Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Structural Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsg

Review

Fractal-geometry techniques in the quantification of complex rock structures:

A special view on scaling regimes, inhomogeneity and anisotropy
Jörn H. Kruhl
Tectonics and Material Fabrics Section, Technical University Munich, 80290 Munich, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fractal-geometry techniques are widely applied to the quantification of complex rock structures.
Received 13 March 2012 Important properties of such structures are (i) different scaling behaviour on different scales, (ii)
Received in revised form inhomogeneity, and (iii) anisotropy. The current paper presents a special view on the quantification of
29 September 2012
these properties by classical and newly developed fractal-geometry methods, discusses advantages and
Accepted 3 October 2012
Available online 26 October 2012
disadvantages of special methods and outlines the correlations between structure quantifications and
rock properties and structure-forming processes, presented in the literature.
Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords:
Fractal geometry
Complex rock structures
Scaling regimes
Inhomogeneity
Anisotropy

1. Introduction
Matter is structured from micro- to mega-scale and these
structures appear to us as patterns of different complexity. The
human race developed in a structured world where it was and still
is important to sense similar patterns and to rate them as mean-
ingful or not. Therefore, the human brain is well designed for
pattern recognition and for qualitative comparison of patterns.
However, pattern quantification appears difficult.
The present paper deals with structures in rocks. These structures
are defined as geometric and, in certain cases, crystallographic
properties of domains, such as shape, size, spatial distribution,
spatial and crystallographic orientation, combined with variations of
mineralogical or chemical composition. These domains may range
from the micrometre- to kilometre-scale. Typically, they are repre-
sented by layering, cleavage planes, lineations, folds, fractures, faults,
shear zones, joints, or filled veins, but also by lava flows, sediment
fans, rock fragments, crystals, crystal or particle aggregates, trails of
inclusions, and coatings on rock faces. Most information about these
domains, specifically with respect to structure-forming processes,
are stored in their geometric properties and, consequently, a struc-
ture can be represented partly or in many cases even totally by
a binary pattern, i.e., by the purely geometric arrangement of one
E-mail address: kruhl@tum.de.
phase versus a second phase. Therefore and in order to keep the topic
to a manageable extent, the present paper does not deal with the
information stored in, e.g. composition, colours or crystallography of
structures, but will only address measurement, quantification, and
analysis of binary patterns.
Structures and their binary patterns are always an expression of
the processes, by which they are formed or changed. Therefore, the
analysis of structures (pattern analysis) provides valuable infor-
mation about the structure-forming processes. Structures may be
very simple, with Euclidean geometry like the outlines of crystals.
But in most cases they are so complex that measurement by
methods of Euclidean geometry is not feasible and qualitative
descriptions cannot sufficiently record them. During the last
decades, in all fields of geoscience measurement methods were
refined and experiments and modelling became significant parts of
investigations. However, comparison of natural or technically
produced structures among each other or with the results of
experiments or modelling is effective only if such structures can be
described precisely, i.e., if they can be quantified. Only quantifica-
tion builds bridges between nature, technical products, experiment
and model.
From the wide spectrum of geological structures the present
paper attends mostly to those that result from deformation
processes from the micrometre- to the kilometre-scale. Precise
measurement of these structures needs (i) transformation of
mainly diffuse and incomplete structures to binary patterns and (ii)

