The 20 May 2016 MW 6.1 Petermann earthquake in central Australia generated a 21 km surface rupture with 0.1 to 1 m vertical displacements across a low-relief landscape. No paleo-scarps or potentially analogous topographic features are evident in pre-earthquake Worldview-1 and Worldview-2 satellite data. Two excavations across the surface rupture expose near-surface fault geometry and mixed aeolian-sheetwash sediment faulted only in the 2016 earthquake. A 10.6 ± 0.4 ka optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) age of sheetwash sediment provides a minimum estimate for the period of quiescence prior to 2016 rupture. Seven cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be) bedrock erosion rates are derived for samples < 5 km distance from the surface rupture on the hanging-wall and foot-wall, and three from samples 19 to 50 km from the surface rupture. No distinction is found between fault proximal rates (1.3 ± 0.1 to 2.6 ± 0.2 m Myr−1) and distal samples (1.4 ± 0.1 to 2.3 ± 0.2 m Myr−1). The thickness of rock fragments (2–5 cm) coseismically displaced in the Petermann earthquake perturbs the steady-state bedrock erosion rate by only 1 to 3%, less than the erosion rate uncertainty estimated for each sample (7–12%). Using 10Be erosion rates and scarp height measurements we estimate approximately 0.5 to 1 Myr of differential erosion is required to return to pre-earthquake topography. By inference any pre-2016 fault-related topography likely required a similar time for removal. We conclude that the Petermann earthquake was the first on this fault in the last ca. 0.5–1 Myr. Extrapolating single nuclide erosion rates across this timescale introduces large uncertainties, and we cannot resolve whether 2016 represents the first ever surface rupture on this fault, or a > 1 Myr interseismic period. Either option reinforces the importance of including distributed earthquake sources in fault displacement and seismic hazard analyses. <b>Citation: </b>King, T. R., Quigley, M., Clark, D., Zondervan, A., May, J.-H., & Alimanovic, A. (2021). Paleoseismology of the 2016 M-W 6.1 Petermann earthquake source: Implications for intraplate earthquake behaviour and the geomorphic longevity of bedrock fault scarps in a low strain-rate cratonic region. <i>Earth Surface Processes and Landforms</i>, 46(7), 1238–1256.

<p>The hazard factors in every version of AS 1170.4 since 1993 have been based on a seismic hazard map published in 1991. In this paper I statistically test the validity of that 1991 map. <p>Two methods are used to calculate the hazard for 24+ sites across Australia. Firstly, for each site I calculate how many standard deviations (?1) separate the 1991 hazard value from the calculated PSHA value. Secondly, the magnitude frequency distribution (MFD; i.e. a and b values) is adjusted so that the calculated hazard matches the 1991 hazard value. The number of standard deviations (?2) in the MFD that separate the adjusted MFD differs from the best estimate MFD is subsequently calculated. The first method was applied using four seismic source models (AUS6, DIM-AUS, NSHM13 and these combined), while the second method used NSHM13 only. The average number of standard deviations was calculated from the best 20 of the 24 sites. These statistics are considered a test the validity of the 1991 map. The two methods using five models in total all give similar results. The 1991 map is found, on average, to overestimate the hazard by 3 standard deviations. This suggests that the 1991 map is best described as a 95th+ percentile map. <p>Practitioners using this map, whether for setting building standards or assessing insurance exposure, need to be conscious that the seismic design values are not scientifically valid relative to modern mean probabilistic seismic hazard assessments.

Seismic hazard assessments in stable continental regions such as Australia face considerable challenges compared with active tectonic regions. Long earthquake recurrence intervals relative to historical records make forecasting the magnitude, rates and locations of future earthquakes difficult. Similarly, there are few recordings of strong ground motions from moderate-to-large earthquakes to inform development and selection of appropriate ground motion models (GMMs). Through thorough treatment of these epistemic uncertainties, combined with major improvements to the earthquake catalog, a National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18) of Australia has been undertaken. The resulting hazard levels at the 10% in 50-year probability of exceedance level are in general significantly lower than previous assessments, including hazard factors used in the Australian earthquake loading standard (AS1170.4–2007 [R2018]), demonstrating our evolving understanding of seismic hazard in Australia. The key reasons for the decrease in seismic hazard factors are adjustments to catalog magnitudes for earthquakes in the early instrumental period, and the use of modern ground-motion attenuation models. This article summarizes the development of the NSHA18, explores uncertainties associated with the hazard model, and identifies the dominant factors driving the resulting changes in hazard compared with previous assessments.

One of the key challenges in assessing earthquake hazard in Australia is understanding the attenuation of ground-motion through the stable continental crust. There are now a handful of ground-motion models (GMMs) that have been developed specifically to estimate ground-motions from Australian earthquakes. These GMMs, in addition to models developed outside Australia, are considered in the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18; Allen et al., 2017). In order to assess the suitability of candidate GMMs for use in the Australian context, ground-motion data forom small-to-moderate Australian earthquakes have been gathered. Both qualitative and quantitative ranking techniques (e.g., Scherbaum et al., 2009) have been applied to determine the suitability of candidate GMMs for use in the NSHA18. This report provides a summary of these ranking techniques and provides a discussion on the utility of these methods for use in seismic hazard assessments in Australia; in particular for the NSHA18. The information supplied herein was provided to participants of the Ground-Motion Characterisation Expert Elicitation workshop, held at Geoscience Australia on 9 March 2017 (Griffin et al., 2018).

