Engineered water repellency (EWR) using organosilanes provides a promising approach for mitigating frost heave by preventing ice lens formation. This study evaluates the environmental and economic impacts of typical flexible pavement structures used in Minnesota, as well as three EWR-treated variants. Primary data for the life cycle assessment (LCA) were collected from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Minnesota Road Research Facility and analyzed with the Federal Highway Administration LCA PAVE tool. The life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was performed with the MnDOT tool to calculate the net present value per the ISO 15686-5 standard. The MnDOT soil replacement method (SRM) with EWR emerged as the most sustainable and cost-effective, showing a 23% reduction in global warming potential compared with the traditional SRM. The primary sources of emissions and expenses were hot mix asphalt activities, accounting for 58%–71% of the total. The LCA contributed less than 8% to the overall integrated cost, underscoring the predominance of LCCA in decision-making. Further field evaluations are recommended to confirm the long-term performance of EWR technologies and to optimize their integration into pavement design.
PetersonR. A.KrantzW. B.A Mechanism for Differential Frost Heave and Its Implications for Patterned-Ground Formation. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 49, No. 164, 2003, pp. 69–80.
2.
ZubeckH. K.DoréG.Cold Regions Pavement Engineering, McGraw-Hill Professional and ASCE Press, Reston, VA, 2009.
3.
SalourF.ErlingssonS.Pavement Structural Behaviour During Spring Thaw, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, Sweden, 2012.
4.
JanooV. C.Performance of Base/Subbase Materials under Frost Action. In Cold Regions Engineering: Cold Regions Impacts on Transportation and Infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers, Anchorage, AK, 2002, pp. 299–310.
5.
OvikJ. M.BirgissonB.NewcombD. E.Characterizing Seasonal Variations in Pavement Material Properties for Use in a Mechanistic-Empirical Design Procedure, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research Services, St. Paul, MN, 2000.
6.
SaarelainenS.GustavssonH.Thaw Weakening of Subgrades in Finland. In International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, CRC Press, Istanbul, Turkey, 2001, pp. 2183–2186.
WhiteT. D.CoreeB. J.Threshold Pavement Thickness to Survive Spring Thaw. In In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Tapir Publishers, Trondheim, Norway, Vol. 1–2, 1990, pp. 41–51.
9.
DoréG.SavardY.Analysis of Seasonal Pavement Deterioration. In Proc., 77th Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., TRB Publication, 11–15 January 1998.
10.
ZhangW.MacdonaldR. A.The Danish Road Testing Machine 1995–2000. In International Conference on Accelerated Pavement Testing by Road Directorate, Danish Road Institute, Roskilde, Denmark, 1999.
11.
St-LaurentD.RoyM.Evaluation structurale de chaussees souples dans un contexte climatique nordique, Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada, 1995.
12.
OmanM. S.LundN. G.IntertecB.Designing Base and Subbase to Resist Environmental Effects on Pavements. No. MN/RC 2018-06. Department of Transportation, Research Services & Library, Saint Paul, MN, 2018.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Pavement Criteria for Seasonal Frost Conditions. EM 1110-3-138, Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1984.
15.
MnDOT. MnDOT Pavement Design Manual Chapter 4: HMA (Hot-Mix Asphalt), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, 2019.
16.
ChristopherB. R.SchwartzC. W.BoudreauxR.Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements. No. FHWA-NHI-05-037, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2006.
BarmanM.DufallaN.LiZ.MuF.VandenbosscheJ. M.Development of a Rational Mechanistic-Empirical Based Design Guide for Thin and Ultra-Thin Whitetopping. Prepared for: FHWA Pooled Fund Project: TPF-5-165. Climatic Considerations University of Pittsburgh, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA, 2013.
19.
ASTM D2487-17. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes. Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
20.
ASTM International. ASTM, D3282 − 24: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. American Society for Testing & Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2024.
21.
AASHTO M145. AASHTO M145: AASHTO Soil Classification System, American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2021.
22.
U.S. Army. Soils and Geology: Pavement Design for Frost Conditions, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1965.
23.
MnDOT. MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction, 2020 edition, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, Volume 1, 2020.
24.
MnDOT. MnDOT Pavement Design Manual: Chapter 3: Pavement Subsurface, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, 2019.
25.
MnDOT. MnDOT Pavement Design Manual: Chapter 7: Project-Type Selection. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, 2019.
26.
WallsM. S. J.III. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design: In Search of Better Investment Decisions. FHWA-SA-98-079. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1998.
27.
RennertK.ErricksonF.PrestB. C.RennelsL.NewellR. G.PizerW.KingdonC.WingenrothJ.CookeR.ParthumB.SmithD.CromarK.DiazD.MooreF. C.MüllerU. K.PlevinR. J.RafteryA. E.SevčíkováH.SheetsH.StockJ. H.TanT.WatsonM.WongT. E.AnthoffD.Comprehensive Evidence Implies a Higher Social Cost of CO2. Nature, Vol. 610, No. 7933, 2022, pp. 687–692.