0191-8141/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2012.10.002
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
methods that are able to quantify the patterns’ complexity on
different scales. Recording of complex structures is afflicted with
various problems and restrictions, which are presented and dis-
cussed. With respect to pattern quantification of geological struc-
tures, methods of fractal geometry (Mandelbrot, 1977) are best
choice, as convincingly demonstrated by Kaye (1989, 1993) in his
stimulating books. However, these methods include restrictions
that hamper their successful application and demands diligence
and a critical approach to their usage. Nevertheless, fractal geom-
etry offers highly effective quantification methods which give
consideration to the complexity of natural structures and, in
addition, have a strong potential for further development.
During the last decades the literature, related to the applica-
tion of fractal geometry in geoscience, increased extremely. It is
hardly possible, even solely restricted to structural geology, to
completely treat of and cite these publications. Therefore, this
review only presents a limited and necessarily subjective selec-
tion of papers.
2. Complex rock structures and patterns
Rock structures consist of matter with specific physical and
chemical properties. In most cases, the matter itself does not
provide relevant information. For example, the mineralogical
composition of a rock, such as 25 vol-% quartz, 15 vol-% K-feld-
spar, 40 vol-% plagioclase, 15 vol-% biotite and 5 vol-% white
mica, is just good for the cognition that it is most probably not
a sedimentary rock. Distinction between ‘magmatic’ and ‘meta-
morphic’ would be only possible with additional ‘typical’
minerals, not to talk e in case of ‘metamorphic’ e about a more
precise naming of the rock. Even if the metamorphic rock could
be categorized the volume percentage of the minerals would
provide nearly no information about the physical properties or
the history of the rock. Such information is mainly created by the
arrangement of the mineral grains or e in a more general sense e
by the structure of the rock. Distribution and orientation of mica
flakes may already determine if the rock can be categorized as
mica schist deformed by co-axial compression or simple shear or
if shearing is localized (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Schematic sketches of schist or gneiss foliation structures, each of them
composed of roughly 90 bars. The structures are the result of various deformation
processes and their spatial-temporal interaction. (A) Parallel foliation, possibly
resulting from pressure solution under strong compression in a quartz-mica schist; (B)
Weakly conjugate foliation planes, as they would develop during coaxial flattening in
a psammopelitic rock under low-temperature conditions; (C) Simple-shear deforma-
tion at the same conditions would lead to an ‘S-C’ structure; (D) Localized deformation
could lead to micro shear zones oblique to pre-given foliation, indicating a two-fold
deformation history.
3
These simple foliation patterns do not require elaborate pattern
analysis. However, the ‘complex’ arrangement of simple portions of
a pattern or the way the material is organized, which is not
accessible to the observer at first view, contain rich information
about the material’s properties, its history, and last but not least
valuable information about structure-forming processes, as will be
shown further below. Therefore, the characteristics of any struc-
tured matter are not represented by single fractions of the structure
but by their organization, i.e., the pattern. Analysing such patterns
always means gaining information about the organization of
matter. Consequently, pattern analysis can be regarded as part of
cybernetics (Wiener, 1948).
When is a pattern a pattern? Even if patterns can be related to
time, colours (e.g. the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock e Taylor
et al., 1999), tunes (music e Voss and Clarke, 1975) or other prop-
erties, the term is generally related to the spatial arrangement of
small portions. Encyclopaedias define ‘pattern’ as combination of
single or several portions (figures). Recognizing patterns means to
observe higher interrelationships within a flood of small portions,
which are not obvious at first glance. With respect to ‘pattern’ it is
clear that the summation of single portions is not the ensemble. The
relationship of the portions, their arrangement, adds an important
component and only this defines the characteristics of the
ensemble. In this way the patterns are formed, which are well
known to us from Persian carpets, architectural ornaments or the
drawings of M.C. Escher. Since small portions of the same type can
be arranged in many different ways, already numerous patterns
arise. However, rock patterns comprise additional properties that
are immanent to most natural patterns: some randomness and
fuzziness and extension over several orders of magnitude, exactly
what represents complexity (see further below).
The human brain is outstandingly qualified for storing and
recognizing patterns e patterns in terms of, for example, faces,
sequences of tunes, or the configurations of pieces in a chess game
(Amidzic et al., 2001; Chase and Simon, 1973). However, it is
difficult for the brain to quantify such complex patterns. What
does ‘complex’ mean and when is a pattern ‘complex’? The term
originates from the Latin “complexus” (¼ ‘connected’, ‘compre-
hensive’) and is also defined in this way by encyclopaedias.
Systems are regarded as complex if they are multi-dimensional,
cross-linked, self-dynamic, diffuse, probabilistic and unstable to
a certain extent (Malik, 2004; Reither, 2004). Complexity can be
measured by ‘variety’: the number of all possible distinguishable
states of a system (Ashby, 1956, p. 121ff) e the higher the variety
the larger the complexity. With respect to rock structures, this
definition is reduced to the static components of the rock.
Complex structures are not composed of complicated discrete
parts (complicated in the sense of non-simple, without arrange-
ment and repetition on different scales), but of parts that are
simple and equal or similar to each other and clearly smaller than
the total structure, for example crystals, rock pebbles, straight
segments of fractures, cavities in a surface, etc. In complex struc-
tures the discrete parts are linked to each other, that means with
a certain probability and in the way that parts of the structure
slightly differ from each other or are slightly different on different
scales, i.e., are ‘fuzzy’.
Consequently, a complex rock structure can be defined as
a structure consisting of simple equal or similar parts that are
clearly smaller than the total structure and repeated in a diffuse
way over a certain range of magnitude. A complex structure is often
formed by a simple but iterative process. That means a process that
changed a structure at a specific moment acts in the next moment
on this changed structure. Finally the overall change of the struc-
ture results from the summation of all these minimal changes by
the iterative process.
4 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
3. Recording of structures in practice
The quality of the pattern quantification depends on the quality
of the pattern. The pattern’s quality in turn depends on three
things: (i) the completeness of the real structure and its extension
over as many orders of magnitude as possible, (ii) the quality of
recording, e.g., the resolution of a photograph or scan or the correct
way of recording the structure by a processor, (iii) the quality of
transforming the structure to a binary pattern. Other aspects of
a structure, which cannot be transformed to a binary code, are
beyond the scope of this paper and are not discussed.
3.1. Completeness of structures
Ideally, the observed and recorded structure represents the ‘real’
structure as completely as possible. This is nearly never the case
with natural structures. On all scales and because of different
reasons wholes in the structure occur: a rock specimen is locally
covered by lichens; a fresh quarry wall is impregnated by Fe
precipitation; in a geological map the boundaries between rock
units are covered by younger sedimentary depositions. The repre-
sentation of structures in the map is often based on various
assumptions depending on the processor and on the map scale.
That means, typically parts of the structure are imagined or the
structure contains gaps that are ignored. Usually no issue is made
out of the incompleteness of structures and many publications deal
with incomplete structures, e.g., fracture systems on map-scale,
without discussion. Incompleteness does not necessarily lead to
inaccurate results. ‘Holes’ in structures should be looked at more
critically if they have shapes and distributions, which themselves
show a specific complexity, leading to systematic changes of the
structure’s complexity. For example, the size distribution of lichens
is complex (Morse et al., 1985; Shorrocks et al., 1991) and would
accordingly change the remaining area of fresh rock surface. This
problem cannot be removed in principle. Possible impacts on
quantification can be estimated if the scale, on which gaps in the
structure occur particularly frequently, is considered.
Vice versa, fractal geometry (Mandelbrot, 1977) offers the
possibility to fill gaps and complete the structure-related pattern. If
in smaller complete areas the pattern always shows the same
fractal dimension, i.e., if it is homogeneous, the same fractality can
be also assumed where gaps occur. Consequently, these gaps can be
filled with an artificial pattern of the same fractality. In addition, all
natural structures are limited in scale. The upper limit is mostly
determined by the size of the outcrop, e.g., the size of a quarry wall
or the area of basement rocks exposed under a sedimentary cover.
The lower limit usually corresponds to the resolution of the
recording method (Section 4.1).
3.2. Quality of recording
Complex rock structures on various scales can be best recorded
by satellite/aerial, outcrop or specimen photographs, scans of rock
cuts or thin sections, or on the basis of geological or tectonic maps.
With all these methods the quality of recording can be highly
variable. Specifically with field photographs surface alteration,
variable incidence of light intensity, shadow effects on rough
surfaces, distortions on inclined planes and of margins of photo-
graphs can generate a local and overall bias of the recorded struc-
ture. The compensation of margin distortions and different
illuminations in merged photographs can cause difficulties (further
discussions in Peternell, 2007; Peternell et al., 2011). In addition,
manual recording may lead to an oversimplification of structures. If
the recording technique changes on different scales accuracy and/
or quality of recording can also change and lead to a bias of the
subsequent pattern quantification.
As long as techniques for automated detection of structures
are only partly developed (see further below), in many cases the
manual transformation of a structure to a (binary) pattern is still
the best choice. However, wrong interpretations by the processor
or selective sampling may lead to a considerable bias of the
pattern, more strongly if parts of the structure are missing, less if
the total structure is recorded imprecisely. Investigations on
crystal distributions in rocks show: If single crystals are wrongly
classified, e.g., plagioclase as K-feldspar, the pattern’s complexity
is more strongly changed than by inaccuracies, e.g. small shifts,
during recording of the crystals’ boundaries (Peternell and Kruhl,
2009). The reason is that a wrong classification of crystals tears
holes in the pattern or adds pieces. Through that the arrange-
ment of pattern fractions, which is characteristic of the pattern, is
disturbed. In contrast, this arrangement is only weakly affected
by small shifts of pattern fractions or the boundaries between
them.
3.3. Quality of transformation of structures to binary patterns
On the one hand, the transformation of structures to binary
patterns, which already exist as black-and-white sketches, is
a relatively trivial process. Possibly the lines have to be thinned and
artificial irregularities have to be cleared. On the other hand, already
during this process bias can occur, which affects the results of the
subsequent fractal geometry analyses. This is discussed by Gonzato
et al. (2000). However, the binary coding of structures that exist as
colour or grey-shade photographs is by no means trivial and it
affects the subsequent pattern quantification. The manual recording
of different grain-boundary patterns, e.g., quartz, K-feldspar,
plagioclase, biotite, in square-decimetre large areas and down to the
100-mm scale may take up to 50 times as long as automated
recording (Peternell and Kruhl, 2009). Therefore, automation of
binary coding is a necessary pre-condition for effective pattern
analyses.
If grey-scale photographs show strong contrast of brightness the
structures to be investigated can be generated by application of
a threshold. This procedure is available in commercial image pro-
cessing or drawing programs. The threshold can be selected by
various methods. For example, a computer-aided threshold selec-
tion is performed by stepwise approaching the optimal threshold,
based on small changes of pixel numbers (Gerik and Kruhl, 2009). If
several patterns are to be generated from colour or grey-scale
photographs, images can be segmented by grey-level slicing or
colour threshold, based on commercial image processing programs
(Andriani and Walsh, 2002; Coster and Chermant, 2001). This may
lead, for example, to differentiation between various minerals or
clasts in fragmented rocks and forms a basis for subsequent quan-
tification of the pattern. In addition, special ranking filters can be
applied in order to reduce the noise without changing the original
shapes of material domains (Heilbronner and Keulen, 2006).
Further improvement of the pattern requires revised manual
processing with additional time-consuming input of information.
More sophisticated automated methods like ‘water-flow’ (Baccar
et al., 1996; Vincent and Soille, 1991), suitable for mineral-phase
segmentation (Barraud, 2006), are extremely time-consuming as
well. In the end, it is the processor’s task to find a compromise
between a match, as high as possible, of the original structure and
the binary pattern, dependent on the requirements of the intended
method, and the necessary amount of time. Comprehensive
investigations on the accuracy of binary coding of a structure and
the accuracy of quantifying the binary pattern are missing, except
for few approaches (Peternell and Kruhl, 2009).
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
3.4. Automated recording of structures
Automated recording of structures and binary coding are
worthwhile not only because they are less time-consuming than
manual recording and processing but also because of the higher
accuracy of the resulting pattern and thereby its possible larger
size. Consequently, structures can be recorded over more orders of
magnitude. The quantifications of these structures have higher
significance and potential changes of the structures on different
scales can be identified more easily. Particularly quantifications of
anisotropy and inhomogeneity depend on the size of the recorded
structures. Above all, small-sized structures, as common with
manual recording, do not allow determination of inhomogeneity
with adequate accuracy (see further below).
During the last years, methods of automated structure identifi-
cation have been developed. For example, phase boundaries can be
identified and recorded with the aid of a watershed segmentation
procedure (Barraud, 2006) or the constrained automated seeded
region growing (CASRG) algorithm (Choudhury et al., 2006). For high
accuracy however, manual corrections of the images are necessary.
Further possibilities of determining phases and phase boundaries
are offered by the automated recording of crystal orientations,
either by computer-aided polarizing microscopy (Fueten, 1997;
Panozzo Heilbronner and Pauli, 1993) or by electron microscopy
methods, e.g., electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD e Adams et al.,
1993). However, the latter are elaborate and of only limited use for
processing large-scale structures. Automated pore-space measure-
ments in sandstone, based on scanning-electron-microscope
images, have been performed by Krohn and Thompson (1986).
The multi-spectral image processing method (Marschallinger,
1997) is a promising technique for automated recording of
mineral grains, which applies neural networks that represent
adaptive systems (Baykan and Yilmaz, 2010; Fueten and Mason,
2007; Goodchild and Fueten, 1998; Thompson et al., 2001). With
the aid of such methods, phase boundaries and minerals can be
identified and recorded with high probability. In principle, based on
further development of these methods, any complex structure in
rocks could be recorded automatically. Significant progress in future
structure recording and processing can be expected in this field of
investigation.
Nearly all rock structures occur in 3D, however, because of
practical reasons are mostly recorded and analysed in 2D. On the
basis of automated recording of structures in 2D, grain fabrics can
be reconstructed and visualized in 3D (Marschallinger, 1998, 2001)
and presented as World Wide Web documents using special visu-
alization techniques, partly with interactive user control
(Marschallinger and Johnson, 2001). Pore-space, fracture systems
or crystal distributions can be measured in 3D as accurately as
necessary for most applications, for example, by X-ray or neutron