Geoscience Australia is the Australian Government advisor on the geology and geography of Australia, and develops the National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA). The NSHA defines the level of earthquake ground shaking across Australia that has a likelihood of being exceeded in a given time period. Knowing how the ground-shaking hazard varies across Australia allows high hazard areas to be identified for the development of mitigation strategies so communities can be more resilient to earthquake events. The NSHA provides key information to the Australian Government Building Codes Board, so buildings and infrastructure design standards can be updated to ensure they can withstand earthquake events in Australia. Using the NSHA, decision makers can better consider: • What this could mean for communities in those areas and whether any further action is required • Where to prioritise further efforts • What this could mean for insurance and reinsurance premiums • Identify high and low hazard areas to plan for growth or investment in infrastructure

This ecat record refers to the data described in ecat record 123048. The data, supplied in shapefile format, is an input to the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment for Australia (NSHA18) product (ecat 123020) and the 2018 Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment for Australia (PTHA18) product (ecat 122789).

The National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA) is a flagship Geoscience Australia product, used to support the decisions of the Australian Building Codes Board Standards Subcommittee BD-006-11, to ensure buildings and infrastructure are built to withstand seismic events in Australia. The NSHA has been updated in 2018 and includes significant advances on previous assessments including: inclusion of epistemic uncertainty using third-party source models contributed by the Australian seismology community, use of modern ground-motion models, and more. As a consequence of these advances, estimates of seismic hazard have decreased significantly across most Australian localities at the return period (of earthquake ground shaking) currently used by the Australian Standard. The objective of this document is to outline the significant changes to the NSHA18 from the 2012 version, and the science behind these changes. The responses were developed through feedback and consultation with experts in the seismic and engineering industry. If you have additional questions, please contact the project team at hazards@ga.gov.au.

Located within an intraplate setting, continental Australia has a relatively low rate of seismicity compared with its surrounding plate boundary regions. However, the plate boundaries to the north and east of Australia host significant earthquakes that can impact Australia. Large plate boundary earthquakes have historically generated damaging ground shaking in northern Australia, including Darwin. Large submarine earthquakes have historically generated tsunami impacting the coastline of Australia. Previous studies of tsunami hazard in Australia have focussed on the threat from major subduction zones such as the Sunda and Kermadec Arcs. Although still subject to uncertainty, our understanding of the location, geometry and convergence rates of these subduction zones is established by global tectonic models. Conversely, actively deforming regions in central and eastern Indonesia, the Papua New Guinea region and the Macquarie Ridge region are less well defined, with deformation being more continuous and less easily partitioned onto discrete known structures. A number of recently published geological, geodetic and seismological studies are providing new insights into present-day active tectonics of these regions, providing a basis for updating earthquake source models for earthquake and tsunami hazard assessment. This report details updates to earthquake source models in active tectonic regions along the Australian plate boundary, with a primary focus on regions to the north of Australia, and a subsidiary focus on the Puyesgur-Macquarie Ridge-Hjort plate boundary south of New Zealand. The motivation for updating these source models is threefold: 1. To update regional source models for the 2018 revision of the Australian probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment (PTHA18); 2. To update regional source models for the 2018 revision of the Australian national seismic hazard assessment (NSHA18); and 3. To provide an updated database of earthquake source models for tsunami hazard assessment in central and eastern Indonesia, in support of work funded through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) DMInnovation program.

Geoscience Australia, together with contributors from the wider Australian seismology community, has produced a National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18) that is intended as an update to the 2012 National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM12; Burbidge, 2012; Leonard et al., 2013). This Geoscience Australia Record provides an overview of the development of the NSHA18. Time-independent, mean seismic design values are calculated on Standards Australia’s AS1170.4 Soil Class Be (at VS30=760 m/s) for the horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) and for the geometric mean of the spectral accelerations, Sa(T), for T = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 s over a 15-km national grid spacing. Hazard curves and uniform hazard spectra are also calculated for key localities. Maps of PGA, in addition to Sa(0.2 s) and Sa(1.0 s) and for a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Figure A). Additional maps and seismic hazard products are provided in a separate Geoscience Australia Record (Allen, 2018). The NSHA18 update yields many important advances over its predecessors, including: - the calculation in a full probabilistic framework (Cornell, 1968) using the Global Earthquake Model Foundation’s OpenQuake-engine (Pagani et al., 2014); - the consistent expression of earthquake magnitudes in terms of moment magnitude, MW; - inclusion of a national fault-source model based on the Australian Neotectonic Features database (Clark et al., 2016); - the inclusion of epistemic (i.e. modelling) uncertainty: - through the use of multiple alternative source models; - on magnitude-recurrence distributions; - fault recurrence and clustering models; - on maximum earthquake magnitudes for both fault and area sources through an expert elicitation workshop; and - the use of modern ground-motion models, capturing the epistemic uncertainty on ground motion through an expert elicitation workshop.

Instrumentally observed earthquakes sequences typically show clusters of earthquakes interspersed with periods of quiescence. These ‘bursty’ sequences also have correlated inter-event times (‘long-term memory’). In contrast, elastic rebound theory forms the basis of the standard earthquake cycle model, and predicts large earthquakes to occur regularly through cycles of strain accumulation and release (periodicity). In this model the conditional probability of future large earthquakes is reduced immediately following fault rupture, and inter-event times are independent. Here we use the burstiness and memory coefficient metrics to characterize more than 100 long-term earthquake records. We find that large earthquake occurrence on the majority of Earth’s faults is weakly periodic and does not exhibit long-term memory; earthquakes occur more regularly than a random Poisson process although inter-event times are variable. In contrast, clustering occurs in slowly deforming regions (annual rates < 2 x 10-4), and is not explained by elastic rebound theory. <b>Citation:</b> Griffin, J. D., Stirling, M. W., & Wang, T. (2020). Periodicity and clustering in the long‐term earthquake record. <i>Geophysical Research Letters</i>, 47, e2020GL089272. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089272