mm to 9 mm) below the
existing pavement surface. [8]
● Do not allow traffic until the sealants have cured.
● Completely clean the work area before opening to aircraft traffic.

8
 Concept Selection/System Definition

To identify a gap our project needed to fill, we began by making 2x2 of existing solutions based
on stakeholder feedback. Along one axis, there was seal quality. On the other axis, is the cost.
There exists high cost, high seal quality methods such as a large robotic arm which, when driven
near cracks seals them near perfectly. This method has a very high seal quality but comes at a
large upfront cost when buying the robot arm and attaching it to a vehicle. This is not even
considering the maintenance costs associated with such a large mechanism. On the other end,
there are low cost but low seal quality solutions such as cold pour solutions which are more often
a temporary solution to delay the problem until a hot pour solution can be executed. Cold-pour
solutions are sealants that do not need to be heated to be fluid enough to be applied and conform
to a crack shape. This is in contrast to hot pour systems, which need to be heated but provide a
significantly higher crack quality due to the larger set of materials that can be used.

The high-cost, low-seal quality area was identified as the “no-go zone”. For the same cost, a
consumer could get a significantly better solution if one were to enter this zone. However, the
high-seal quality, low-cost zone was an area of opportunity. As can be seen in Figure 4, no
existing solution fills the high-quality, low-cost environment.

In the context of airports, having a high seal quality is vital to ensuring vehicles have a clean
landing. In addition, downtime, which feedholders accounted for as the primary cost, needs to be
minimized to allow for the continuous flow of air traffic. This project would allow for cheap and
fast repairs of cracks while maintaining a relatively low cost.

Figure 4: Existing Solution 2x2 for Opportunity Search

9
Stakeholder feedback and the 2x2 shown drove the Crackle to be envisioned as an autonomous
crack-fixing robot. As a comparison, take the mini-melter, which is essentially a wagon of
sealant one pushes around to fill cracks. Since the is still operated by people who must then be
out in potentially harsh weather conditions. This increases the operating costs for very little
increase of crack sealing quality.

To improve this system, sensors can be used to provide automation, removing the need for major
human operations. This would improve seal consistency along with reducing operating costs. To
accomplish this, we came up with the design shown in Figure 5 after several rounds of individual
and group brainstorming. Key features include treads to allow us to follow complex cracks, an
agitator to keep the sealant from settling and providing heat, a nozzle for deposition, and depth
sensors for crack following. These systems would allow for the robot to autonomously follow
cracks, deposit the sealant, and then scrape to ensure an even surface. We hope that the simplicity
of this design will provide significant cost savings when compared to other solutions. However,
by taking advantage of sensors we can still provide high-quality crack filling.

Figure 5: System Preliminary Design

To determine the effectiveness of the Crackle, a weighted decision matrix was used to
quantitatively compare six different solution characteristics: Sealant Supply, Heating System,
Crack Sensing, Power, Cost, and Seal Quality. Each score was multiplied by its respective weight

10
and summed to give a total score for each solution. A higher score in any category means a more
ideal solution. “Sealant Supply” is measured on the ease of which it is easy to obtain and pour
the sealant. “Heating System” is measured on the ease of supplying heat to the sealant in the
system. “Crack Sensing” is measured by the accuracy and ability of the system to follow a crack.
“Operation” is given by the type of operator. Human operation is given a lower score compared
to autonomous systems. In this case, the lowest value is given to human-powered solutions while
higher values are given to electric and gas-powered systems. “Cost” is measured by how
expensive a given solution is, with cheaper solutions being given higher scores. Finally, “Seal
Quality” measures how good of a seal the solution provides based on stakeholder standards such
as flatness and uniformity.

