International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

Analytical solutions for toppling failure

A. Bobet*
Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, 1284 Civil Engineering Building, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284, USA
Accepted 18 July 1999

1. Introduction
The toppling of rock slopes is often associated with
rock masses with traverse fractures which produce
blocks of dimension not negligible compared with the
slope size [1]. This type of failure is likely to occur for
all rock masses, including some hard soils, as long as
they are characterized by joint sets having the appropriate attitude (dip direction and dip). An example is
shown in Fig. 1, which is a photograph of toppled
schists in a slope in the Furka-Pass, Switzerland.
The stability analysis of toppling failure is based on
the limiting equilibrium approach. This approach considers the rotation of a block about some xed base
[24]. Numerical routines can be implemented in
which the forces acting in each block of the slope are
obtained. The slope stability is then ascertained by
determining the force necessary for equilibrium of the
block at the toe of the slope. More sophisticated numerical techniques such as the DEM (distinct element
method) can also be used [1,5].
These numerical techniques appear to give reasonable predictions for laboratory experiments and in
practice, but they can be computationally very
demanding. Slopes with a large number of blocks will
require a long computation, specially when searching
for a safe slope design since this usually requires a trial
and error approach. The close-form solutions presented in this paper can alleviate this problem. They
can be used as an alternative to numerical methods in
problems with large number of blocks, or as preliminary input for more sophisticated analyses.
The toppling mechanism considered is of `block toppling' type in 2D-plane conditions, i.e. the solutions
* Tel.: +1-765-494-5033; fax: +1-765-496-1364.
E-mail address: bobet@ecn.purdue.edu (A. Bobet).

are not applicable when spacing of discontinuities parallel to the section considered is small.

2. Formulation
There are numerous examples in the literature of
block toppling failure of large slopes in which the limit
of material disturbance (base plane) coincides with a
plane approximately normal to the weak, in-dipping
discontinuities, and passes approximately through the
toe of the slope, [3,611]. A similar interpretation is
possible for the toppling failure of the slope shown in
Fig. 1. This is the type of problem that will be
addressed in the following discussion.
Figure 2 shows the model for the analysis. The following list provides a description of all the variables
used:
a
F
g
gw
j
k
o
c
L
H
Pn
Qn
Rn
Sn
UlUr
Ub

1365-1609/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 9 0 6 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 5 9 - 5

Angle of the base plane (limit of toppling

failure) with the horizontal; 90-a dip of the
blocks
Friction angle of the in-dipping joint
Unit weight of the rock mass
Unit weight of water
Friction angle at the base of the block
Seepage coecient
Angle of the natural ground with the base
plane
Angle of the slope with the base plane
Slope length measured along the base plane
Slope height
Normal force at the block interface
Shear force at the block interface
Normal force at the base of the block
Shear force at the base of the block
Net seepage force at the block interfaces
Seepage force at the base of the block

972

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

Fig. 1. Toppling of schists. Furka-Pass, Switzerland. (Courtesy of H.H. Einstein, MIT).

Fig. 2. Model for toppling slope analysis.

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

973

Weight of the block

Abscissa
Abscissa of the intersection between the slope
and the ground
Block height

zone I can be written, by taking moments at point O,

as (Fig. 3(a)):

The slope is divided into two zones, I and II, which

are limited by the intersection of the cut slope with the
natural ground. In the present analysis it will be
assumed that the thickness of the blocks is very small
compared to a characteristic dimension of the slope
(i.e. failure involves a large number of blocks). With
this assumption, the problem can be solved as a continuous medium rather than as a discrete assemblage
of blocks. Fig. 3(a) shows a single block with all the
forces acting on it. The analysis is carried out through
the following steps:

where Pnt is the load that prevents toppling, and

dWn=gy dx; QInt=PInttan F; dQInt=dPInttan F.
The height of the blocks can be expressed as:
y=x tan o; dy = dx tan o.
Substituting these expressions into (1), one gets


tan F dx 1
I
I
g sin a tan o x dx 0
dPnt Pnt 1
tan o
x
2
(2)