tomography (Denison et al., 1997; Ketcham and Iturrino, 2005;
Vontobel et al., 2005; Winkler et al., 2002), computer tomography
based on 2D sections (Marschallinger, 1998, 2001), or by laser and
photogrammetric methods (Tonon and Kottenstette, 2006). Most of
these methods are elaborate and time-consuming.
4. Quantification of structures by fractal-geometry methods
Measurement of complex structures (or patterns) by Euclidean
geometry is difficult or simply not possible. Complex mathematical
patterns, in fact, can be quantified based on their design instruction.
However, when a pattern extends over an infinite number of orders
of magnitude the failure of applying Euclidean geometry methods
becomes obvious. Natural structures extend over only a limited
range of scale but their irregularity and their only statistical self-
similarity make measurements extremely difficult, if not
5
impossible. Therefore, structures are still recorded in a descriptive
or half-quantitative way. In contrast to fractal geometry methods,
classical techniques of structure quantification (presented in detail
by Higgins, 2006) do not measure structures as patterns but treat
their fractions mainly by statistical methods: particle-size
frequencies in sedimentology (Pettijohn, 1975); Crystal Size Distri-
bution (CSD e Marsh, 1988); Shape Preferred Orientation (SPO e
Panozzo, 1984; Launeau et al., 1990). Other methods deal with
patterns but are only designed for simple ones (Launeau and Robin,
1996).
In contrast, fractal-geometry based (or fractal-geometry related)
methods at least partly record the internal connection of patterns.
However, clear differences exist between different methods. Since
Benoit B. Mandelbrot’s famous question “How long is the coast of
Britain?” (Mandelbrot, 1967) and his ground-breaking book on the
‘fractal geometry of nature’ (Mandelbrot, 1982) a wide auditorium
became familiar with fractal geometry, also through numerous
textbooks that demonstrated the various applications of fractal
geometry in different fields of geosciences (Barnsley, 1988; Bunde
and Havlin, 1994; Falconer, 1990, 1997; Feder, 1988; Hasting and
Sugihara, 1993; Kaye, 1989, 1993; Peitgen and Richter, 1986; Peitgen
and Saupe, 1988; Peitgen et al., 1992a,b; Stanley and Ostrowsky,
1988; Turcotte, 1997; and many others).
Right away, fractal geometry methods were recognized in geo-
sciences as attractive ways of quantifying complex structures and
gaining important information about material properties,
structure-forming processes and for comparison with results of
experiments and technical processes. Or from another viewpoint,
fractal geometry is attractive because it “provides a proper
language and symbolism for studies of ill-defined geometries”
(Avnir et al., 1998). In addition, interpolation may be applied to
incomplete structures or extrapolation may allow extension of
a structure to smaller or larger scales (Mareschal, 1989; Watterson
et al., 1996). The latter, however, only works if the structure (i) is
homogeneous and (ii) shows the same scaling behaviour over the
entire range of scale. In many cases these conditions are not ful-
filled. Even if the fractality of many geological structures was
recognized limitations of the methods were pointed out together
with the fact that by far not all geological structures are fractal
(Bonnet et al., 2001; Korvin, 1989; Nicol et al., 1996). For example,
they may be log-normal or exponential. Log-normal distributions
are reported from fracture systems (Foxford et al., 2000; Gerik and
Kruhl, 2009; McCaffrey et al., 1993; Narr and Suppe, 1991) or from
mineral distribution patterns (Gerik and Kruhl, 2009; Gerik et al.,
2010; Peternell et al., 2011). Strictly seen, such distributions are
outside the field of fractal-geometry analysis but nevertheless may
provide useful information, not least about pattern inhomogeneity
and anisotropy.
This touches the more general question why natural data should
be fitted to one specific law (if necessary ‘by force’) and not just to
the one with the relatively best fit. One answer is that ‘fit’ is not
sought for its own sake but in order to gain information about the
process (or the processes) behind the natural data. Since natural
data may show natural variation, e.g. a random component with
local or temporal variation, ‘best fit’ would possibly catch such
meaningless component. Consequently, ‘best fit’ could indicate
laws, i.e. processes, or their variations which are meaningless. A
second answer would be that log-normal and exponential distri-
butions are limited to a certain scale whereas fractal distributions
are not. Therefore, e.g. log-normal distributions satisfyingly
describe scale-limited data sets, such as grain-size distributions,
whereas fractal distributions better represent structures resulting
from processes, such as fracturing or diffusion, which are seen as
invariant over certain ranges of scale, based on observations as well
as theoretical considerations (Sammis et al., 1987). These answers,
6 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
however, do not question the fact that the fractality of a pattern
may be different on different scales (Section 5).
Methods of fractal geometry are only applicable to the quanti-
fication of complex structures. They fail in quantifying simple
structures or yield results that appear useful but are meaningless.
In this respect, computer programs that work as a black-box are
particularly dangerous. Further discussion of this topic is given by
Harris et al. (1991). In addition, bias is caused by (i) insufficient
sampling, (ii) low number of data points, (iii) incorrect set of the
analysis area in relation to the pattern, and (iv) if the resolution of
the analytical instrument, e.g., the box size in case of the Box-
Counting Method or the step length of the Divider Method,
approaches the resolution of the structure. These and other sources
of error are discussed in detail elsewhere (Gonzato et al., 1998,
2000).
4.1. Natural fractals and their properties
From a mathematical viewpoint rock structures (or patterns) are
not fractal because they do not fulfil fundamental requirements of
fractality: They are not self-similar over an infinite range of scale.
Their self-similarity, like that of all other natural structures, partly
extends over less than one order of magnitude or different scaling
behaviour occurs on different scales, with often diffuse transitions.
At the upper limit, each complex rock structure is too coarse, i.e.,
does not contain enough substructures or fractions for statistically
safe analyses. At their lower limit, rock structures are either
incomplete, due to the limit of resolution, or show Euclidean
geometry (Fig. 2). In contrast to mathematical fractal patterns,
geological structures always bear a component of randomness,
mainly caused by the inhomogeneity of the material and by the
interaction of the different structure-forming processes. The main
differences, however, to mathematical structures are: Geological
structures are often different (i) on different scales (pattern
scaling), (ii) in different areas (pattern inhomogeneity), and (iii) in
different directions (pattern anisotropy). These three structure or
pattern properties are geologically significant and often reflect
various geological processes.
Fig. 2. Complex fracture pattern in a sandstone layer composed of several sets of
sub-parallel fractures. The pattern is bounded by a felsic dyke (D) and over- and
underlying rock layers (bottom and top) without fractures. Locally, the pattern is
incomplete due to steps in the surface and salt precipitation (arrows). Ellipses: regions
where fractures ‘fray’, possibly to arrays of microfractures, and become invisible in the
photograph. Coastal outcrop, Mallacoota region, eastern Victoria/Australia. Coin for
scale.
Self-similarity of complex patterns generally leads to the power-
law relationship N(s) w sD, with N ¼ number of objects  s
(Mandelbrot, 1982). The exponent D, the fractal dimension, charac-
terizes the complexity of the pattern. A logarithmic representation
changes the function to log (N) w D log (1/s), i.e., to a straight line
with slope D in a double-logarithmic diagram. The advantage of such
graphical representation is that variations of measurement points
from the linear arrangement are easily recognizable and can be
eliminated or, if systematic, used for analysis. Variations from line-
arity often occur at the upper and lower limits of measurement range
(Carpinteri and Chiaia, 1997; ‘roll off’ e Blenkinsop and Sanderson,
1999; Pickering et al., 1995) (Fig. 3) and define upper and lower
limits of fractality. Mainly at the lower limit the structure is often
incompletely recorded because of poor outcrop situation on outcrop
or map scale, or because small parts of the structure are less well
‘visible’ and therefore not fully recorded (Fig. 2). Consequently, they
are under-represented, the measurement points deviate from the
trend (undersampling e ‘truncation’; Ackermann et al., 2001;
Blenkinsop and Sanderson, 1999; Ford and Blenkinsop, 2008a,b;
Jackson and Sanderson, 1992; Pickering et al., 1994, 1995; Watterson
et al., 1996) and are omitted for the analysis. Typically, structures in
thin section, i.e., with ‘100% outcrop’, do not show such an effect
(Kruhl, 1994).
In addition, a complex structure may not be fractal on small
scale or shows insufficient resolution, or the actual features are
Euclidean. For example, crystal or grain aggregates are frequently
fractal on larger scale, but Euclidean on smaller scale, caused by
straight crystal or grain faces (Kruhl and Nega, 1996). The same is
true for particle sizes in fragmented rocks. Their frequency distri-
bution changes from fractal to non-fractal below a certain size that
is governed by cleavage planes or faces of crystals (Sammis and
Biegel, 1989). Fracture patterns often consist of short straight
segments, partly because they are actually straight, but also
because they are straightened during transfer from nature to the
line pattern, e.g., by the processor or based on the resolution of the
recording instrument. Pattern fractions with Euclidean outlines can
assemble to larger fractal patterns (Kaye, 1984, 1989, p. 87). The
‘roll-off’ effect is also related to large objects with, due to various
reasons, low numbers (‘censoring’ e Ackermann et al., 2001;
Fig. 3. Measurement points in a double-logarithmic plot, generated by the application
of the Structured-Walk (Divider) Method to a complex grain-boundary curve. The total
lengths of polygons are plotted versus their stride (step) lengths. The roughly linear
arrangement of data points changes at its upper and lower limits (‘roll off’). Belo
a certain small scale (solid arrow) Euclidean geometry of the curve prevents further
increase of total length (stippled line) and, consequently, leads to a fractal dimension of
1. This change of linear arrangement of data points may be also caused by incomplete
recording of small parts of the structure (‘truncation’). Above a certain large scale
(stippled arrow) large parts of the structure occur in generally low number
(‘censoring’). In the case of the Structured-Walk Method the low number of strides leads
to a scatter of data points, increasing with increasing stride length and caused by
various starting points of the structured walk. In the example only the highest and
lowest values are shown, connect by solid lines. Steps of the data point arrangement
are highlighted by stippled lines. Modified after Kruhl and Nega (1996).
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Jackson and Sanderson, 1992; Pickering et al., 1994). In addition, the
weak statistics of large pattern fractions is reflected by the scatter of
measurements, which does not allow any fit of the data points
(Fig. 3).
The relatively imprecise application of quantification methods is
criticized from a mathematical view (Tricot, 1995). Such criticism is
legitimate insofar as in many investigations (i) the boundary
conditions of applications are not specified, (ii) the ranges of
measurements or analyses are defined visually, i.e., subjectively, (iii)
the range of analysis is too short and the data basis too small for
statistically significant conclusions, (iv) the methods are applied to
patterns, for which they are not suitable. On the other hand, the
analysis of natural structures mostly does not intend to find
a mathematical model that fits an ‘irregular’ pattern as accurately as
possible. Application of fractal geometry methods, e.g. to rock
structures, mainly serves to detect regularity or systematics in these
patterns and correlate them with pattern-forming processes. In the
foreground is the connection between different pattern character-
istics, such as inhomogeneity, anisotropy and their variation on
different scales, and their comparison to potential pattern-forming
processes. Mathematical precision is important but not essential.
Moreover, variations of natural patterns from mathematical fractals
do not represent ‘defects’ that, if not ‘repairable’, should at least be
minimized. In fact, such variations are characteristic of natural
patterns and they often represent an important source of informa-
tion for investigating natural structures and the processes behind
them.
The single fractions of a mathematical fractal, e.g. of the triadic
Koch Curve (Mandelbrot,1982), show specific sizes and are arranged
with specific distances and angles to each other. Measuring such
regularity of a pattern by fractal geometry methods results in cyclic
stepping of the measurement points in a logelog plot (Kaye, 1989, p.
41). Such an effect of pattern regularity becomes specifically
apparent with mathematical fractals that extend over a limited
range of scale. Typically, the few but distinct steps caused by the
pattern’s regularity increasingly disappear with decreasing regu-
larity (Fig. 4). Vice versa, such systematic deviations from a power-
law distribution are also generated by the measurement of regular
complex natural structures, independently of the applied method
Fig. 4. Fractal analysis of the outlines of a ‘regular’ (left) and an ‘irregular’ Koch island
(right), performed by the Structured-Walk Method and presented in a double-loga-
rithmic plot. The ‘irregularity’ is produced by (i) shifts of the boxes parallel to their base
and (ii) by small changes of the box sizes without changing the total area of the island.
Both fractal dimensions D are similar and slightly different from the fractal dimension
D ¼ 1.292, given by the construction procedure. The measurement points related to the
regular Koch island show distinct steps, i.e., neighbouring measurement points with
different stride length but nearly equal polygon length. These steps are not present in
the arrangement of measurement points of the irregular Koch island. For reasons of
clarity, measurement points of the ‘irregular’ curve are shifted one order of magnitude
to the right.
7
(Kruhl and Nega, 1996). This relationship represents a possibility for
quantifying and investigating regularity of patterns (Şuţeanu and
Kruhl, 2002). Cyclic stepping of measurement points frequently
appears in publications but is nearly never mentioned or discussed.
How many orders of magnitude should a complex structure
cover for meaningful quantification by fractal geometry? This is
a controversial matter (Avnir et al., 1998). Usually one to two orders
of magnitude is seen as lowermost limit, probably also because
most geological structures do not extend much beyond this range
(Fig. 5). In rare cases geological structures may range over up to 6e7
orders of magnitude (Castaing et al., 1996; Jensen et al., 2011; Long
and Imber, 2011; Zhao et al., 2009). On the other hand, in some
classical examples self-similarity is only present in an interval close
to one order of magnitude or even below (Kaye, 1989, 1993).
However, there is no reason to believe that the physical relevance of
self-similarity of a structure increases with increasing range of
scale. If self-similarity indicates activity of a specific process a small
range of self-similarity only means that this process was active over
this small range. Activity over a larger range does not necessarily
indicate greater importance for material behaviour or develop-
ment. The confirmation of self-similarity, however, depends on the
resolution of the structure over the range of measurement and on
the accuracy of measurement. Self-similarity of a structure, well
resolved over a large range of scale, is definitely more meaningful
than of a structure poorly resolved over a short range of scale. The
latter may be even completely meaningless.
Since rock structures result from the interplay between material
properties and material-forming processes, self-similarity over
several orders of magnitude would imply constancy of processes
and properties over such a range. This is rarely the case with
deformation or other structure-forming processes. Many geological
structures are self-similar only over relatively short ranges of scale
but may be differently self-similar on different scales (Section 5).
For example, different deformation processes on different scales are
well known from feldspar deformation experiments (Tullis and
Yund, 1985) where single crystals are stronger than crystal aggre-
gates. The reason is that single crystals are dominantly deformed by
intra-crystalline processes whereas in crystal aggregates defor-
mation also acts along crystal boundaries. In rocks, fracture
patterns may change from the centimetre to 1000-kilometre scale,
as a result of different material fabrics and deformation behaviour
Fig. 5. Frequency distribution of intervals of fractality, i.e. of linearity of measurement
points in a double-logarithmic plot. The data are mostly related to rock structures and
based on 109 publications with 123 diagrams from 46 geoscience journals in the
period 1983 to 2012.
8 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21

