This article explores the implementation of the Natural Resources Canada’s Fifth Generation national seismic hazard model as developed for the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), within the OpenQuake-engine. It also describes the reconciliation of the differences in hazard estimates relative to the published NBCC values, calculated using GSCFRISK. Source and ground-motion input models developed for the GSCFRISK software were translated to the OpenQuake-engine format for the hazard comparison. In order to successfully undertake this process, several adjustments to the OpenQuake code were needed to mimic the behavior of GSCFRISK. This required the development of new functions for earthquake-rupture scaling and ground-motion interpolation. Hazard values estimated using the OpenQuake-engine are generally in good agreement with the 2015 NBCC national-scale hazard values, with differences less than 2%–3% typically achieved. Where larger differences arise, they can be rationalized in terms of differences between the behaviors of the two software engines with respect to earthquake-rupture length uncertainty and maximum ground-motion integration distance.
AdamsJ (2019) A 65-year history of seismic hazard estimates in Canada. In: Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 17–20 June, paper 192-cSSQ-149.
2.
AdamsJAllenTHalchukS (2017) Reconciliation of Canada’s 5th Generation Seismic Hazard Model Results with Those from the OpenQuake-Engine (Abstract). Kobe, Japan: Joint Scientific Assembly of the International Association of Geodesy and International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior.
3.
AdamsJHalchukS (2003) Fourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: Values for over 650 Canadian localities intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 4459. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada,155 pp.
4.
AdamsJHalchukSAllenT, et al. (2015) Canada’s 5th Generation seismic hazard model, as prepared for the 2015 National Building Code of Canada. In: Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria, BC, Canada, 21–24 July, paper 93775.
5.
AllenTGriffinJClarkD (2018) The 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment for Australia: Model input files. Geoscience Australia Record 2018/32, Canberra, ACT, Australia: Geoscience Australia, 32 pp.
6.
AllenTIGriffinJDLeonardMClarkDJGhasemiH, et al. (2020) The 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment of Australia: Quantifying hazard changes and model uncertainties. Earthquake Spectra36(S1):5–43.
7.
AllenTIAdamsJRogersGC, et al. (2015) 5th generation seismic hazard model for north-western Canada. In: Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria, BC, Canada, 21–24 July, paper 93782.
8.
AllenTIHayesGP (2017) Alternative rupture-scaling relationships for subduction interface and other offshore environments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 1240–1253.
9.
AllenTIHalchukSAdamsJ, et al. (2017) Canada’s 5th Generation seismic hazard model: 2015 hazard values and future model updates. In: Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January, paper 3494.
10.
AtkinsonGMAdamsJ (2013) Ground motion prediction equations for application to the 2015 Canadian national seismic hazard maps. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering40: 988–998.
11.
AtkinsonGMBommerJJAbrahamsonNA (2014) Alternative approaches to modeling epistemic uncertainty in ground motions in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Seismological Research Letters85: 1141–1144.
12.
BaltayASHanksTCBerozaGC (2013) Stable stress-drop measurements and their variability: Implications for ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103: 211–222.
13.
BarrieJVGreeneHG (2018) The Devils Mountain Fault zone: An active Cascadia upper plate zone of deformation, Pacific Northwest of North America. Sedimentary Geology364: 228–241.
14.
BommerJJStrasserFOPaganiM, et al. (2013) Quality assurance for logic-tree implementation in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis for nuclear applications: A practical example. Seismological Research Letters84: 938–945.
15.
BorleisECuthbertsonR (2018) Comparison of EZ-FRISK and OpenQuake seismic hazard programs. In: Proceedings of the Australian National Committee on Large Dams 2018 Conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 11–12 October.
16.
Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (2015) National Building Code of Canada 2015 (NRCC 56190). Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Research Council of Canada.
17.
CornellCA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America58: 1583–1606.
18.
ElliottJLLarsenCFFreymuellerJT, et al. (2010) Tectonic block motion and glacial isostatic adjustment in southeast Alaska and adjacent Canada constrained by GPS measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research115: B09407.
19.
FletcherHJFreymuellerJT (2003) New constraints on the motion of the Fairweather fault, Alaska, from GPS observations. Geophysical Research Letters30: 1139.
20.