Wn
x
xo
y

1. Find the force PInt required to prevent toppling of

the last block of zone I.
2. Find the force PIns required to prevent sliding of the
last block of zone I.
3. The maximum of PInt and PIns is the force acting on
the rst block of zone II.
4. The maximum of PII
nt (the force required to prevent
toppling of the last block of zone II) and PII
ns (the
force required to prevent sliding of the last block of
zone II) is the force required at the toe of the slope
to achieve equilibrium.
5. Find the angle c for which the slope is stable (i.e.
the force at the toe of the slope is zero).
Following the work of Hoek and Bray [2] and
Aydan et al. [3], the toppling equilibrium of a block in

PInt y dy QInt dx

PInt

dPInt y

1
2

dWn sin a y 12 dWn cosa dx

(1)

0,

which is the dierential equation for toppling failure.

Equation (2), with the boundary condition PInt=0
for x = 0, results in
PInt

1
tan o
g sin a
x2
2
3 tan F=tan o

Sliding equilibrium of the block along the base

plane (see Fig. 3(a)) can be written as:
PIns PIns dPIns Sn dWn sin a 0
QIns QIns dQIns dWn cos a Rn 0

where Pns is the load that prevents sliding, and

Sn=Rntan j, QIns=PInstan F, dQIns=dPInstan F.
Substituting these expressions in (4), the dierential
equation for sliding is

Fig. 3. Forces on a single block (zone I).

974

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

dPIns tan j tan F 1

gx tan o sin a cos a tan jdx 0,

which, for the boundary condition, PIns=0 for x = 0

has the solution
PIns

1
tan o 1 tan j=tan a 2
g sin a
x
2
1 tan j tan F

The blocks in zone I can topple or slide. The mode

of failure is determined by the greatest of the forces
given by (3) and (6). In (6), sliding failure (PIns > 0) is
possible only if a > j (given the condition tan j
tan F < 1). However, in this case the entire slope
slides along the base plane (see Fig. 2), and the solution for a stable slope is trivial: c=0 (i.e. excavation
of the entire slope down to the base level). The case of
interest is for a < j, which requires PIn < 0. Hence,
the maximum PIn is given by Equation (3), i.e. toppling
failure.
The limit equilibrium equations for zone II can be
obtained as for zone I. For toppling failure, the
moment equilibrium gives (see Fig. 3(a))
1
PIInt y QIInt dx dWn sin a y
2
1
dWn cos a dx PIInt dPIInt y dy 0
2

II
II
II
where, dWn=gy dx, QII
nt=Pnttan F, dQnt=dPnttan F.
From geometrical considerations, the height of the
block can be expressed as: y=(Lx)tan c;
dy=tan c dx.
Substituting into (7), the dierential equation for
toppling failure is


tan F
dx
II
II
dPnt Pnt 1
tan c L x
8
1
g L xsin a tan c dx 0
2

With the boundary condition PInt=PII

nt for x=xo
(the toppling force on the rst block of zone II is the
resulting force on the last block of zone I, given by
Eq. (3)), the solution is
PIInt


1
g sin a tan o
2

1
tan o =tan c

3 tan F=tan o
3 tan F=tan c

xo 2



tan o 1tan F=tan c
L x tan F=tan c1
xo
tan c
L x 2
1
g sina tan c
2
3 tan F=tan c

The values of xo and L are given by: x o H sinc=

tan o sina c;
L H=sina c sin c=tan o
cos c
From Eq. (9), one can observe that for c > F, and
as x 4 L, the force required for equilibrium goes to
innity. Hence equilibrium is possible only if c < F.
Note that Eq. (9) has singular solutions for c=F and
tan F=3 tanc; these cases will be discussed later.
Sliding equilibrium in zone II can be formulated as
(see Fig. 3(a))
II
II
PII
ns Pns dPns Sn dWn sin a 0

10

QIIns QIIns dQIIns dWn cos a Rn 0

or as the dierential equation
dPIIns tan j tan F 1
g L x tan csin a cos a tan jdx 0

11

In zone II the block movement starts as toppling.

