Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp 147–148

Reply to discussion by R. Tomás, M. Cano, J. García-Barba on “GIS-based kinematic slope instability and slope mass rating (SMR) maps: application to a railway route in Sivas (Turkey)” by Işık Yilmaz, Marian Marschalko, Mustafa Yildirim, Emek Dereli and Martin Bednarik, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 71, (2012), 351–357, doi:10.1007/s10064-011-0384-5”


    • Department of Geological EngineeringCumhuriyet University
  • Marian Marschalko
    • Faculty of Mining and Geology, Institute of Geological EngineeringVSB, Technical University of Ostrava
  • Mustafa Yildirim
    • Department of Geological EngineeringCumhuriyet University
  • Emek Dereli
    • Department of Geological EngineeringCumhuriyet University
  • Martin Bednarik
    • Department Engineering Geology, Faculty of Natural SciencesComenius University

DOI: 10.1007/s10064-012-0447-2

Cite this article as:
Yilmaz, I., Marschalko, M., Yildirim, M. et al. Bull Eng Geol Environ (2013) 72: 147. doi:10.1007/s10064-012-0447-2

The authors would like to express their thanks to the discussers for their interest on our paper and the related suggestions and comments. In this reply our explanations are presented, and we hope that they will help to clarify the points raised by the discussers.

In disaster management and hazard mitigation, geographical information systems (GIS) technologies are used to address a wide range of problems, and are increasingly playing an important role in especially medium scale spatial planning and sustainable development (Yilmaz 2008, 2009). The main aim of the original paper published by Yilmaz et al. (2012) is an attempt for discussion of the use of kinematic stability and slope mass rating (SMR) maps in GIS based on field studies recording the relationships between the bedding/joint geometry relative to the orientation of the free face.

As suggested by the discussers; direct comparison does not take into account the failure mode associated with the SMR value of the pixel and as a consequence in some pixels they can be comparing a SMR value corresponding to a wedge failure with a planar kinematic failure and vice versa. We agree with the discussers that the elaboration of two different SMR maps showing the SMR values associated to planar and wedge failures for each pixel and comparison of them with their respective results of the conventional kinematic slope stability analysis would be more realistic. But in our article, SMR values were first calculated in all observation locations and appointed to the related field in the ArcGIS environ. After the construction of grid files of the SMR distribution by interpolation, SMR map was obtained by dividing of the SMR values into five classes of instability (each divided into two sub-classes). This map was also pixel dependent model of the study area. From the point of “engineering geology” these types of maps are especially very useful in medium scale land use planning, and they can be constructed by considering certain assumptions. The main assumption here is that in each terrain mapping unit—here is the grid cells—corresponds to a terrain part on which individual SMR value could be calculated. However, discussers’ suggestion is particularly important in “site specific geotechnical applications”.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012