Verification Examples

1. Goodman and Bray Block Toppling Example 1

This verification looks at Example 1 in the paper:
Goodman, R. E., & Bray, J. W. (1976). Toppling of Rock Slopes. Rock Engineering for Foundations and
Slopes (pp. 201 - 234). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Four analyses of block toppling were performed in RocTopple and verified using Phase2 and UDEC.
The analyses comprised of computing the factor of safety for examples 1a and 1b and the same
examples with higher friction (page 222 of the paper), named examples 1c and 1d here. All examples
include a stabilizing force on the toe of the slope. In the case of examples 1a and 1b, this force
establishes limit equilibrium (FS=1) as computed by the Goodman and Bray method.

Table 1.1 - Material Properties

Analysis

(deg.)

Example 1a
Example 1b
Example 1c
Example 1d

38.15
33.02
38.66
38.66

Force on Toe Block

(kN)
0.5
2013
0.5
2013

(kN/m3)
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0

Figure 1.1 Geometry with 16 Blocks (Goodman and Bray, 1976)

Figure 1.2 RocTopple Model using Goodman and Bray Input Geometry (16 Blocks)

Figure 1.3 Phase2 Model of Example 1a (Geometry exported from RocTopple)

Figure 1.4 Phase2 Results of Example 1a at Critical SRF (Total Displacement Contours)

Figure 1.5 Deformation in UDE

Table 1.2 Factors of Safety

Example 1a
Example 1b
Example 1c
Example 1d

RocTopple
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.23

Phase2
1.01
0.98
1.02
1.22

UDEC
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.24

Goodman and Bray

1.0
1.0
1.02
1.23

2. Goodman and Bray Block Toppling Example 2

This verification looks at Example 2 in the paper:
Goodman, R. E., & Bray, J. W. (1976). Toppling of Rock Slopes. Rock Engineering for Foundations
and Slopes (pp. 201 - 234). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
RocTopple was used to analyze a slope with geometry given in the article. The slope is subject to
block toppling. The analysis comprised of computing the factor of safety in RocTopple, and then the
geometry was exported to Phase2 to find an equivalent shear strength reduction factor. RocTopple
results were also verified using rigid blocks in UDEC.

Note that the geometry in RocTopple has been modified. As a result, the model has different block
heights than those calculated in the original publication. The key difference is that block 1 now
stands alone (height does not exceed step), and the failure of the slope depends on the equilibrium
of block 2.

Table 2.1 - Material Properties

Analysis
(deg.)

(kN/m3)
Example 2
21.455
25.0

Figure 2.1 Goodman and Bray Example 2 Geometry (12 Blocks)

Figure 2.2 RocTopple Geometry (14 blocks, separate first block)

Figure 2.3 Phase2 Geometry and Properties

Figure 2.4 Phase2 Total Displacement Contours and Deformed Shape

Figure 2.5 Deformation in UDEC

Table 2.2 Factors of Safety

RocTopple
0.78

Phase2
0.67

UDEC
0.69

3. Alejano and Alonso Block Toppling

This verification looks at the block toppling example from:
Alejano, L. R., & Alonso, E. (2005). Application of the 'Shear and Tensile Strength Reduction
Technique' to Obtain Factors of Safety of Toppling and Footwall Rock slopes. Eurock: Impact of
Human Activity on the Geological Environment.
A block toppling model was constructed and analyzed in RocTopple using geometric data given in
the article. The model was then exported to Phase2, in which shear strength reduction analysis was
used to verify factor of safety results. Results were also verified using rigid block UDEC analysis.

Note that the article does not specify a width for the blocks. Block width of 1.75m was used in the
RocTopple model to achieve the eleven blocks as seen in the article.

Table 3.1 - Material Properties

Slope Height
(m)

Slope Angle
(deg)

Joint Angle
(deg)

9.85

58.65

64

Overall Base
Inclination
(deg)
30

(deg)

(kN/m3)

31

25.0

Figure 3.1 Goodman & Bray Geometry (Alejano & Alonso, 2005)

Figure 3.2 RocTopple Geometry

Figure 3.3 Phase2 Geometry and Properties

Figure 3.4 Displacement Contours in Phase2

Figure 3.5 Deformation in UDEC

Table 3.2 Factors of Safety

RocTopple
0.91

Phase2
0.90

UDEC
0.88

Alejano and Alonso

0.76

4. Block Toppling in Steep Slope

Table 4.1 Properties
Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 38.15

Figure 4.1 RocTopple Geometry and Block Failure Modes at Limit Equilibrium

Results are verified in UDEC and Phase2. Both programmes also predict that blocks are toppling from
the 7th block from the top all the way to the toe block. These programs also generated comparable
factors of safety.

Table 4.2 Factors of Safety

RocTopple
0.59

Phase2
0.57

UDEC
0.59

5. Sliding Blocks
Table 5.1 - Properties
Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 30

Figure 5.1 RocTopple predicts that blocks are sliding critical at point of failure

Results were verified in Phase2 and RocPlane, which uses the limit equilibrium method to predict the
factor of safety for 2-D planar failure. The analysis in RocPlane used a failure plane angle of 20.