However, as the movement progresses downwards to
the toe of the slope, failure may change to sliding.
Sliding may start at some point `x=z' where the load
necessary for toppling, given by Eq. (9), will be equal
to the load necessary for sliding, which is given by the
solution of (11). Using this condition, which can be
II
expressed as PII
ns=Pnt for x=z, the solution of (11) is
PIIns

1
tan c1 tan j=tana
g sin a
2
1 tan j tan F

L x2


1
g sina tan o
2

1
tan o =tan c

3 tan F=tan o
3 tan F=tan c

x 2o



tan o 1tan F=tan c
L ztan F=tan c1
xo
tan c

1
g sin a tan c
2

1 tan j=tan a
1

1 tan j tan F 3 tan F=tan c

12

L z2

Of all values of `z', sliding will occur at a location

such that PII
ns is maximum for x=L. In other words,
@ PII
ns =@ zjxL 0. With this condition, slippage will be
produced at
g sin a tan c
C 1 tan F=tan c


1 tan j=tan a
1

,
1 tan j tan F 3 tan F=tan c

L ztan F=tan c3

13

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

Sliding starts at: (Lz )=0 (i.e. there is no sliding),

which gives

where
C


1
g sina tan o
2
1
tan o =tan c

3 tan F=tan o
3 tan F=tan c

PIInt
x 2o



tan o 1tan F=tan c
xo
tan c
Note that for the condition (Lz ) R 0, sliding does
not occur, and the solution is given by Eq. (9). In this
case the force at the toe of the slope (for x=L ) is
nite only if F > c.
Substituting (13) in (12), the force necessary for
equilibrium at the toe of the slope (x=L ) is given by


1
1

PIIns g sin a tan c

1 tan F=tan c 2
14


1 tan j=tan a
1
2

L z
1 tan j tan F 3 tan F=tan c
There is no diculty in nding the critical angle
ccritical for which PII
ns=0 for x=L. That is, the angle
at which the slope will be in equilibrium. Disregarding
the case z=L, and the especial case tan F=3 tan c
(see later), the solution is given by
tan ccritical

tan F 1 tan j=tan a

2 tan j tan F 3 tan j=tan a

15

It can be noticed that the solution is independent of

the angle o and the height H of the slope.
The especial cases F=c and tan F=3 tan c are
included for completeness, and they do not present additional diculties. Following the preceding reasoning,
one obtains
For F=c,


1
1
1 tan o

PIInt g sin a tan o

2
3 tan F=tan o
2 tan c
xo 2

975

1
g sina tan c L x2
4

1
tan c1 tan j=tan a
L x2
PIIns g sin a
2
1 tan j tan F

1
1
g sina tan o
2
3 tan F=tan o

1
tan o =tan c xo 2
2


1
1 tan j=tan a 1

L z2
g sin a tan c
2
1 tan j tan F 2

1
g sina tan o
2


1
1 tan o

x 2o
3 tan F=tan o
2 tan c

16

This expression is always greater than zero. Hence,

a slope with F=c will never be stable.
For the case tan F=tan c 3,
(
1
II
g sin a
Pnt
2
#
" 

tan o
tan c=tan o

tan c ln xo
tan c
3 tan F=tan o
)
1
g sina tan c lnL x L x2
2
1
tan c1 tan j=tan a
g sin a
L x2
2
1 tan j tan F
" 
(

1
tan o
g sina tan c ln x o

2
tan c

PIIns

tan c=tan o

3 tan F=tan o

1
g sina tan c lnL z
2

1
1 tan j=tan a
g sin a tan c
2
1 tan j tan F

)
L z2

Sliding occurs for



tan o
tan c=tan o

lnL z ln xo
tan c
3 tan F=tan o

1
1 tan j=tan a

2 1 tan j tan F

and
PIIns

1
4

g sina tan c L z2

17

3. Water seepage
The preceding solutions can be easily extended to a
slope with water seepage. Fig. 4 shows a slope in
which the water table is at the surface with water ow,