Table 1: Decision Matrix

Subsystem Weight Cold Pour Manual Mini Robotic Crackle

Hot Pour Melter Arm

Sealant Supply 1x 5 4 3 4 3

Heating System 1x 5 4 2 4 2

Crack Sensing 1x 1 1 1 5 4

Operation 2x 1 1 1 3 3

Cost 3x 5 3 3 1 4

Seal Quality 3x 1 4 4 5 5

Total: 31 32 29 37 42

Looking at Table 1, each row shows a comparison of each system. The first row is the Sealant
supply. Cold Pour has the simplest storage, as it can often be stored in plastic containers. On the
other hand, manual hot pour and the robotic arm systems that we have seen use external storage.
Although this is still difficult, the supply system can be independent of the sealing mechanism.
Due to the autonomous nature of Crackle, an internal storage and supply system was necessary.
This system can be similar to established systems but must be carried on board, reducing the
score. Similar logic was used for the heating system. However, in addition to requiring an
onboard heating system, the Crackle score was further reduced due to the power requirement in
the form of either combustion gasses or a larger battery for electric heating.
Next, we have the two systems of crack sensing and operation. The Crack Sensing system for
most systems is a human who is responsible for flowing the crack. However, the removal of

11
people from these environments is one goal, so all of these solutions have the lowest possible
score in crack sensing. On the other hand, the Robotic arm solution would be able to follow any
crack propagation using computer vision. The Crooma will make use of depth sensors, removing
the need for complex computer vision and machine learning systems. This will allow for a
simpler implementation that will allow for single crack following. On the other hand, the
operation system determines how involved people are in the execution process. Just as before,
since people do most of the work in most established methods, they are provided the lowest
score. However, the Crackle only requires individuals to place the machine at the start of the
crack. After that point, it will follow the crack and finish it to completion. This means that people
are only involved in the deployment and removal of the Crackle . On the other hand, the robotic
arm system only requires people to drive it around, sufficiently slowly, over the cracks.

The final two systems, and the ones shareholders care the most about, are the cost and seal
quality. Since cold pour is the cheapest to purchase and requires fairly little operational cost, it is
given the highest score. On the other end of the spectrum, the robotic arm which requires a large
upfront cost is at the bottom of the cost score. In between, we have the other solutions. Manual
sealing and the mini-melter both require human operation in risky environments. This gives the
cost up. However, the Crackle would solve this by removing people from the bulk of the process.
This would allow us to achieve near-cold-pour costs while maintaining a high seal quality. The
seal quality across most other systems is fairly consistent due to the inclusion of human error.
The major outliers are the Robotic Arm, which takes advantage of sensors to achieve a higher
seal quality which we hope to emulate, and Cold pour, which does not have the longevity of hot
pour systems.

Upon a numeric comparison of all of these systems, it is clear that Crackle has the best solution.
This can be seen in the Crackle’s highest score after weighting is applied. Given the analysis so
far, the gap in the market that Crackle fills has been identified in both a qualitative and
quantitative approach. To be explicit with the goals of this project, the primary system
characteristics identified by stakeholders encompass effectively filling cracks while decreasing
the labor costs associated with manually fixing these cracks by decreasing the set-up and
operation time and the number of people required to operate this product. In the next section, a
deeper analysis of the engineering feasibility of this project will be done.

12
 Analysis

The effectiveness and feasibility of our project hinges on four key areas. Power Consumption &
Range, Mechanical Design & Manufacturing, Sensors & Data Processing, and Sealant Deposit &
Quality. The sections below will expand upon each section in detail to demonstrate that the
Crackle will be able to efficiently navigate across airport runways, detect cracks, and apply
sealant supported by a carefully selected power source.

Power Consumption & Range

We have identified power consumption and range as critical factors for ensuring uninterrupted
and efficient performance. The robot must have the power capacity to traverse across airport
runways and apply sealant across the entirety of a crack system. We estimate that the robot will
need to have an operational runtime of an hour and be able to travel up and back over an average
stretch of runway. To be conservative, we will use the Boeing 737-900 as our model aircraft even
though it exceeds our anticipated runway capacity. This aircraft requires a takeoff runway of
about 3000 meters under standard conditions [9]. To determine an adequate power source, and as
an extension, the estimated range of the robot, we will use a series of energy calculations.

