Chapter 10

Toppling failure

10.1 INTRODUCTION

The failure modes discussed in the three previous chapters all relate to sliding of a rock or
soil mass along an existing or induced sliding surface. This chapter discusses a different
failure mode – that of toppling, which involves rotation of columns or blocks of rock about
a fixed base. Similarly to plane and wedge failure, the stability analysis of toppling failures
involves first carrying out a kinematic analysis of the structural geology to identify potential
toppling conditions, and then if this condition exists, performing a stability analysis specific
to toppling failures. Figure 10.1 shows typical toppling blocks in columnar basalt.
One of the earliest references to toppling failures is by Muller (1968) who suggested
that block rotation or toppling may have been a contributory factor in the failure of the
north face of the Vajont slide (Figure 10.2). Hofmann (1972) carried out a number of
model studies under Muller’s direction to investigate block rotation. Similar model studies
were carried out by Ashby (1971), Soto (1974) and Whyte (1973), while Cundall (1971),
Byrne (1974) and Hammett (1974) incorporated rotational failure modes into the computer
analysis of rock mass behaviour. Figure 10.3 shows a computer model of a toppling failure
in which the solid blocks are fixed and the open blocks are free to move. When the fixed
blocks at the face are removed, the tallest columns of blocks topple because their centre
of gravity lies outside the base. The model illustrates a typical feature of toppling failures
in which the tension cracks are wider at the top than at the base. This condition, which
can best be observed when looking along the strike, is useful in the field identification of
topples.
Papers concerning field studies of toppling failures include de Freitas and Watters (1973)
who discuss slopes in Britain, and Wyllie (1980) who demonstrates stabilisation measures
for toppling failures related to railway operations.
Most of the discussion that follows in this chapter is based on a paper by Goodman and
Bray (1976) in which a formal mathematical solution to a simple toppling problem is shown.
This solution, which is reproduced here, represents a basis for designing rock slopes in
which toppling is present, and has been further developed into a more general design tool
(Zanbak, 1983; Adhikary, Dyskin, Jewell et al., 1997; Bobet, 1999; Sagaseta, Sánchez and
Cañizal, 2001).

10.2 TYPE OF TOPPLING FAILURES

Goodman and Bray (1976) have described a number of different types of toppling fail-
ures that may be encountered in the field, and each is discussed briefly in the following
pages. The importance of distinguishing between types of toppling is that two distinct

269
270 Rock Slope Engineering Toppling failure 270

Figure 10.1 Toppling blocks in columnar basalt showing typical tension cracks with widths greater at the
top and narrowing near the base (Sea to Sky Highway near Whistler, British Columbia, Canada).

Figure 10.2 Suggested toppling mechanism of the north face of Vajont slide (Müller, 1968).

Figure 10.3 Computer-generated model of toppling failure; solid blocks are fixed in space while open blocks
are free to move (Cundall, 1971).
271 Rock Slope Engineering Toppling failure 271

methods of stability analysis for toppling failures can occur as described in the following
pages – block and flexural toppling – and it is necessary to use the appropriate analysis
in design.

10.2.1 Block toppling

As illustrated in Figure 10.4a, block toppling occurs when, in a strong rock, individual
columns are formed by a set of discontinuities dipping steeply into the face, and a second set
of widely spaced orthogonal joints defines the column height. The short columns forming
the toe of the slope are pushed forward by the loads from the longer overturning columns
behind, and this sliding of the toe allows further toppling to develop higher up on the slope.
The base of the failure generally consists of a stepped surface rising from one cross-joint to
the next. Typical geological conditions in which this type of failure may occur are bedded
sandstone and columnar basalt in which orthogonal jointing is well developed.

