One-dimensional shear-wave velocity (VS ) profiles are presented at 50 strong motion sites in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. The VS profiles are estimated with the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) method. The SASW method is a noninvasive method that indirectly estimates the VS at depth from variations in the Rayleigh wave phase velocity at the surface.

The 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment of Australia incorporated 19 alternative seismic-source models. The diversity of these models demonstrates the deep epistemic uncertainty that exists with regards to how best to characterize intraplate seismicity. A complex logic tree was developed to incorporate the alternative models into a single hazard model. Similarly, a diverse range of ground-motion models were proposed for use and incorporated using a logic tree. Expert opinion was drawn upon to weight the alternative logic tree branches through a structured expert elicitation process. This process aims to transparently and reproducibly characterize the community distribution of expert estimates for unknown parameters and thereby quantify the epistemic uncertainty around estimates of seismic hazard in Australia. We achieve a multi-model rational consensus where each model, and each expert, is, in accordance with the Australian cultural myth of egalitarianism, given a ‘fair go’. Yet despite this process, we find that the results are not universally accepted. A key issue is a contested boundary between what is scientifically reducible and what remains epistemologically uncertain, with a particular focus on the earthquake catalog. Furthermore, a reduction, on average, of 72% for the 10% in 50 years probability of exceedance peak ground acceleration levels compared with those underpinning existing building design standards, challenges the choice of metrics upon which design codes are based. As questions of epistemic uncertainty are quantified or resolved, changes in our understanding of how the hazard behaves should inform dialogue between scientists, engineers and policy makers, and a re-appraisal of the metrics used to inform risk management decisions of societal importance.

You may not realise it but, on average, Australia is rattled every few days by an earthquake of magnitude 3 or above. We don’t feel every small tremor that happens, but the larger earthquakes are powerful enough to cause serious damage to buildings and infrastructure, putting our community’s safety at risk.

A database of recordings from moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes is compiled for earthquakes in western and central Australia. Data are mainly recorded by Australian National Seismograph Network (ANSN), complemented with data from temporary deployments, and covering the period of 1990 to 2019. The dataset currently contains 1497 earthquake recordings from 164 earthquakes with magnitudes from MW 2.5 to 6.1, and hypocentral distances up to 1500 km. The time-series data are consistently processed to correct for the instrument response and to reduce the effect of background noise. A range of ground-motion parameters in the time and frequency domains are calculated and stored in the database. Numerous near-source recordings exceed peak accelerations of 0.10 g and range up to 0.66 g, while the maximum peak velocity of the dataset exceeds 27 cm/s. In addition to its utility for engineering design, the dataset compiled herein will improve characterisation of ground-motion attenuation in the region and will provide an excellent supplement to ground-motion datasets collected in analogue seismotectonic regions worldwide. This paper was presented at the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2021 Virtual Conference, Nov 25 – 26.

We present earthquake ground motions based upon a paleoseismically-validated characteristic earthquake scenario for the ~ 48 km-long Avonmore scarp, which overlies the Meadow Valley Fault, east of Bendigo, Victoria. The results from the moment magnitude MW 7.1 scenario earthquake indicate that ground motions are sufficient to be of concern to nearby mining and water infrastructure. Specifically, the estimated median peak ground acceleration (PGA) exceeds 0.5 g to more than ~ 10 km from the source fault, and a 0.09 g PGA liquefaction threshold is exceeded out to approximately 50-70 kilometres. Liquefaction of susceptible materials, such as mine tailings, may occur to much greater distances. Our study underscores the importance of identifying and characterising potentially active faults in proximity to high failure-consequence dams, including mine tailings dams, particularly in light of the requirement to manage tailing dams for a prolonged period after mine closure. Paper presented at Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD) conference 2020, online. (https://leishman.eventsair.com/ancold-2020-online/)

