Skip to content

Failure Criteria Example

Reviewed by licensed engineers

Checked against its sources by licensed professional engineers on the previous site, where reviewers weren’t recorded by name.

How articles are reviewed

Results from a mechanistic pavement analysis are compared to empirically derived failure models to determine pavement life (in terms of loads to failure) and the controlling failure mechanism. In this example, various thicknesses of HMA were plotted against the computed number of repetitions to failure for 150 mm (6 in.), 250 mm (10 in.), and 350 mm (14 in.) thick granular bases (see Figures 1 – 3). The controlling criterion in the design is the one requiring a greater thickness of surface material for a given traffic level. Keep in mind that these charts were developed holding the material properties constant; they are not to be used in actual design.

The pavement designs resulting from three traffic levels (the arrows in the graphs) are given in Table 1. In this table, the resulting thickness of asphalt concrete was rounded to the nearest 12.5 mm (0.5 in.), and the assumed minimum thickness of the HMA layer was 50 mm (2 in.). Note that the rutting criterion controlled the design in all cases except those involving the thicker two pavement sections at 2,000,000 load repetitions. The choice of which of the three equivalent pavement designs to use at any of the traffic levels would depend on a life-cycle cost analysis. Finally, for the 2 million load repetitions, the granular base thickness has less impact on HMA thickness.

Design chart of example pavement (150 mm (6 in.) base)
Figure 1. Design chart of example pavement (150 mm (6 in.) base).
Design chart of example pavement (250 mm (10 in.) base)
Figure 2. Design chart of example pavement (250 mm (10 in.) base).
Design chart of example pavement (350 mm (14 in.) base)
Figure 3. Design chart of example pavement (350 mm (14 in.) base).
Table 1.
9,000 lb (40 kN) Wheel LoadsBase ThicknessHMA ThicknessControlling Criterion
in.mmin.mm
2 x 10⁴61504.0100Rutting
102502.560Rutting
143502.0*50Rutting
2 x 10⁵61506.0150Rutting
102505.0125Rutting
143503.590Rutting
2 x 10⁶61508.5210Rutting
102508.0200Fatigue
143507.5190Fatigue
*Assumed minimum thickness

Teaching this? Figures and worked examples are free to use with credit. Course reading lists

Cite this page

APA

Pavement Interactive. (2026, November 1). Failure criteria example. HeadLight. Retrieved [the date you read it], from https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/structural-design/failure-criteria-example/

ASCE

Pavement Interactive. (2026). “Failure Criteria Example.” HeadLight, <https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/structural-design/failure-criteria-example/> ([the date you read it]).

BibTeX

@misc{pavint-failure-criteria-example,
  author = {{Pavement Interactive}},
  title = {Failure Criteria Example},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {HeadLight},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/structural-design/failure-criteria-example/}},
  note = {Accessed [date]}
}
This address will not change. The citation records the date you read it.
Report an error

Reports go to the editors, who check them against the cited sources. Corrections are noted at the top of the article.

Only if you want a reply. It is not published.