ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic

block-toppling analysis$
Bryan S.A. Tatone a,b,, Giovanni Grasselli a
a
Geomechanics Research Group, Lassonde Institute, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 Saint George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4
b
Geological Engineering Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Uncertainty and variability are inherent in the input parameters required for rock slope stability
Received 26 September 2008 analyses. Since in the 1970s, probabilistic methods have been applied to slope stability analyses as a
Received in revised form means of incorporating and evaluating the impact of uncertainty. Since then, methods of probabilistic
1 April 2009
analysis for planar and wedge sliding failures have become well established in the literature and are
Accepted 28 April 2009
now widely used in practice. Analysis of toppling failure, however, has received relatively little
attention. This paper introduces a Monte Carlo simulation procedure for the probabilistic analysis of
Keywords: block-toppling and describes its implementation into a spreadsheet-based program (ROCKTOPPLE). The
Probabilistic slope stability analysis analysis procedure considers both kinematic and kinetic probabilities of failure. These probabilities are
Uncertainty
evaluated separately and multiplied to give the total probability of block toppling. To demonstrate the
Monte Carlo simulation
use of ROCKTOPPLE, it is first verified against a published deterministic result, and then applied to a
Limit equilibrium
Rock slope engineering practical example with uncertain input parameters. Results obtained with the probabilistic approach
are compared to those of an equivalent deterministic analysis in which mean values of input parameters
are considered.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to rock slope stability analysis as an alternative approach of

Like all rock engineering problems, slope stability analysis is a
data-limited problem that always involves some degree of
uncertainty. This uncertainty arises due to the natural spatial
and temporal variabilities of rock mass properties, prohibitive cost
of obtaining large amounts of data during site investigations, lab
testing results not representing in situ properties, modelling
assumptions, and human errors. (Baecher and Christian, 2003).
Traditionally, slope stability analysis has followed the deter-
ministic approach of calculating resisting and driving forces to
arrive at a factor of safety. To address the issue of uncertainty,
conservative values of rock mass properties are adopted and a
minimum acceptable factor of safety is specified to provide a
margin of safety against unexpected performance. Although this
approach is widely utilized and accepted, the impact of con-
servatism cannot be assessed and effects of varying degrees of
uncertainty cannot be quantified. As a result, apparently con-
servative designs are not always safe against failure (El-Ramly
et al., 2002). Increasingly, probabilistic methods are being applied
$
Program code and user manual available at: http://www.geogroup.utoronto.ca/
 Corresponding author at: Geomechanics Research Group, Lassonde Institute,
Department of Civil Engineering , University of Toronto, 35 Saint George Street,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4.
E-mail addresses: bryan.tatone@utoronto.ca (B.S.A. Tatone),
giovanni.grasselli@utoronto.ca (G. Grasselli).
dealing with uncertainty. Probabilistic slope stability analysis
tools not only offer a systematic way of quantifying and evaluating
the role of uncertainty, but also provide a useful approach to
estimate hazard frequency for quantitative risk analyses, which
are finding increased popularity in engineering practice (e.g.
Duzgun, 2008; Fell et al., 2005; Ho et al., 2000; Morgenstern,
1997; Pine and Roberds, 2005).
Simplified probabilistic methods for the stability analysis of
rock slopes were first introduced in the 1970s (McMahon, 1971;
Major et al., 1977; Piteau and Martin, 1977; and others). Since
then, the concepts and methods have undergone continual
development such that methods of probabilistic analysis for
translational failures are now well established in the literature
(Carter and Lajtai, 1992; Duzgun et al., 2003; Feng and Lajtai,
1998; Park and West, 2001; Quek and Leung, 1995; and many
others). At present, there are several commercially available
software packages capable of performing probabilistic limit
equilibrium slope stability analysis. Some of the most popular
packages include: SLOPE/W (GEO-SLOPE, 2007), SLIDE,
ROCPLANE, SWEDGE (Rocscience, 2008a–c), and RockPack III
(RockWare, 2008). These software packages employ Monte Carlo
simulations to repeatedly calculate the factor of safety with
input parameters that are randomly generated according to
user-defined probability distributions. Therefore, instead of
obtaining a singular value for the factor of safety from singular
input values (deterministic approach), a distribution of values is

0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

obtained, which represents the uncertainty of the input para-
meters. The probability of failure is defined as the number of
Monte Carlo trials producing a factor of safety less than one
divided by the total number of trials.
Although probabilistic methods for analyzing soil slopes and
rock slopes susceptible to planar sliding and wedge sliding are
now well established, the toppling failure mode of rock slopes has
received relatively little attention. Very few publications can be
found that focus on incorporating the uncertainty of input
parameters in the analysis of toppling (Muralha, 2003; Scavia
et al., 1990) and none have considered the role of kinematic
stability on the probability of failure. The objectives of this paper
are to: (1) review the conventional deterministic stability analysis
of slopes susceptible to block-toppling; (2) introduce a new
probabilistic block-toppling analysis procedure that accounts for
kinematic stability; (3) describe the implementation of this new
procedure in a computer program created in Microsoft Excel using
Visual Basic for Applications (VBA); and (4) demonstrate how this
program can be used as a tool to analyze slopes with block-
toppling hazard.
2. Conventional deterministic analysis of
block-toppling failure
Before introducing the probabilistic analysis procedure, it is
valuable to review the conventional deterministic approach for
analyzing slopes susceptible to block toppling. The evaluation of
rock slope stability is typically a two-step process. First a
kinematic analysis of structural discontinuities via stereographic
techniques is undertaken to identify potentially unstable condi-
tions. Subsequently, if a kinematically unstable condition is found
to exist, a kinetic analysis using a limit equilibrium method is
used to evaluate the factor of safety (Norrish and Wyllie, 1996;
Wyllie and Mah, 2004).
Depending on the orientations of discontinuities in relation to
the geometry of the slope under consideration, potential slope
failures can typically be classified into four modes: circular, planar
sliding, wedge sliding, or toppling. This paper focuses on the
toppling failure mode, which involves the overturning of rock
columns delineated by a well-defined discontinuity set striking
sub-parallel to the slope face and dipping steeply into the face.
Goodman and Bray (1976) classified toppling failures into three
types (Fig. 1). The analysis procedure presented in this paper is
intended for the analysis of slopes susceptible to the block-
toppling type of failure only.
2.1. Kinematic conditions for block-toppling
Considering a single rock block on an inclined surface subject
to no external forces (Fig. 2a), toppling occurs if the block’s centre
of gravity acts outside of its base and sliding does not occur along
its base. Mathematically, toppling occurs when
Dx=yn o tan c ð1Þ
and
cof ð2Þ
where yn and Dx are the height and width of the block,
respectively, and c and f are the dip and friction angle of the
base plane, respectively.
When a series of blocks is considered (Fig. 2b), two additional
requirements exist. The first requirement is that the strike of
discontinuities defining the base and width of the toppling blocks
must be sub-parallel to the slope face ( 7201) such that the blocks
are free to topple without restraint from the adjacent rock mass.
This requirement is defined mathematically as (Norrish and
Wyllie, 1996)
jaa  as j o 203 and jab  as jo 203 ð3Þ
where aa and ab are the dip directions of the discontinuities
defining the base and width of the blocks, respectively, and as is
the dip direction of the slope face. The second requirement is that
interlayer slip can occur along sub-vertical discontinuities defin-
ing the width of the blocks. Assuming the in situ stresses close to
the slope face are uniaxial and aligned in a direction parallel to the
slope face, the condition for interlayer slip can be expressed as

Fig. 1. Common types of toppling: (a) block toppling of rock columns divided into blocks of finite height by a second, widely spaced, roughly orthogonal joint set;(b) flexural
toppling of continuous rock columns; and (c) block-flexural toppling characterized by pseudo-continuous flexure of rock columns with numerous cross-joints that
accommodate significant lateral displacements (from Wyllie and Mah, 2004 after Goodman and Bray, 1976).