10.2.2 Flexural toppling

The process of flexural toppling is illustrated in Figure 10.4b that shows continuous columns
of rock, separated by well-developed, steeply dipping discontinuities, breaking in flexure as
they bend forward. Typical geological conditions in which this type of failure may occur are
thinly bedded shale and slate in which orthogonal jointing is not well developed. Generally,
the basal plane of a flexural topple is not as well defined as a block topple.
Sliding, excavation or erosion of the toe of the slope allows the toppling process to start
and it retrogresses back into the rock mass with the formation of deep tension cracks that

Figure 10.4 Common classes of toppling failures: (a) block toppling of columns of rock containing widely
spaced orthogonal joints; (b) flexural toppling of slabs of rock dipping steeply into face;
(c) block flexure toppling characterised by pseudo-continuous flexure of long columns through
accumulated motions along numerous cross-joints (Goodman and Bray, 1976).
272 Rock Slope Engineering Toppling failure 272

become narrower with depth. The lower portion of the slope is covered with disordered
fallen blocks and it is sometimes difficult to recognise a toppling failure from the bottom
of the slope. Detailed examination of toppling slopes shows that the outward movement
of each cantilevered column produces an interlayer slip and a portion of the upper sur-
face of each plane is exposed in a series of back-facing, or obsequent scarps, such as those
illustrated in Figure 10.4a.

10.2.3 Block–flexure toppling

As illustrated in Figure 10.4c, block–flexure toppling is characterised by pseudo-continuous
flexure along long columns that are divided by numerous cross-joints. Instead of the flex-
ural failure of continuous columns resulting in flexural toppling, toppling of columns in
this case results from accumulated displacements on the cross-joints. Because of the large
number of small movements in this type of topple, fewer tension cracks develop under these
conditions than in flexural toppling, and fewer edge-to-face contacts and voids than in
block toppling.

10.2.4 Secondary toppling modes

Figure 10.5 illustrates a number of possible secondary toppling mechanisms suggested by
Goodman and Bray (1976). In general, these failures are initiated by undercutting of the toe
of the slope, either by natural agencies such as scour or weathering, or by human activities.
In all cases, the primary failure mode involves sliding or physical breakdown of the rock,

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Tension cracks

2050
Circular sliding
2000 surfaces
Toppling at
Elevation (m)

1950 pit crest

1900
1850 Sandstone
Talus
1800
Fault
1750 Siltstone
Conglomerate

Figure 10.5 Secondary toppling modes: (a) Toppling at head of slide. (b) Toppling at toe of slide with shear
movement of upper slope (Goodman and Bray, 1976). (c) Toppling of columns in strong upper
material due to weathering of underlying weak material. (d) Toppling at pit crest resulting in
circular failure of upper slope (Wyllie and Munn, 1979).
273 Rock Slope Engineering Toppling failure 273

and toppling is induced in the upper part of the slope as a result of this primary failure
(Figure 10.5a and b).
Figure 10.5c illustrates a common occurrence of toppling failure in horizontally bed-
ded sandstone and shale formations. The shale is usually significantly weaker and more
susceptible to weathering than the sandstone, while the sandstone often contains vertical
stress relief joints. As the shale weathers, support for the sandstone is undermined and
columns of sandstone, with their dimensions defined by the spacing of the vertical joints,
topple from the face. At some locations, the overhangs can be as wide as 5 m (16 ft), and
failures of substantial volumes of rock can occur with little warning.
An example of a combined toppling and circular slide is shown in the failure of a pit
slope in a coal mine where the beds at the crest of the pit dipped at 70° into the face, and
their strike was parallel to the face (Figure 10.5d). Mining of the pit slope at an angle of
50° initiated a toppling failure at the crest of the pit where movement monitoring showed
that the columns of sandstone initially moved upwards and towards the pit. This movement
resulted in a circular failure that extended to a height of 230 m (750 ft) above the base of
the topple. Detailed monitoring of the slope showed that a total movement of about 30 m
(100 ft) occurred on the slope above the pit, resulting in cracks opening in the crest of the
mountain that were several metres wide and up to 9 m (30 ft) deep. As described in Section
15.7.1, continuous movement monitoring was used to allow mining to proceed under the
moving slope, and finally the slope was stabilised by back-filling the pit (Wyllie and Munn,
1979).
A further example of the toppling mechanism is illustrated in Figure 10.6 (Sjöberg,
2000). In open pit mines where the depth of the slope progressively increases, minor top-
pling movement may eventually develop into a substantial failure. Careful monitoring of