976

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

Fig. 4. Assumed water seepage in the slope.

as a rst approximation, parallel to the ground surface. Under this condition, the pore water pressure is
linear with depth, and can be expressed by the
equation:
u gw k y
The seepage coecient k can be approximated as
k um =d (see Fig. 4).
Figure 3(b) shows the forces acting on a block with
water seepage. As before, the slope is divided into two
zones I and II, and the analysis is carried out through
the same steps. For each zone both sliding and toppling equilibrium equations can be written as follows:
Toppling in zone I:
1
PInt y dy QInt dx dWn sin a y
2
1
y
dWn cos a dx PInt dPInt y Ul Ur 0
2
2
Sliding in zone I:

Toppling in zone II:

1
PIInt y QIInt dx dWn sin a y
2
1
dWn cos a dx PIInt dPIInt y dy
2
y
Ul Ur 0
2
Sliding in zone II:
PIIns PIIns dPIIns Sn dWn sin a Ul Ur 0
QIIns QIIns dQIIns dWn cos a Rn Ub 0
with
Ul 1=2 y dy=22 gw k

Ur 1=2 y dy=22 gw k

PIns PIns dPIns Sn dWn sin a Ul Ur 0

Ub=gw y k dx.

QIns QIns dQIns dWn cos a Rn Ub 0

The solution of these dierential equations is

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

"
PIInt

"


1
1
g sina x 2o tan o
2
3 tan F=tan o

tan o =tan c
3 tan F=tan c

1
1

x 2o tan2 o
3 tan F=tan c 3 tan F=tan o


1
tan o =tan c

3 tan F=tan o
3 tan F=tan c

1
1
gw kxo 2 tan2 o
2
3 tan F=tan c
 #

1
tan o 1tan F=tan c
xo

3 tan F=tan o
tan c

tan o
#
(18)



tan o 1tan F=tan c
L xtan F=tan c1
 xo
tan c

1
g sin a gw k tan c
2

tan c
L x2
3 tan F=tan c

PIIns

Note that in Eq. (18), for F < c, and as x 4 L,

PII
nt 4 1. A nite solution only exists if F > c. As
before, the conditions F=c and tan F=3 tan c are
special cases.
Substituting (20) into (19) and for x=L, the force at
the toe of the slope required for equilibrium is:

1
2

PIIns g sin a tan c

g sin a cos a tan j gw k tan j tan c

tan c
1 tan j tan F
"

1
1
2
2
gsinaxo tan o
L x
2
3 tan F=tan o
tan o =tan c
3 tan F=tan c

1
gw kxo 2 tan2 o
2
#

1
1

3 tan F=tan c 3 tan F=tan o

where

1
1

1 tan F=tan c 2

1 tan j=tan a gw =g ktan j tan c=sin a

1 tan j tan F

1 gw =g ktan c=sina
L z2

3 tan F=tan c

21

zero at the toe of the slope (i.e.

z=L, which is a trivial solution,
for tan F=3 tan c (see later), or for



gw k2 tan j tan F tan2 c



tan j
g sina 2 tan j tan F 3
tan a

gw k3tan j tan F tan c

22





tan j
tan F gw k tan j tan F
g sin a 1
tan a
0

L ztan F=tan c3
g sin a cos a tan j gw ktan j tan c
1 tan j tan F

gsina gw ktan c
tan c

3 tan F=tan c C 1 tan F=tan c

PII
ns has a value of
II
Pns=0 for x=L ) for



tan o 1tan F=tan c
1
L ztan F=tan c1
xo
tan c
2

g sin a cos atan j gw ktan j tan c
tan c
1 tan jtan F

gsina gw ktan c
(19)
L z2

3 tan F=tan c

1
gsin a xo 2
2


1
gw k
2

977

20

Equation (22) is a second order equation in tan c,

which will give the value of ccritical, at which the slope
is stable. As before, the solution is independent of the
angle o and the height H of the slope.
The especial cases F=c and tan F=3 tan c are
included for completeness.
For F=c,