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

Fig. 2. Summary of kinematic conditions required for block-toppling failure: (a) example of a single block on an inclined base plane, (b) example of a series of blocks on a
stepped base plane, and (c) and (d) stereographic representation of a slope face and discontinuities along with envelopes (shaded areas) in which discontinuity poles must
lie to satisfy kinematic conditions for block toppling (adapted from Norrish and Wyllie, 1996).

(Goodman and Bray, 1976, Norrish and Wyllie, 1996)

7
ð903  cb Þ r ðcs  fb Þ ð4Þ
where fb and cb are the friction angle and dip angle of the 6
sub-vertical discontinuities, respectively, and cs is the dip of the 5
slope face. Figs. 2c and d illustrate the lower hemispherical 4
stereographic projection of the slope geometry depicted in
Fig. 2b along with envelopes defined by conditions (2)–(4).
It is noted that although Cruden (1989) has shown the 3
kinematic limits of block-toppling to extend to cataclinal, under-
dip slopes, the analysis procedure and computer program Toe block 2
presented in this paper is restricted to the anaclinal geometry Stable
originally outlined by Goodman and Bray (1976).
1 Topple

2.2. Kinetic (limit equilibrium) analysis of block-toppling Slide

Given that the kinematic conditions for block toppling exist in

the slope under consideration, the kinetic stability can be Fig. 3. Example of a system of toppling blocks on a stepped base (Goodman and
evaluated using the limit equilibrium method developed by Bray, 1976).

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Goodman and Bray (1976). This method considers the interaction
of a number of tall rock columns resting on a stepped base (Fig. 3).
The blocks forming the slope are classified into three groups based
on their stability mode:
 a set of short stable blocks in the upper part of the slope
(e.g. Blocks 5, 6) not meeting the toppling criteria defined by
(1) and not sliding on their base (ca o fa);
 a set of taller blocks midway down the slope (e.g. Block 2–4),
which meet the toppling criteria defined by (1) and, as a result,
exert a force on subsequent downslope blocks, producing a
‘‘domino effect’’ (Wyllie and Wood, 1983); and
 a set of short blocks at the toe of the slope (e.g. Block 1) that
are pushed by the toppling blocks above. These blocks stable
depending on slope geometry.
The stability analysis is a step-wise process that begins with
establishing the dimensions and calculating the forces acting on
each block in the slope. Subsequently, the stability of each block is
evaluated starting at the topmost block. Considering the balance
of forces and moments acting on the blocks, each block may
remain stable, topple, or slide. If a block is found to topple or slide,
a force is transmitted to the next block in the slope equal in
magnitude to the force needed to maintain the current block in

Start

Input mean values, standard deviations, and

number of trials (Nummtrials) as defined
by user (except spacing)

Set ini, Unstable Count,

Stable Count, and
Kinematic Count = 0 10
8
Randomly sample input 6
values from user defined PDF’s 4
2
0
Check kinematic
stabiliity

Kinematically No
feasible ?

Yes

Kinematic Count = Kinematic Count +1

Generate random
block geometry

Perform limit
equilibrium analysis

Yes No
If FS > 1

Stable Count = Unstable Count =

Stable Count +1 Unstable Count +1

ini = ini + 1 N
No
ini = Num Trials?

Yes

Calculate probabilities of failure:

Pkinematic, Pf kinetic|kimematic, and Pf

Stop

Fig. 4. Overview of probabilistic block-toppling stability analysis procedure.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
limiting equilibrium. However, if a block is stable, no forces are
transmitted to the next block in the slope. The overall stability of
the slope is controlled by the stability of the lowermost block, or
toe block. If the toe block is stable, the entire slope is considered
stable and, conversely, if the toe block is unstable, the entire slope
is considered unstable.
As with all limit equilibrium methods, this method can easily
incorporate external forces acting on the slope, including support
loads, water pressures, and pseudo-static earthquake loads
(Wyllie, 1999).
2.3. Factor of safety
Since the toe block is assumed to control the overall stability of
a system of toppling blocks, the factor of safety of the toe block is
assumed to define the factor of safety of the entire slope. In the
absence of cohesion, Goodman and Bray (1976) proposed that the
following equation can be used to define a factor of safety against
block toppling:
tanfavailable
FS ¼ ð5Þ
tanfrequired
where tan favailable defines the coefficient of friction on the base
plane of the toe block and tan frequired defines the coefficient of
friction needed for limiting equilibrium. One must be aware that
this approach assumes that the critical failure mode of the toe
block is sliding (which is the case in the three examples presented
in Goodman and Bray, 1976) when, in fact, the critical failure mode
of the toe block may also be toppling (Wyllie and Mah, 2004).
Moreover, it assumes that the blocks above the toe block push on
the toe block when, in fact, there may be multiple blocks of the
‘‘stable’’ mode at the toe that collectively resist the movement of
upslope blocks. In these two cases outlined above, a different
means of calculating the factor of safety must be adopted. The
approach adopted in the current study is presented in a later
section of this paper (Section 3.5.2).
Fig. 5. Screenshot of ‘‘Analysis Input’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE.
Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
5
3. Development of a probabilistic block-toppling analysis
procedure and its implementation in a spreadsheet-based
program
This section describes the probabilistic block-toppling analysis
procedure and its implementation in a computer program called
ROCKTOPPLE created in Microsoft Excel using VBA (available at
www.geogroup.utoronto.ca). The program logic is described
by first providing an overview of the entire analysis procedure
followed by a detailed description of each major step in the
procedure.
3.1. Overview of probabilistic analysis procedure
The probabilistic approach developed herein (Fig. 4) utilizes
Monte Carlo simulation to repeatedly perform the deterministic
analysis procedure (kinematic and kinetic analysis) described in
the preceding section. Considering Fig. 4, the first step in the
analysis procedure requires the user to specify the number of
Monte Carlo trials and define the appropriate probability
distributions for the parameters characterizing the slope (see
Section 3.2). Subsequently, the Monte Carlo simulation procedure
is initiated, which involves repeatedly sampling random input
parameters from the user-defined probability distributions;
checking the kinematic stability conditions (see Section 3.3);
generating the random slope geometry (see Section 3.4); and
evaluating the kinetic stability (factor of safety) via limit
equilibrium analysis (see Section 3.5). Afterwards, the kinematic,
kinetic, and total probabilities of block-toppling failure are
calculated (see Section 3.7).
The methodology outlined in Fig. 4 was coded into an Excel-
based program as it allowed the use of Excel’s built-in functions and
graphing capabilities, greatly reducing the overall coding effort
required. The Excel workbook that houses the ROCKTOPPLE program
consists of 6 worksheets or ‘‘tabs’’ named as follows: ‘‘Analysis
Input’’, ‘‘Add Support’’, ‘‘Results’’, ‘‘Analysis Details 1’’, ‘‘Analysis
Details 2’’, and ‘‘Analysis Details 3’’. The first three of these tabs are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
discussed in the subsequent sections of this paper while, descrip-
tions of the ‘‘Analysis Details’’ tabs are reserved for Appendix A.
3.2. Definition of input parameters
Fig. 5 illustrates the ‘‘Analysis Input’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE.
Shaded cells on the left side of the tab indicate values that must be
entered by the user, while the graphic on the right side provides a
preview of the slope geometry according to the mean input values.
The input values are divided into ‘‘fixed’’ parameters, defined
by singular input values, and ‘‘uncertain’’ parameters, defined by
probabilistic distributions. The height, H, and orientation of the
slope, as, cs, and cts are always considered ‘‘fixed’’ while, all
remaining parameters have the option of being treated as ‘‘fixed’’
or ‘‘uncertain’’. In addition to the parameters describing the slope,
the user must also specify the number of Monte Carlo trials to be
performed and what support measures, if any, should be
considered in the analysis.
When the orientations of joint sets A and B are considered
‘‘uncertain’’, they are assumed to be defined by a Fisher
distribution (Fisher, 1953), which is a symmetric three-dimen-
sional (3D) distribution often used to describe the angular
dispersion of joint orientations about a mean value (Priest,
1993). It is defined by a mean orientation (dip/dip direction)
and the Fisher constant, K, which describes the degree of
clustering around the mean value. In terms of analyzing block-
toppling, the use of a 3D distribution for joint orientation data
allows kinematic analysis of the randomly generated disconti-
nuities according to Section 2.1. However, since the adopted
kinetic analysis procedure is two-dimensional (2D), a 2D
representation of the 3D orientation data is needed before
analysis can be performed. Considering a cross-section perpendi-
cular to the slope face, the difference between the true dip, ctrue,
and apparent dip, capparent, of discontinuities that satisfy the
kinematic conditions for block toppling (i.e. dip directions within
7201 of the dip direction of the slope face) is very small
(tan capparent = 0.94tan ctrue). Therefore, to perform kinetic analysis
the true dip angles sampled from the Fisher distributions
Fig. 6. Idealized geometry of a rock slope subject to toppling (after Scavia et al., 1990).
Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
are assumed to define the apparent dip angles for the
2D section. Since true dip is always greater than apparent dip,
this assumption introduces some conservatism into the kinetic
analysis.
When the remaining input parameters, including joint spacing,
friction angles, unit weights, and external loads, are considered
‘‘uncertain’’, their values can be charcterized by normal, lognor-
mal, or exponential distributions. Estimates of the mean and
standard deviation are the only user inputs required to define
these distributions.
3.3. Kinematic analysis
Based on the randomly sampled values defining the orienta-
tion and friction angle of joint sets A and B, ROCKTOPPLE checks if
the kinematic conditions for block toppling, as defined in Section
2.1, are satisfied. The condition set out by (1), however, is not
enforced since external forces such as water pressures or seismic
loads can cause blocks to topple despite having a centre of gravity
that lies within their base. If the remaining kinematic conditions
are satisfied, the program proceeds with kinetic analysis, as
described in the following sections of this paper; otherwise, it
advances to the next Monte Carlo trial. In trials where the
conditions for block-toppling are not satisfied, the randomly
sampled orientations of discontinuity sets A and B may result in
one of the following alternative kinematic conditions:
1. Failure not kinematically possible: sliding cannot occur on set A
and toppling cannot occur on set B. Therefore, the total
probability of failure is 0.
2. Only sliding on joint set A is kinematically possible: friction angle
of set A is less than the dip angle; the dip direction of set A is
within 7201 of slope dip direction but toppling on set B is not
possible.
3. Only toppling on set B is kinematically possible: orientation of set
B satisfies requirements for interlayer slip and alignment but
the dip direction of set A prevents sliding. Therefore, the toe
blocks cannot slide.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

4. Sliding on set A and toppling on set B occur simultaneously:

friction angle of set A is less than the dip angle; the dip Start
direction of set A is within 7201 of slope dip direction; and all
conditions for toppling on set B are satisfied.
Pass values of H,s,
ts, a, b, and ground water level
Therefore, although block toppling may not be kinematically into sub-procedure
feasible, the slope geometry may still result in a kinematically
unstable condition. To give the user an indication of the likelihood
of these other kinematic conditions existing, the program i= 1
calculates the kinematic probability of each. However, the
Define (x, y) of Toe as (0, 0)
program does not perform the corresponding kinetic analysis.
Hence, it must be emphasized that the total probability of failure BlockCount = 1
calculated by ROCKTOPPLE only represents the total probability of
BlockCount = BlockCount + 1
block-toppling failure and does not account for kinetic stability of
the other potential failure modes (2–4 above). To evaluate the
total probability of slope failure, including these other potential Randomly sample values of Sa and
failure modes, kinetic analysis of each kinematic condition would Sb from probabilistic distributions
need to be undertaken with appropriate techniques. Subsequently,
system reliability methods could be used to calculate the total
failure probability. Calculate coordinates defining
It should be noted that in cases where the geometry of the i th block and store in separate arrays
slope and discontinuities are known with increased certainty (i.e.
an existing slope in which several joint measurements have been
obtained), it may be desirable to treat the discontinuity orienta- Calculate: Wn, K, v1, v2, v3, Xw, y1,
tions as ‘‘fixed’’ input values (accomplished by entering K =0 on y2, y3, Mn, Ln, K, Yk, and, (xcm,ycm),
the ‘‘Analysis Input’’ tab). In this situation, given that the fixed for the ith block and store in an array
discontinuity orientations satisfy kinematic conditions for block-
toppling, the kinematic probability will be 1.0, meaning the total
probability of block toppling of failure will be given by kinetic
probability of failure. In other words, if desired, the user can No Check if block extends
effectively skip the kinematic analysis by considering disconti- beyond the slope limits
i=i+1
nuity orientations as ‘‘fixed’’ inputs.

3.4. Generation of block geometry Yes n = BlockCount

Stop
If the kinematic conditions for block toppling are satisfied, the
next step in the analysis procedure involves generating the geometry
of the n blocks that form the slope. The procedure adopted in Fig. 7. Flow chart outlining procedure to generate random block geometry.

ROCKTOPPLE follows that developed by Scavia et al. (1990). Unlike

the original limit equilibrium procedure, which assumes the rock
blocks are delineated by evenly spaced, perpendicular discontinuity
sets, this approach is capable of generating blocks delineated by
non-orthogonal, irregularly spaced joint sets (Fig. 6). In generating
the random block geometry, the following assumptions are made
(Scavia et al., 1990):
the corners of each block are computed, and several forces and
dimensions specific to each block, as defined in Fig. 8, are
evaluated for use in subsequent limit equilibrium calculations.
This process is continued until the stepped base reaches the upper
boundary of the slope, forming n blocks.

 the joint sets A and B are considered 100% persistent;
 the system of blocks sits on a stepped base that represents a
‘‘failure surface’’;
 the steps in the failure plane are defined by alternating values
Sa and Sb;
 the generated failure surfaces extend from the toe of the slope
to the upper surface; and
 the blocks are long in a direction normal to the cross-section,
but are bounded by zero-strength lateral release surfaces such
that the problem can be analyzed two dimensionally.
3.5. Kinetic (limit equilibrium) analysis
The limit equilibrium analysis procedure requires the
calculation of the forces transferred from the uppermost block
through to the toe block. These forces are referred to as inter-
block forces. Once these forces are determined, the factor of
safety of the toe block or group of stable toe blocks can be
evaluated. The following two sub-sections describe the calcula-
tion procedure for inter-block forces and toe block stability,
respectively.

