## 3 Results
Taking these values and with the geometry of the fault plane defined, seven simulations with different starting points distributed in the fault plane were proposed, as shown in Figure 4:0  
The hypocentral distances must be calculated to every station from each starting point. Table 1 shows the azimuths and hypocentral distances for each station. The coordinates of  
Figure 4:1 Map of the fault plane diagram considered for the simulation. Diamonds indicate the seven different starting point positions. Figure 4:2 Schematic representation of the parameters used to calculate [PERSON]’s functions. The rupture areas of the large and the small earthquakes are defined by \(L\times W\) and \(l\times w\), respectively. the starting point are taken as the number of cells in the strike direction and the number of cells in the dip direction, where the source first moves. The position \((1,1)\) indicates the upper and leftmost point of the fault plane. These numerical simulations were computed for seven starting point positions: \((1,1)\), \((1,6)\), \((1,10)\), \((6,6)\), \((10,1)\), \((10,6)\), and \((10,10)\) (only the simulation of point \((1,1)\) is shown). Since there are no criteria to determine which model is closer to the hypothetical source \((M=7.1)\), it is necessary to investigate which model produces the worst intensity scenario in Figures 11 and 12, the synthetic acceleration and velocity records for the two horizontal components of the simulated \(M=7.1\) earthquake are shown at stations FMIR and MOIG. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Point** & **Station** & **Epicentral Distance** & **Azimuth** & **Depth** & **Hypocentral Distance** \\  & & **(km)** & & **(km)** & **(km)** \\ \hline \((1,1)\) & FMIR & 86.46 & 125.52 & 16 & 87.93 \\  & AGM & 147.20 & 93.07 & 16 & 148.07 \\  & APTZ & 193.14 & 80.39 & 16 & 193.80 \\  & TART & 245.44 & 76.45 & 16 & 245.96 \\  & PATZ & 279.72 & 74.13 & 16 & 280.18 \\  & MOIG & 326.75 & 73.19 & 16 & 327.14 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Epicenter distance source-station and azimuth of the array for point \((1,1)\). Figure 11: Simulation at the FMIR station. The NS and EW components are plotted in the upper and lower sections, respectively. The acceleration and the velocity waveforms are represented in the left-side and right-side plots, respectively. On the top, the waveforms correspond to the small event (\(M=5.1\)), and on the bottom, the waveforms are the \(M=7.1\). Note that the scales are different. To investigate the intensity distribution, the maximum horizontal components of each station were chosen. Table 2 summarizes the maximum intensities found for the seven different starting point simulations. There is no single model producing the largest accelerations in all stations. As expected, the highest accelerations occurred at the nearest station (FMIR). However, the lowest values were not observed at the farthest station (MARM) but at the MOIG station, which is approximately 80 km closer to the source. This behavior is due to a combination of the radiation pattern together with local effects. For the simulations of the starting points \((1,10)\), \((10,1)\), \((10,6)\), and \((10,10)\), the behavior is as expected, where the MARM station shows values lower than MOIG. However, simulations \((1,1)\) and \((6,6)\) MARM showed values higher than MOIG, even though it is more distant from the source. This means that it depends on the starting point of the rupture, which in turn generates different directive patterns. That is enhanced by the site effects. This can be evident if one simulation is performed at a time, the more distant stations have lower acceleration values than the closer ones, except for MOIG and MARM in the case of the models \((1,1)\), \((1,6)\) and \((6,6)\).