978

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

1
4

PIInt

"


g sin a


gw k 1

2
1

3 tan o tan F tan c

2
3 tan F=tan o

#

PIIns

tan c L x2
xo 2 tan2 o


1
C g sina gw k tan ctan clnL z
2

1
g sin a gw k tan c tan c L x2
4

and
1 g sin a cos a tan j g w k tan j tan c
PIIns
2
1 tan j tan F
2

tan c L x
1

"


g sin a


gw k 1

2
1

3 tan o tan F tan c

2
3 tan F=tan o

#

Sliding occurs at (Lz )=0, and

1
PIInt g sina tan o
2
"

1
1 tan o

3 tan F=tan o
2 tan c


2
1
3 tan F=tan o

23
#

L x2 ,
where
(
" 

1
tan o
g sina ln xo
C
2
tan c

3 tan F=tan o


 
tan o
gw k tan c ln xo
tan c

)
tan c

2C
1

gsina gw k tan c tan c 2

PIIns

g sin a cos a tan j gw k tan j tan c

1 tan j tan F g sina gw k tan c



1
gw tan c
k
g sina tan c 1
L z2
g
4
sina

24

Note that all above formulations reduce to the previous case of dry slope when k=0. For k > 0 the
force at the toe of the slope required for equilibrium is
always greater than for the case of dry slope. This can
be observed by comparison of Eqs. (14), (16) and (17)
with Eqs. (21), (23) and (24), respectively, where additional terms appear due to seepage. These additional
terms increase the magnitude of the load. As the seepage coecient k increases, the load at the toe of the
slope increases. As a consequence, the angle ccritical at
which the slope is stable is smaller with seepage, and is
reduced as the seepage coecient k increases.

xo 2

For the case tan F/tan c=3



PIInt C 12 g sina gw k tan c tan c lnL x

tan c=tan o

3 tan F=tan o

Sliding occurs for

and

xo 2

 L z2

1 gw tan o
k

2 g
sina

1 gsin a cos a tan j gw ktan j tan c

tan c
2
1 tan j tan F

lnL z

1 g sin a cos a tan j gw ktan j tan c

tan o
2
1 tan j tan F

1
g sin a gw k tan c tan c L z2
2
2

1 g sin a cos a tan j gw ktan j tan c

2
1 tan j tan F

4. Verication
Verication of the preceding derivation has been
done by solving the following cases with both the analytical method and the numerical method proposed by
Hoek and Bray [2].
Case 1 (no water seepage): a=308, c=308, o=308,
H = 10 m, F=358, j=408, g=25 kN/m3, gw=9.81
kN/m3, k=0.
Case 2 (water seepage): a=108, c=208, o=108,
H = 10 m, F=358, j=408, g=25 kN/m3, gw=9.81
kN/m3, k=1.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between analytical and
numerical results for the force at the toe of the slope
(Po in the gure), and for a+ccritical as a function of
the block size, Dx, which in the gure is plotted in
dimensionless form as H=Dx (height of the slope over

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

979

Fig. 5. Comparison between analytical and numerical solutions. Case 1: a=30, c=30, o=30, H = 10 m, F=35, j=40, g=25 kN/m3, gw=9.81
kN/m3, k=0. Case 2: a=10, c=20, o=10, H = 10 m, F=35, j=40, g=25 kN/m3, gw=9.81 kN/m3, k=1.0.

block size). The analytical solution gives accurate

results, within 10% of the numerical solution, for
H=Dx ratios larger than 50. With decreasing ratios the
errors from the analytical solution increase rapidly.
This is an anticipated result since one expects the analytical solution to be more accurate as the block size
decreases. Also, the analytical solution appears to give
a safe condition for smaller values of the height to
length ratio (a+ccritical smaller than the values
obtained with the solution by Hoek and Bray).

