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)

An updated National Seismic Hazard Assessment of Australia was released in 2018 (the NSHA18). This assessment leveraged off advances in earthquake-hazard science in Australia and analogue tectonic regions to offer many improvements over its predecessors. The outcomes of the assessment represent a significant shift in the way national-scale seismic hazard is modelled in Australia, and so challenged long-held notions of seismic hazard amongst the Australian seismological and earthquake engineering community. The NSHA18 is one of the most complex national-scale seismic hazard assessments conducted to date, comprising 19 independent seismic source models (contributed by Geoscience Australia and third-party contributors) with three tectonic region types, each represented by at least six ground motion models each. The NSHA18 applied a classical probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using a weighted logic tree approach, where the model weights were determined through two structured expert elicitation workshops. The response from the participants of these workshops was overwhelmingly positive and the participants appreciated the opportunity to contribute towards the model’s development. Since the model’s publication, Geoscience Australia has been able to reflect on the choices made both through the expert elicitation process and through decisions made by the NSHA18 team. The consequences of those choices on the production of the final seismic hazard model may not have been fully appreciated prior to embarking on the development of the NSHA18, nor during the expert elicitation workshops. The development of the NSHA18 revealed several philosophical challenges in terms of characterising seismic hazard in regions of low seismicity such as Australia. Chief among these are: 1) the inclusion of neotectonic faults, whose rupture characteristics are underexplored and poorly understood; 2) processes for the adjustment and conversion of historical earthquake magnitudes to be consistently expressed in terms of moment magnitude; 3) the relative weighting of different seismic-source classes (i.e., background, regional, smoothed seismicity, etc) for different regions of interest and exceedance probabilities; 4) the assignment of Gutenberg-Richter b-values for most seismic source models based on b-values determined from broad neotectonic domains, and; 5) the characterisation and assignment of ground-motion models used for different tectonic regimes. This paper discusses lessons learned through the development of the NSHA18, identifies successes in the expert elicitation and modelling processes, and explores some of the abovementioned challenges that could be reviewed for future editions of the model. Abstract presented at the 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (17WCEE )