## 3 Results
Figure 6: Plot of the spectral ratio between the large and the small events (difference between stress drops). The observed and simulated acceleration and velocity waveforms for the earthquake \(M=5.1\) (large event) are shown in Figures 7 and \(8\) for FMIR and MOIG stations, respectively. In addition, the observed waveforms of the \(M=4.3\) earthquake (small event) are shown. From the results obtained, using the earthquake of \(M=4.3\) to simulate the \(M=5.1\) earthquake, it was observed that for four locations, the best fitting data were obtained after the appropriate rupture velocity, rise time, and starting point were found. This simulation allowed us to validate the estimation of the source parameters, as well as the capability to compare the synthetic and observed waveforms in the temporal network. Once the validation was completed, a numerical simulation of a higher-magnitude earthquake was computed. In this case, an \(M=7.1\) earthquake was simulated from the \(M=5.1\) earthquake. Since this is a possible scenario for a future earthquake, the same type of fault (a left-lateral fault) was assumed. Most earthquakes located in this zone correspond to thrust fault mechanisms as a result of the subduction process. However, the morphology of the seabed shows a fault trace much longer than \(25\,\mathrm{km}\) perpendicular to the subduction trench. Given that in this region, the crustal thickness is greater than \(30\,\mathrm{km}\)[32], the potential rupture area is larger than that considered in this work and might generate an  
Figure 7: Simulation at the station FMIR site. The NS components are shown in the upper panels and the EW components are shown in the lower panels. Seismograms in the left column show acceleration waveforms and velocity waveforms are shown in the right column. In descending order, small earthquake waveforms are shown, the second plots are the simulated ones, and the third plots are the observed waveforms of the large earthquake. Note the difference in the scale of the small events. earthquake of magnitude \(M=7.1\). Since this kind of event may occur, it is important to estimate the ground motions that such an event could eventually produce. A schematic representation of the system used to simulate the large earthquake is shown in Figure 9. The number of subfaults, \(N\), can be estimated from the relations derived by [23] and Equations (6)-(8) that relate the stress drops of both earthquakes and the level of acceleration spectra:  
\[N=\left(\frac{M_{0}}{Cm_{0}}\right)^{1/3}=\frac{L}{l}=\frac{W}{w}=\frac{T}{t} \tag{11}\]  
and  
\[\frac{D}{d}=CN \tag{12}\]  
where \(L\) and \(l\) are the fault lengths, \(W\) and \(w\) are the fault widths, \(T\) and \(t\) are the rise times, and \(D\) and \(d\) are the fault displacements for the large and small events, respectively. In this case, it is assumed that the stress drop of the large earthquake and the small one is the same, then \(C=1\). Using the relation between seismic moment and moment magnitude given by [18], the seismic moment is \(m_{0}=5.56\times 10^{23}\) Dyne-cm and \(M_{0}=5.56\times 10^{26}\) Dyne-cm for events \(M=5.1\) and \(M=7.1\), respectively. Then, according to Equations (2) and (3), \(N^{3}=1000\) and \(N=10\). Figure 8: Simulation at the station MOIG site. The description is according to the caption in Figure 7.  
The source parameters will be defined on the estimated area \(2.52\times 2.52\,\mathrm{km^{2}}\) of the previous simulation. In schematic form, a procedure was carried out to scale 10 times the length in the strike direction (\(\delta=239^{\circ}\)) and 10 times the length in the slip direction (\(\lambda=86^{\circ}\)). The total area for the large event is \(25.2\times 25.2\,\mathrm{km^{2}}\). In the previous simulation, the rupture velocity was assumed to be \(3.1\,\mathrm{km/s}\), and the wave velocity of S was \(3.5\,\mathrm{km/s}\).