First, we will make an initial weight estimates:

Component Weight (kg) Weight (lb)

Chassis / mobile base including motors and treads/wheels 12 26.5

Above-chassis structural components 5 11

Sealant tank 7 15

Block of sealant 12 26

Agitator components 4 9

Heating element 10 22

Battery 7 15

Sensors, wires, small actuators, microcontrollers, circuits and 2 4.5

their mounts

TOTAL 59 130

13
Now, we calculate the energy required for the motors to move the robot for an hour. We use the
following assumptions:

µ = 0. 5
2
𝑎𝑖 = 0. 2 𝑚/𝑠
η = 0. 8
𝑣𝑑 = 1 𝑚/𝑠

Where µ is the coefficient of friction of the robot wheels on the pavement surface, 𝑎𝑖 is the initial
acceleration requirement of the robot, η is the motor efficiency, and 𝑣𝑑 is the desired velocity of
the robot. The force of friction is calculated to be:
2
𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = µ𝑚𝑔 = (0. 5)(59𝑘𝑔)(9. 81𝑚/𝑠 ) = 289. 4 𝑁 (1)

We now calculate the total force required for movement of the robot to be:

𝐹𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎 = 289. 4 𝑁 + 59𝑘𝑔 × 0. 2 𝑚/𝑠

2
= 301. 2 𝑁 (2)

Now for the desired velocity to be 𝑣𝑑 = 1 𝑚/𝑠, we can calculate mechanical and electrical
power and the energy required for one hour of operation:
𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ = 𝐹𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 × 𝑣𝑑 = 301. 2 𝑁 × 1 𝑚/𝑠 = 301. 2 𝑊 (3)

𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 = 𝑃𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ / η = 301. 2 𝑊 / 0. 8 = 376. 5 𝑊 (4)

𝐸𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 = 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 × 𝑡 = 376. 5 𝑊 × 3600 𝑠𝑒𝑐 = 1355 𝑘𝐽 (5)

Factoring in the additional energy consumption of sensors and microcontrollers, we can calculate
the total energy requirement:
𝐸𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝐸𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 + 𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1355 𝑘𝐽 + 100𝑘𝐽 = 1455 𝑘𝐽 ≈ 400 𝑊ℎ (6)

With a rough power estimate of 400 Wh, we can select a feasible battery to use, such as an
electric bike battery like the one linked here which has a rated capacity of 740 Wh. Using this
battery as an example, we can calculate estimated operating range and distance covered by our
robot.
𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑊ℎ / 𝑅𝑜𝑏𝑜𝑡 𝑊ℎ = 740 𝑊ℎ / 400 𝑊ℎ = 1. 83 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 (7)

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑣𝑑 × 𝑡𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1 𝑚/𝑠 × 6660 𝑠𝑒𝑐 = 6660𝑚 (8)

This operating time and distance is within our needs for the robot to travel across airport runways
as stated previously.

14
Mechanical Design & Manufacturing
To make completion of our project more feasible, we have identified certain components that
will be purchased directly instead of manufactured by our team. For example, we will be
purchasing a robot chassis that will serve as a frame to attach the drivetrain, sealant tank, heating
element, and other electronic components. The drivetrain will also be purchased. With mobility
being a crucial aspect of our robot, we currently plan on utilizing a tracked drive with treads for
our drive system. This system was selected due to its stability, which is necessary for the
accuracy of the crack detection system and precision of sealant placement. In addition, the
tracked drive system allows us to utilize two motors instead of four while still maintaining
maneuverability and the capacity for zero-radius turns, which will be necessary for any trajectory
corrections for our robot.

