Verification of CRISIS 2008 code

By Manuela Villani, Ezio Faccioli and Mario Ordaz

1. Introduction

The verification of a seismic hazard computer code is crucial for ensuring the user that the
calculations performed with it are reliable.
The numerical verification process of CRISIS2008 was carried out by adopting as tools the tests
developed in a project sponsored by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
and documented in “Verification of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Computer Programs” by
Thomas et al. (2010). In that project, several seismic hazard codes were tested, namely:
 FRISK88M Version 2.0 (developer: G. Toro)
 EZ-FRISK (developer: R. McGuire)
 XDC52, HAZ50, TREE50 (developer: B. Youngs)
 HazFX v3.f, hazgridX v3.f, filtrate.peer.f (developers: A. Frankel and S. Harmsen)
 ALEAS (developer: J. Savy Abramowitz)
 EQ-Elements (developer: A. Mendez)
 GP-Haz (developer: P. Tan)
 NEWHAZ (developer: M. Stirling)
 mrs 3.1 (developer: R. LaForge)
 OpenSHA (developer: N. Field)
 HAZDIR (developer: B. Rowshandel)
The verification exercise consisted of two sets of test problems aimed at testing fundamental aspects
of the codes: treatment of fault sources, recurrence models and rates, attenuation relationships and
their associated uncertainties. For the simplest cases analytical solutions were also provided.
In this chapter, set1 of the PEER tests has been used since only for such set Thomas et al. (2010)
illustrate the results.

2. Tests and results

2.1 Geometry of the earthquake sources

Three types of earthquake sources were adopted in the tests: two fault sources and an area source at
constant depth.
The faults are illustrated in Figure 1. The thick black line in the plan view is the trace of the two
faults on the surface. Fault 1 is a strike-slip vertical source with depth between 0 and 12 km, while
fault 2 (red rectangle) is a reverse fault with dip=60° with depth between 1 and 11 km.
The area source is illustrated in Figure 2: it is a circular area of 100 km radius with uniform
seismicity, lying at a constant depth of 5 km.
The black dots (identified with numbers) in both figures show the location of the sites for which
calculations are made (observation sites).
Figure 1 – Geometry of fault sources 1 and 2 adopted in cases 1-9 and 12 and location of the observation sites.
 Figure 2 – Geometry of area 1 in the tests of case 10 and 11 and location of the observation sites.

2.2 Description of ground motion attenuation

In the PEER tests the ground motion attenuation is described through the attenuation relation of
Sadigh et al. (1997) except for cases 9b and 9c that adopt the Abrahamson and Silva (1997) and
Campbell (1997) relations, respectively.
In CRISIS2008 the model of Sadigh et al. (1997) is provided as an “attenuation table”, computed
for a magnitudes between 4 and 7.5 (with M=0.1) and for 100 distances (Rrup) between 0.01 and
150 km.
Note that in most cases the associated ground motion variability (sigma) is assumed to be null.
Hence, in the attenuation table a sigma value 0.0001 was used (since a null value is not accepted by
the code).

2.3 Other instructions from PEER

PEER provided some additional instructions to the developers of the tests, such as:
 The rupture area, A, should depend on magnitude in the form of log(A)=Mw-4 with A=0.25.
In all tests, except case #3, this variability is not included.
 For all faults the slip rate is 2 mm/yr and the Gutenberg-Richter b-value =0.9.
 The results should provide the mean probability of exceedance for peak horizontal
acceleration between 0.001 g and 1 g.
 2.4 Set 1 case 1
Input parameters:
The source adopted is “fault 1” (see Figure 1).
In Thomas et al. (2010) the seismicity input is specified through a b-value=0.9, a slip rate of 2
mm/yr and a magnitude density function in the form of a delta-function centered at 6.5.
In CRISIS2008, this input was described through a Gutenberg-Richter relation with minimum
magnitude Mmin=6.49 and maximum magnitude Mmax=6.51. The two parameters for the full
description of the G-R relation are the slope b (equal to 0.9 as given by PEER) and the annual rate
, i.e. the number of earthquakes with magnitude M≥ Mmin. The latter can be computed from the
knowledge of the slip rate. The equation that provides the scalar seismic moment, M0, is:
M 0  As (1)
where =3×1011 [dyne/cm2]
A= source area [cm2]
s= average slip on the fault [cm].

