# Impacts of Water and Stress Transfers from Ground Surface on the Shallow Earthquake of 11 November 2019 at Le Teil (France)

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Differential Synthetic-Aperture Radar Interferometry (DInSAR) Using Sentinel-1 Data

#### 2.2. Hydraulic Model Using ComPASS

#### 2.2.1. Hydraulic Parameters in Matrix/Fault

^{−17}m

^{2}and 5 × 10

^{−12}m

^{2}close to the fault core [47]. In the “matrix”, a permeability of 10

^{−16}m

^{2}and a porosity of 20% (Table 1) were chosen, corresponding to typical values in the host rock measured in the group of samples with higher porosity and permeability. In the “fault”, the fault permeability varied in the range of high values between 10

^{−12}m

^{2}and 10

^{−11}m

^{2}based on in situ measurements in fault zones [48]. The hydraulic parameters are displayed in Table 1 for the base cases using the in situ soil moisture at a 30 cm depth at Berzème (SM30), and in Table A1 for the additional cases using the surface soil moisture acquired by the SMOS satellite (SSM).

#### 2.2.2. Soil Moisture (SM30) Data at the Berzème Station

#### 2.2.3. Surface Soil Moisture (SSM) Products Acquired by the SMOS Satellite

#### 2.3. Mechanical Model Using 3DEC^{TM}

^{TM}code (Version 5.2, Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), that explicitly handles discontinuities as mechanically active joints, was adopted here [54]. The Coulomb stress change is given by $\Delta CFF=\left|\Delta \tau \right|-\mu \Delta {\sigma}_{n}$, where $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathsf{\tau}$ and $\mathsf{\Delta}{\mathsf{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{n}}$ are the shear and normal stress changes (positive in compression), and $\mathsf{\mu}$ is the frictional coefficient. The direction of $\mathsf{\tau}$ is taken for the maximum shear stress on the given fault geometry. The mass withdrawal generates a relaxing of normal stress on LRF as well as an increase of shear stress. The Coulomb stress change, $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{F}$, related to the mass withdrawal is estimated from the difference between the two equilibrium steps (Appendix B).

#### 2.4. Seismological Data Analysis Using the Vibration Sensor at Clauzel House (CLAU)

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Geological Context around the Fault System

#### 3.2. Surface Traces of the Fault System Using DInSAR

#### 3.3. Three-Dimensional Geometry of the Three-Fault System Using M201 Cross-Section

#### 3.4. Hydraulic Simulations Using ComPASS

^{−11}m

^{2}(i.e., a hydraulic conductivity of k ~10

^{−4}m s

^{−1}at a 500 m depth) and a mean fault porosity of 10% were chosen to explore the infiltration in a highly conductive, intensively fractured fault zone, that is representative of fast fluid conduits in the shallow subsurface. Such high permeability values are expected in the porous layers along the fault zones in these limestones [47,48]. In particular, measurements in Barremian/Urgonian limestones showed an average permeability of 7 10

^{−12}m

^{2}at Russel (about 90 km southeast of Le Teil) [48]. These hydraulic parameters were used for the reference simulations and a sensitivity analysis was also carried out by varying the fault permeability (Table 1).

^{−18}m

^{2}) (Table 1). Another case, called BC20, corresponds to a simplified scenario with a homogeneous permeability of 10

^{−16}m

^{2}in the matrix in the shallow subsurface. We obtained a differential pressure, ΔP, of about 0.975 MPa. This counterintuitively indicates that the surface clays did not play a predominant role in establishing the hydraulic overpressure on LRF at depth. Indeed, the overpressure was qualitatively stable since the overpressure was transported principally in this model by BRF to the depth.

## 4. Discussion

^{TM}distinct-element code [54] to represent an improved local geological model, including discontinuities as well as lithology in a 3D medium (Section 2.3). The Coulomb stress change, ΔCFF, was simulated by 3DEC