3.5.1. Calculation of inter-block forces

The block generation procedure is summarized in Fig. 7. To
begin, the ‘‘fixed’’ values of H, cs, and cts, together with the
randomly sampled values of ca and cb of the current Monte Carlo
trial, are passed to the block generation procedure. Then, starting
from the toe of the slope (0, 0), alternating values of Sa and Sb are
sampled from their respective distributions, coordinates defining
Fig. 8 illustrates the position and direction of all forces acting
on a typical rock block in a system of toppling blocks. The forces
Pn  1 and Pn are what are referred to as inter-block forces.
Although equations for calculating the inter-block forces are
available in several rock mechanics and rock engineering texts
(e.g. Wyllie and Mah, 2004; Wyllie, 1999), it is often assumed that

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
joint sets A and B are orthogonal (ct = 0). As this assumption is
rarely valid when values of ca and cb are randomly sampled from
independent probabilistic distributions, these equations were
reformulated to account for non-orthogonal joint sets before
being implemented in ROCKTOPPLE. Considering moment and
force equilibrium for a typical block (Fig. 8), the revised equations
for the force, Pn  1, that is just sufficient to prevent the block from
toppling and sliding, are given, respectively, by
Wn Xw þKYw  Pn tanfb Sb  V3 y3 þV1 y1 þ V2 y2 þ Pn Mn
Pn1:t ¼
Ln
ð6Þ
Wn ðcosca tanfa  sinca Þ  Kðsinca tanfa þ cosca Þ þ ðV3  V1 Þðcosct þ sinct tanfa Þ  V2 tanfa
Pn1:s ¼ Pn 
ðtanfa þ tanfb Þsinct þð1  tanfa tanfb Þcosct
Fig. 9 summarizes the methodology used to calculate the inter-
block forces acting on each block on the slope. Starting at the
uppermost block, the forces Pn  1:t required to prevent toppling
and Pn  1:s required to prevent sliding are calculated using Eqs. (6)
and (7). If the values of Pn  1:t and Pn  1:s are negative, the current
block is considered stable and the force, Pn, transmitted to the
next block is set to zero. However, if Pn  1:t 4Pn  1:s, the block is on
the point of toppling and Pn  1 is set equal to Pn  1:t. Conversely, if
Pn  1:s 4Pn  1:t, the block is on the point of sliding and Pn  1 is set
Fig. 8. Summary of forces acting on a typical rock block.
Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
equal to Pn  1:s. Once the appropriate value of Pn  1 is determined,
all forces acting on the block are resolved in directions
perpendicular and parallel to the base of the block. The normal
force, Rn, and shear force, Sn, are calculated, respectively, as
Rn ¼ Wn cosca  Ksinca
V2 þ ðV3  V1 þ Pn1  Pn Þsinct
þðPn  Pn1 Þtanfb cosct ð8Þ
Sn ¼ Wn sinca þKcosca þ ðV1  V3  Pn1 þ Pn Þcosct
þðPn  Pn1 Þtanfb sinct ð9Þ
ð7Þ
Subsequently, a check is made to ensure if there is a positive
normal force on the base plane and that sliding does not occur:
Rn 40 and jSn j oRn tan fa ð10Þ
If the conditions set out by (10) are not satisfied, toppling cannot
occur even if Pn  1:t 4Pn  1:s; thus, Pn  1 is set equal to Pn  1:s.
Once the value of Pn  1 is finalized, it is assumed to be the force, Pn,
acting on the next block of the slope. The calculation of Pn  1 is
then repeated for the next block and all subsequent blocks in
succession until the force, Pn, acting on each block has been
determined. It is noted that due to kinematic constraints, once the
transition from toppling to sliding occurs, the critical state for all
subsequent blocks is sliding (Wyllie and Mah, 2004).
3.5.2. Analysis of toe block(s)
Following the calculation of inter-block forces, the stability
mode of each block above the toe block is defined as ‘‘sliding’’,
‘‘toppling’’, or ‘‘stable’’. In the case where the block immediately
above the toe block is of the ‘‘sliding’’ mode, the potential failure
mode of the toe block is limited to sliding and the factor of safety
against toe block sliding is considered to be the factor of safety of
the entire system of blocks. In the case where the block
immediately above the toe block is of the ‘‘toppling’’ mode, the
potential failure mode of the toe block can be sliding or toppling
and the critical factor of safety against toe block sliding or
toppling is taken as the factor of the safety system of blocks.
Considering the forces acting on a typical toe block (Fig. 10), the
factor of safety against toe block sliding and toe block toppling are
given, respectively, by
P
Forcesresisting
FS ¼ FStoe block ¼ P
sliding Forcesdriving
½Wn cosca  Ksinca  V2 þ ðV1  Pn Þsinct þ Pn tanfb costanfa
¼
Wn sinca þ Kcosca þ ðV1 þ Pn Þcosct þ Pn tanfb sinct
Rn tanfa
¼ : ð11Þ
Sn
P
Momentsresisting Pn tanfb Sb þWn Xw
FS ¼ FStoe block ¼ P ¼ ð12Þ
toppling Momentsdriving Pn Mn þV1 y1 þ V2 y2 þ KYk
In the case where the block immediately above the toe block is
of the ‘‘stable’’ mode, the factor of safety of the toe block is no
longer representative of the stability of the entire slope system.
Instead, the factor of safety is dictated by the collective ability of
the group of stable blocks at the toe to resist the driving forces
produced by unstable blocks upslope. The factor of safety, in this
case, can be defined as the sum of the resisting forces of each
‘‘stable’’ block divided by the sum of the driving forces for each
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

‘‘stable’’ block:
Start
ðRn1 þ Rn2 þ Rn3 þ    Rni Þ tanfa
FS ¼ ð13Þ
Sn1 þ Sn2 þ Sn3 þ    Sni
where i is the number of ‘‘stable’’ blocks at the toe of the slope. i=n
Pn = 0
3.6. Addition of support