on different scales, leading to an according change of fractality
(Castaing et al., 1996; Nicol et al., 1996). Often, fractality is valid on
relatively short ranges of scale, partly even below one order of
magnitude. Such short intervals are only acceptable in relation with
the application of a strict methodology. Since slopes of linear point
arrangements and, consequently, changes of slopes can be tracked
more precisely over relatively large intervals, the widest possible
range of analysis is requested (Walsh and Watterson, 1993).
4.2. Fractal-geometry methods
Since different fractal-geometry methods applied to the same
pattern may lead to different fractal dimensions, usually the
method is indicated together with the dimension. This results in
a complete zoo of fractal dimensions. Different methods are var-
iably useful for different patterns. Since these methods are inten-
sively presented in the literature (Feder, 1988; Kaye, 1989, 1993;
Mandelbrot, 1982; and many others), only the most common will
be briefly discussed here in relation to quantification of rock
structures.
Different fractal-geometry methods consider the internal
structuring of a pattern in different ways. At one end stands the
complete decomposition of the pattern to single pieces. These
pieces are thrown in one pot and represented statistically (Fig. 6A),
e.g., as cumulated frequency distributions. This type of presentation
and analysis has long tradition in geosciences and also rock struc-
tures are studied in this way. It is equivalent to the analysis of data
sets. Such sets can have a structure, e.g., order of magnitude of
numbers, or are chronologically structured. For example, tectoni-
cally induced events like earthquakes can show scale-invariant
behaviour with respect to their sizes and chronological appear-
ance (Kagan, 2010; King, 1983; Korvin, 1992; Smalley et al., 1987;
Rundle, 1989; Tang et al., 2012; Turcotte, 1986b; and others). Spatial
or temporal-spatial variations of seismicity show scaling properties
(Lunina et al., 2005; Şuţeanu and Ioana, 2007; Xie and Pariseau,
1993). In most cases, however, chronological data sets from rocks
cannot be measured since (i) dating the development of deforma-
tion structures is nearly never possible or (ii) the underlying
processes are too slow to allow practicable observation periods.
Therefore, nearly all data sets are recorded without chronology.
Particle sizes form a common type of data set related to rock
deformation. Their cumulative frequency curves generally follow
a power law, for example in relation to particles from fragmented
rocks (Blenkinsop,1991; Blenkinsop and Fernandes, 2000; Imre et al.,

