## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Station** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Distance**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Models**} \\  & **(km)** & **(1,1)** & **(1,6)** & **(1,10)** & **(6,6)** & **(10,1)** & **(10,6)** & **(10,10)** \\ \hline FMR & 60 & \(21.4\pm 5.0\) & \(26.1\pm 4.0\) & \(32.4\pm 3.0\) & \(74.1\pm 1.0\) & \(27.7\pm 3.0\) & \(27.1\pm 4.0\) & \(38.1\pm 2.8\) \\ APTZ & 206 & \(9.7\pm 1.0\) & \(10.6\pm 0.9\) & \(8.7\pm 0.1\) & \(11.7\pm 0.8\) & \(12.0\pm 0.8\) & \(10.1\pm 1.0\) & \(8.4\pm 1.2\) \\ PATZ & 296 & \(2.0\pm 0.3\) & \(2.8\pm 0.3\) & \(1.9\pm 0.1\) & \(2.5\pm 0.2\) & \(2.0\pm 0.3\) & \(2.1\pm 0.3\) & \(1.9\pm 0.3\) \\ MOIG & 345 & \(0.3\pm 0.3\) & \(0.2\pm 0.5\) & \(0.3\pm 0.1\) & \(0.3\pm 0.3\) & \(0.4\pm 0.2\) & \(0.3\pm 0.3\) & \(0.2\pm 0.3\) \\ MARM & 426 & \(0.8\pm 0.3\) & \(0.2\pm 0.5\) & \(0.2\pm 0.1\) & \(0.7\pm 0.3\) & \(0.1\pm 0.2\) & \(0.2\pm 0.3\) & \(0.1\pm 0.3\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Maximum accelerations (cm/s\({}^{2}\)) observed in the synthetic for \(M=7.1\) in 7 simulations. Figure 12: Simulation at the MOIG station. The description is according to caption in Figure 11.  
The directivity effect also produces the highest intensity due to different models at different stations. In this way, the FMIR station reached its highest intensity of \(74.1\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\) with simulation \((6,6)\). The APTZ and MOIG stations reached their maximum intensities with the simulation \((10,1)\) of \(12.0\) and \(0.4\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\), respectively. The PATZ station reached a maximum of \(2.8\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\) with simulation \((1,6)\), and MARM with simulation \((1,1)\) reached a value of \(0.8\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\). Since the study region lacks a permanent seismic network, it is hard to compare the acceleration values obtained with standard Ground Motion Predictive Equations (GMPE). However, it is interesting to make a comparison to GMPEs obtained for interplate earthquakes [33]. At a distance of \(60\) km, a \(7.1\,\mathrm{M}\) interplate earthquake has a PGA associated with the GMPE of \(82.39\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\) at the FMIR station. The maximum estimated PGA in our model (rupture point (6.6)) was \(74.1\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\). The farther station (MARM) at \(426\) km from the source has a PGA associated with GMPE of \(0.85\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\), while our estimation has a PGA of \(0.5\,\mathrm{cm/s^{2}}\). The estimates of PGA obtained were lower than the corresponding PGA reported by [33]. Although both studies consider a \(7.1\,\mathrm{M}\) earthquake, the results are consistent since the modeling in [33] was made with subduction earthquakes with a larger dislocation area than the strike-slip considered in this study. The location of the initial point of rupture on the fault affects the seismic energy radiation pattern. In some scenarios, this directivity causes remote stations (e.g., MARM) to have stronger accelerations than intermediate-located stations (as MOIG). The local geological and geotechnical activities at each station contribute to the amplification or attenuation of the seismic waves. Factors such as soil type, topography, and the presence of particular geologic structures could modify the local seismic response by enhancing or attenuating the directivity effects. The combination of an asymmetric radiation pattern, as a consequence of variability in the direction and velocity of the rupture, and local site effects may generate a complex distribution in peak accelerations. This has direct consequences in intensity maps and the design of structures, as the response of the soil can vary significantly due to the interaction of these factors. However, our interpretation of the effect of directivity is that when the initiation point of the rupture is varied, the observed acceleration patterns vary in the stations even though the effects of the affected site are the same. Presently, the study of the distribution of \"peak\" accelerations and \"peak\" velocities is an important topic.