As previously mentioned, external forces can be easily ith Block

incorporated into limit equilibrium methods. Hence, the effect
of rock support elements on slope stability can be easily assessed
Calculate Pn-1:t and Pn-1:s
in the block-toppling analysis. The support of slopes susceptible to
block-toppling through the use of rock support elements can be
accomplished in two ways (Wyllie and Wood, 1983): (1) a support
force, T, can be added to the toe block, as shown in Fig. 11a or (2) Pn-1 = MAX (Pn-1:t, Pn-1:s)
the potential toppling blocks can be bolted together to increase
their effective width, as shown in Fig. 11b. Both of these
support methods were incorporated into ROCKTOPPLE under the Calculate Sn and Rn
‘‘Add Support’’ tab shown in Fig. 12. In this tab, the user can
specify the magnitude and orientation of toe block support and
the effective width of the toppling blocks when the blocks are
bolted together. If Rn ≤ 0 or
When toe block support is added to the analysis, it is assumed No Sn > Rn tan b Yes
to be installed at the mid-point of the toe block face inclined at a
user-defined angle, i, from the horizontal (Fig. 11a). Based on the
Pn-1 = Pn-1 Pn-1 = Pn-1:s
mean slope geometry, the optimum orientations, iopt, of the toe
block support to prevent sliding and toppling of the toe block are
given, respectively, as (Goodman and Bray, 1976; Wyllie and
Mah, 2004) Set Pn = Pn-1

ioptjsliding ¼ fa  ca ð14Þ
No If i = 1
ioptjtoppling ¼  ca ð15Þ
i = i-1
In addition to the magnitude and orientation of the support, a Yes
drop-down menu on the tab allows the user to specify whether it
should be considered an active or passive force. If the support Stop
force is applied actively, the revised factors of safety against toe
block toppling and sliding are given respectively, by Fig. 9. Flow chart illustrating procedure to calculate inter-block forces.

Pn tanfb Sb þWn Xw
FStoe block ¼ ð16Þ
toppling Pn Mn þ V1 y1 þV2 y2 þ KYk  TLt
3.7. Calculation of failure probabilities
FStoe block ¼
sliding

fWn cos ca  Ksin ca  V2 þ ðV1  Pn Þsin ct þ Pn tan fb cosct þ Tsinðca þ iÞgtan fa Following the completion of the specified number of Monte
Wn sin ca þKcos ca þ ðV1 þ Pn Þcos ct þ Pn tan fb sin ct  Tcosðca þiÞ Carlo trials, the failure probabilities are calculated and displayed
ð17Þ in the ‘‘Results’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE (Fig. 13). The ‘‘Results’’ tab
provides a detailed summary of the kinematic and kinetic
If it is applied passively, the factors of safety are given by probabilities of failure, the mean and median factor of safety, a
histogram of the factors of safety, and a summary of the applied
Pn tanfb Sb þ Wn Xw þ TLt
FStoe block ¼ ð18Þ rock support.
toppling Pn Mn þ V1 y1 þV2 y2 þ KYk

fWn cosca  Ksinca  V2 þ ðV1  Pn Þsinct þ Pn tanfb cos þ Tsinðca þ iÞgtanfa þTcosðca þ iÞ
FStoeblock ¼ ð19Þ
sliding Wn sinca þKcosca þðV1 þ Pn Þcosct þ Pn tanfb sinct

In the case where the blocks are bolted together, the effective
width of toppling blocks below the crest is increased. ROCK-
TOPPLE models this condition by increasing the value of Sb
for all blocks below the slope crest by the user-specified factor.
For example, if the spacing of Set B is 2 m and an effective
width of two times the actual block width is specified, the
analysis proceeds by assuming the blocks below the crest
are 4 m wide. It should be noted that this simplistic approach
does not consider potential failure of the bolts holding the blocks
together.
The probability of kinematic failure is given by
Nkinematically feasible
Pf kinematic ¼ ð20Þ
Nt
where Nkinematically feasible is the number of trials in which block-
toppling failure is kinematically feasible and Nt is the total
number of Monte Carlo trials. Similarly, probabilities of the other
kinematic conditions (as defined in Section 3.3) are calculated by
dividing the number of trials in which the conditions occur by Nt.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Considering that toppling failure involves a system of blocks

that can topple, slide, or remain stable, the kinetic probability of
s failure must be defined in terms of the reliability of the system as
b
Pn a whole. For this system of blocks, however, the conventional
approach of using event tree or fault tree analysis to examine all
Pntanb possible failure paths of the system becomes quite complex and
cumbersome. Recalling that the stability of the toe block
Sb V1 ultimately controls the stability of the entire system of blocks
Mn independent of the behaviour of other blocks in the system,
(xcm,ycm)
K repeatedly calculating the factor of safety of the toe block while
xw varying the input parameters effectively constitutes the simula-
y1 tion approach for analyzing system reliability (Baecher and
Christian, 2003). Thus, the kinetic probability of failure for the
system can be defined in terms of the factor of safety of the toe
block or group of stable toe blocks. Since kinetic failure can occur
t via sliding
Yk
Wn or toppling, the kinetic probability of block-toppling failure is
V2
given by
y2
NFS o 1:toe sliding þNFS o 1:toe toppling
a Pf kineticjkinematic ¼ ð21Þ
Origin Nkinematically feasible

where NFS o I:toe sliding and NFS o I:toe toppling are the number of trials
resulting in a factor of safety less than 1 when the critical failure
Fig. 10. Example of forces acting on a typical toe block. mode of the toe block is sliding and toppling, respectively.

b s

T
Lt

t
a
Origin

Fig. 11. Methods of applying support in ROCKTOPPLE: (a) toe block support and (b) bolting blocks together.

Fig. 12. Screenshot of ‘‘Add Support’’ tab in ROCKTOPPLE.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11

Fig. 13. Screenshot of ‘‘Results’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE illustrating typical program output.

Table 1 Section 3.3, are not included in the calculation of the total
Summary of slope characteristics for deterministic example given in Wyllie and probability of block toppling. They are provided merely to inform
Mah (2004).
the user that given the slope geometry and discontinuity
Parameter Deterministic value orientations, instability via other failure modes may be possible.
As mentioned previously, calculation of the total probability of
Overall geometry slope failure would require a separate kinetic analysis of each
Slope height (m) 92.5 unstable kinematic condition via alternate analysis methods and
Slope angle (deg)a 56.6
Top angle (deg) 4
the evaluation of the total failure probability using system
reliability methods.
Discontinuity orientations
Dip of set A (deg)a 30
Dip of set B (deg)a 60
4. Deterministic verification of ROCKTOPPLE
Rock mass characteristics
Spacing of joint set A (m) 1
Spacing of joint set B (m) 10 Since examples of probabilistic block-toppling analysis
Friction angle of set A (deg) 38.15 could not be found in the literature, the probability of failure
Friction angle of set B (deg) 38.15 calculated with ROCKTOPPLE was not compared with previous
Unit weight of rock (kN/m3) 25
results. The output of the program was, however, compared to a
External loads deterministic block-toppling example published in Wyllie and
Seismic coefficient (g) 0
Mah (2004) by considering the input parameters (Table 1) as fixed
Water pressure (%) 0
Rock support n/a
values. Results as shown in Wyllie and Mah (2004) and those
obtained with ROCKTOPPLE are tabulated in Appendix B.
a
The deterministic example assumes the discontinuities and slope face have When comparing results, it is important to note that the
the same dip direction. Therefore dip directions are not required as input methodology used to define the geometry of the blocks varies
parameters. between the published example and ROCKTOPPLE. While the
published example assumes the blocks are rectangular to simplify
calculations (Fig. 14a), ROCKTOPPLE assumes they are trapezoidal
The probability of kinetic failure is considered a conditional (Fig. 14b). As a result, the blocks generated by the program are
probability since kinetic analysis is undertaken only for kinema- taller above the slope crest and shorter below the slope crest
tically feasible geometries. Based on the properties of conditional when compared with rectangular blocks. The largest percent
probabilities, the total probability of block-toppling failure difference in block weight occurs for the uppermost and
is given by the product of (20) and (21) (Glynn, 1979; Park and lowermost blocks. The 4 uppermost blocks vary from 12% to
West, 2001): 59% and the 3 lowermost blocks vary from 13% to 46%; all other
blocks vary by less than 10%.
Pf ¼ Pf kinematic Pf kineticjkinematic ð22Þ
When the parameters listed in Table 1 were considered as fixed
It should be noted that the term Pf kinematic in Eq. (22) refers to input values in ROCKTOPPLE, it was revealed that the discontinuity
the probability of block toppling being kinematically feasible. The orientations did not satisfy the kinematic conditions for
probability of the other kinematic conditions, as defined in block-toppling. Therefore, to obtain kinetic stability results with