Moreover, according to the definition of moment magnitude (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979):
2
M w  log M 0 [dyne  cm]  16.05 (2)
3
from which:
M 0 [dyne  cm]  101.5M 16.05 . (3)
The seismic moment rate, i.e. the seismic moment released by the source in one year, can be
obtained by replacing the average slip on the fault, s, with the slip rate.
Since only one magnitude value (m) is possible, the seismic moment rate is  the number of
earthquake of magnitude equal to m in one year times the seismic moment related to such
magnitude m:


M 0  As   101.5m 16.05  (4)
where
s = slip rate on the source [cm/yr].

From eq. (4), for m=6.5 one obtains 6.5=0.002853.

Results
Figure 3 shows the results obtained for this test with CRISIS2008. Since Thomas et al. (2010)
report does not provide the numerical results for this case, the curves obtained with CRISIS were
compared with Figures 3.2-3.8 therein. The agreement is satisfactory, since in both cases constant
values ~0.003 were obtained.
 SET 1 CASE 1
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4
CRISIS -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]

Figure 3 – Results for test case 1 (the numerical values obtained by PEER are not provided).

2.5 Set 1 case 2

Input parameters:
The source adopted is again “fault 1”.
In Thomas et al. (2010) the seismicity input is specified through a b-value=0.9, a slip rate of 2
mm/yr and a magnitude density function in the form of a delta-function centered at 6.0.
As in case 1, in CRISIS2008 a G-R relation was adopted with Mmin=5.99 Mmax=6.01 and
, obtained from eq. (4) with m=6.
Results
Figure 4 shows the comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008 and those provided
in Thomas et al. (2010).
Discrepancies can be observed only at sites 4 and 6. The differences are caused by the different
assumptions made by the codes on the shape of the rupture area. Referring to Figure 5 for visual
representation, the rupture areas associated to sub-sources are elliptical in CRISIS2008 (with an
aspect ratio L/W=a/b) and rectangular in the PEER tests (with a specified aspect ratio of 2). From a
theoretical view point both assumptions can be justified. Thus, with CRISIS2008, there are no sub-
sources including the source regions near the corners, and this causes the exceedance rates to
decrease at sites 4 and 6.
SET 1 CASE 2
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]

Figure 4 – Results for test case 2. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.

L=25 km
4 6
1
a
b

W=12 km

Figure 5 – Rupture areas in CRISIS2008.

 2.6 Set 1 case 3
The tests differ from case 2 for the introduction of the variability of the rupture planes. A “sigma” is
assigned to the rupture areas. This option is not available in CRISIS2008 and thus this test could not
be carried out.

2.7 Set 1 case 4

Input parameters:
The source adopted is “fault 2”, with a width W=12.7 km [=H/sin(60°)]. The seismicity is similar to
case 2, except for the  value that is 0.0169 (the area of the source is slightly different, and thus also
the seismic moment rate).
Results
Figure 6 shows the comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008 and those provided
in Thomas et al. (2010). The same comments of case 2 apply for the explanation of the differences
at sites 4 and 6.

SET 1 CASE 4
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]

Figure 6 – Results for test case 4. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.
 2.8 Set 1 case 5
Input parameters:
The source adopted is “fault 1”.
The seismic activity (magnitude distribution) is described by a truncated exponential model with a
b-value=0.9, a slip rate of 2 mm/yr, minimum magnitude Mmin=5 and maximum magnitude
Mmax=6.5
In CRISIS2008 we adopted a Gutenberg-Richter relation. The seismicity rate  is in this case the
number of earthquakes with magnitude M≥ 5. The logic behind is the same of case 1. However, in
this context all the magnitudes between 5 and 6.5 are possible. Following Youngs and Coppersmith
(1985), the moment rate can be written as:
M max

M 0  As  M

0 (m) f (m)dm (5)

where

 M0(m) is given by eq. (3),

 f(m) is the probability density function of magnitude, that in the case of a truncated
exponential is

 exp(  (m  M min )
f (m)  (6)
1  exp(   ( M max  M min )
where =ln(10)b.

Hence, eq. (5) becomes:

b exp(  ( M max  M min )  M 0 ( M max )
M 0  As  (7)
1  exp( (M max  M min )(1.5  b)
Solving eq. (7) with respect to the unknown , gives 5=0.0407.
Results
Figure 7 shows the comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008 and those provided
in Thomas et al. (2010). Similar to the previous cases, the only differences can be observed at sites
4 and 6, corners of the fault.
 SET 1 CASE 5
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]
Figure 7 – Results for test case 5. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.