^{TM}on all the considered fault segments (Figure A3). The spatial distributions of $\mathsf{\Delta}{\mathsf{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{n}}$ and $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathsf{\tau}$ on LRF are shown in Figure 8c,d, respectively. ΔCFF showed a maximum change of 0.25 MPa at around a 1 km depth on LRF (Figure 8b), a value of the same order as the Boussinesq solution [32,57]. When we look carefully at the LRF, one peak (0.25 MPa) exists above the intersection with BRF, while another peak (0.24 MPa) appears along the intersection of LRF and BRF. An important portion of shear stress on LRF was generated along the fault line between LRF and BRF (pan Figure 8d). Additionally, the maximum value of ΔCFF among all the faults appeared not on LRF but on BRF (0.39 MPa). It is worth noting that the mechanical stress change can be larger around the intersection of LRF and BRF, and that BRF is more favorably located than LRF in terms of the mechanical stress change. This mechanical term $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{F}=\left|\mathsf{\Delta}\mathsf{\tau}\right|-\mathsf{\mu}\mathsf{\Delta}{\mathsf{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{n}}$, should then be compared to the hydraulic term. The hydraulic term may be included in the calculation of the Coulomb stress change following $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{F}\mathrm{F}=\left|\mathsf{\Delta}\mathsf{\tau}\right|-\mathsf{\mu}(\mathsf{\Delta}{\mathsf{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{n}}$ − $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{P})$, where $\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{P}$ is the difference of pore water pressure, previously calculated by ComPASS. The reference simulation BC16 highlighted that the hydraulic term, $\mathsf{\mu}\mathsf{\Delta}\mathrm{P}$ (0.59 MPa), was about two and a half times larger than the maximum mechanical stress change due to the mass removal from the ground surface (0.24 MPa). Moreover, the mechanical unloading is a long-term, quasi-static process, lasting over nearly 200 years, while the overpressure pulse on faults is a dynamic process shortly preceding the earthquake of 11 November 2019.

## 5. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

^{−6}. The Newton solver is convergent if the relative residual is lower than 10

^{−5}, as well. For each simulation, the initial timestep is about one hour, and the maximum timestep is one-eighth of the day. The model domain is set for a dimension of 5 km by 4 km by 3.5 km. The top surface of the model corresponds to the elevation of the area. The domain is composed of the geological units and faults in the studied area (Figure 5). Each unit and fault are considered homogenous in porosity and permeability (e.g., the permeability of the Apto-albian geological unit, see Table 1). As a preliminary step, the initial state of the hydraulic system is achieved by performing a first simulation over a long period (about 100 years) to reach an equilibrium state in the unsaturated zone, where a diphasic flow of “air/water” is simulated. In the initial state, the whole domain is considered fully saturated with a hydrostatic pressure state. For the boundary conditions, two different Dirichlet conditions are considered for the nodes at the top surface. At the nodes which belong to the Rhône River, we fix a constant pressure (1 bar) and a constant saturation (0 for the gas saturation). At the other nodes of the top surface, the gas saturation is gradually increased over time from a fully saturated state until it reaches 0.9 (corresponding to a water saturation, Se, of 0.1). The “no flow” boundary condition is applied on the four lateral and bottom boundaries. In the unsaturated zone, the values of relative permeability are defined by the power law: ${K}_{rw}={Se}^{2}$ and ${K}_{ra}={(1-Se)}^{2}$, for the water and air phases, respectively. The capillary pressure function, Pc, is given by the Corey law: ${P}_{c}=-b\times ln\left(Se\right)$, with $b=2\times {10}^{5}Pa$. This first step gives an initial state with an unsaturated zone in the upper part of the hydraulic model, at equilibrium with the Rhône River. In the second step, the effective water saturation, Se, is changed every three days during the period between 2010 and 2015 and at the end of 2019 for all the nodes at the top surface (except for the Rhône River nodes, for which a constant water saturation of 1 is fixed).

**Figure A1.**(

**a**) Regional setting around Le Teil. The Montelimar rainfall station and the hydrological station of Viviers are located in the L2 cell of the SMOS satellite. The Berzème station (soil moisture) and the Valvignères borehole are located in the L1 cell. The location/date of the seismic events from RéNaSS during 2010–2019 are shown in both cells L1 and L2 (50 km × 25 km area). (

**b**) The daily rain amount and discharge of Le Rhône River are compared to the magnitude of seismic events during 2010–2019.