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

ROCKTOPPLE that could be compared with published values,
analysis of kinematic stability was temporarily disabled. The
results obtained with ROCKTOPPLE, in terms of the stability mode
of the blocks, are in close agreement with the published results
(i.e. a set of stable blocks at the crest, a set of intermediate toppling
blocks, and a set of sliding blocks at the toe). There was, however, a
notable discrepancy as ROCKTOPPLE predicted only 2 stable blocks
at the slope crest compared to 3 in the published example. This
discrepancy is attributed to the differences in block geometry
noted earlier. Since trapezoidal blocks above the slope crest are
taller relative to their rectangular counterparts, their centroid
locations are shifted in the downslope direction relative to their
base and are, therefore, more likely to topple.
Differences in the block geometry also resulted in differing
inter-block forces and, consequently, differing values of Rn and Sn
(Fig. 15). According to the results obtained from ROCKTOPPLE, the
factor of safety according to Eq. (12) is 0.94 compared to 1.00 for
the published results.
Although the results obtained from ROCKTOPPLE varied from
the published results due to differing block geometries, similar
behaviour in terms of stability mode and the relative shear and
normal forces was predicted for all blocks. The resulting difference
in the factor of safety, given the same input parameters, under-
scores the impact of varying the slope geometry on stability and
further illustrates the importance of incorporating geometric
uncertainties into the analysis of block toppling.

140 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
Vertical Distance (m)
Vertical Distance (m)

90 90 15 16
14 15 16 13
14
13
80 12 80 12
11 11
70 10 70 10
60 9 60 9
8 8
50 7 50 7
40 6 40 6
5 5
30 4 30 4
20 3 20 3
10 1 2 10 2
1
0 0
-10 -10
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140

-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Horizontal Distance (m) Horizontal Distance (m)

Fig. 14. Geometry of deterministic example problem: (a) rectangular blocks as considered in Wyllie and Mah (2004) and (b) trapezoidal blocks considered by ROCKTOPPLE.

Block
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
0

1000

2000

3000
Force (kN)

4000

5000

6000
Rn: Wyllie & Mah (2004)
7000
Sn: Wyllie & Mah (2004)
8000 Rn: ROCKTOPPLE
Sn: ROCKTOPPLE
9000

Fig. 15. Comparison of shear (Sn) and normal (Rn) forces along base of each block as given in Wyllie and Mah (2004) and as calculated by ROCKTOPPLE.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 13

5. Probabilistic application of ROCKTOPPLE
To demonstrate the use of the probabilistic stability analysis
procedure and computer program ROCKTOPPLE described in the
preceding sections, the stability of a 15 m high granite rock cut
was analyzed, for which sufficient geotechnical data are available
and suitable.
The results of detailed discontinuity mapping of the rock cut
under consideration are summarized in the stereographic plot in
Fig. 16. The discontinuity poles form three distinctive clusters
representing three main discontinuity sets denoted as D1– D3.
Table 2 summarizes the mean orientations of the three
discontinuity sets and the corresponding Fisher constants.
Plotting the average plane describing the slope face along with

Fig. 16. Equal-area stereographic representation of slope and discontinuity geometry considered probabilistically along with envelopes defining kinematic conditions
required for block toppling.

Table 2
Summary of mean discontinuity orientations and corresponding Fisher constants K.

Set Mean orientation (dip/dip direction) Fisher constant K

D1 751/1341 49
D2 291/0501 46
D3 721/2251 24

Table 3
Summary of input parameters for probabilistic analysis.

Parameter Probabilistic distribution Mean value Standard deviation

Overall geometry
Slope height (m) Fixed value 15 –
Slope angle (deg) Fixed value 70 –
Top angle (deg) Fixed value 2.5 –
Dip direction of slope face (deg) Fixed value 55

Discontinuity orientations
Dip/dip direction of set A (deg) Fisher 29/050 46 (Fisher K)
Dip/dip direction of set B (deg) Fisher 72/225 24 (Fisher K)

Rock mass characteristics

Spacing of joint set A (m) Log normal 0.75 0.15
Spacing of joint set B (m) Log normal 2.5 0.30
Friction angle of set A (deg) Normala 35 2.5
Friction angle of set B (deg) Normala 35 2.5
Unit weight of rock (kN/m3) Fixed value 26 –

External loads
Seismic coefficient (g) Fixed value 0 –
Unit weight of water (kN/m3) Fixed value 9.81 –
Water pressure (%) Log normal 10 5
Rock support Not considered

a
Physically, these parameters cannot have values outside the range of 0–901. Therefore, the normal distributions are truncated at these extremes to prevent sampling of
non-physical values.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Table 4
Comparison of deterministic and probabilistic results obtained with ROCKTOPPLE

Analysis description Factor of safety

Deterministic 1.23

Probabilities of failure

Mean factor of safety Probability of kinematic failure Probability of kinetic failure Total probability of block toppling failure
Probabilistic 1.17 0.602 0.234 0.141

600 1.0

Critical mode of toe

500 block(s) = toppling
Critcal mode of toe 0.8
block(s) = sliding

Cumulative Probability
400 Cumulative Probability
0.6
Frequency

300

0.4
200

0.2
100

0 0.0

Factor of Safety

Fig. 17. Distribution of factor of safety obtained from ROCKTOPPLE using input values given in Table 3.

the envelopes defining potential base planes and sub-vertical
toppling planes (as previously defined in Fig. 2), it is evident that
block-toppling is possible with discontinuity sets D2 and D3
forming the base plane (set A) and sub-vertical planes (set B),
respectively.
The input parameters required for performing probabilistic
analysis of the slope are given in Table 3, including the selected
probabilistic distributions, mean values, and corresponding
standard deviations (or Fisher constants). Analysis results, both
deterministic and probabilistic, are presented in Table 4 and the
distribution of the factor of safety obtained via probabilistic
analysis is shown in Fig. 17.
The deterministic factor of safety of 1.23 would likely be
deemed unacceptable for many civil engineering projects due to
the high consequence of failure. However, it may be considered
sufficient for slopes in some mining operations. The probabilistic
results obtained by performing 10000 Monte Carlo trials indicate
the mean factor of safety is lower than the deterministic value
(1.14) and the probability of failure is 0.141 or 14%. A review of
acceptable failure probabilities for rock slopes by Wang et al.
(2000) indicated that although there is no universally accepted
value, there is agreement that values exceeding 10% are generally
not acceptable. Therefore, it has been shown that by including
uncertainty in the analysis of block toppling, conclusions regard-
ing the stability of a slope may differ. In this case, the addition of
rock support elements or flattening of the slope may be employed
to reduce the probability of failure.
6. Conclusion and summary
A new probabilistic method for analyzing the stability of rock
slopes according to the limit equilibrium method developed by
Goodman and Bray (1976) has been coded in an Excel spreadsheet
using Visual Basic for Applications. A review of the methodology
and logic used in the spreadsheet-based program has been
presented in this paper. The program that was created has been
shown to calculate the probability of block-toppling failure by
considering both kinematic and kinetic failure criteria, while
accounting for:
 irregular and uncertain geometry and shear strength para-
meters;
 external forces, including horizontal ground accelerations and
water pressures; and
 rock support in the form of securing the toe block or bolting
the toppling blocks together.
The ROCKTOPPLE program has been verified against a
published deterministic example and utilized to assess a granite
rock cut to demonstrate its ability to perform probabilistic
analyses. It is shown that by considering the uncertainty of input
values, conclusions regarding the stability of a slope may differ
from those drawn from conventional deterministic analyses.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 15