None of the blocks slide, and the stable slope angle

is a (i.e. c=0).
4. For F < c the force required for equilibrium is
given by Eqs. (9) or (18) if there is seepage. As in
(3), no blocks slide, and the stable slope angle is a
(i.e. c=0).

From the preceding results, it can be concluded that:

These solutions can be applied in conjunction with

stereographic projection methods [10,12], which can be
used to quickly determine what joint sets need to be
further analyzed. Kinematic conditions for toppling
failure require that [10]: (1) the strike of the in-dipping
joint set is within 308 of the strike of the slope. (2)
c y F. The following recommendations can then be
used for slope stability associated with the joint sets
that satisfy the kinematic conditions.

1. For F > c the force required for equilibrium can

be obtained from Eqs. (14) or (17) if there is no
water seepage. If there is water seepage, from Eqs.
(21) or (24).
2. The largest possible stable slope angle is a+ccritical,
where ccritical is given by Eqs. (15) or (22) if there is
water seepage. Hence, toppling can occur only if
c > ccritical.
3. For F=c the force required for equilibrium is
given by Equations (16) or (23) if there is seepage.

. The stable slope angle is a+ccritical, where ccritical is

given by Eqs. (15) or (22) if there is water seepage.
In these equations the friction angles j and F
should be decreased with the appropriate factors of
safety.
. The stable slope angle is independent of the height
of the slope, H, and of the angle o.
. It should be veried that j > a (i.e. friction at the
base of the blocks is smaller than the base plane
angle); otherwise failure occurs through sliding

5. Conclusions

980

A. Bobet / International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36 (1999) 971980

along the base plane, and the stable slope angle is a

(i.e. c=0).
This method can be applied only to block toppling
failures in which: (i) three-dimensional eects are negligible; (ii) the dip and the base plane angles are complementary; (iii) the size of the blocks is small compared
to a characteristic dimension of the slope. The method
provides simple analytical solutions which can be used
as a preliminary design, or as a rst iteration for complex numerical models.
References
[1] Lanaro F, Jing L, Stephansson O, Barla G. DEM Modelling of
laboratory tests of block toppling. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Min Sci 1997;34:20918.
[2] Hoek E, Bray JW. Rock slope engineering. Cambridge: The
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 1981.
[3] Aydan O, Shimizu Y, Ichikawa Y. The eective failure modes
and stability of slopes in rock mass with two discontinuity sets.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1989;22:16388.
[4] Aydan O, Kawamoto T. The stability of slopes and under-

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]

ground openings against exural toppling and their stabilization. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1992;25:14365.
Barla G, Borri-Brunetto M, Devin P, Zaninetti A. Validation of
a distinct element model for toppling rock slopes. In:
Proceedings of the International Congress on Rock Mechanics,
Tokyo, 1995. p. 41721.
Goodman RE, Bray JW. Toppling of Rock Slopes. In:
Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Rock Engineering for
Foundations and Slopes, 2. Boulder, CO: ASCE, 1977. p. 201
34.
Freitas MH, Watters RJ. Some eld examples of toppling failure. Geotechnique 1973;23(4):495514.
Bukovansky M, Rodriguez MA, Cedrun G. Three rock slides in
stratied and jointed rocks. Advances in rock mechanics. In:
Proceedings of the Third Congress of the ISRM, 1974, Denver,
1974. p. 8548.
Brown A. Toppling induced movements in large, relatively at
rock slopes. In: Goodman RZ, Heuze FE, editors. Issues in
Rock Mechanics. Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, 1982. p. 103547.
Goodman RE. Introduction to rock mechanics, 2. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1989.
Goodman RE. Engineering geology. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1993.
Hudson JA, Harrison JP. Engineering rock mechanics: an introduction to the principles. New York: Elsevier Science Inc, 1997.