Mx in Canada’s 4 th Generation seismic hazard model

1. Figure A11–1 Mx in Canada’s 4th Generation seismic hazard model John Adams Presentation for USGS Mmax meeting Golden 2008 09 09 Developed ~1994-1997 Finalized 2003 Implemented in 2005 code 4th Generation model Documentation http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard/OF4459/index_e.php

2. Figure A11–2 Magnitude-recurrence for eastern Canada 1929 Grand Banks 1933 Baffin Bay 7.5 8.0 7.3

3. One M6.5 per decade Figure A11–3 Stable Craton Core (SCC) rates and MmaxFenton and Adams, 1997; Fenton et al 2006 Places like Canadian Shield! http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard/2006/2006FentonAdamsHalchukGEGE.pdf

4. Figure A11–4 B) Observed North American shield activity rate Wt = 0.4 Floor Hazard estimates - Three rates to capture uncertainty: A) Global earthquake activity of continental shields Wt =0.4 C) Rate for central Canada not in a source zone Wt = 0.2 Then, seismic hazard computed for centre of large zone

5. Figure A11–5 Uniform Hazard Spectrasoil class C Floor UHS for 2%/50yr

6. Figure A11–6 This is a 1999 deaggregation using EZ-Frisk. Details may have changed, but pattern will be the same.

7. Figure A11–7 Floor value

8. Figure A11–8 Mesozoic rifted margin Mobs ~7.4 Weighted branches best, upper, lower 7.5 8.0 7.3 0.68 0.16 0.16 Plenty of potential large faults -> M8

9. Figure A11–9 Paleozoic rifted margin Mobs ~7.0 Weighted branches best, upper, lower 7.5 7.7 7.2 0.68 0.16 0.16 Enough potential large faults

10. Interior ?slightly extended Mobs ~5.0 Weighted branches best, upper, lower 7.0 7.2 6.8 0.68 0.16 0.16 potential large faults? insensitive to Mmax consistent with SCC Figure A11–10

11. Paleozoic rifted margin Mobs ~5.0 Weighted branches best, upper, lower 7.5 7.7 6.0 0.68 0.16 0.16 potential large faults? insensitive to Mmax inconsistent with SCC! Figure A11–11