Sensitivity Case | SC21 | SC22 |
---|---|---|

Surface condition | SSM (SMOS-CATDS ASC, L2 cell, 3 days) | SSM (SMOSMAP-IB ASC, L2 cell, 3 days) * |

Matrix porosity, ${\mathsf{\theta}}_{m}$ | 0.2 | 0.2 |

Matrix permeability, ${\mathrm{K}}_{m}$ | 10^{−18} m^{2} in Apto-albien | 10^{−18} m^{2} in Apto-albien |

10^{−16} m^{2} elsewhere | 10^{−16} m^{2} elsewhere | |

Fault porosity, ${\mathsf{\theta}}_{f}$ | 0.1 | 0.1 |

Fault permeability, ${\mathrm{K}}_{f}$ | 10^{−11} m^{2} | 10^{−11} m^{2} |

Fault width, $W$ | 20 m | 20 m |

Maximum differential of pressure (ΔP) along intersection LRF/BRF | 0.9 MPa (9.03 bar) | 0.87 MPa (8.73 bar) |

**Figure A2.**(

**a**) Unbiased surface soil moisture data acquired by SMOS in the L2 cell (SMOSMAP-IB) are compared to soil moisture at 30 cm (Berzème) using the effective saturation, Se (Section 2.2.3). (

**b**) Pressure (blue line) and pressure gradient for the previous 30 days (orange line) at the node where ΔP is maximum in SC22 (Table A1). The filled green square indicates the relative pressure minimum on 21 September 2019, and the filled red circle, the pressure on 11 November 2019.

## Appendix B

^{TM}is that discontinuities are defined only by flat surfaces. Each mechanical fault in the model corresponds to the mean plane of the geological fault, constraining the geometry of LRF by the observed fault trace position and a dip of about 50°. We attribute Coulomb behavior to these faults, and their properties are chosen according to the values measured for discontinuities in the Barremian layer by the French Low-Noise Underground Laboratory (LSBB) [62]. As far as the lithology is concerned, we extract three layers from the 3D geological model: the basement, the Upper Jurassic, and the Hauterivian layer (Figure 5 and Figure 8). The parameters of the fault and the porous elastic matrix for 3DEC

^{TM}simulation are provided in Table A2 and Table A3, respectively.

Parameters | Values |
---|---|

Normal stiffness, kn (GPa/m) | 20 |

Shear stiffness, ks (GPa/m) | 20 |

Friction coefficient, μ | 0.6 |

**Table A3.**Matrix parameters for 3DEC

^{TM}simulation, after [62]. Thickness represents the depth below Le Teil quarry. Each layer is slightly inclined by 3° to 5°.

Parameters | Value | ||
---|---|---|---|

Hauterivian | Upper Jurassic | Basement | |

$\mathrm{Poisson}\u2019\mathrm{d}\text{}\mathrm{ratio},\text{}\nu $ | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.3 |

Young’s modulus, E (GPa) | 42 | 16 | 61 |

Density (kg/m^{3}) | 2500 | 2600 | 2690 |

Thickness (m) | 420 | 780 | - |

^{TM}, where the mean edge length is 200 m, and the mesh is refined around the ground surface of mass removal and the target faults using a mean edge length of 100 m (Figure A3).

**Figure A3.**Fault models and numerical meshes in 3DEC simulations. The dimension (x,y,z) is 19 km (N110°E) × 12 km (N20°E) × 6 km (vertical). (

**a**) Fault elements implemented in the simulation. (

**b**) A snapshot of the simulation in a fault system with respect to the surface quarry. The indicative colors show the ΔCFF variations.

^{6}m

^{3}. The area of the quarry is estimated by using the study in [34], and the volume extracted is assumed to be evenly distributed on the whole surface. The volume extracted for the second period corresponds to the difference between the topography of 2019 and 1950 over the area of the whole quarry (Figure A4). Using this observed map, our estimation of this volume is about 34 × 10

^{6}m

^{3}. The density of the extracted mass is assumed as 2500 kg/m

^{3}, corresponding to 12 and 85 million tons for the two periods, respectively.