Fig. 6. Different types of quantification of a fracture pattern by various fractal-geometry methods. (A) Disassembling of the pattern to single pieces for further statistical treatment. (B)
Measurement of segments or spacing between parts of the pattern along scan-lines, again, for further statistical treatment. (C) Measurement of spacing or widths of planar parts of
the pattern for further statistical treatment. (D) Sequence of intersection points between the pattern and a scan-line, leading to a Cantor set. (E) Box Counting applied to the pattern,
providing information about the internal structure of the pattern, i.e. the arrangement of parts of the pattern relative to each other. (F) Box-Counting applied to small areas that are
shifted over the pattern leads to additional information about the inhomogeneity of the pattern. (G) One-dimensional methods, e.g. Cantor-Dust method (D), applied to various
directions lead to quantification of the anisotropy of the pattern. (H) Combined quantification of inhomogeneity and anisotropy leads to a maximum of information about the
pattern’s variation. The pattern is drawn after a field photograph (Fig. 2). Light grey: areas where the fracture pattern is masked by a salt cover. Ellipses: regions where fractures ‘fray’,
possibly to arrays of microfractures, and become invisible in the photograph.
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
2010; Korvin, 1989; Main et al., 2000; Nagahama, 1993; Shepherd,
1989; Şuţeanu et al., 2000), gouge formation and experimental
fragmentation (Biegel et al., 1989; Billi, 2005, 2007; Billi and Storti,
2004; Heilbronner and Keulen, 2006; Keulen et al., 2007; Korvin,
1989; Main et al., 2000; Mair et al., 2002; Marone and Scholz,
1989; Monzawa and Otsuki, 2003; Morgan and Boettcher, 1999;
Sammis and Biegel, 1989; Sammis et al., 1986, 1987; Shepherd, 1989;
Wilson et al., 2005), pseudotachylites (Hisada, 2004; Shimamoto and
Nagahama, 1992), or volcanic material (Kueppers et al., 2006;
Perugini et al., 2011; Perugini and Kueppers, 2012). However, there
are distinct exceptions (Heilbronner and Keulen, 2006; Keulen et al.,
2007). Even if the analysis of data sets does not access a larger part of
the information stored in a pattern this type of analysis rightly has
a long tradition. It is not only fast and straightforward but frequently
is the only practicable possibility of data acquisition.
Complex structures are characterized by the arrangement of
smaller fractions of the structure. Consequently, a method is more
‘valuable’ if it takes this arrangement and the internal geometry of
‘sub-structures’ into consideration e more valuable because less
information about the geometry of the structure gets lost and more
information about structure-forming processes is preserved. Most
information gets lost by the disassembling of a structure or pattern,
respectively. Slightly more information, however, is conserved if
a structure is segmented along scan-lines of certain orientation
(Fig. 6B) and if the segments, e.g., fragment widths parallel to the
scan-line, are statistically treated. With this procedure the internal
connection of the structure is not totally lost because the rela-
tionship between structure and scan-line orientation contains
information that can be used for the analysis of anisotropy (Section
7). The situation is similar if spacing or widths of planar structures
(joints, faults, dykes) or of planar fractions of more complex
3D structures are measured (Fig. 6C). This also leads to data sets
with a relationship to directions as additional information. If the
sequence of segments or intersection points along the scan-line is
preserved (Cantor Set, Fig. 6D) the information content and the
pattern is represented more ‘completely’, at least along the direc-
tion of analysis. Since many portions of structures are more or less
planar and parallel to each other, such as extension veins or folia-
tions the possible complexity of their width and spacing can be
sufficiently characterized based on measurements along cross
profiles. For non-linear or non-planar structures most information
is conserved with those methods that consider the orientation of
pattern fractions relative to each other. The best known method is
Box Counting (Fig. 6E).
However, all these methods do not catch the most typical prop-
erties of rock structures or their patterns, respectively: anisotropy
and inhomogeneity. In order to receive information about these
properties, combinations of methods are required. Inhomogeneity
(of pattern complexity) is best quantified by applying Box Counting
to systematically selected sub-patterns (Fig. 6F; see Section 6 for
details). Anisotropy (of pattern complexity) can be quantified by
applying 1-dimensional quantification methods to different direc-
tions (Fig. 6G; see Section 7 for details). In conclusion, most
information about a pattern is provided by combined anisotropy-
inhomogeneity quantification (Fig. 6H).
In structural geology analysing frequency distributions of thick-
ness and spacing of fractures (faults, joints) or veins has long
tradition. In many, but by no means all, cases these analyses of data
sets lead to power-law distributions. Widths of veins with different
fillings and from different geological environments have been ana-
lysed by André-Mayer and Sausse (2007), Clark et al. (1995),
Fagereng (2011), Gillespie et al. (1999, 2001), Johnston and
McCaffrey (1996), Loriga (1999); McCaffrey and Johnston (1996);
McCaffrey et al. (1993), Kruhl (1994), and Sanderson et al. (2008).
Also fault zone and fracture aperture sizes yield power-law
9
distributions (Cello et al., 2000; Hooker et al., 2011; Renshaw and
Park, 1997), as well as length and displacement of deformation
bands (Fossen and Hesthammer, 1997), length and throw or
displacement of faults (Bonnet et al., 2001; Bour and Davy, 1997;
Davy, 1993; Davy et al., 1992; Dawers et al., 1993; Jackson and
Sanderson, 1992; Main et al., 1990; Marrett and Allmendinger,
1991; Nagahama, 1991; Odling et al., 1999; Pickering et al., 1995;
Renshaw, 1999; Villemin et al., 1995; Walsh et al., 1991; Watanabe
and Takahashi, 1995; Watterson, 1986; Zygouri et al., 2008), and
spacing of faults, joints and veins (Brooks and Manning, 1994; Cello
et al., 2000; Fagereng, 2011; Gillespie et al., 1993, 2001; Ledésert
et al., 1993a,b; Manning, 1994; Marrett et al., 1999; Zazoun, 2008).
However, vein spacing may show log-normal frequency distribution
(McCaffrey and Johnston, 1996) and geometries of veins and faults
may not be fractal, i.e. self-similar, but self-affine (Blenkinsop, 1989;
Hull, 1988; Johnston and McCaffrey, 1996; Walsh and Watterson,
1988).
Analysis of spacing and thickness of planar structures along
scan-lines leads to alignment of dots or segments, which is usually
quantified by the Cantor-Dust Method, either (i) the Spacing-Pop-
ulation Technique (Harris et al., 1991; La Pointe, 1988; Merceron and
Velde, 1991) or (ii) the Interval-Counting Technique (Harris et al.,
1991; Velde et al., 1990, 1991). Whereas the Spacing Population
Technique performs a statistical analysis of the segment lengths,
which does not consider the connection between the segments, the
Interval-Counting Technique works like a 1D version of Box Counting:
The initial 2D pattern is transferred to a new 1D pattern that at least
partly preserves the spatial connection of the 2D pattern. However,
since the Interval-Counting Technique requires that the scan-line
profile represents a Cantor Set, application of this technique is
limited to fractal patterns. In contrast, the Spacing-Population
Technique can also operate with log-normal distributions. This type
of analysis of planar structures allows anisotropy quantification
(Section 7).
Complex linear rock structures predominantly result from
outlines or cross-sections of complex 3D structures. Based on the
Structured-Walk Method (or Divider-, Ruler- or Yardstick method),
established by Richardson (1961) already in ‘pre-fractal’ times,
various modified methods were developed, e.g., Equipaced-Polygon
Method (Kaye, 1978; Kaye and Clark, 1985), Hybrid-Walk Method
(Clark, 1986), Cell-Count Method (Goodchild, 1980), Area-Perimeter
Method (Lovejoy, 1982; Mandelbrot, 1977), Cumulative Number-Area
Method (Wang et al., 2007) or Euclidean-Distance Mapping (EDM e
Russ and Russ, 1989) for fragment morphologies (Bérubé and
Jébrak, 1999). These methods were mainly applied to outlines of
sediment particles (Hyslip and Vallejo, 1997; Orford and Whalley,
1983, 1987), mineral grains (Kaye, 1989; Petford et al., 1993; Wang
et al., 2007), rock fragments (Lorilleux et al., 2002), profile lines
across rugged surfaces (sea-floor bathymetric profiles: Barenblatt
et al., 1984; sea-floor topography: Mareschal, 1989; fracture
surfaces: Kristáková and Kupková, 1994) and to sutured grain
boundaries (Kruhl and Nega, 1996; Kruhl et al., 2004; Majumder
and Mamtani, 2009; Takahashi et al., 1998). All these methods can
be additionally used for anisotropy quantification (Section 7).
Box Counting (Falconer, 1990; Kaye, 1989; Mandelbrot, 1982) is
excellently suitable for analysing complex and isotropic 2D
patterns. It is simple and can be easily programmed (Gonzato, 1998;
Peitgen et al., 1992b) and is non-centred, i.e. does not rely on
a central symmetry of the pattern (Vignes-Adler et al., 1991). Frac-
tures patterns are classical examples of the successful application of
Box Counting on the micro- to mega-scale and to various materials.
Numerous examples appear in the literature (Aviles et al., 1987;
Ayunova et al., 2007; Bornyakov et al., 2006; Castaing et al., 1996;
Cello, 1997; Hirata, 1989; Nanjo et al., 1998; Park et al., 2010; Zhao,
1998; etc.). In addition, many other structures are suitable for Box
10 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Counting, such as distribution patterns of crystals in magmatic rocks
(Armienti and Tarquini, 2002; Peternell and Kruhl, 2009) or the
distribution of flank cones of volcanoes (Mazzarini and Armienti,
2001). Moreover, 2D distributions of events represent patterns
that can be analysed by Box Counting, for example clustering of
earthquakes (Nanjo and Nagahama, 2000; Smalley et al., 1987).
Furthermore, the method is well suitable for recording pattern
inhomogeneity (Section 6). Recently, an improved Box-Counting
method has been presented, which guarantees higher accuracy (Li
et al., 2009).
The Mass Dimension or Density Dimension Method (Kaye, 1993) is
mainly used for quantifying centred patterns, e.g., crystal aggre-
gates or dendritic structures (Roach and Fowler, 1993). Related with
these methods is the Weight-Repartition Method, which was
intensely used for the analysis of fracture centres (Bonnet et al.,
2001; Chilès, 1988; Davy et al., 1990; Okubo and Aki, 1987;
Sornette et al., 1993; Zazoun, 2008). The Correlation-Dimension
Method (Grassberger and Procaccia, 1983) is applied to crystal
morphologies (Fowler, 1990; Fowler et al., 1989; Singer and Bilgram,
2006).
Despite all these methods, new techniques or modifications of
existing techniques are definitely needed as demonstrated by the
analysis of pattern inhomogeneities and anisotropies (Sections 6
and 7). The necessity already arises from the fact that components
of complex patterns often hold different weight and, therefore,
different treatment of these components during analysis may
provide additional information about the pattern. For example, the
intersections or triple-points in fracture systems with hierarchical
structures may have different importance, which can be specified by
a weighted analysis. However, problems can arise from the variably
good applicability of methods on the quantification of different
structures and from the fact that different methods can lead to
different results (Bérubé and Jébrak, 1999; Walsh and Watterson,
1993).
Since the beginning of the application of fractal-geometry
techniques there is an increasing amount of literature on multi-
fractal analysis. The concept was introduced in order to fulfil
requirements not met by ordinary fractal (‘monofractal’) analyses
(Hentschel and Procaccia, 1983; Mandelbrot, 1985, 1989; Evertsz
and Mandelbrot, 1992). Multifractals are interweaved fractals with
continuous or discrete spectra of fractal dimensions (Stanley and
Meakin, 1988; Cheng and Agterberg, 1996; Cheng, 1997). Multi-
fractal analyses can provide more information about measurements
on spatial objects than monofractal analyses insofar as, for example,
variations of values related to different parts of a structure can be
analysed (Mandelbrot, 1989; Cheng and Agterberg, 1996). With
respect to rock structures, multifractal analyses have been
successfully applied to fracture systems (Agterberg et al., 1996;
Stakhovsky, 2011), strength and failure of matter (Carpinteri and
Chiaia, 1997; Carpinteri and Pugno, 2003; Carpinteri et al., 2010;
Paggi and Carpinteri, 2007), fracture energy (Carpinteri and Chiaia,
1995), spatial and temporal distribution of earthquakes (Hirata and
Imoto, 1991; Tang et al., 2012), rough surfaces (Herzfeld and
Overbeck, 1999), or grade of ore deposits (Agterberg, 1997; Ford
and Blenkinsop, 2009). Since a more detailed discussion of the
topic is beyond the scope of this paper, the reader is referred to the
cited literature.
4.3. Fractality in 3D
Methods of fractal-geometry do exist nearly exclusively for
1D or 2D. Generally it is assumed that 3D fractality can be extrap-
olated from 2D fractality and that the 3D fractal dimension is
grained by adding 1 to the 2D fractal dimension (Barton, 1995;
Mandelbrot, 1982). However, there is discussion about whether
such extrapolation is valid. Certainly, homogeneity and isotropy of
the structure are preconditions. Most methods of measuring frac-
tality in 1D and 2D can be transferred to 3D, most prominently Box
Counting. Automated 3D Box Counting is increasingly used, e.g., for
quantifying the 3D fractures patterns formed during rock failure
(Yuan and Li, 2009). Furthermore, the 3D situation is important
for analyses of spatial distributions of earthquake hypocentres and
fracture networks (Sahimi et al., 1993), simulations of fracture
networks (Hamdi, 2008), and connectivity and permeability of
fracture networks (Bour and Davy, 1998; Fomin et al., 2003;
Ledésert et al., 1993a,b, 2010) as well as pore structure (Feranie
et al., 2011).
However, many rock structures do not fulfil the preconditions of
homogeneity and isotropy. Already on sample scale, grain or
particle distribution patterns can be different in different regions of
the study volume and fracture patterns in shear zones are
frequently anisotropic. Inhomogeneity can be detected by analysing
different parts of the study volume or by 3D-related kriging
procedures. The analysis of serial sections is helpful insofar as it is
able to unveil inhomogeneity but the 2D fractalities of these
sections cannot be readily combined to the 3D fractality of the study
volume.
In order to quantify anisotropy in 3D, modified 2D methods are
necessary, e.g., a Cantor-Dust method that analyses intersection
points of stepwise rotated scan-lines through a 3D pattern, or a 3D
modification of the Mass-Dimension or Density-Dimension methods.
However, the anisotropy quantification of rock structures in 3D is
not particularly relevant. Structures formed in stress fields are
predominantly planar or linear. Such type of anisotropy can be
analysed by 2D methods in orthogonal sections. Nevertheless,
methods for 3D quantification of structures are considerably
needed, the more because structures are increasingly recorded in
3D by automated procedures that provide detailed, mostly digital
data sets (Section 3.4).
5. Scaling regimes and structuring
As discussed above, scaling properties of rock structures usually
are not constant over several orders of magnitude. It is well-known
that self-similarity of natural patterns can vary on various scales
(scaling regimes) and different fractality on different scales is
standard, not the exception. Scaling is a fundamental feature
of properties in most crystalline as well as non-crystalline
material. A classical example is the difference between textural
and structural fractality (Horovistiz et al., 2010; Kaye, 1978, 1989 p.
27; Kindratenko et al., 1994; Orford and Whalley, 1983), which
describes the difference between the fractality of small entities, e.g.,
mineral grains or dust particles, and the fractality of agglomerates of
these entities. One process forms the entities, a second the
agglomerates. In general, this means that the synchronous or
subsequent activity of different processes leads to patterns of
different fractality on different scales. A special case is represented
by the transition of fractal patterns to Euclidean geometry at very
small scales (discussed in Section 4.1).
In logelog representations scaling regimes are most easily
detected by intervals of linear point arrangement with different
slopes. In many cases, however, only small variations from linearity
make it difficult to decide if only one or two or several scaling
regimes exist. The discussion goes back to the nineties (Kranz and
Velde, 1994; Velde et al., 1993). Meanwhile, many examples have
been published that show different fractality on different scales,
such as fracture patterns (Castaing et al., 1996; Cello, 1997; Nicol
et al., 1996; Şuţeanu et al., 2000; Volland and Kruhl, 2004), grain
and grain-fragment sizes (Heilbronner and Keulen, 2006; Keulen
et al., 2007), crystal sizes and crystal structures (Armienti and
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Tarquini, 2002; Singer and Bilgram, 2006), and clustering of veins
(Manning, 1994). A large number of additional examples are given
by Kaye (1989). On the other hand, in many publications patterns
are related to only one scaling regime, which could be by no means
related to two or more scaling regimes.
Mainly two reasons exist for different fractality of rock struc-
tures on different scales. (i) The pre-given rock fabric and the rock
composition are different on different scales and therefore the
same process acts differently (Flook, 1979; Kaye, 1978, 1989;
Şuţeanu and Kruhl, 2002). For example, fracturing of rocks on the
specimen-scale is affected by the rock’s grain fabric. On a larger
scale, layering on the dmem scale and variation in lithology may
govern the development of fracture patterns. In addition to the
fractal dimensions of the different scaling regimes, the thresholds
between these regimes, which represent thresholds between
regimes of different pattern-forming processes, may be an addi-
tional important source of information, as pointed out by Şuţeanu
et al. (2000). (ii) Two processes act synchronously or subse-
quently with different intensity on different scales. For example,
different fragmentation events occur in succession (Keulen et al.,
2007). Fragmentation in a regional stress field can be followed by
fluid-overpressure-related fragmentation on a smaller scale, which
comminutes the existing fragments and changes the fragment-size
distribution (Volland and Kruhl, 2004). Subsequent diffusion at
different temperatures leads to suturing of already sutured grain
boundaries and changes the fractality of the grain boundaries on
different scales (Kruhl and Nega, 1996). In addition, different scaling
regimes may result from non-geologic reasons, for example from
human activity in mining (Blenkinsop, 1994).
Nevertheless, structures with self-similarity over several orders
of magnitude do exist. Specifically, fractality of fracture patterns
may be constant from millimetre- to 10-kilometre-scale (Long and
Imber, 2011) and veins thickness distributions may show similar
fractal dimensions, independently of the size range of the veins and
type and structure of host rocks (Kruhl, 1994). The reasons are not
known and it can only be speculated that certain characteristics of
the stress field play a part. Investigations into this topic are desirable.
Variation of scaling properties of structures over increasingly
many and short ranges of scale will eventually lead to size-
dependency of properties. Consequently, these properties cannot
be regarded as material constants, however, they can be studied by
multifractal analysis (Section 4.2).
6. Inhomogeneity
Inhomogeneity is a dominant characteristic of rock structures.
Since inhomogeneity originates from various processes and their
interaction it contains information about these processes. There-
fore, tests for inhomogeneity should be an integral part of rock
structure quantification. Inhomogeneity is also a question of scale.
On small scale rock structures and the resulting patterns tend
towards inhomogeneity and, vice versa, gain homogeneity with
increasing size (Kaye, 1993, p. 132). The main reason is that the
single portions of which the pattern is composed, e.g. crystals, pores,
parts of fractures, layers or veins, usually occur in a specific range of
size. Consequently, the results of pattern quantification close to this
size highly depend on where the line, area or volume of analysis is
placed with respect to the portions of the pattern. It also means that
a pattern becomes inevitably inhomogeneous at its lower resolution
limit. On the other hand, a homogeneous pattern can become
inhomogeneous on larger scale. For example, a fracture pattern may
be homogeneous in a km-scale outcrop of basement rocks and also
homogeneous in the sedimentary cover, but with different fractal-
ity. Enlarging the analysis area from the basement into the
sedimentary rocks would lead to an inhomogeneous pattern.
11
Inhomogeneity with respect to scaling behaviour means that
sub-structures may show highly diverse fractal dimensions or even
may not be fractal. However, variation of fractal dimension in
different parts of the pattern and one single fractal dimension of
the entire pattern do not exclude each other. Henceforth, the term
inhomogeneity is used as inhomogeneity of the scaling behaviour
of a pattern or variation of the fractal dimension in different parts of
the pattern.
In a simple way the presence of inhomogeneity can be detected
by analysing different parts of the pattern separately and
comparing the results (Gerik and Kruhl, 2009). In more detail,
variation of inhomogeneity can be unveiled if the pattern is sepa-
rately analysed in an array of sub-regions that cover the pattern
totally, e.g. boxes of a rectangular network (Lunina et al., 2005). The
most detailed picture of inhomogeneity is obtained if a gliding-
window (kriging) procedure with wide overlap of windows is
applied (Map Counting: Peternell et al., 2010). This method typically
provides a contour map or a pixel map with colour or grey-scale
shading (Figs. 7 and 8). Quantification of inhomogeneity requires
large-area and highly resolved patterns which ideally extends over
several orders of magnitude because the fractal-geometry method
has to be applied to each single window. If the window is too small
the statistics may be too weak. If the window is large the number of
windows is possibly too small for a detailed and, thus, meaningful
contour or pixel map. Constant fractality of the pattern over the
entire range of scale is no precondition for analysing inhomoge-
neity. For example, patterns often show two different fractalities on
a larger and on a smaller scale: structural and textural fractality
(Section 5). The patterns’ inhomogeneities with respect to these
two fractalities can be determined and presented independently,
however, under the premise that the threshold between the
Fig. 7. Map Counting exemplified by a crystal distribution pattern (small black or grey
rectangles). (A) The method is performed within a box (solid-line box) and the
resulting fractal dimension Db is plotted in the box centre. Shifting of the box over the
pattern parallel to two orthogonal directions (arrows) results in a rectangular grid of Db
numbers (B). Based on that grid, a contoured map of fractal dimensions can be
constructed (C) representing the planar distribution of the pattern’s fractality. Modified
after Peternell et al. (2010).
12 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21