Table 5.2 Factors of Safety

RocTopple
1.59

Phase2
1.61

RocPlane
1.59

6. Barton Bandis Joint Shear Strength

Table 6.1 Properties
Material
A
B
C

Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

JRC
10
8
5

Joints
JCS (t/m2)
10000
7000
5000

PhiR
30
20
15

Figure 6.1 RocTopple Geometry and Block Failure Modes at Limit Equilibrium
Results were verified using manual shear strength reduction in Phase2. The joint strength parameters
could not be divided by the factor of safety values in finding a shear strength reduction factor because
the Barton Bandis model is non-linear. Instead, normal and shear stress data at the given shear strength
model had to be exported to Excel from RocData, where the shear stresses were manually adjusted for
different factors of safety (shear stress/FS). The normal stress and new shear stress values were
imported back into RocData, which uses the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm to fit the stress values to a
set of Barton Bandis parameters. Finally, the slope stability was evaluated using stress analysis in Phase2
given the adjusted parameters. A discrepancy is seen in one of the factors of safety because the
parameters did not give a perfect fit to the stress data. As seen in Table 6.2, factors of safety between
RocTopple and Phase2 do not agree when there are large residuals in the parameter fitting process.
Table 6.2 Factors of Safety Results

A
B
C

Factors of Safety
RocTopple
Phase2
1.92
1.4
1.06
0.98
0.64
0.61

RocData Residuals
(Fit at Phase2 FS)
17.964
0.020
4.414

7. Bolts and Line Loads

Since the formulation for end-anchored bolts consists of having two forces applied at the two ends,
having a bolt that is anchored in the slope bedrock is equivalent to having a line load applied at where
the bolt is installed (Figure 7.1).
Table 7.1 - Properties
Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 38.15

Figure 7.1 Slope with bolts each at 60 tonnes/m (left); equivalent line loads at 60 tonnes/m (right)

Table 7.2 Factors of Safety

Bolts
Line Loads

RocTopple
1.30
1.30

Phase2
1.25
1.24

8. Distributed Loads
Distributed loads are assumed to apply on top of blocks, and are taken into account in the calculation as
equivalent line loads.

Table 8.1 - Properties

Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 38.15

Figure 8.1 Slope face pressure of 11 tonnes/m2

The example was verified in two ways. The first was by applying equivalent line loads in RocTopple, and
the second was to model the slope in Phase2 using distributed loads and also by equivalent line loads.
Table 8.2 Factors of Safety for model with slope face pressure
2

Distributed Load (11 tonnes/m )

Equivalent Line Loads

RocTopple
1.32
1.32

A similar analysis for pressure on the upper slope face is illustrated below.

Phase2
1.27
1.27

Figure 8.2 Pressure at 90 tonnes/m2 on upper slope face

Table 8.3 Factors of Safety for model with upper slope face pressure
2

Distributed Load (90 tonnes/m )

Equivalent Line Loads

RocTopple
1.06
1.07

Phase2
1.03
1.04

9. Mohr Coulomb Joint Shear Strength

Results for a series of analyses using Mohr Coulomb shear strength are shown below. The analyses
represent a variety of combinations of friction angle and cohesion.
Table 9.1 - Properties
Joints
Example
A
B
C
D
E

Material

()

Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

38.15
30
25
10
0

Figure 9.1 Failure mode of blocks for slope A

Cohesion
(tonnes/m2)
0
10
25
40
50

Figure 9.2 Failure mode of blocks of Slopes B, C, D and E

Table 9.2 - Factor of Safety Results

A
B
C
D
E

()
38.15
30
25
10
0

Cohesion (tonnes/m2)
0
10
25
40
50

RocTopple
1.26
1.92
2.12
1.82
1.67

Phase2
1.11
2.01
2.18
1.84
1.63

10.

Seismic Loads

Example 2, which shows a shallow slope with all sliding critical blocks at the point of failure, is now
exhibiting toppling failure under a large seismic load.
Table 10.1 - Properties
Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 30

Figure 10.1 The same slope from Example 2 now exhibits toppling behavior under a horizontal seismic
loading coefficient of 0.4

Table 10.2 Factors of Safety

RocTopple
0.64

Phase2
0.65

11.

Water Pressure

A slope with 100% fill joints in RocTopple is modelled in Phase2 using a phreatic surface that fully spans
across the joints. The pressure is calculated using the Hu Auto option, which extrapolates the phreatic
surface at a 45 angle.
Table 11.1 Properties
Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 38.15

Figure 11.1 With water pressure, the model has sliding blocks starting from the crest block to the toe

Figure 11.2 Deformation and yielded joints in Phase2 model

Table 11.2 Factors of safety

RocTopple
0.78

Phase2
0.71

Note that while RocTopple reports tension at base of sliding blocks, Phase2 does not. Also note that
while RocTopple assumes all joints are fully mobilized in shear, Phase2 results reflect that not all joints
(i.e. toppling joints) are fully yielded for the sliding blocks (Figure 11.2). When shear is fully mobilized in
the toppling joints, as is the case in RocTopple, it creates an uplifting force on the blocks and in the
calculation results in base tension.

12.

Upslope Toppling

When there are external forces, blocks may topple upslope. RocTopple provides warning when the slope
may be toppling up. Note that RocTopple only checks for upslope stability for group blocks (blocks that
are in contact with other blocks), and for only the toppling failure mode (rotation about the upper base
corner).
Table 12.1 Properties
Material
Unit Weight = 2.5 t/m3

Joints
= 40

Figure 12.1 With a pressure of 500t/m2 supporting the slope, the slope is stable in terms of downslope
failure (factor of safety exceeding 25), but is unstable in terms of toppling upslope.

Figure 12.2 Stress analysis using Phase2 predicts the slope is rotating upslope.