Fig. 18. Screenshot of ‘‘Analysis Details 1’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE summarizing coordinates defining mean slope geometry and water levels.

Fig. 19. Screenshot of ‘‘Analysis Details 2’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE summarizing outcome of each Monte Carlo trial.

Fig. 20. Screenshot of ‘‘Analysis Details 3’’ tab of ROCKTOPPLE illustrating details of kinetic analysis of first kinematically feasible Monte Carlo trial.

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Table 5
Results of deterministic example as presented in Wyllie and Mah (2004).

n Wn yn Dx/y o tanca? Mn Ln Pn Pn  1:T Pn  1:S Pn  1 Rn Sn Mode

(kN) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

16 1000 4.0 2.5 No 4.0 4.0 0.0  832.5  470.7 0.0 866.0 500.0 Stable
15 2500 10.0 1.0 No 5.0 10.0 0.0  457.5  1176.8 0.0 2165.1 1250.0 Stable
14 4000 16.0 0.6 No 11.0 16.0 0.0  82.5  1882.9 0.0 3464.1 2000.0 Stable
13 5500 22.0 0.5 Yes 17.0 22.0 0.0 292.5  2588.9 292.5 4533.4 2457.5 Toppling
12 7000 28.0 0.4 Yes 23.0 28.0 292.5 825.7  3002.5 825.7 5643.3 2966.8 Toppling
11 8500 34.0 0.3 Yes 29.0 34.0 825.7 1556.0  3175.4 1556.0 6787.6 3519.7 Toppling
10 10000 40.0 0.3 Yes 35.0 35.0 1556.0 2826.7  3151.2 2826.7 7662.1 3729.2 Toppling
9 9000 36.0 0.3 Yes 36.0 31.0 2826.7 3922.1  1409.7 3922.1 6933.8 3404.6 Toppling
8 8000 32.0 0.3 Yes 32.0 27.0 3922.1 4594.8 156.4 4594.8 6399.8 3327.4 Toppling
7 7000 28.0 0.4 Yes 28.0 23.0 4594.8 4837.0 1299.8 4837.0 5871.9 3257.8 Toppling
6 6000 24.0 0.4 Yes 24.0 19.0 4837.0 4637.4 2012.7 4637.4 5352.9 3199.5 Toppling
5 5000 20.0 0.5 Yes 20.0 15.0 4637.4 3978.0 2283.9 3978.0 4848.1 3159.4 Toppling
4 4000 16.0 0.6 No 16.0 11.0 3978.0 2825.5 2095.2 2825.5 4369.5 3152.6 Toppling
3 3000 12.0 0.8 No 12.0 7.0 2825.5 1103.0 1413.3 1413.3 3707.3 2912.1 Sliding
2 2000 8.0 1.3 No 8.0 3.0 1413.3  1485.2 471.9 471.9 2471.6 1941.4 Sliding
1 1000 4.0 2.5 No 4.0 4.0 471.9  1287.3 1.2 1.2 1235.8 970.7 Sliding

Table 6
Results of deterministic example obtained with ROCKTOPPLE.

n Wn Xw Mn Ln Pn Pn  1:T Pn  1:S Pn  1 Rn Sn Mode

(kN) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

16 1833 1.9 4.9 9.8 0.0  365.6  862.9 0.0 1587.6 916.6 Stable
15 3303 0.7 10.8 15.6 0.0  152.7  1554.5 0.0 2860.1 1651.3 Stable
14 4772  0.7 16.6 21.5 0.0 144.6  2246.2 144.6 4019.0 2241.4 Toppling
13 6241  2.1 22.5 27.4 144.6 549.3  2793.3 549.3 5087.1 2715.9 Toppling
12 7711  3.5 28.4 33.3 549.3 1152.5  3080.2 1152.5 6203.7 3252.1 Toppling
11 9180  5.0 34.3 39.2 1152.5 1940.3  3168.6 1940.3 7331.1 3802.1 Toppling
10 9632  5.2 40.2 36.1 1940.3 3133.2  2593.9 3133.2 7404.9 3623.3 Toppling
9 8641  4.2 37.1 32.1 3133.2 3992.8  934.3 3992.8 6808.3 3461.0 Toppling
8 7639  3.2 33.1 28.1 3992.8 4461.1 396.8 4461.1 6248.0 3351.3 Toppling
7 6637  2.2 29.1 24.0 4461.1 4537.5 1336.7 4537.5 5688.1 3242.2 Toppling
6 5635  1.2 25.0 20.0 4537.5 4221.3 1884.8 4221.3 5128.9 3134.0 Toppling
5 4634  0.1 21.0 16.0 4221.3 3511.0 2040.2 3511.0 4570.8 3027.1 Toppling
4 3632 0.9 17.0 12.0 3511.0 2404.2 1801.5 2404.2 4014.5 2922.6 Toppling
3 2630 2.0 13.0 8.0 2404.2 895.8 1166.3 1166.3 3249.8 2552.8 Sliding
2 1628 3.2 9.0 4.0 1166.3  952.9 400.0 400.0 2011.7 1580.2 Sliding
1 626 4.9 5.0 0.0 400.0 – – – 856.3 713.0 Sliding

Acknowledgments summarizes the (x,y) coordinates defining the mean geometry of

The authors wish to acknowledge the individuals who helped
with various aspects of the work presented in this paper: Prof.
Stephen Evans of the Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences at the University of Waterloo for providing the initial
motivation to develop this tool; Dr. Mikko Jyrkama at the Institute
for Risk Research at the University of Waterloo for advice during
the early stages of coding the analysis procedure, and Dr. Reginald
Hammah at Rocscience Inc. for providing assistance with the code
needed to sample a Fisher distribution. Furthermore, the authors
would like to thank Prof. Robert Pine and an anonymous reviewer
for their constructive comments, which improved this paper.
Funding for this work was provided in part by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada in the form
of an Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship held by
B.S.A. Tatone.
Appendix A. ‘‘Analysis details’’ tabs of ROCKTOPPLE
Figs. 18–20 illustrate the ‘‘Analysis Details’’ tabs of the
ROCKTOPPPLE program. ‘‘Analysis Details 1’’ (Fig. 18)
the slope, including the overall slope geometry, the geometry of
each block, and the coordinates defining the water table. ‘‘Analysis
Details 2’’ summarizes the outcome of each Monte Carlo trial,
including the orientations of randomly generated discontinuities,
the results of kinematic analysis, and the results of kinetic
analysis. ‘‘Analysis details 3’’ provides details the kinetic analysis
of the first kinematically feasible trial, including all randomly
sampled input parameters, the resulting inter-block forces, the
stability mode of each block comprising the slope, and a graphic
illustrating the randomly generated geometry.
Appendix B. Detailed results of deterministic example
Tables 5 and 6 provide detailed results of the deterministic
example presented in Section 4. Table 5 illustrates the results as
published in Wyllie and Mah (2004), while Table 6 shows the
results obtained with ROCKTOPPLE. It is noted that instead of
utilizing Eq. (1) to determine if a block’s centre of gravity lies
outside of its base (as in Table 5), Table 6 presents the value of Xw,
which describes the horizontal distance between a block’s centre

Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.S.A. Tatone, G. Grasselli / Computers & Geosciences ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
of mass and its lowermost corner. Negative values of Xw indicate
the centre of gravity lies outside the block’s base.
References
Baecher, G.B., Christian, J.T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering. J. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (605pp.).
Carter, B.J., Lajtai, E.Z., 1992. Rock slope stability and distributed joint systems.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal/Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique 29 (1),
53–60.
Cruden, D.M., 1989. Limits to common toppling. Canadian Geotechnical Journal/
Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique 26 (4), 737–742.
Duzgun, H.S.B., 2008. A quantitative risk assessment framework for rock slides. In:
Yale, D., Holtz, S., Breeds, C., Ozbay, U. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd US Rock
Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, American Rock Mechanics Associa-
tion, Alexandria, VA, Paper 08-279 (CD-ROM).
Duzgun, H.S.B., Yucemen, M.S., Karpuz, C., 2003. A methodology for reliability-
based design of rock slopes. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 36 (2),
95–120, doi:10.1007/s00603-002-0034-0.
El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N.R., Cruden, D.M., 2002. Probabilistic slope stability
analysis for practice. Canadian Geotechnical Journal/Revue Canadienne de
Geotechnique 39 (3), 665–683, doi:10.1139/t02-034.
Fell, R., Ho, K.K.S., Lacasse, S., Leroi, E., 2005. A framework for landslide risk
assessment and management. In: Unger, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E.,
(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Landslide Risk Manage-
ment, Landslide Risk Management, Vancouver, Canada, Taylor and Francis,
London, pp. 3–25.
Feng, P., Lajtai, E.Z., 1998. Probabilistic treatment of the sliding wedge with EzSlide.
Engineering Geology 50 (1–2), 153–163, doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(98)00007-6.
Fisher, R., 1953. Dispersion on a sphere. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 217 (1130), 295–305.
GEO-SLOPE, 2007. SLOPE/W, Calgary, /http://www.geo-slope.com/products/slo
pew2007.aspxS (Accessed September 22, 2008).
Glynn, E.F., 1979. A probabilistic approach to the stability of rock slopes. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 463pp.
Goodman, R.E., Bray, J.W., 1976. Toppling of rock slopes. In: Proceedings of the
Specialty Conference on Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes, Boulder,
CO, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 201–223.
Ho, K.K.S., Leroi, E., Roberds, W.J., 2000. Quantitative risk assessment: application,
myths and future direction. In: Proceeding of GeoEng 2000—An International
Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Tech-
nomic Publishing, Lancaster, PA, pp. 269–312.
Major, G., Kim, H., Ross-Brown, D., 1977. Pit slope manual supplement 5-1-plane
shear analysis. CANMET (Canada Centre for Mineral and Engineering
Technology), Mines and Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 307pp.
McMahon, B.K., 1971. A statistical method for the design of rock slopes. In:
Proceedings of the First Australia–New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Melbourne, Australia Institution of Engineers, Sydney, pp. 314–321.
Morgenstern, N.R., 1997. Toward landslide risk assessment in practice. In: Cruden,
D.M., Fell, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Landslide
Risk Assessment, Honolulu, HI, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 15–24.
Please cite this article as: Tatone, B.S.A., Grasselli, G., ROCKTOPPLE: A spreadsheet-based program for probabilistic block-toppling
analysis. Computers and Geosciences (2009), doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.04.014
17
Muralha, J., 2003. Parameter variability in the toppling stability of rock blocks. In:
Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the International Society for Rock
Mechanic, Technology Road Map for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, South
Africa, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Marshalltown,
pp. 849–854.
Norrish, N.I., Wyllie, D.C., 1996. Rock slope stability analysis. In: Turner, A.K.,
Schuster, R.L. (Eds.), Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Transportation
Research Board Special Report 247, National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
pp. 391–425.
Park, H., West, T.R., 2001. Development of a probabilistic approach for rock wedge
failure. Engineering Geology 59 (3–4), 233–251, doi:10.1016/S0013-
7952(00)00076-4.
Pine, R.J., Roberds, W.J., 2005. A risk-based approach for the design of rock slopes
subject to multiple failure modes—illustrated by a case study in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 42 (2), 261–275,
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.09.014.
Piteau, D.R., Martin, D.C., 1977. Slope stability analysis and design based on
probability techniques at Cassiar mine. CIM Bulletin 70 (779), 139–150.
Priest, S.D., 1993. Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering, first ed Chapman &
Hall, New York, NY (473pp.).
Quek, S.T., Leung, C.F., 1995. Reliability-based stability analysis of rock excavations.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomecha-
nics Abstracts 32 (6), 617–620.
RockWare, 2008. RockPack III, RockWare-Earth Science and GIS Software, Golden,
CO, /http://www.rockware.com/product/overview.php?id=119S (accessed
September 22, 2008).
Rocscience, 2008a. ROCPLANE 2.0—planar sliding stability analysis for rock slopes,
Rocscience Inc., Toronto, Canada, /http://www.rocscience.com/products/Roc
Plane.aspS (accessed September 22, 2008).
Rocscience, 2008b. SLIDE 5.0–2D limit equilibrium slope stability analysis,
Rocscience Inc., Toronto, /http://www.rocscience.com/products/Slide.aspS
(accessed September 22, 2008).
Rocscience, 2008c. SWEDGE 5.0–3D surface wedge analysis for slopes, Rocscience
Inc., Toronto, /http://www.rocscience.com/products/Swedge.aspS (accessed
September 22, 2008).
Scavia, C., Barla, G., Bernaudo, V., 1990. Probabilistic stability analysis of block
toppling failure in rock slopes. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 27 (6), 465–478.
Wang, J., Tan, W., Feng, S., Zhou, R., 2000. Reliability analysis of an open pit coal
mine slope. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37
(4), 715–721.
Wyllie, D.C., Wood, D.F., 1983. Stabilization of toppling rock slope failures. In:
Hynes, J.L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd Highway Geology Symposium,
Engineering Geology and Environmental Constraints, Vail, CO, Colorado
Geological Survey, Denver, CO, pp. 103–115.
Wyllie, D.C., 1999. Foundations on Rock, second ed E & FN Spon, New York, NY
(401pp.).
Wyllie, D.C., Mah, C.W., 2004. Rock Slope Engineering: Civil and Mining, fourth ed
Spon Press, New York, NY (431pp.).