## 3 Results  
### The Influence of Slip Models  
In addition to Slip Models 1 and 2, we used a random model for a comparative analysis [60]. Based on the modeling parameters and their weights, as shown in Figure 5, we selected Site 1 to calculate the ground motion parameters for the different slip models. The calculated PGA and acceleration response spectra for each scheme were statistically analyzed. The minimum, average, maximum, and 50 th-, 84 th-, and 95 th-percentile PGA values for the three source models are listed in Table 3. Figure 6 shows the average and the 84 th-percentile statistical acceleration spectra for all schemes of each slip model.  
As shown in Table 3, the minimum, average, maximum, and 50 th-, 84 th-, and 95 th-percentile PGA values for Slip Model 1 are significantly higher than those for Slip Model 2 and the random model. The minimum, average, and 50 th-percentile PGA values for Slip Model 2 are higher than those for the random model and lower than those for the random model for the 84 th- and 95 th-percentiles. Though the maximum PGA for Slip Model 2 is higher than that for the random model, we consider it an accidental occurrence of a single event or a value caused by a random slip distribution model and thus not representative of the overall characteristics.  
Figure 6: Acceleration response spectra of the different source models.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source Model**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**PGA (gal)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Min** & **50 th-Percentile** & **Average** & **84 th-Percentile** & **95 th-Percentile** & **Max** \\ \hline Slip Model 1 & 145.5 & 349.7 & 348.5 & 512.9 & 622.8 & 929.1 \\ Slip Model 2 & 100.2 & 239.2 & 238.5 & 350.0 & 423.4 & 687.3 \\ Random model & 88.6 & 236.0 & 236.8 & 350.4 & 428.5 & 667.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Peak ground acceleration (PGA) simulation results for Site 1.  
In Figure 6, the acceleration response spectra of the average and 84 th-percentile values of Slip Model 1 are higher than those of Slip Model 2 and the random model, while the results of Slip Model 2 are comparable to those of the random model and are close to the average response spectra of Slip Model 1. The difference between the results of Slip Model 1 and Slip Model 2 is significant, while the difference between Slip Model 2 and the random model is relatively small. When T \(<\) 1 s, the 84 th-percentile acceleration value of Slip Model 2 is close to the result of the random model, and the 84 th-percentile acceleration of Slip Model 2 is higher after T \(>\) 1 s. The patterns of the average value for these two slip models are similar. When T \(<\) 0.1 s, the average values of Slip Model 2 and the random model are comparable, and the result of Slip Model 2 is higher after T \(>\) 0.1 s.  
Because the values and weights of each modeling parameter were the same, we considered the differences in the results to be caused by the different slip models used for the rupture area. By analyzing the slip distribution characteristics of the different slip models, we found that the PGA and acceleration response spectra of the random model were similar to those of Slip Model 2, in which the largest asperity was closer to the site, but significantly different from those of Slip Model 1, in which the largest asperity was further from the site. Therefore, we could conclude that the random model may not be applicable for the prediction of near-field ground motion parameters for large earthquakes, which requires the consideration of special situations.