## 4 Verification of PSHRisk-Tool Results  
### Analytical Solution  
PSHRisk-tool capable of solving general cases that involve source layouts, seismic ruptures and ground motion prediction equations. To define the fidelity and validity of the PSHRisk-tool, an example containing three different sources in a site has been adopted here from [PERSON] [37]. In this example assumed that the earthquakes of magnitude less than 4 do not contribute to the seismic hazard, where Table 2 and Figure 5 represent the detailing of the seismic parameters. With the same example, verification has also been done by commercial software \"Seismograph PSHA tool\" [53] for accuracy, which is followed by the classical PSHA rules for seismic hazard analysis. The probability distribution for sources is coded here by using the equal circular grids as shown in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source ID** & **Source Type** & **Magnitude Range** & **Ground Motion Model** & **Seismicity** \\ \hline S-1 & Line & 4-7.3 & & \(log\lambda_{m}=4.4-1.0M\) \\ S-2 & Area & 4-7.7 & [PERSON] et al. [22] & \(log\lambda_{m}=3.5-0.8M\) \\ S-3 & Point & 4-5.0 & & \(log\lambda_{m}=2.7-1.2M\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Source information of the example. Figure 5: A seismic site with three different sources. Figure 2 division between the minimum and maximum fault distance from the site. The code adopted the 10 fixed segmental division and the portion of source fallen in that segment is counted for the probability distribution function. As in PSHA, all sources of earthquakes are assumed to be capable of generating damaging situations at the site, so before getting the seismic hazard curve, the probability distribution for source-to-site distance is conducted. Alongside this, the magnitude distribution also has been adopted because of the different magnitude range for each source. Based on the theory explained in the above sections, the result from the PSHRisk-tool is compared with hand calculation and \"Seismograph PSHA tool\". The maximum error in the result of the probability distribution has been observed from Figure 6 is 0.96% (among all sources) considering three sources, which is very negligible and acceptable. Besides, in magnitude distribution, Figure 7 presents a zero-difference comparing with the references for each source. The predictive GMPE model for verification has been focused on [PERSON] et al. (2018) as a GM model to calculate the PGA at the seismic site. The corresponding annual rate of exceedances will be integrated taking the probability distribution of source-to-site distances and magnitudes along with the earthquake rate using Equation (10). However, the result generated by this tool in Figure 8, shows approximately the same result as the hand-calculation from [PERSON] (2018), and the commercial software \"Seismograph PSHA tool\" ([PERSON] et al., 2019). Up to the seismic hazard curve, PSHRisk-tool exposed a similar output with the hand-calculation. Now, for reducing the manuscript length the validation of EPSHA is carried out only for the area source. In the \"Seismograph PSHA tool\" as there is no deaggregation part, so in EPSHA verification is only compared with the hand calculation. Figure 6: Verification for the probability distribution of distance, (**a**) PSHRisk-tool view, (**b**) Comparison. Deaggregation is the contribution of the annual rate of exceedance for a given intensity measure (\(PGA>\overline{x}\)). It can solely focus on the magnitude or source-to-site distance and this section shows the pair deaggregation of hazard contribution. In Figure 9a, the blue bars indicate the contribution of hazard for hand-calculation and the green bars indicate the hazard contributions for PSHRisk-tool. The PGA level, which will be exceeded by an earthquake with a given magnitude, can be visualized by this deaggregation curve, in which it is understandable that for a low magnitude the contribution may be high or vice versa.