## References

- Stein, S.; Geller, R.J.; Liu, M. Why earthquake hazard maps often fail and what to do about it. Tectonophysics
**2012**, 562–563, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Klinger, Y.; Ji, C.; Shen, Z.-K.; Bakun, W.H. Introduction to the Special Issue on the 2008 Wenchuan, China, Earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
**2010**, 100, 2353–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lei, X. Possible roles of the Zipingpu Reservoir in triggering the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. J. Asian Earth Sci.
**2011**, 40, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kerr, R.A.; Stone, R. A Human Trigger for the Great Quake of Sichuan? Science
**2009**, 323, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Deng, K.; Zhou, S.; Wang, R.; Robinson, R.; Zhao, C.; Cheng, W. Evidence that the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan Earthquake Could Not Have Been Induced by the Zipingpu Reservoir. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
**2010**, 100, 2805–2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gahalaut, K.; Gahalaut, V.K. Effect of the Zipingpu reservoir impoundment on the occurrence of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and local seismicity. Geophys. J. Int.
**2010**, 183, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ge, S.; Liu, M.; Lu, N.; Godt, J.W.; Luo, G. Did the Zipingpu Reservoir trigger the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake? Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2009**, 36, L20315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tao, W.; Masterlark, T.; Shen, Z.-K.; Ronchin, E. Impoundment of the Zipingpu reservoir and triggering of the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, China. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
**2015**, 120, 7033–7047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mulargia, F.; Bizzarri, A. Anthropogenic Triggering of Large Earthquakes. Sci. Rep.
**2014**, 4, 6100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, H.K. A review of recent studies of triggered earthquakes by artificial water reservoirs with special emphasis on earthquakes in Koyna, India. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2002**, 58, 279–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McGarr, A.; Simpson, D.; Seeber, L.; Lee, W. Case histories of induced and triggered seismicity. Int. Geophys. Ser.
**2002**, 81, 647–664. [Google Scholar] - Davies, R.; Foulger, G.; Bindley, A.; Styles, P. Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons. Mar. Pet. Geol.
**2013**, 45, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Foulger, G.R.; Wilson, M.P.; Gluyas, J.G.; Julian, B.R.; Davies, R.J. Global review of human-induced earthquakes. Earth-Sci. Rev.
**2018**, 178, 438–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aochi, H.; Burnol, A. Mechanism of the ML4.0 25 April 2016 earthquake in southwest of France in the vicinity of the Lacq gas field. J. Seismol.
**2018**, 22, 1139–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aochi, H.; Le Guenan, T.; Burnol, A. Developing subsurface energy exploitation strategies by considering seismic risk. Pet. Geosci.
**2016**, 23, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dominique, P.; Aochi, H.; Morel, J. Triggered Seismicity in a Flooded Former Coal Mining Basin (Gardanne Area, France). Mine Water Environ.
**2022**, 41, 317–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saar, M.O.; Manga, M. Seismicity induced by seasonal groundwater recharge at Mt. Hood, Oregon. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
**2003**, 214, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Heki, K. Snow load and seasonal variation of earthquake occurrence in Japan. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
**2003**, 207, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hainzl, S.; Kraft, T.; Wassermann, J.; Igel, H.; Schmedes, E. Evidence for rainfall-triggered earthquake activity. Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2006**, 33, L19303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bollinger, L.; Perrier, F.; Avouac, J.-P.; Sapkota, S.; Gautam, U.; Tiwari, D.R. Seasonal modulation of seismicity in the Himalaya of Nepal. Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2007**, 34, L08304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ader, T.J.; Avouac, J.-P. Detecting periodicities and declustering in earthquake catalogs using the Schuster spectrum, application to Himalayan seismicity. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
**2013**, 377–378, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Husen, S.; Bachmann, C.; Giardini, D. Locally triggered seismicity in the central Swiss Alps following the large rainfall event of August 2005. Geophys. J. Int.
**2007**, 171, 1126–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Costain, J.K.; Bollinger, G.A.; Speer, J.A. Hydroseismicity: A Hypothesis for The Role of Water in the Generation of Intraplate Seismicity. Seismol. Res. Lett.
**1987**, 58, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Costain, J.K.; Bollinger, G.A. Review: Research Results in Hydroseismicity from 1987 to 2009. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
**2010**, 100, 1841–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Costain, J.K. Finite element simulation of an intraplate earthquake setting—Implications for the Virginia earthquake of 23 August 2011. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap.
**2015**, 509, 137–150. [Google Scholar] - Costain, J.K. Groundwater recharge as the trigger of naturally occurring intraplate earthquakes. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ.
**2017**, 432, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rigo, A.; Béthoux, N.; Masson, F.; Ritz, J.-F. Seismicity rate and wave-velocity variations as consequences of rainfall: The case of the catastrophic storm of September 2002 in the Nîmes Fault region (Gard, France). Geophys. J. Int.
**2008**, 173, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bollinger, L.; Nicolas, M.; Marin, S. Hydrological triggering of the seismicity around a salt diapir in Castellane, France. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
**2010**, 290, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Causse, M.; Cornou, C.; Maufroy, E.; Grasso, J.-R.; Baillet, L.; El Haber, E. Exceptional ground motion during the shallow Mw 4.9 2019 Le Teil earthquake, France. Commun. Earth Environ.
**2021**, 2, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cornou, C.; Ampuero, J.-P.; Aubert, C.; Audin, L.; Baize, S.; Billant, J.; Brenguier, F.; Causse, M.; Chlieh, M.; Combey, A.; et al. Rapid response to the M
_{w}4.9 earthquake of November 11, 2019 in Le Teil, Lower Rhône Valley, France. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience**2021**, 353, 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ritz, J.-F.; Baize, S.; Ferry, M.; Larroque, C.; Audin, L.; Delouis, B.; Mathot, E. Surface rupture and shallow fault reactivation during the 2019 Mw 4.9 Le Teil earthquake, France. Commun. Earth Environ.
**2020**, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ampuero, J.P.; Audin, L.; Bernard, P.; Brenguier, F.; Delouis, B.; Grandin, R.; Jolivet, R.; Leloup, P.H.; Ritz, J.F.; Vergne, J.; et al. Rapport d’évaluation du Groupe de Travail (GT) CNRS-INSU sur le Séisme du Teil du 11 Novembre 2019 et ses Causes Possibles; Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers: La Seyne-sur-Mer, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Larroque, C.; Ampuero, J.-P.; Delouis, B.; Cornou, C. Aux origines du séisme du Teil. La Rech.
**2020**, 561, 94–97. [Google Scholar] - De Novellis, V.; Convertito, V.; Valkaniotis, S.; Casu, F.; Lanari, R.; Monterroso Tobar, M.F.; Pino, N.A. Coincident locations of rupture nucleation during the 2019 Le Teil earthquake, France and maximum stress change from local cement quarrying. Commun. Earth Environ.
**2020**, 1, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Delouis, B.; Oral, E.; Menager, M.; Ampuero, J.-P.; Trilla, A.G.; Régnier, M.; Deschamps, A. Constraining the point source parameters of the 11 November 2019 Mw 4.9 Le Teil earthquake using multiple relocation approaches, first motion and full waveform inversions. Comptes Rendus Géosci.
**2021**, 353, 493–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kerrien, Y.; Elmi, S.; Busnardo, R.; Camus, G.; Kieffer, G.; Moinereau, J.; Weisbrod, A. Carte Géol. France (1/50,000) Feuille Aubenas (865); BRGM: Orléans, France, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Burnol, A.; Aochi, H.; Raucoules, D.; Veloso, F.M.L.; Koudogbo, F.N.; Fumagalli, A.; Chiquet, P.; Maisons, C. Wavelet-based analysis of ground deformation coupling satellite acquisitions (Sentinel-1, SMOS) and data from shallow and deep wells in Southwestern France. Sci. Rep.
**2019**, 9, 8812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Massonnet, D.; Rossi, M.; Carmona, C.; Adragna, F.; Peltzer, G.; Feigl, K.; Rabaute, T. The displacement field of the Landers earthquake mapped by radar interferometry. Nature
**1993**, 364, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Raucoules, D.; Bourgine, B.; De Michele, M.; Le Cozannet, G.; Closset, L.; Bremmer, C.; Veldkamp, H.; Tragheim, D.; Bateson, L.; Crosetto, M. Validation and intercomparison of Persistent Scatterers Interferometry: PSIC4 project results. J. Appl. Geophys.
**2009**, 68, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Costantini, M. A novel phase unwrapping method based on network programming. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
**1998**, 36, 813–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leprince, S.; Ayoub, F.; Klinger, Y.; Avouac, J.-P. Co-registration of optically sensed images and correlation (COSI-Corr): An operational methodology for ground deformation measurements. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium, Barcelona, Spain, 23–28 July 2007; pp. 1943–1946. [Google Scholar]
- Ayoub, F.; Leprince, S.; Keene, L. User’s Guide to COSI-CORR Co-Registration of Optically Sensed Images and Correlation; California Institute of Technology: Pasadena, CA, USA, 2009; Volume 38, p. 49. [Google Scholar]
- Hanssen, R.F. Radar Interferometry: Data Interpretation and Error Analysis; Springer, N., Ed.; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 2, p. 308. [Google Scholar]
- Raucoules, D.; Colesanti, C.; Carnec, C. Use of SAR interferometry for detecting and assessing ground subsidence. Comptes Rendus Geosci.
