I recently came across the structural drawings for a childcare centre in Victoria.

To my surprise, I found that the structural engineer had not carried out any proper seismic assessment or seismic design.

This is not a small issue.

I have raised this concern many times before, both on LinkedIn and in professional discussions: seismic design remains a serious blind spot in Australian structural engineering practice. To put it bluntly, many locally trained engineers are simply not confident with earthquake design — and in some cases, they are almost clueless when it comes to practical seismic behaviour, dynamic response, ductility, load paths and detailing.

Over the past few years, following several earthquakes in Victoria, the VBA / BPC has issued multiple industry updates, guidance materials and technical bulletins reminding practitioners that seismic design must be properly addressed under the NCC and AS 1170.4.

The message from the regulator is very clear:

Earthquake actions are real, and seismic design is not optional.

This applies not only to the primary structural system, but also to load paths, fixings, restraints, secondary parts and components, non-structural elements and supporting documentation.

But in reality, implementation across the industry is still far from satisfactory.

In my view, there are two major reasons.

First, enforcement is still not strong enough.

If seismic design is ignored, or if the design documentation cannot demonstrate compliance with AS 1170.4, there should be serious consequences. Otherwise, some practitioners will continue to treat seismic design as a box-ticking exercise — or worse, something to be avoided through convenient assumptions, selective NCC interpretations or importance-level arguments.

Second, Australia has a deeper problem in structural engineering education.

Unlike countries with high seismicity, earthquake engineering is not treated as a core discipline in most Australian civil and structural engineering programmes. Many locally trained engineers have very limited practical exposure to seismic behaviour, dynamic response, ductility, load path continuity, connection detailing and the seismic restraint of secondary components.

As a result, many engineers are simply not confident with seismic design.

When they are not confident, they often look for ways to avoid it.

That is the uncomfortable truth.

And this case was a childcare centre — a building occupied by young children, educators and families every day.

If there is one type of building where structural safety, robustness and regulatory compliance should never be treated casually, it is a facility designed for children.

Seismic design is not simply about adding an earthquake load case into a calculation package. It is about understanding how a building behaves under ground motion, how inertial forces are generated, how loads are transferred, and how both structural and non-structural components are restrained, connected and detailed.

Victoria’s regulator has started moving in the right direction.

But guidance documents alone are not enough.

If the industry is serious about seismic safety, we need stronger enforcement, better documentation review and a serious upgrade in seismic education for Australian structural engineers.

Because seismic design is not paperwork.

It is public safety.

“Scott Chen is director of North Star Design & Build, a leading consultancy which specialises services such as civil and structural engineering, forensic engineering, expert witness, remedial engineering and project management.

This article was originally published by Scott on LinkedIn. Republished with permission.”