GouletCBozorgniaYAbrahamsonN, et al. (2018) Central and eastern North America ground-motion characterization: NGA-East final report. PEER report no. 2018/08. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
21.
GutenbergBRichterCF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America34: 185–188.
22.
HalchukSAdamsJAllenTI (2016) Fifth Generation seismic hazard model for Canada: Crustal, in-slab, and interface hazard values for southwestern Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 8090. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada.
23.
HalchukSAdamsJKolajM, et al. (2019a) Deaggregation of NBCC 2015 seismic hazard for selected Canadian cities. In: Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 17–20 June, paper 192-DMsa-149.
24.
HalchukSAllenTAdamsJ, et al. (2019b) Contribution of the Leech River-Devil’s Mountain fault system to seismic hazard in Victoria B.C. In: Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Quebec City, QC, Canada, paper 192-WGm8-169.
25.
HalchukSAllenTIAdamsJ, et al. (2014) Fifth generation seismic hazard model input files as proposed to produce values for the 2015 National Building Code of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7576. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada, 15 pp.
26.
HalchukSCAdamsJEAllenTI (2015) Fifth generation seismic hazard model for Canada: Grid values of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7893. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada, 22 pp.
HastingsNLJourneayMAllenTI, et al. (2015) Understanding modelled earthquake risks for British Columbia—Limitations and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria, BC, Canada, 21–24 July, paper 94371.
29.
JourneayJMDercoleFMasonD, et al. (2015) A profile of earthquake risk for the district of North Vancouver, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7677. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada, 224 pp.
30.
McGuireRK (1976) FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis. Open-file report 7667. Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey, 59 pp.
31.
MatmonASchwartzDPHaeusslerPJ, et al. (2006) Denali fault slip rates and Holocene–late Pleistocene kinematics of central Alaska. Geology34: 645–648.
32.
MorellKDRegallaCAmosC, et al. (2018) Holocene surface rupture history of an active forearc fault redefines seismic hazard in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Geophysical Research Letters45: 11605–11611.
33.
OthAMiyakeHBindiD (2017) On the relation of earthquake stress drop and ground motion variability. Journal of Geophysical Research122: 5474–5492.
34.
PaganiMMonelliDWeatherillG, et al. (2014) OpenQuake engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the Global Earthquake Model. Seismological Research Letters85: 692–702.
35.
PaganiMSilvaVRaoA, et al. (2018) The OpenQuake-engine user manual. In: Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Open-Quake Manual for Engine (Version 3.0.1), 198 pp. DOI: 10.13117/GEM.OPENQUAKE.MAN.ENGINE.3.0.1.
36.
Risk Engineering Inc. (1988) EZ-FRISK User Manual. Golden, CO: Risk Engineering Inc.
37.
RogersGAdamsJHalchukS, et al. (2015) 5th Generation (2015) seismic hazard model for southwest British Columbia. In: Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria, BC, Canada, 21–24 July, paper 94198.
38.
SilvaVAmo-OduroDCalderonADabbeekJDespotakiVMartinsLRaoASSimionatoMViganòDYepes-EstradaCAcevedoACrowleyHHorspoolNJaiswalKJourneayMPittoreM (2020) (2020) Development of a global seismic risk model. Earthquake Spectra36(S1):372–394.
39.
StrasserFOArangoMCBommerJJ (2010) Scaling of the source dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with moment magnitude. Seismological Research Letters81: 941–950.
40.
ThomasPWongIAbrahamsonN (2010) Verification of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis computer programs. PEER report 2010/106. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
41.
UlmiMWagnerCLWojtarowiczM, et al. (2014) Hazus-MH 2.1 Canada user and technical manual: Earthquake module. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7474. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Natural Resources Canada, 245 pp.
42.
Van HoutteCAbbottE (2019) OpenQuake implementation of the Canterbury Seismic Hazard Model. Seismological Research Letters90: 2227–2235.
43.
WeatherillG (2017) Faults in PSHA: Current practice and new challenges—Insights from a hazard modeller’s perspective. Fault2SHA Working Group, Barcelonnette, Lecture 3.1. Available at: https://fault2shablog.wordpress.com/lecture-3-1/ (accessed 19 January 2020).
44.
WeichertDH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America80: 1337–1346.
45.
WellsDLCoppersmithKJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America84: 974–1002.