2.9 Set 1 case 6

Input parameters:
The source adopted is “fault 1”.
The seismicity is described by a characteristic model with a truncated normal distribution with a b-
value=0.9, a slip rate of 2 mm/yr, Mmin=5, Mmax=6.5 a characteristic magnitude Mch=6.2 and a sigma
M=0.25.
In CRISIS2008 we adopted the characteristic earthquake model with the same characteristics. The
mean recurrence time between characteristic earthquakes is 129 yr.
Results
Figure 8 shows the comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008 and those provided
in Thomas et al. (2010). The differences at sites 4 and 6 are noted, as usual.
 SET 1 CASE 6
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]

Figure 8 – Results for test case 6. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.

2.10 Set 1 case 7

Input parameters:
The source adopted is “fault 1”.
The seismicity is described by the Youngs and Coppersmith (1985) characteristic model, i.e.:
- For low magnitude a G-R relation is assumed (between 5 and MmaxGR)
- For higher magnitude a uniform density function describes the seismicity with the
characteristic magnitude Mch=6.2 and a M=0.25.
The probability density function is
f ( m )  f 1 ( m )  f 2 ( m) with

f 1 ( m) 
N (M min )  N (M ch )  exp( (m  M min ) M min  m  M max
GR
(8),
1  exp(   ( M max  M min )
GR

M ch M ch
f 2 (m)  n ( M ch ) M ch   m  M ch 
2 2
where the term GR  N (M min )  N (M ch ) represents the rate of the non-characteristic,
exponentially distributed earthquakes on the fault and n ( M ch ) is the rate density of the flat portion.

The two parameters needed for the description of the seismicity are the annual seismic rate  and
the mean recurrence time between characteristic earthquakes (Tmean). Following the original model
of Youngs and Coppersmith (1985), we assume that:
1. events of any magnitude are possible. This leads to MmaxGR = Mch -Mc=5.95, where
Mmax=6.45 (from PEER) and Mc=0.25×2=0.5.Thus, a uniform distribution is adopted
between 5.95 and 6.45.
2. n (M ch )  n (M max  1) .
GR

Replacing eq. (8) in eq. (5) and solving the integral one obtains:
GR b exp(  ( M max  M min )  M 0 ( M max N ( M ch ) M 0 ( M max )(1  10 1.5M ch )
GR GR
)
M 0  As  
 
1  exp(  ( M max  M min ) (1.5  b)
GR
c ln(10)M ch
(9).

The input values are the b-value=0.9 and the slip rate of 2 mm/yr. Hence, with hypotheses 1. and 2.,
GR= 0.0048 and Tmean=157 yr.
Results
Figure 9 shows the results.
 SET 1 CASE 7
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]
Figure 9 – Results for test case 7. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.

2.11 Set 1 case 8

Input parameters:
Same as case 2, with ground motion variability in the GMPE. In particular:
Case 8a: untruncated sigma
Case 8b: ground motion variability truncated at 2 sigmas.
Case 8c: ground motion variability truncated at 3 sigmas.
Results
Figure 10-to-Figure 12 show the comparisons between the results obtained with CRISIS2008 and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010).
Discrepancies can be observed as usual at sites 4 and 6 for the same reasons illustrated in case 2.
The handling of GM variability in CRISIS is clearly satisfactory.
SET 1 CASE 8a
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]
Figure 10 – Results for test case 8a. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.
 SET 1 CASE 8b
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]
Figure 11 – Results for test case 8b. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.
 SET 1 CASE 8c
Annual probability of exceedance

-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10
CRISIS
-4
PEER -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1 -1 -1
10 10 10
Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
-2 -2 -2
10 10 10

-3 -3 -3
10 10 10

-4 -4 -4
10 10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g] PGA [g] PGA [g]
-1
10
Site 7
-2
10

-3
10

-4
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA [g]

Figure 12 – Results for test case 8c. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.

2.12 Set 1 case 9

As for cases 8, the tests of case 9 aim at evaluating the computation of ground motion attenuation in
the code. In these cases in fact, a dipping fault is adopted instead of a vertical fault and different
GMPEs. These tests have not been performed since the handling of GM relation and of its
variability by the code has already been shown to be satisfactory.

2.13 Set 1 case 10

Input parameters:
The source adopted is the circular “area source” of Figure 2 at a constant depth of 5 km.
The seismicity was modeled assuming a b-value=0.9 and a seismicity rate , i.e. the annual number
of earthquakes with magnitude M≥ Mmin, of 0.0395. The magnitude density function is a truncated
exponential with minimum magnitude of Mmin=5 and maximum magnitude Mmax=6.5.
For this test, PEER suggests to adopt point sub-sources.
Results
Figure 13 shows the results, fully satisfactory.