The sealant tank will also be purchased, as tanks rated to contain heated fluids are accessible on
the market. This makes our role more a matter of identifying the proper geometry and size of the
tank. Reviewing the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) of an example sealant, the Crack Rite PL 500, we
can calculate the estimated space that each sealant block will take up once heated using the listed
specifications. The specific gravity of the sealant is provided in the as a range from 1.05 to 1.9.
Since the density of water at 4°C (39°F) is approximately 8.34 pounds per gallon, we can
calculate the density of the sealant by multiplying the specific gravity by the density of water.
ρ1.05 = 1. 05 × 8. 34 𝑙𝑏𝑠/𝑔𝑎𝑙 = 8. 757 𝑙𝑏𝑠/𝑔𝑎𝑙 (9)

With the weight of a sealant block known to be 25 pounds, we can calculate the maximum
volume it would occupy using the minimum density previously calculated.
​
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 25 𝑙𝑏𝑠 /8. 747 𝑙𝑏𝑠/𝑔𝑎𝑙 = 2. 85 𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑠 (10)

Thus, taking into consideration possible thermal expansion of the sealant, we will aim to
purchase a heated tank of at least 4 gallons capacity with clearance to fit the sealant block.

The remaining components that will not be purchased, such as custom supports or brackets, will
be manufactured by our team at the Precision Machining Laboratory at the University of
Pennsylvania. We plan on machining these components out of aluminum, as it is lightweight,
accessible to purchase, and relatively straightforward to machine.

15
Sensors & Data Processing
In assessing the practicality of sensing technologies for our pavement crack detection and repair
robot, we have explored a range of solutions currently used in the evaluation of pavement
condition indices (PCI). These include computer vision for image-based analysis, infrared
thermography for detecting temperature variations indicative of cracks, LiDAR profilometers for
high-resolution surface profiling, and depth sensors for measurements of surface and crack
geometry. Each solution presents a unique set of advantages and challenges, as listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of Sensor Technologies for Crack Detection

Sensor Technology Advantages Disadvantages

LiDAR ● Extremely high ● High cost

accuracy in measuring
topology
● Data feedback in
nanoseconds
● Low cost when scaled
to large areas
● Technologically more
challenging to install and
requires experience to
operate

Infrared ● Can process data over a ● May not be able to detect

Thermography large coverage area thinner cracks
quickly ● Can be influenced by
● Works in all lighting temperature / weather
conditions conditions
● High computational load
from processing thermal
images

Depth Sensors ● Accurately measure ● Narrow forward-facing field

depth in small - medium
sized target zones
● Relatively fast and not
computationally
intensive
of view, can only scan area
directly below mounting
position
● May have “fan-out” effect
that will make it difficult to
detect cracks

Computer Vision ● Can reliability process ● Performance can degrade in

data to identify a variety
of cracks (longitudinal,
alligator, block) with
large coverage area
● Relatively low cost
poor lighting conditions
● More complex training setup
and high computational load

16
For instance, computer vision is adept at processing visual cues, but may struggle under variable
lighting conditions and is computationally intensive. Infrared thermography is useful for its
speed and large coverage area, but its effectiveness is influenced by crack size and ambient
temperature. LiDAR offers unparalleled precision in surface profiling, though at a higher cost
and complexity. Depth sensors provide accurate range measurements quickly but can be limited
in their precision.

For our autonomous robot, we have chosen to integrate a hybrid sensing system that combines
depth sensors with infrared thermography. This combination leverages the high-resolution
ranging capabilities of depth sensing in conjunction with the comprehensive surface mapping
capabilities of thermography [10]. This combination will be ideal for our robot to quickly detect
and precisely deposit sealant along cracks, as well as identify and adapt to changes in direction
of the cracks as they bifurcate.

This decision aligns with the Federal Aviation Administrations’ Guidelines and Procedures for
Maintenance of Airport Pavements which state that direct crack sealing processes are to be used
to repair cracks less than 1 inch in width [5]. Given this limit, our robot will aim to target cracks
between ⅛ and 1 inch in width which is within the capabilities of our selected sensor solutions.

Given the computational demands of processing sensor data in real-time, we are designing our
system to optimize data throughput and algorithm efficiency, ensuring the robot can detect and
initiate sealant application without delay. To guarantee robust performance, we will test our
sensors across a spectrum of operational conditions, simulating a variety of road environments to
refine detection algorithms and enhance reliability.

Figure 6: Top down schematic of robot with sensors

17
Sealant Deposit and Quality
There are three main steps in hot pour crack sealing: heating up the solid sealant, depositing
sealant on the crack, and scraping the sealant to create a flat surface. The quality of the seal
requires all three steps to be performed correctly.