I II III
Crest
Elastic Joint slip fully
rebound developed
Joint slip (exaggerated
Joints displacements)
Stress
redistribution Toe
New mining
step

IV V VI
Compression and
bending of columns
Movement on slide
surface

Tensile bending failure Tensile bending failure Displacements

at base of rotation propagated to crest starting from toe

Figure 10.6 Failure stages for large-scale toppling failure in a slope (Sjöberg, 2000).
274 Rock Slope Engineering Toppling failure 274

the movement, and recognition of the toppling mechanism, can be used to anticipate when
hazardous conditions are developing.

10.3 KINEMATICS OF BLOCK TOPPLING FAILURE

The potential for toppling can be assessed from two kinematic tests described in this
section. These tests examine first the shape of the block, and second the relationship between
the dip of the planes forming the slabs and the face angle. It is emphasised that these two
tests are useful for identifying potential toppling conditions, but the tests cannot be used
alone as a method of stability analysis.

10.3.1 Block shape test

The basic mechanics of the stability of a block on a plane are illustrated in Figure 10.7a
(see also Figure 1.11). This diagram shows the conditions that differentiate stable, sliding
or toppling blocks with height y and width Δx on a plane dipping at an angle ψ p. If the

(a) x (c)

f
y

d
d
p

W (180 – f – d)

(b) f (d)

20°
d

(90 – f)

f d

Figure 10.7 Kinematic conditions for flexural slip preceding toppling: (a) block height/width test for
toppling; (b) directions of stress and slip direction in rock slope; (c) conditions for interlayer
slip; (d) kinematic test defined on lower hemisphere stereographic projection.
275 Rock Slope Engineering Toppling failure 275

friction angle between the base of the block and the plane is ϕ p, then the block will be
stable against sliding when the dip of the base plane is less than the friction angle, that
is, when

ψ p < φ p – Stable (10.1)

but will topple when the centre of gravity of the block lies outside the base, that is, when

∆x
< tan ψ p − Topple (10.2)
y

For example, for a 3 m (10 ft) wide block on a base plane dipping at 10°, toppling will
occur if the height exceeds 17 m (56 ft).

10.3.2 Interlayer slip test

A requirement for toppling to occur in the mechanisms shown in Figures 10.4 and 10.6 is
shear displacement on the face-to-face contacts on the front and back faces of the blocks.
Sliding on these faces will occur if the following conditions are met (Figure 10.7b). The state
of stress close to the slope face is uniaxial with the direction of the normal stress σ aligned
parallel to the slope face. When the layers slip past each other, σ must be inclined at an angle
ϕd with the normal to the layers, where ϕd is the friction angle of the sides of the blocks.
If ψf is the dip of slope face and ψd is the dip of the planes forming the sides of the blocks,
then the condition for interlayer slip is given by (Figure 10.7c)
(180 − ψ f − ψ d ) ≥ (90 − φ d ) (10.3)

or
ψ d ≥ (90 − ψ f ) + φd (10.4)

10.3.3 Block alignment test

The other kinematic condition for toppling is that the strike of the planes forming the blocks
is approximately parallel to the slope face so that each layer is free to topple with little con-
straint from adjacent layers. Observations of topples in the field show that instability is pos-
sible where the dip direction of the planes forming the sides of the blocks αd is within about
10° of the dip direction of the slope face αf, or
(α f − α d ) < 10° (10.5)

The two conditions defining kinematic stability of topples given by Equations 10.4 and
10.5 can be depicted on the stereonet (Figure 10.7d). On the stereonet, toppling is possible
for planes for which the poles lie within the shaded area, provided also that the base friction
properties and shape of the blocks meet the conditions given by Equations 10.1 and 10.2,
respectively.