Mark Quigley

Dr. Mark Quigley

School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, Australia

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
23 November 2011 in Geology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Mark QuigleyMark Quigley
Mark Quigley
RDR. Van Dissen
R. Van Dissen
NLN. Litchfield
N. Litchfield
PVP. Villamor
P. Villamor
BDBrendan Duffy
Brendan Duffy
DND. Noble
D. Noble

7 February 2013 in Geology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Mark QuigleyMark Quigley
Mark Quigley
SBSarah Bastin
Sarah Bastin
BBBrendon A. Bradley
Brendon A. Bradley
Continuous observational monitoring of a study site in eastern Christchurch, New Zealand, following the 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield earthquake has recorded ten distinct liquefaction episodes in the mainshock–aftershock sequence. Three nearby accelerometers allow calibration between the geological expressions of liquefaction and the intensity of earthquake-induced surface ground motion at the site. Sand blow formation was generated by Mw 5.2–7.1 earthquakes with Mw 7.5–normalized peak ground accelerations (PGA7.5) of ≥ 0.057 g (acceleration due to gravity). Silt drapes between successive sand blow deposits provide markers for delineating distinct liquefaction-inducing earthquakes in the geologic record. However, erosion quickly modifies the surface of sand blows into alluvial and aeolian forms that complicate geologic diagnosis. The two feeder-dike generations identified in subsurface investigations significantly underrepresent the number of liquefaction-inducing earthquakes due to extensive dike reactivation. New constitutive equations enable PGA7.5 variations to be estimated from the thickness and areal extent of sand blows.

16 May 2020 in Environment Systems and Decisions
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Mark QuigleyMark Quigley
Mark Quigley
JAJanuka Attanayake
Januka Attanayake
AKAndrew King
Andrew King
FPFabian Prideaux
Fabian Prideaux
Meteorological and geophysical hazards will concur and interact with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) impacts in many regions on Earth. These interactions will challenge the resilience of societies and systems. A comparison of plausible COVID-19 epidemic trajectories with multi-hazard time-series curves enables delineation of multi-hazard scenarios for selected countries (United States, China, Australia, Bangladesh) and regions (Texas). In multi-hazard crises, governments and other responding agents may be required to make complex, highly compromised, hierarchical decisions aimed to balance COVID-19 risks and protocols with disaster response and recovery operations. Contemporary socioeconomic changes (e.g. reducing risk mitigation measures, lowering restrictions on human activity to stimulate economic recovery) may alter COVID-19 epidemiological dynamics and increase future risks relating to natural hazards and COVID-19 interactions. For example, the aggregation of evacuees into communal environments and increased demand on medical, economic, and infrastructural capacity associated with natural hazard impacts may increase COVID-19 exposure risks and vulnerabilities. COVID-19 epidemiologic conditions at the time of a natural hazard event might also influence the characteristics of emergency and humanitarian responses (e.g. evacuation and sheltering procedures, resource availability, implementation modalities, and assistance types). A simple epidemic phenomenological model with a concurrent disaster event predicts a greater infection rate following events during the pre-infection rate peak period compared with post-peak events, highlighting the need for enacting COVID-19 counter measures in advance of seasonal increases in natural hazards. Inclusion of natural hazard inputs into COVID-19 epidemiological models could enhance the evidence base for informing contemporary policy across diverse multi-hazard scenarios, defining and addressing gaps in disaster preparedness strategies and resourcing, and implementing a future-planning systems approach into contemporary COVID-19 mitigation strategies. Our recommendations may assist governments and their advisors to develop risk reduction strategies for natural and cascading hazards during the COVID-19 pandemic.

1 March 2016 in Tectonophysics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Mark QuigleyMark Quigley
Mark Quigley
MHMatthew W. Hughes
Matthew W. Hughes
BBBrendon A. Bradley
Brendon A. Bradley
SBSjoerd van Ballegooy
Sjoerd van Ballegooy
CRCatherine Reid
Catherine Reid
JPJarg R. Pettinga
Jarg R. Pettinga

31 December 2010 in Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MCMisko Cubrinovski
Misko Cubrinovski
RGRussell A. Green
Russell A. Green
JAJohn Allen
John Allen
SAScott Ashford
Scott Ashford
EBElisabeth Bowman
Elisabeth Bowman
LWLiam Wotherspoon
Liam Wotherspoon
On 4 September 2010, a magnitude Mw 7.1 earthquake struck the Canterbury region on the South Island of New Zealand. The epicentre of the earthquake was located in the Darfield area about 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. Extensive damage was inflicted to lifelines and residential houses due to widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading in areas close to major streams, rivers and wetlands throughout Christchurch and Kaiapoi. Unreinforced masonry buildings also suffered extensive damage throughout the region. Despite the severe damage to infrastructure and residential houses, fortunately, no deaths occurred and only two injuries were reported in this earthquake. From an engineering viewpoint, one may argue that the most significant aspects of the 2010 Darfield Earthquake were geotechnical in nature, with liquefaction and lateral spreading being the principal culprits for the inflicted damage. Following the earthquake, an intensive geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted to capture evidence and perishable data from this event. The surveys were performed on foot, by car and from a helicopter over a period of six days. A broad-brush field reconnaissance was conducted in the first two days, followed by pin-point investigations at specific locations including detailed site inspections and field testing using: Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT), Swedish Weight Sounding (SWS), and Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW). This paper summarizes the observations and preliminary findings from this early reconnaissance work.

1 January 2008 in Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RHRichard R. Hillis
Richard R. Hillis
MSMike Sandiford
Mike Sandiford
SRScott D. Reynolds
Scott D. Reynolds
Mark QuigleyMark Quigley
Mark Quigley
Neogene-to-Recent deformation is widespread on and adjacent to Australia's ‘passive’ margins. Elevated historical seismic activity and relatively high levels of Neogene-to-Recent tectonic activity are recognized in the Flinders and Mount Lofty Ranges, the SE Australian Passive Margin, SW Western Australia and the North West Shelf. In all cases the orientation of palaeostresses inferred from Neogene-to-Recent structures is consistent with independent determinations of the orientation of the present-day stress field. Present-day stress orientations (and neotectonic palaeostress trends) vary across the Australian continent. Plate-scale stress modelling that incorporates the complex nature of the convergent plate boundary of the Indo-Australian Plate (with segments of continent–continent collision, continent–arc collision and subduction) indicates that present-day stress orientations in the Australian continent are consistent with a first-order control by plate-boundary forces. The consistency between the present-day, plate-boundary-sourced stress orientations and the record of deformation deduced from neotectonic structures implicates plate boundary forces in the ongoing intraplate deformation of the Australian continent. Deformation rates inferred from seismicity and neotectonics (as high as 10 −16 s −1 ) are faster than seismic strain rates in many other ‘stable’ intraplate regions, suggestive of unusually high stress levels imposed on the Australian intraplate environment from plate boundary interactions many thousands of kilometres distant. The spatial overlap of neotectonic structures and zones of concentrated historical seismicity with ancient fault zones and/or regions of enhanced crustal heat flow indicates that patterns of active deformation in Australia are in part, governed, by prior tectonic structuring and are also related to structural and thermal weakening of continental crust. Neogene-to-Recent intraplate deformation within the Australian continent has had profound and under-recognized effects on hydrocarbon occurrence, both by amplifying some hydrocarbon-hosting structures and by inducing leakage from pre-existing traps due to fault reactivation or tilting.