The sealant must be heated up to and maintained at between 300 °F and 400 °F for optimal
viscosity and material properties. If the temperature is too far below this range, the sealant will
not be viscous enough to pour smoothly. If the temperature is too far above this range, the sealant
will lose some of its integrity and lead to a bad quality seal [8].

Achieving the optimal mass flow rate of sealant is a critical component in the quality of the seal.
With manual crack sealing, this is achieved by moving the nozzle faster or slower over the crack.
We plan to replicate this process with our robot. As the sensors detect the crack, the robot will
either move faster or slower depending on the depth of the crack. In terms of the nozzle size, we
plan on doing preliminary deposit tests using 3D printed nozzles and a viscous fluid like glue or
glycerin. This will allow us to determine which nozzle size would be optimal for our application.

Once the sealant is deposited in the crack, the excess must be scraped away. This is generally
done with a metal v-shaped scraper that moves along with the nozzle. We plan on incorporating a
similar mechanism in our project. Once it is flattened, the sealant generally cures in 15-30
minutes after it is deposited. After proper application of the sealant, the crack remains sealed for
3-4 years.

18
 Engineering Opportunities

Our project involves the integration of two main systems: the crack following robot and the
sealant depositing system. These subsystems on their own, as well as their integration provide a
variety of design and engineering opportunities for our project.

Within the crack following sub-system, there are a variety of robotics and sensing related
opportunities, as outlined in the previous section. This will require that we calibrate and test the
depth sensors to work for our specific application. In addition, we will need to control the motors
on the chassis to navigate the robot along the crack path.

The sealant depositing system has various design, fluids, and thermal opportunities. We will have
to consider the viscosity and flow properties of the sealant to figure out the needed sizes for
piping and design the nozzle. The design of the nozzle will also dictate the flow rate of the
sealant into the cracks which will be important to consider for optimal crack sealing. We will
also need to design an agitating system for the sealant reservoir so the sealant can remain
homogeneous after it is melted. In addition, we will need to build a system to heat the sealant to
roughly 300 F so that it can melt and reach the optimal viscosity to be deposited in the cracks.
Designing the heating system will involve heat transfer calculations, coil selection for the
optimal heating of our system, and mass flow rate. In addition, the heating system will also have
many power management challenges to manage a high power draw from the coils.

There are various materials and design considerations within components selection and
integration of systems in our project. We will have to choose heat compatible materials for the
majority of our components due to their close proximity to the heated sealant tank. In addition,
we will need to cover all our electronic components with insulating materials/enclosures so they
don’t get damaged. We will need to consider the specific material properties of runway asphalt
and select the correct sealant with compatible properties. Every sealant has a temperature
threshold that it cannot be heated beyond without a breakdown of its material properties. We will
need to select a material and design for the scraper that will be able to withstand the longitudinal
force and heat of scraping the excess sealant after it is deposited on the crack.

19
 Logistics
Timeline
Our team is composed of 5 mechanical engineers, we believe that we collectively have the
necessary skills to complete our project in the given timeframe. We have split up the tasks for
our project based on the skill sets and interests of our team members. Aditi and Ilia will be
responsible for the sealant depositing system. Ning and Mei will be responsible for the crack
following the robot. Shalika will be responsible for the integration of the two systems. The
Crackle project is split up into four sections: the crack following robot, sealant deposition
system, subsystem integration, and testing (shown in our Gantt chart in Figure 7).

The development of the crack following robot and sealant deposition system will happen in
parallel, as they both do not have many intertwined components initially. Once both systems are
functional on their own, they must be integrated and tested. We plan to have the most
challenging problems for both of our main subsystems solved by mid-December. For the crack
following robot, this entails constructing a crack detection system. For the sealant depositing
system, this involves fleshing out the necessary heating elements and power source. Once the
respective most challenging problems for each subsystem are solved, we will move into building
out the subsystems late January - early February. Then, we will spend the rest of February/March
integrating the two subsystems. Lastly, we anticipate it will take significant time for interactive
testing of the fully integrated system, so we plan on starting that as early as possible. This
timeline sets us up to be prepared to present a functional prototype at Senior Design Day in
April.