structure-forming processes. Quantification of such anisotropic

structures represents an essential tool of structure analysis. Since
deformation processes are generally related to a flow plane and
a flow direction the anisotropy of the resulting structures can be
sufficiently analysed in 2D in a section perpendicular to the flow
plane and parallel to the flow direction.
Different methods are available for determining anisotropy of
structures in 2D (e.g. Launeau and Robin, 1996). The anisotropy of
deformation structures is generally interpreted as strain, i.e., the
analysis leads to a strain ellipse or the directional data are fitted to
an elliptical distribution, respectively. However, these methods are
not designed for capturing the anisotropy of complex rock struc-
tures and the resulting patterns. A method that takes into consid-
eration the connectivity of a line pattern in a far better way was
suggested by Şuţeanu et al. (1995, 1997, 2004): the Angle Distribu-
tion of Percolation Length. The pattern is covered by stripes of

Fig. 8. High-resolution Map Counting exemplified by the distribution pattern of mafic

minerals in a syenite. A gliding-window procedure is applied to an approximately
2.5  2.5 m large area, with 10 cm window size, a gliding distance of 5 mm, and a total
of 254,400 measurements, each of them shown by one colour pixel. The colour
variation of the map represents the variation of the box-counting dimension, i.e., the
variation of the pattern’s fractality. Modified after Peternell et al. (2011).

different scaling regimes is approximately the same for all analysed

parts of the pattern.
Inhomogeneity of rock structures has been quantified in relation
to crystal-distribution patterns (Kruhl et al., 2004; Peternell et al.,
2003, 2010, 2011), fracture patterns (Gerik and Kruhl, 2009;
Lunina et al., 2005), or grain sizes (D-of-grain-size mapping e
Heilbronner and Keulen, 2006). The latter implies the analysis of
the 2D distribution of a data set.
Usually, pattern inhomogeneity is determined in 2D. However,
determination of linear inhomogeneity is possible, e.g. by the
Cantor-Dust Method, and is performed in relation to anisotropy
quantification (Section 7). In addition, the variation of the fractal
dimension D is measured along profiles, i.e., D is determined
independently for single profile sections, for example along sea-
floor bathymetric profiles (Barenblatt et al., 1984).
Manual quantification of highly resolved patterns over large
areas is extremely time-consuming and, therefore, automation is
a pre-requisite for wide applicability of the methods (automated
Map Counting: Peternell et al., 2011; Fig. 8). So far only few auto-
mated quantifications of inhomogeneity have been performed,
probably, because natural patterns have to be recorded with high
resolution. This often requires measurements of structures in
numerous neighbouring sub-areas and merging of these areas with
additional corrections (Peternell, 2007; Peternell et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, quantification of complex patterns’ inhomogeneity
represents an important analytical technique, specifically if applied
to large areas. Based on such analyses, variations of rock properties
and structure-forming processes have been detected, specifically in
syntectonic magmatic rocks with diffuse and large-scale structures
that can rarely be measured by classical techniques (Peternell et al., Fig. 9. Application of the modified Cantor-Dust Method to a fracture pattern. (A)
2011). Fragmented rock: grey, quartz filling: white. Parallel scan-lines cover the pattern in
azimuthal orientations of 10 steps. Along the scan-lines the rock fragments are
segmented (bold lines). For each direction the cumulative frequencies of these
7. Anisotropy segments are presented in a logelog diagram (Richardson plot) leading to a fractal
dimension. (B) This fractal dimension is plotted from a centre towards the outside. In
the present case an ellipse can be fitted to the results, however with locally clear
As many geological processes, deformation is a flow process and variation. Given are the ellipse axes a and b, their ratio (AAD: azimuthal anisotropy of
thus directional. Consequently, deformation leads to anisotropic fractal dimension D), the inclination alpha versus a reference line, and the correlation
structures that may provide important information about coefficient R. Modified after Volland and Kruhl (2004).
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21 13

certain thickness and extension, with various azimuthal orienta- anisotropy of complex patterns can be quantified and analysed in
tions. Within each of theses stripes the percolation length of the detail. The amount of data can be increased in two ways. (i) The
pattern is determined in different positions and added up. The number of parallel scan-lines is increased and their spacing is
procedure results in a directional total percolation length that decreased, e.g., down to 1 pixel. That means one-pixel thick scan-
represents a specific type of pattern anisotropy. lines cover half of the measurement area. This enhances the
Fractal-geometry methods usually determine the overall statistics and, consequently, the significance of the fractal analysis
complexity of a pattern but have to be modified for anisotropy for each direction. (ii) The number of directions is increased. For
quantification. In the simplest case anisotropy of complexity in 2D example, variation of azimuthal orientations in 1 steps is possible
is determined by the different fractal dimensions of two orthogonal without problems. Of course, for such resolution the pattern’s
directions (Zhao et al., 2009). Such determination is suitable for resolution has to be high enough to avoid the effect of pixel
structures with orthogonal components of geometry. In general,
application of fractal-geometry methods to simple structures, e.g.,
two orthogonal sets of planar fractures, is problematic and the sub-
sets of the simple pattern are better studied independently (Harris
et al., 1991). That also points to the fact that simple, ultimately non-
fractal, patterns are not suitable for fractal analyses.
Complex structures, however, call for fractal-geometry analyses
that are related to numerous and variable directions. During the
last two decades such analyses were performed manually, typically
with various azimuthal orientations of scan-lines, however in 10
steps as a minimum, due to the exceedingly high expenditure of
time (Fig. 9). Mainly the distribution of fractures or fracture spacing
along scan-lines were measured and analysed by the Cantor-Dust
(or Cantor-Set) Method (Babadagli, 2002; Harris et al., 1991;
Ledésert et al., 1993a,b; Pérez-López et al., 2005; Pérez-López and
Paredes, 2006; Velde et al., 1990, 1991; Volland and Kruhl, 2004).
As another possibility, along scan-lines a structure can be dis-
aggregated into complex linear components that are quantified
separately, e.g., by the Directional Structured-Walk Method (Kruhl
et al., 2004; Fig. 10). The result however can be influenced by the
type of disaggregation.
Only automated methods (Gerik and Kruhl, 2009; Gerik et al.,
2010; Pérez-López et al., 2005) produce such large data sets that

Fig. 11. High-resolution quantification of pattern anisotropy by an automated modified

Fig. 10. Principle of the Directional Structured-Walk Method. (A) A complex line pattern
is covered by sets of parallel scan-lines in azimuthal orientations of (in this case) 10
steps. (B) Along these lines, based on a specific instruction, curves are constructed,
which represent the directional ‘permeability’ of the pattern. (C) Each curve is
quantified by the Structured-Walk Method. Modified after Kruhl et al. (2004).
Cantor-Dust method. (A) Within a fracture pattern a circular area of analysis is
determined. (B) Sets of parallel scan-lines that cover the pattern in rotational steps of
1 generate segments of the fracture lines. The cumulative frequency distributions of
these segments lead to fractal dimensions that are plotted from a centre towards the
outside. The resulting point distribution can be only roughly fitted by an ellipse. (C)
Segmentation of the rock fragments (rather than fractures) by the same sets of
scan-lines results in a quite different arrangement of measurement points with a much
better elliptical fit, even though ellipticities and orientations of the elliptical fits are
similar. Modified after Gerik and Kruhl (2009).
14 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21

discretization. Thereby the directional variation of pattern
complexity can be relatively precisely measured, leading to a highly
resolved picture of pattern anisotropy, which cannot be fitted by
simple geometric forms, e.g. an ellipse, but represents a much more
complex geometry that may reflect dominant orientations of
pattern fractions (Fig. 11; Gerik and Kruhl, 2009; Gerik et al., 2010).
The results of such anisotropy analysis can vary if the ‘background’
is analysed, rather than the pattern, e.g. the line drawing of a frac-
ture system (Fig. 11B, C). Since the two complementary parts of
a ‘complete’ pattern have independent geological meaning, quan-
tifying both of them is advisable. Strictly seen, the geometry of the
data-point distribution does not represent a simple structure
property, e.g. strain, but represents the anisotropy of structure
complexity or, in other words, the directional scaling behaviour of
the structure.
With respect to anisotropy quantification and analysis, three
aspects should be considered. (i) Irregular areas of analysis lead to
different lengths of scan-lines in different directions and, conse-
quently, to a different statistical basis for different directions, which
can falsify the overall result of anisotropy quantification. Therefore,
the analysis should be performed within a circle with its centre as
rotation axis of the scan-lines. (ii) If the outline of the pattern is
strongly irregular reduction to a circle highly reduces the area of
analysis and can weaken the statistical basis of analysis. This should
be kept in mind when choosing the area of analysis. (iii) Depending
on their thickness the scan-lines cover the area close to the rotation
axis more strongly than further away thus increasing the weight of
the pattern in this area. This problem vanishes if the pattern is
homogeneous in the analysed circular area and, above all, if the
scan-lines totally cover the area of analysis.
The 3D measurement of structures with the aid of tomographic
methods (neutron or X-ray; Section 3.4) allows 3D quantification of
anisotropy. (i) Oriented sections can be cut through a 3D structure
and the 2D patterns on these sections can be quantified by fractal-
geometry methods, e.g. Box Counting. However, the results cannot
be easily assembled to a 3D picture of anisotropy. (ii) In the same
way, oriented scan-lines can be placed through a 3D structure and
the pattern’s directional anisotropy can be quantified by 1D fractal-
geometry methods, e.g. the Cantor-Dust method. The resulting
directional fractal dimensions span a, probably complex, 3D surface
that represents the 3D anisotropy of the pattern’s scaling behav-
iour. (iii) Conceivable, but currently unrealized, are methods, e.g.
a modified 3D Box-Counting method, which directly measure the
pattern’s anisotropy in 3D.
The combination of automated recording methods and an
automated fractal-geometry technique is the indispensable pre-
requisite of an effective and fast analysis of rock properties, with
high potential of utilization (Baker et al., 2008). Determination of
inhomogeneity and anisotropy can be combined (Fig. 6H), leading
to a quantification of inhomogeneity of anisotropy (Peternell, 2007;
Fig. 12). Such combination requires large and highly resolved
patterns but provides information that is not gained by single
methods. The strength of these combined analyses is based on the
fact that substructures of larger patterns can be visualized, which
are not visible in the field. For example, based on a combined
inhomogeneity and anisotropy quantification of diffuse crystal
distribution patterns in magmatic rocks, magmatic shear structures
or lineations can be detected, which provide information about
flow processes in the magma (Peternell et al., 2011).
8. Second-order fractal dimension
Fractal-geometry methods, applied to 2D or 3D patterns mainly
in combination with inhomogeneity and anisotropy quantification,
may lead to 1D or 2D data sets that can be fractal again and ana-
lysed by 1D or 2D methods. For example, the anisotropy quantifi-
cation of a crystal distribution pattern in a syntectonic magmatic
rock results in a point distribution of fractal dimension, which itself
is complex and can be quantified by the Structured-Walk or Box-
Counting method (Fig. 13). Even though the circular and point-
symmetric distribution of azimuthal fractal dimensions can be
approximated by an ellipse of certain axial ratio, which gives
a rough impression of the intensity of anisotropy, the variation is

