## 5 Results and Discussion  
### Ground-Motion Parameters Results  
Using the multi-SFFSM, ground-motion parameters for the different schemes of each fault were calculated (Figure 9). Then, a statistical analysis was performed on the calculated PGA and PSA for each scheme. Table 4 lists the minimum; mean; maximum; and 50 th-, 84 th-, and 95 th-percentile PGA results for the three faults. At each percentile, the Longpan-Qiaohou fault had the highest PGA value, while the Xiaozhongdian-Daju fault had the lowest. The PSA of each scheme and minimum; mean; maximum; and 50 th-, 84 th-, and 95 th-percentile results marked by color curves are shown in Figure 10. For each fault, the average PSA was relatively close to the 50 th-percentile result. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** & **Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Fault dip angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 70, 75, 80 & \begin{tabular}{c} Slip of background \\ (m) \\ \end{tabular} & 1.30 \\ \hline Fault rupture length (km) & 82 & \begin{tabular}{c} Depth from upper \\ fault boundary (km) \\ \end{tabular} & 0 \\ \hline Fault rupture width (km) & 22 & \begin{tabular}{c} S-wave velocity \\ (km/s) \\ \end{tabular} & 3.5 \\ \hline Fault rupture area (km\({}^{2}\)) & 1804 & \begin{tabular}{c} Average crustal \\ density (g/cm\({}^{3}\)) \\ \end{tabular} & 2.8 \\ \hline Moment magnitude (\(M_{\mathrm{W}}\)) & 7.3 & \begin{tabular}{c} Rupture velocity \\ (km/s) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 80\% of S-wave \\ velocity \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Seismic moment (N-m) & 1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{20}\) & Stress drop (bar) & 22.7, 35.4, 48.1 \\ \hline \(\mathrm{d}l\) (km) & 2 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Geometrical \\ spreading \\ \end{tabular} & 1/\(R\) \\ \hline \(\mathrm{d}w\) (km) & 2 & Quality factor & \(Q(f)=115.1f\)\({}^{0.616}\) \\ \hline Maximum asperity area (km\({}^{2}\)) & 288 & \(\kappa_{0}\) (s) & 0.0219, 0.0288, 0.0357 \\ \hline Smaller asperity area (km\({}^{2}\)) & 112 & Pulse percentage & 50\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._Figure 10: Acceleration response spectra for the (**a**) Daju–Lijiang fault, (**b**) Xiaozhongdian–Daju fault, and (**c**) Longpan–Qiaohou fault. The gray solid lines represent the acceleration response spectra of each scheme, and the color lines represent the simulation results at different percentiles. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fault Name**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**PGA (gal)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Min** & **50 th-Percentile** & **Mean** & **84 th-Percentile** & **95 th-Percentile** & **Max** \\ \hline Daju–Lijiang & 94.2 & 218.9 & 225.4 & 288.4 & 349.2 & 654.2 \\ Xiaozhongdian–Daju & 41.0 & 100.0 & 104.1 & 147.6 & 176.5 & 287.1 \\ Longpan–Qiaohou & 165.7 & 491.2 & 500.5 & 657.6 & 792.5 & 1451.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Peak ground acceleration (PGA) simulation results. Next, the simulation results of the Daju-Lijiang, Xiaozhongdian-Daju, and Longpan-Qiaohou faults at a given percentile were compared (Figure 11). The PSA of these faults were very smooth for the mean and 50 th-, 84 th-, and 95 th-percentile results (Figure 11b-e). At a given percentile, the Longpan-Qiaohou fault had a higher acceleration value than the Xiaozhongdian-Daju and Daju-Lijiang faults at different frequencies. However, the Xiaozhongdian-Daju fault had a higher minimum acceleration value than the Longpan-Qiaohou fault after \(\mathrm{T}>~{}0.1\) s at some frequencies (Figure 11a). The maximum acceleration values also did not exhibit smooth curves (Figure 11f), and these may have been caused by the randomness of a single simulation. Different percentile results showed that the Longpan-Qiaohou fault had higher acceleration values than the other faults at most frequencies.