SET 1 CASE 10
Annual probability of exceedance

Site 1 Site 2
-2 -2
10 10

-4 -4
10 10

CRISIS
-6
PEER -6
10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PGA [g] PGA [g]

Site 3 Site 4
-2 -2
10 10

-4 -4
10 10

-6 -6
10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PGA [g] PGA [g]

Figure 13 – Results for test case 10. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), red dashed curves.

2.14 Set 1 case 11

Input parameters:
The source adopted is “volume source” with the shape of the area source of case 10 and a depth
between 5 and 10 km.
In CRISIS2008 the volume source was modeled by 6 area sources with the same coordinates of the
original area source and at different depths (spaced 1 km, coherently with the prescriptions of
PEER).
Each source is modeled through a Gutenberg-Richter with b-value=0.9 and a seismicity rate
. As in case 10, the magnitude density function is a truncated exponential with minimum
magnitude of Mmin=5 and maximum magnitude Mmax=6.5.
Results
Figure 14 shows the results, in excellent agreement.
 Annual probability of exceedance SET 1 CASE 11

Site 1 Site 2
-2 -2
10 10

-4 -4
10 10

CRISIS
-6
PEER -6
10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PGA [g] PGA [g]

Site 3 Site 4
-2 -2
10 10

-4 -4
10 10

-6 -6
10 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PGA [g] PGA [g]

Figure 14 – Results for test case 11. Comparison between the results obtained with CRISIS2008, blue curves with circles, and
those provided in Thomas et al. (2010), gray curves.

2.15 Set 1 case 12

Same as case 1 adding ground motion variability. In Thomas et al. (2010), neither the numerical
values of the exceedance curves nor figures are provided, thus this case was not carried out.

3. Verification of the handling of the non-poissonian occurrence probabilities

The new way of computing hazard, based on occurrence probabilities of events and probabilities of
exceedance of intensity values, and not anymore on exceedance rates, is checked through a test in
which poissonian probabilities are treated in non poissonian way.
The geometry of the source is very simple: a point source located at a depth of 15 Km. In spite of its
simplicity, the test is general enough since, internally, CRISIS 2008 performs all the arithmetic
related to exceedance probability calculations with discrete, point sources. For this example, the
receiver is located on the surface of the Earth, 0.2 degrees West and South of the point source.
The seismicity is described as a G-R relation with 0=0.07/year, =2 (treated deterministically),
M0=5 and Mu=8 (treated deterministically). Once these seismicity parameters are known, it is
possible to compute, under the Poisson assumption, the discrete probabilities of having 0, 1,…,n
events in given time frames. These probabilities were externally computed and later given to
CRISIS 2008 as if they were probabilities obtained from a non-Poisson model of unspecified type.
Results are compared with those obtained giving CRISIS 2008 the same seismicity parameters in
the form of a Poissonian source. Figure 15 to 17 show these comparisons, for time frames of 20, 50
and 100 years, respectively. In each case the curves are coincident, which means that the non-
poissonian occurrence probabilities are correctly handled by the code.

Time frame: next 20 years

1
Exceedance probability in time

0.1

0.01
frame

Region 1 (Poisson)
0.001
Region 2 (non-Poisson)

0.0001
1 10 100 1000 10000
PGA (gal)

Figure 15 – Comparison between the results obtained with the Poissonian and non-Poissonian sources, for the next 20 years.

Time frame: next 50 years

1
Exceedance probability in time frame

0.1

0.01

Region 1 (Poisson)
0.001
Region 2 (non-Poisson)

0.0001
1 10 100 1000 10000
PGA (gal)

Figure 16 – Comparison between the results obtained with the Poissonian and non-Poissonian sources, for the next 50 years.
 Time frame: next 100 years
1
Exceedance probability in time frame

0.1

0.01

Region 1 (Poisson)
0.001
Region 2 (non-Poisson)

0.0001
1 10 100 1000 10000
PGA (gal)

Figure 7 – Comparison between the results obtained with the Poissonian and non-Poissonian sources, for the next 100 years.

4. Conclusions

The PEER tests have been adopted for checking the performance of CRISIS2008 code. The tests
showed a satisfactory agreement between the results provided by PEER and those obtained with
CRISIS2008, highlighting the capabilities of the code. The limited differences that have been found
can be explained by different assumptions made inside the code.
Finally the verification of the treatment of the non-poissonian occurrence probabilities, not included
in the PEER test, showed the reliability of the results carried out with this new option.