Figure 7: Gantt Chart

20
Cost
Our project will be quite cost intensive as we will be purchasing various fundamental
components to be compatible with the timeline of our project as well as the fabrication
capabilities we have in house. As such, to aid with the MEAM department budget and provide us
with a buffer for our project we have applied for the Berkman fund (still awaiting response).
There are also other Penn resources that we plan on applying for as we progress with our project,
such as the Wharton Innovation Fund and the M&T fund.

Current Funding Sources:

MEAM Department - $2400

Category Itemized List Total Cost

Crack Following Robot Basic Steel Frame/Chassis: $800 $1500

Drivetrain Components: $500
Electronics: $200

Sealant Deposit System Metal Tank: $40 $500

Heating Elements (Coils): $100
Piping/Nozzle: $50
Thermal Tape: $10
Agitator Assembly: $300

Fabrication and Assembly Tank Frame/Supports: $150 $300

Enclosures, Fixtures, and Mounts: $150

Testing and Validation Crack Sealant for Testing: $100 $100

Total Budget $2400

Safety and Testing

As our project involves a heating component and many moving parts, prioritizing safety will be
crucial to our success. The most critical aspect in terms of potential hazards is a heated sealant
tank. The metallic sealant tank will be heated with external coils and reach around 300 F to melt
the sealant. We will need to take proper safety precautions during the construction and testing of
this system. The fumes from melting sealant are potentially hazardous, so all sealant melt tests
will have to be outdoors. For the final testing of our project, one of our stakeholders, who works
at an FAA Airport Pavement Test Facility, has offered to let us test our robot on site. For
preliminary testing of our system, we plan on using blocks of wax so that we can simulate
melting of a solid block into liquid state and depositing, but at a lower melting point.

21
The crack following robot also has risks that will be important to consider during construction
and testing. Our robot will have a high temperature payload, multiple motors, electronic
components, and a battery. We will have to be very meticulous in our mechanical design,
fabrication, and testing to mitigate the potential risks.

22
 References

[1] U. S. G. A. Office, “Airfield Pavement: Keeping Nation’s Runways in Good Condition

Could Require Substantially Higher Spending | U.S. GAO,” Jul. 1998. Available:
https://www.gao.gov/products/rced-98-226

[2] M. Mazumder, H. H. Kim, S.-J. Lee, and M.-S. Lee, “Cost effectiveness of crack
treatment methods: A field study,” Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English
Edition), vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 598–607, Dec. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2018.01.010.

[3] “RMV | Robotic Crack Sealer,” rmv.llc. https://rmv.llc/

[4] “Mini Melter 10,” Crafco, Inc.

https://shopcrafco.com/products/melter-10-gallon-df-mini-mel

[5] “AC 150/5380-6C - Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements,”
Federal Aviation Administration, Oct. 2014. Available:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information
/documentID/1026067

[6] Standard Specification for Joint and Crack Sealants, Hot Applied, for Concrete and
Asphalt Pavements. ASTM, 2021. Available: https://www.astm.org/d6690-21.html

[7] Standard Specification for Emulsified Asphalt. ASTM, 2020. Available:

https://www.astm.org/d0977-20.html

[8] Y. Yildirim, A. Qatan, and J. Prozzi, “Field Manual for Crack Sealing in Asphalt
Pavements Comparison of Hot-Poured Crack Sealant to Emulsified Asphalt Crack Sealant,”
2006. Available: https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/0_4061_P3.pdf

[9] “AC 150/5325-4B - Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design ,” Federal Aviation
Administration , Oct. 2014. Available:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/docu
mentNumber/150_5325-4

[10] A. J. Golrokh, X. Gu, and Y. Lu, “Real-Time Thermal Imaging-Based System for Asphalt
Pavement Surface Distress Inspection and 3D Crack Profiling,” Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 04020143, Feb. 2021, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0001557.

23
24