Fig. 12. High-resolution Mapping of Rock Fabric Anisotropy (MORFA e Peternell et al., 2011). A combination of a modified Cantor-Dust Method and gliding window procedure is
applied to the distribution pattern of mafic minerals in a syenite. A circle with diameter d ¼ 20 cm is shifted over the approximately 1  4 m sized pattern in steps of 5 cm. The
anisotropy intensities are represented by colour-indexed pixels, varying between 1 and roughly 1.7. A value of 1 indicates isotropy of the pattern’s complexity. The black bars
represent the direction of lowest fractal dimension. This direction represents the approximate direction of long grain axes, as shown in the sample photograph. 1804 measurements.
Modified after Peternell et al. (2011).
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Fig. 13. Fractality, with fractal box-counting as well as ruler dimension D ¼ 1.281, of
a complex curve generated by the anisotropy quantification of a fracture pattern as
exemplified in Fig. 11B.
not random and potentially bears information about the directional
variation of fractality.
The inhomogeneity of fractality can be treated in a similar way.
The quantification of inhomogeneity of a crystal distribution
pattern by Map Counting results in a distribution map of fractal
dimensions, which itself can be analysed by Box Counting or other
methods like topography and, again, leads to a sequence of fractal
dimensions (Fig. 14).
However, the extent to which it is advantageous to condense
complex data sets or data point arrangements to single numbers is
a matter of discussion. On the one hand, one number is gained,
which represents the complexity of anisotropy or inhomogeneity of
a pattern, on the other hand, information is lost, which can be
possibly drawn from such complexity.
9. Material properties and pattern-forming processes
Fractal-Geometry-based investigations on material properties
have been performed in virtually all fields of geosciences. Specific
attention was paid to fractures in rocks, which influence numerous
rock properties and, last but not least, can be transferred relatively
easily from nature to binary patterns. Properties of scaling and of
pattern inhomogeneity and anisotropy of various rock structures
have been determined and related to (mainly) physical properties
of rocks. The fragmentation of the lithosphere is regarded as a self-
organized critical phenomenon that leads to dissipative structures,
i.e., to self-similar fracture patterns that evolve by self-organization
Fig. 14. Fractality, with fractal box-counting dimension D ¼ 1.49, of a complex binary pixel pattern generated by the inhomogeneity quantification (Map-Counting Method) of part of
the mineral distribution pattern shown in Fig. 8.
15
(Bornyakov et al., 2006; Sornette et al., 1990a). The self-similarity
has been determined from micro- to km-scale (Jensen et al.,
2011; Korvin, 1992; Long and Imber, 2011; Turcotte, 1997; Vignes-
Adler et al., 1991). However, exemplified by the Red-Sea rifting,
Castaing et al. (1996) state that fracture patterns show different
scaling properties from the centimetre scale up to the 1000-km
scale, which are controlled by the thickness of different mechan-
ical layers that constitute the crust at different scales. That is in
agreement with the fact that rocks exhibit various compositions
and structures on different scales, which affect the fragmentation
behaviour.
Numerous studies are related to pattern quantification of faults,
fractures or joints and provide a wide range of fractal dimensions:
Bonnet et al. (2001), Bour et al. (2002), Cello (1997), Cello et al.
(2000), Hatton et al. (1993), Hirata (1989), Hirata et al. (1987),
Kagan (1991), Kulatilake et al. (1997), Mecholsky and Mackin
(1988), Nagahama and Yoshii (1993), Park et al. (2010), Piggott,
1997; Sornette et al. (1990b), Zhao et al. (1990). Roughness of
rock and fracture surfaces has been frequently quantified (Bahat,
1991; Brown, 1987; Dougan et al., 2000; Power and Tullis, 1991;
Schmittbuhl et al., 1993), but also of surfaces of gravel and sediment
particles (Drolon et al., 2003; Qin et al., 2012), pores (Wong and Lin,
1988), tektites (Rantzsch et al., 2012) and in technical material
(Chen et al., 1997; Mandelbrot et al., 1984; Milman et al., 1994).
Baker et al. (2008) established an automated method for quanti-
fying surface roughness of rock faces. Fracture roughness is corre-
lated with fracture toughness and tensile strength (Carpinteri and
Puzzi, 2005), with mechanical behaviour (Mechtcherine, 2009;
Mohsen et al., 2003), with energy of technical processes (Brosch
et al., 1992), or is seen as a function of crack propagation speed
(Milman et al., 1994; Sharon and Fineberg, 1999) or of crack front
positions (Horovistiz et al., 2010). The anisotropy of the fractality of
fracture roughness has been investigated (Bahat, 1991; Baker et al.,
2008) and related to anisotropy of fracture propagation (Dougan et
al., 2000). Schmittbuhl et al. (1995) show the self-affinity of rough
fracture surfaces and that the self-affine component is similar in
different rocks and they argue for universality in the cracking
process. Fractal dimensions of molten pseudotachylite surfaces, due
to frictional heating, decrease with increasing heat-production rate
(Hirose and Shimamoto, 2003).
In general, particle size distributions in fault rocks show varia-
tion of fractal dimensions, interpreted as resulting from different
fragmentation processes. Low values of w1.97 are related to
a “pillar of strength” model (Allègre et al., 1982), medium values of
w2.58 to the “constrained comminution” model (Sammis et al.,
1987), and high values of w2.84 to the “plane of fragility” model
(Turcotte, 1986a). See Blenkinsop (1991) for review. It can be
16 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
expected that fragmentation processes vary spatially and tempo-
rally and that specifically in fault zones fractal dimensions of
particle-size distributions change according to these processes, as
observed and suggested by Billi and Storti (2004). However, frag-
ment size distributions may not always be fractal. Log-normal
distributions have been described as a result of fracturing under
extensional stress, in contrast to fractal distributions resulting from
fragmentation under compressional stress (Korvin, 1989). More-
over, the morphology of irregular-shaped particles can be quanti-
fied and the results replace typical grain-morphology tables for
visual comparison (Orford and Whalley, 1983, 1987).
The fractality of various rock structures is correlated with
numerous rock properties or conditions of formation. Scaling
properties of joint, vein, fault or fracture patterns are related to
various parameters: to lithostatic pressure (Gillespie et al., 2001),
confining pressure in experiment (Velde et al., 1993), strain
(Hadizadeh and Johnson, 2003), stress (Pérez-López et al., 2005;
Zhao, 1998), intensity of shearing (Volland and Kruhl, 2004),
connectivity and percolation (Feranie et al., 2011; Fomin et al.,
2003; Ledésert et al., 1993a, 2010; Nakaya and Nakamura, 2007;
Nolte et al., 1989; Park et al., 2010; Roberts et al., 1999), fluid flow
(Sanderson and Zhang, 1999) and to the distribution of metals and
ore deposits (Carlson, 1991; Blenkinsop, 1994, 1995; Blenkinsop and
Sanderson, 1999; Ford and Blenkinsop, 2008a,b; 2009; Kreuzer
et al., 2007; Weinberg et al., 2004). Fractality of pore-space is
correlated with electric properties of rocks (Da Rocha and Habashy,
1997) as well as with diagenetic processes (Krohn, 1988). In addi-
tion, the fractality of rock structures, such as fault networks,
roughness or particles sizes, is used in numerical studies and
modelling (Bistacchi et al., 2011; Bour and Davy, 1997; Chilès, 1988;
Mair and Abe, 2011; Yfantis et al., 1988).
Fracture patterns may reflect processes of fragmentation, for
example, ballistic or in a slowly increasing stress field (Kaye, 1989,
1994). The power-law relationship of fault-size distributions has
been used for sub-seismic (sub-resolution) fault prediction
(Watterson et al., 1996). Mareschal (1989) suggests to extrapolate
seafloor topography into 2D, based on profile measurements, as well
as to interpolate to smaller scales. However, even if the power-law
relationship of structures forms a basis for upscaling or down-
scaling their geometric features, caution is needed since scaling
properties of structures may differ from one to the other scale.
As shown by Blenkinsop (1991), particle or fragment-size
distributions generated during fragmentation are generally fractal
and depend on various factors: the specific type of fragmentation
process and the number of events, the energy input, confining
pressure, selective fracturing of larger particles and, in certain
situations, alteration of particles. For example, fractal particle-size
distributions have been related to frictional properties and ener-
getics of gouge (Biegel et al., 1989; Morgan and Boettcher, 1999;
Mair et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2005), to energy density for frac-
turing (Nagahama, 1993), to slip along faults (Monzawa and Otsuki,
2003) and are seen as a result of comminution where neighbouring
particles of the same size do not exist but one of them will fragment
to smaller pieces (An and Sammis, 1994; Imre et al., 2010; Sammis
et al., 1987; Steacy and Sammis, 1991). However, experiments of
shock-related fragmentation demonstrated that (i) fragments may
cluster on dominant size intervals and (ii) neighbouring fragments
show a high probability to be of similar size (Şuţeanu et al., 2000).
These authors point to the fact that, in addition to a power-law
relationship, many fragment-size distributions are hierarchically
organized, with multi-modal distributions and ‘preferred dimen-
sions’ (Sadovskii et al., 1984; Sadovskii, 1986; cited in Şuţeanu et al.,
2000). Obviously, particle sizes of fragmented material not only
show power-law distributions but may cluster on specific size
intervals. Such clustering points towards a fractal character of the
size distribution (Şuţeanu et al., 2000), which potentially bears
useful information about the fragmentation process.
Fragment morphologies in hydrothermal breccias may reflect
the degree of maturity and the nature of fluiderock interaction
(Lorilleux et al., 2002). The degree of deformation in mylonites is
reflected by the irregular outlines of quartz grains (Wang et al.,
2007). Fractal packing and particle shapes influence the mechan-
ical properties of building materials (Hecht, 2000) as the grain size
of a rock may influence the fragmentation process and the spatial
distribution of microcracks. In this way the spatial distribution of
acoustic emission hypocentres has been interpreted (Kusunose
et al., 1991).
In general, quantification of fracture patterns and fractal size
distributions and shapes of particles are increasingly important in
investigations on seismicity (Allègre et al., 1982; Aviles et al., 1987),
stress fields (Zhao, 1998; Zhao et al., 2009), rock strength and
deformability (Feng et al., 2009; Zhang and Sanderson, 1994),
temperature and strain rate of metamorphism (Kruhl and Nega,
1996; Mamtani, 2010; Takahashi et al., 1998), geothermal energy
(Ledésert et al., 1993b, 2010), hydraulic properties (Barthélémy
et al., 1996; Main et al., 2000; Micarelli et al., 2006; Rawls and
Brakensiek, 1995; Rawls et al., 1993; Shepherd, 1989; Wibberley
and Shimamoto, 2003), magmatic systems (Perugini and Poli,
2000), and on explosive volcanism (Kueppers et al., 2006;
Perugini et al., 2011; Perugini and Kueppers, 2012). They are used in
cellular-automata modelling for distribution of seismicity (Tejedor
et al., 2010) or, based on spatial distribution of acoustic emission or
microseismicity, provide the possibility of predicting rock failure
(Yuan and Li, 2009) or rock-burst in underground mining (Xie and
Pariseau, 1993).
10. Conclusions
(1) Fractal geometry techniques represent attractive tools for
studying complex rock structures because they provide
a symbolism for quantifying the poorly defined geometries and
patterns of these structures. Such quantification may lead to
valuable information not only about material properties but
particularly about structure-forming processes, and it facili-
tates comparison with results of experiments and technical
processes. Quantification builds bridges between nature,
experiment and model.
(2) Geological structures are often characterized by being different
(i) on different scales (pattern scaling), (ii) in different areas
(pattern inhomogeneity), and (iii) in different directions
(pattern anisotropy). These three structure or pattern properties
are geologically significant and often reflect various geological