**2007**, 339, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xing, F.; Masson, R.; Lopez, S. Parallel numerical modeling of hybrid-dimensional compositional non-isothermal Darcy flows in fractured porous media. J. Comput. Phys.
**2017**, 345, 637–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lopez, S.; Masson, R.; Beaude, L.; Birgle, N.; Brenner, K.; Kern, M.; Smaï, F.; Xing, F. Geothermal Modeling in Complex Geological Systems with the ComPASS Code. In Proceedings of the Stanford Geothermal Workshop 2018-43rd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Sanford, CA, USA, 12–14 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jeanne, P.; Guglielmi, Y.; Lamarche, J.; Cappa, F.; Marié, L. Architectural characteristics and petrophysical properties evolution of a strike-slip fault zone in a fractured porous carbonate reservoir. J. Struct. Geol.
**2012**, 44, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guglielmi, Y.; Cappa, F.; Avouac, J.-P.; Henry, P.; Elsworth, D. Seismicity triggered by fluid injection-induced aseismic slip. Science
**2015**, 348, 1224–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cochard, J.; Léonide, P.; Borgomano, J.; Guglielmi, Y.; Massonnat, G.; Rolando, J.-P.; Marié, L.; Pasquier, A. Reservoir properties of barremian–aptian urgonian limestones, SE France, Part 1: Influence of structural history on porosity-permeability variations. J. Pet. Geol.
**2020**, 43, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aubert, I.; Lamarche, J.; Léonide, P. Ternary fault permeability diagram: An innovative way to estimate fault zones hydraulics. J. Struct. Geol.
**2021**, 147, 104349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brodzik, M.J.; Billingsley, B.; Haran, T.; Raup, B.; Savoie, M.H. EASE-Grid 2.0: Incremental but Significant Improvements for Earth-Gridded Data Sets. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2012**, 1, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El Hajj, M.; Baghdadi, N.; Zribi, M.; Rodríguez-Fernández, N.; Wigneron, P.J.; Al-Yaari, A.; Al Bitar, A.; Albergel, C.; Calvet, J.-C. Evaluation of SMOS, SMAP, ASCAT and Sentinel-1 Soil Moisture Products at Sites in Southwestern France. Remote Sens.
**2018**, 10, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.; Wigneron, J.-P.; Frappart, F.; Lannoy, G.D.; Fan, L.; Zhao, T.; Gao, L.; Tao, S.; Ma, H.; Peng, Z.; et al. The first global soil moisture and vegetation optical depth product retrieved from fused SMOS and SMAP L-band observations. Remote Sens. Environ.
**2022**, 282, 113272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Itasca. 3DEC—3 Dimensional Distinct Element Code v5.2; Itasca Consulting Group Inc.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Marconato, L.; Leloup, P.H.; Lasserre, C.; Jolivet, R.; Caritg, S.; Grandin, R.; Métois, M.; Cavalié, O.; Audin, L. Insights on fault reactivation during the 2019 November 11, Mw 4.9 Le Teil earthquake in southeastern France, from a joint 3-D geological model and InSAR time-series analysis. Geophys. J. Int.
**2022**, 229, 758–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Allanic, C.; Paquet, F.; Bitri, A.; Raucoules, D.; Marc, S.; Capar, L.; Briais, J.; Lasseur, E.; Fauchadour, J.-C. Séisme du Teil (11.11.2019): Structuration géologique 3D du sous-sol. In Proceedings of the 27e édition de la Réunion des Sciences de la Terre, Lyon, France, 1–5 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
- De Novellis, V.; Convertito, V.; Valkaniotis, S.; Casu, F.; Lanari, R.; Monterroso Tobar, M.F.; Pino, N.A. Author Correction: Coincident locations of rupture nucleation during the 2019 Le Teil earthquake, France and maximum stress change from local cement quarrying. Commun. Earth Environ.
**2021**, 2, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yoshida, S.; Koketsu, K.; Shibazaki, B.; Sagiya, T.; Kato, T.; Yoshida, Y. Joint Inversion of Near- and Far-field Waveforms and Geodetic Data for the Rupture Process of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. J. Phys. Earth
**1996**, 44, 437–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kaverina, A.; Dreger, D.; Price, E. The Combined Inversion of Seismic and Geodetic Data for the Source Process of the 16 October 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
**2002**, 92, 1266–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ozacar, A.A.; Beck, S.L. The 2002 Denali Fault and 2001 Kunlun Fault Earthquakes: Complex Rupture Processes of Two Large Strike-Slip Events. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
**2004**, 94, S278–S292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Masson, C.; Mazzotti, S.; Vernant, P.; Doerflinger, E. Extracting small deformation beyond individual station precision from dense Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) networks in France and western Europe. Solid Earth
**2019**, 10, 1905–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Derode, B.; Guglielmi, Y.; De Barros, L.; Cappa, F. Seismic responses to fluid pressure perturbations in a slipping fault. Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2015**, 42, 3197–3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Map of the studied area. (