Damaging earthquakes in Australia and other regions characterised by low seismicity are considered low probability, high consequence events. Uncertainties in modeling earthquake occurrence rates and ground motions pose unique challenges to forecasting seismic hazard in these regions. In 2018 Geoscience Australia released its National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18). Results from the NSHA18 indicate significantly lower seismic hazard across almost all Australian localities at the 1/500 annual exceedance probability (AEP) relative to the factors in the Australian earthquake loading standard; the AS1170.4. Due to concerns that the 1/500 AEP hazard factors proposed in the NSHA18 would not assure life safety throughout the continent, the amended AS1170.4 (revised in 2018) retains seismic demands developed in the early 1990s and also introduces a minimum hazard design factor of Z = 0.08 g. The hazard estimates from the NSHA18 have challenged notions of seismic hazard in Australia in terms of the probability of damaging ground motions and raises questions as to whether current practices in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) deliver the outcomes required to protect communities in low-seismicity regions, such as Australia. By contrast, it is also important that the right questions are being asked of hazard modelers in terms of the provision of seismic demand objectives that are fit for purpose. In the United States and Canada, a 1/2475 AEP is used for national hazard maps due to concerns that communities in low-to-moderate seismicity regions are considerably more at risk to extreme ground-motions. The adoption of a 1/2475 AEP seismic demands within the AS1170.4 would bring it in to line with other international building codes in similar tectonic environments and would increase seismic demand factors to levels similar to the 1991 hazard map. This, together with other updates, may be considered for future revisions to the standard. Presented at the Technical Sessions of the 2021 Seismological Society of America Annual Meeting (SSA)

Geoscience Australia has produced an Atlas of Australian earthquake scenarios (the Atlas) to support planning and preparedness operations for emergency management agencies. The Atlas provides earthquake scenarios represent realistic “worst-case” events that may impact population centres around Australia. Such scenarios may also support seismic risk assessments for critical infrastructure assets to inform remediation actions that could be taken to improve resilience to rare seismic events in Australia. The Atlas of seismic scenarios uses the underlying science and data of the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18) to identify the magnitudes and epicentre locations of these hypothetical earthquakes. Locations and magnitudes of earthquake scenarios are based upon deaggregation of the NSHA18 hazard model. The USGS ShakeMap software is used to produce ground motion intensity fields with the shaking levels being modified by seismic site conditions mapped at a national scale. Fault sources are incorporated into the Atlas where the magnitude of a given scenario exceeds a threshold magnitude of 6.0 and where the rupture length is likely to be longer than 10 km. If a scenario earthquake is located near a known fault within the Australian Neotectonic Features database, a partial or full-length rupture is modelled along the mapped fault. The Atlas generated two scenarios for each of the160 localities across Australia. The scenarios are based on some of the most likely earthquake magnitude-distance combinations estimated at each site. Output products include shaking contours for a range of intensity measures, including peak acceleration and velocity, as well as response spectral acceleration for 0.3, 1.0 and 3.0 seconds. Also included are raster images and the associated metadata used for generating the scenarios.

The 6th Generation Seismic Hazard Model of Canada (CanadaSHM6) provides the basis for seismic design values proposed by Natural Resources Canada for the 2020 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2020). This Open File includes OpenQuake compatible source model files that will generate seismic hazard values as currently being proposed. Once NBCC 2020 is finalized, this report will be superseded by a subsequent Open File, to document the final model used to generate seismic hazard values using CanadaSHM6 for NBCC 2020.

The Philippine archipalego is tectonically complex and seismically hazardous, yet few seismic hazard assessments have provided national coverage. This paper presents an updated probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the nation. Active shallow crustal seismicity is modeled by faults and gridded point sources accounting for spatially variable occurrence rates. Subduction interfaces are modelled with faults of complex geometry. Intraslab seismicity is modeled by ruptures filling the slab volume. Source geometries and earthquake rates are derived from seismicity catalogs, geophysical datasets, and historic-to-paleoseismic constraints on fault slip rates. The ground motion characterization includes models designed for global use, with partial constraint by residual analysis. Shallow crustal faulting near metropolitan Manila, Davao, and Cebu dominates shaking hazard. In a few places, peak ground acceleration with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years on rock reaches 1.0 g. The results of this study may assist in calculating the design base shear in the National Structural Code of the Philippines.

Seismic risk assessment involves the development of fragility functions to express the relationship between ground motion intensity and damage potential. In evaluating the risk associated with the building inventory in a region, it is essential to capture ‘actual’ characteristics of the buildings and group them so that ‘generic building types’ can be generated for further analysis of their damage potential. Variations in building characteristics across regions/countries largely influence the resulting fragility functions, such that building models are unsuitable to be adopted for risk assessment in any other region where a different set of building is present. In this paper, for a given building type (represented in terms of height and structural system), typical New Zealand and US building models are considered to illustrate the differences in structural model parameters and their effects on resulting fragility functions for a set of main-shocks and aftershocks. From this study, the general conclusion is that the methodology and assumptions used to derive basic capacity curve parameters have a considerable influence on fragility curves.