**a**) Location of the studied area near Le Teil City in the southeast of France. Data are combined on Google map, Landsat/Copernicus, SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, and GEBCO, and include one Copernicus Sentinel-1 image (2019) that contains the 25 km SMOS L2 cell of the EASE equal-area grid (black square). (

**b**) Simplified bedrock geology modified from the BRGM geological map at the 1:50,000 scale [36], showing the observed faults (light-blue solid lines) and the hypothetical faults (light-blue dashed lines). The epicenter location suggested in [35] and the surface ruptures evidence from [31] are indicated with ten-pointed and five-pointed red stars, respectively. Additionally shown are the M201 seismic cross-section (dashed black line), the north–south axis at around 4.67°, which is the boundary between L1 and L2 SMOS cells (black line), and the vibration sensor placed by the quarry owner in the Clauzel house to monitor the quarry blasts (pink triangle).

**Figure 2.**Sentinel-1 synthetic-aperture radar data. (

**a**) A059 (ascending mode) interferogram (wrapped phase) showing a fringe (phase variation of 2π) corresponding to a surface displacement of 2.8 cm in the line of sight (LOS). The total movement was about 5 fringes (about 14 cm in LOS). (

**b**) The unwrapping of A059 allows to convert the phases in LOS displacement of the Sentinel-1 satellite (viewing angle of 43.7°). The black pixels correspond to pixels with insufficient coherence and were masked during the unwrapping process. (

**c**,

**d**) Zoomed images of both extremities of the detected surface rupture (white lines). (

**e**) Double-surface rupture (white lines) of the main La Rouvière fault (LRF) and the secondary Bayne Rocherenard fault (BRF), including the new position of the northeast part, called BRF (NE).

**Figure 3.**Distribution of line of sight (LOS) surface displacements along both faults (LRF and BRF). (

**a**) Position of the surface rupture points (yellow circles and red shaded line) and interpretation in terms of fault traces showing two co-seismic rupture lines, roughly parallel, the main LRF (between LRF1 and LRF20) and the secondary BRF (between BRR1 and BRR11, further continuing between P0 and P11). Additionally shown are the SC03 geotechnical borehole (black circle) and the rupture evidences in [31] (red stars), including the one close to P7 of BRF (white cross). (

**b**) Comparison of the LOS surface displacements of LRF and BRF faults (starting points of both profiles are the most southwestern points, LRF1 and BRR1, respectively).

**Figure 4.**The seismic profile M201: (

**a**) The data along the cross-section M201 in the time domain (vertical scale is two-way travel time). Interpretation of the faults and geological layers included in the geological model. (

**b**) True dip angles of LRF (La Rouvière), BRF (Bayne Rocherenard), and PF (Paurière) faults.

**Figure 5.**The local structural model used by ComPASS: (

**a**) Three-fault system with LRF (La Rouvière), BRF (Bayne Rocherenard), and PF (Paurière) faults. Two other faults in the east are also included. Additionally shown is the topographic surface and the Rhône River. (

**b**) Geological layers included the surface layer with the Apto-Albian clay layer (green) and the Barremian limestones (light blue).

**Figure 6.**Precipitation (rainfall) at Montélimar station compared to the effective saturation, Se, calculated by using in situ soil moisture at a 30 cm depth (SM30) at the Berzème station (Section 2.2.2).

**Figure 7.**Hydraulic simulation by ComPASS for the reference case BC16 (Table 1): (

**a**) Differential of pressure (ΔP) on the fault system between 11 November and 24 September 2019 (same view perspective as in Figure 5). (

**b**) ΔP on LRF (looking southeast). The intersection lines of BRF and PF with LRF are indicated by a grey and a white dotted line, respectively. (

**c**) Spatial variation of ΔP along the intersection line between LRF and BRF. Red diamond is the node position along the line where ΔP is maximum (at Y = 1963 m). (

**d**) Temporal pressure variation between 2015 and 2019 at the node where ΔP is maximum (blue line) and the pressure gradient for the previous 30 days (orange line). The filled green square indicates the relative pressure minimum on 24 September 2019, and the filled red circle, the pressure on 11 November 2019.

**Figure 8.**Mechanical simulation by 3DEC

^{TM}: (

**a**) Mechanical model concept (topography is given by a force on top of the model and elevation change due to quarry extraction is given by a force change from purple to red). (

**b**) Coulomb stress change (ΔCFF) on LRF related to mass withdrawal. Two areas of peak are identified, as highlighted by broken lines. (

**c**) Normal stress change on LRF. (

**d**) Shear stress change on LRF. Grey point indicates maximum stress change. Black point indicates the projection of the hypocenter location determined in [35] on LRF.

**Figure 9.**Comparison of different epicenter locations of Le Teil earthquake: (

**a**) BC16 and BC20 (stars) are the locations of maximum overpressures calculated by both reference cases (Table 1). The red line represents the surface projection of the intersection between LRF and BRF. Ev1 is the location of the quarry blast of 25 September 2019 (Figure S7). DL (main): Epicenter location (triangle) of the mainshock suggested in [35]. RZ (main): Epicenter location (losange) suggested in [31]. DL (af): Epicenter location (circle) of the aftershock (Ml 2.8) of 23 November 2019, suggested in [35]. Additionally shown is the sensor at the private Clauzel house (CLAU) located between LRF and BRF. (

**b**) Waveforms in displacement of the earthquake event recorded by the sensor CLAU (integrated once from the original record in velocity). The three components are displayed (NS, EW, UD). (

**c**) Horizontal particle motion for the selected time window of the beginning of the signals (shown in panel (

**b**) with green color) and associated polarity (orange line).

Base Case | BC16 | BC20 | BC23 | BC24 |
---|---|---|---|---|

Surface condition | SM30 | SM30 | SM30 | SM30 |

Matrix porosity, ${\mathsf{\theta}}_{m}$ | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |

Matrix permeability, ${\mathrm{K}}_{m}$ | 10^{−18} m^{2} in Apto-albien | 10^{−16} m^{2} | 10^{−18} m^{2} in Apto-albien | 10^{−18} m^{2} in Apto-albien |

10^{−16} m^{2} elsewhere | 10^{−16} m^{2} elsewhere | 10^{−16} m^{2} elsewhere | ||

Fault porosity, ${\mathsf{\theta}}_{f}$ | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |

Fault permeability, ${\mathrm{K}}_{f}$ | 10^{−11} m^{2} | 10^{−11} m^{2} | 5 10^{−12} m^{2} | 10^{−12} m^{2} |

Fault width, $W$ | 20 m | 20 m | 20 m | 20 m |

Maximum differential of pressure (ΔP) along intersection LRF/BRF | 0.98 MPa (9.84 bar) | 0.97 MPa (9.75 bar) | 0.84 MPa (8.39 bar) | 0.38 MPa (3.8 bar) |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Burnol, A.; Armandine Les Landes, A.; Raucoules, D.; Foumelis, M.; Allanic, C.; Paquet, F.; Maury, J.; Aochi, H.; Guillon, T.; Delatre, M.;
et al. Impacts of Water and Stress Transfers from Ground Surface on the Shallow Earthquake of 11 November 2019 at Le Teil (France). *Remote Sens.* **2023**, *15*, 2270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15092270

**AMA Style**

Burnol A, Armandine Les Landes A, Raucoules D, Foumelis M, Allanic C, Paquet F, Maury J, Aochi H, Guillon T, Delatre M,
et al. Impacts of Water and Stress Transfers from Ground Surface on the Shallow Earthquake of 11 November 2019 at Le Teil (France). *Remote Sensing*. 2023; 15(9):2270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15092270

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Burnol, André, Antoine Armandine Les Landes, Daniel Raucoules, Michael Foumelis, Cécile Allanic, Fabien Paquet, Julie Maury, Hideo Aochi, Théophile Guillon, Mickael Delatre,
and et al. 2023. "Impacts of Water and Stress Transfers from Ground Surface on the Shallow Earthquake of 11 November 2019 at Le Teil (France)" *Remote Sensing* 15, no. 9: 2270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15092270