processes. Quantification of inhomogeneity and anisotropy
needs modifications of ‘classical’ fractal-geometry methods. The
currently available tools are still limited.
(3) Additional advantages of fractal-geometry techniques are (i)
interpolation in order to ‘complete’ patterns that are based on
only few data, and (ii) extrapolation from one scale to another.
However, this only works if the patterns are homogeneous and
show the same fractality on different scales. In many cases
these conditions are not fulfilled or not proven.
(4) Results of fractal-geometry methods often show fluctuations.
It might be worth regarding them not as ‘inaccuracies’ or
‘errors’ but search for reasons that are linked to the measured
pattern. In addition to different scaling behaviour on different
(partly uncomfortably limited) scales, cyclic deviations
from power-low distribution may indicate regularity of the
pattern, caused by variations or interactions of pattern-forming
processes.
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
(5) Future steps in developing and applying fractal-geometry
methodology, related to analysis of rock structures, should
include (i) establishing new methods for quantification of
anisotropy and inhomogeneity, because of the importance of
these rock properties, (ii) increased application to structures in
3D, in order to keep up with the advancing development of 3D
recording techniques, (iii) further automation of methods,
which would specifically allow quantification of large-scale
patterns in high resolution, as a firm basis for successful anal-
yses of complex rock structures, and (iv) more integral studies
on naturally and experimentally generated structures and
simulations, where quantification would provide the necessary
links for better understanding natural processes based on
experiments and simulations. This would be also one good
answer to the frequently asked question “what’s the use of it?”.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Mark Peternell, Axel Gerik and Sabine Volland
for years of fruitful cooperation, resulting in many findings pre-
sented in this paper, and to Cristian Şuţeanu and Diego Perugini for
their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. Katharina Döhler
generated the data sets for Figs. 5 and 13. Particularly, I am grateful
to Tom Blenkinsop who suggested and stimulated the present work
and provided hospitality, privately and at James Cook University,
during several stays in Townsville. One of these stays was finan-
cially supported by an alumni grant of the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation.
References
Ackermann, R.V., Schlische, R.W., Withjack, M.O., 2001. The geometric and
statistical evolution of normal fault systems: an experimental study of the
effects of mechanical layer thickness on scaling laws. Journal of Structural
Geology 23, 1803e1819.
Adams, B.L., Wright, S.I., Kunze, K., 1993. Orientation imaging: the emergence of
a new microscopy. Metallurgical Transactions 24A, 819e831.
Agterberg, F.P., 1997. Multifractal modelling of the sizes and grades of giant and
supergiant deposits. Global Tectonics and Metallogeny 6, 131e136.
Agterberg, F.P., Cheng, Q., Brown, A., Good, D., 1996. Multifractal modeling of
fractures in the Lac Du Bonnet Batholith, Manitoba. Computers & Geosciences
22, 497e507.
Allègre, C.J., Le Mouel, J.L., Provost, A., 1982. Scaling rules in rock fracture and
possible implications for earthquake prediction. Nature 297, 47e49.
Amidzic, O., Riehle, H.J., Fehr, T., Wienbruch, C., Elbert, T., 2001. Pattern of focal
g-bursts in chess players. Nature 412, 603.
An, L.-J., Sammis, C., 1994. Particle size distribution of cataclastic fault
materials from southern California: a 3-D study. Pure and Applied Geophysics
143, 203e227.
André-Mayer, A.-S., Sausse, J., 2007. Thickness and spatial distribution of veins in
a porphyry copper deposit, Rosia Poieni, Romania. Journal of Structural Geology
29, 1695e1708.
Andriani, G.F., Walsh, N., 2002. Physical properties and textural parameters of
calcarenitic rocks: qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Engineering
Geology 67, 5e15.
Armienti, P., Tarquini, S., 2002. Power law olivine crystal size distributions in
lithospheric mantle xenoliths. Lithos 65, 273e285.
Ashby, R.W., 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London.
Aviles, S.R., Scholz, C.H., Boatwright, J., 1987. Fractal analysis applied to
characteristic segments of the San Andreas fault. Journal of Geophysical
Research 92, 331e334.
Avnir, D., Biham, O., Lidar, D., Malcai, O., 1998. Is the geometry of nature fractal?
Science 279 (5347), 39e40.
Ayunova, O.D., Kalush, Yu.A., Loginov, V.M., 2007. Relationship of the seismic
activity of the Tuvinian and adjacent Mongolian areas with the fractal
dimensionality of a fault system. Russian Geology and Geophysics 48, 593e597.
Babadagli, T., 2002. Scanline method to determine the fractal nature of 2-D fracture
networks. Mathematical Geology 34, 647e670.
Baccar, M., Gee, L.A., Gonzalez, R.C., Abidi, M.A., 1996. Segmentation of range
images via data fusion and morphological watersheds. Pattern Recognition 29,
1673e1687.
Bahat, D., 1991. Tectonofractography. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
Baker, B.R., Gessner, K., Holden, E.J., Squelch, A.P., 2008. Automatic detection of
anisotropic features on rock surfaces. Geosphere 4, 418e428.
17
Barenblatt, G.I., Zhivago, A.V., Neprochnov, Yu.P., Ostrovskyi, A.A., 1984. The fractal
dimension: a quantitative characteristic of ocean bottom relief. Oceanology 24,
695e697.
Barnsley, M., 1988. Fractals Everywhere. Academic Press.
Barraud, J., 2006. The use of watershed segmentation and GIS software for textural
analysis of thin sections. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 154,
17e33.
Barthélémy, P., Jacquin, C., Yao, J., Thovert, J.F., Adler, P.M., 1996. Hierarchical
structures and hydraulic properties of a fractures network in the Causse of
Larzac. Journal of Hydrology 187, 237e258.
Barton, C.C., 1995. Fractal analysis of scaling and spatial clustering of fractures. In:
Barton, C.C., La Pointe, P.R. (Eds.), Fractals in the Earth Sciences. Plenum Press,
New York, pp. 141e178.
Baykan, N.A., Yilmaz, N., 2010. Mineral identification using color spaces and
artificial neural networks. Computers & Geosciences 36, 91e97.
Bérubé, D., Jébrak, M., 1999. High precision boundary fractal analysis for shape
characterization. Computers & Geosciences 25, 1059e1071.
Biegel, R.L., Sammis, C.G., Dieterich, J., 1989. The frictional properties of a simulated
gouge having a fractal particle distribution. Journal of Structural Geology 11,
827e846.
Billi, A., 2005. Grain size distribution and thickness of breccia and gouge zones from
thin (<1 m) strike-slip fault cores in limestone. Journal of Structural Geology 27,
1823e1837.
Billi, A., 2007. On the extent of size range and power law scaling for particles of
natural carbonate fault cores. Journal of Structural Geology 29, 1512e1521.
Billi, A., Storti, F., 2004. Fractal distribution of particle size in carbonate cataclastic
rocks from the core of a regional strike-slip fault zone. Tectonophysics 384,
115e128.
Bistacchi, A., Griffith, W.A., Smith, S.A.F., Di Toro, G., Jones, R., Nielsen, S., 2011. Fault
roughness at seismogenic depth from LIDAR and photogrammetric analysis.
Pure and Applied Geophysics 168, 2345e2363.
Blenkinsop, T.G., 1989. Thickness-displacement relationships for deformation
zones: discussion. Journal of Structural Geology 11, 1053e1054.
Blenkinsop, T.G., 1991. Cataclasis and processes of particle size reduction. Pure and
Applied Geophysics 136, 59e86.
Blenkinsop, T.G., 1994. The fractal distribution of gold mineralisation: two examples
from the Zimbabwe Archaean craton. In: Kruhl, J.H. (Ed.), Fractal and Dynamic
Systems in Geoscience. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 247e258.
Blenkinsop, T.G., 1995. Fractal measures for size and spatial distributions of gold
mines: economic applications. In: Blenkinsop, T.G., Tromp, P.L. (Eds.), Sub-
saharan Economic Geology. Geological Society of Zimbabwe, Special Publication
3, pp. 177e186.
Blenkinsop, T.G., Fernandes, T.R.C., 2000. Fractal characterization of particle
distributions in chromites from the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe. In: Blenkinsop, T.G.,
Kruhl, J.H., Kupková, M. (Eds.), Fractals and Dynamic Systems in Geoscience.
Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 157. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp. 505e521 (Topical
Issue).
Blenkinsop, T.G., Sanderson, D.J., 1999. Are gold deposits in the crust fractals? A
study of gold mines in the Zimbabwe craton. In: McCaffrey, K.J.W., et al. (Eds.),
Fractures, Fluid Flow and Mineralization. Geological Society London Special
Publications 155, pp. 141e151.
Bonnet, E., Bour, O., Odling, N.E., Davy, P., Main, I.G., Cowie, P.A., Berkowitz, B., 2001.
Scaling of fracture systems in geological media. Reviews of Geophysics 39, 347e383.
Bornyakov, S.A., Truskov, V.A., Cheremnykh, A.V., 2006. Dissipative structures in
fault zones and their diagnostic criteria (from physical modeling data). Russian
Geology and Geophysics 49, 138e143.
Bour, O., Davy, P., 1997. Connectivity of random fault networks following a power
law fault length distribution. Water Resources Research 33, 1567e1583.
Bour, O., Davy, P., 1998. On the connectivity of three-dimensional fault networks.
Water Resources Research 34, 2611e2622.
Bour, O., Davy, P., Darcel, C., Odling, N., 2002. A statistical scaling model for fracture
network geometry, with validation on a multiscale mapping of a joint network
(Hornelen Basin, Norway). Journal of Geophysical Research 107 (B6), 2113.
Brooks, B.A., Manning, C.E., 1994. Fractal clustering of metamorphic veins: comment
and reply. Geology 22, 1147e1149.
Brosch, F.J., Pölsler, P., Riedmüller, G.,1992. The use of fractal dimension in engineering
geology. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 45, 83e88.
Brown, S.R., 1987. A note on the description of surface roughness using fractal
dimension. Geophysical Research Letters 14, 1095e1098.
Bunde, A., Havlin, S., 1994. Fractals in Science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New
York.
Carlson, C.A., 1991. Spatial distribution of ore deposits. Geology 19, 111e114.
Carpinteri, A., Chiaia, B., 1995. Multifractal nature of concrete fracture surfaces and
size effects on nominal fracture energy. Materials and Structures 28, 435e443.
Carpinteri, A., Chiaia, B., 1997. Multifractal scaling laws in the breaking behaviour of
disordered materials. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 8, 135e150.
Carpinteri, A., Pugno, N., 2003. A multifractal comminution approach for drilling
scaling laws. Powder Technology 131, 93e98.
Carpinteri, A., Puzzi, S., 2005. The crack surface anomalous scaling and its connec-
tion with the size-scale effects. International Journal of Fracture 133, 43e60.
Carpinteri, A., Spagnoli, A., Vantadori, S., 2010. A multifractal analysis of fatigue
crack growth and its application to concrete. Engineering Fracture Mechanics
77, 974e984.
Castaing, C., Halawani, M.A., Gervais, F., Chilès, J.P., Genter, A., Bourgine, B.,
Ouillon, G., Brosse, J.M., Martin, P., Genna, A., Janjou, D., 1996. Scaling
18 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
relationships in intraplate fracture systems related to Red Sea rifting.
Tectonophysics 261, 291e314.
Cello, G., 1997. Fractal analysis of a Quaternary fault array in the central Apennines,
Italy. Journal of Structural Geology 19, 945e953.
Cello, G., Gambini, R., Mazzoli, S., Read, A., Tondi, E., Zucconi, V., 2000. Fault zone
characteristics and scaling properties of the Val d’Agri Fault System (Southern
Apennines, Italy). Journal of Geodynamics 29, 293e307.
Chase, W.G., Simon, H.A., 1973. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology 4, 55e81.
Chen, Z., Mecholsky, J.J., Joseph Jr., T., Beatty, C.J., 1997. The fractal geometry of Si3N4
wear and fracture surfaces. Journal of Materials Science 32, 6317e6323.
Cheng, Q., 1997. Discrete multifractals. Mathematical Geology 29, 245e266.
Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F.P., 1996. Multifractal modeling and spatial statistics.
Mathematical Geology 28, 1e16.
Chilès, J.P., 1988. Fractal and geostatistical methods for modeling of a fracture
network. Mathematical Geology 20, 631e654.
Choudhury, R.K., Meere, P.A., Mulchrone, K.F., 2006. Automated grain boundary
detection by CASRG. Journal of Structural Geology 28, 363e375.
Clark, N.N., 1986. Three techniques for implementing digital fractal analysis of
particle shape. Powder Technology 46, 45e52.
Clark, M.B., Brantley, S.L., Fisher, D.M., 1995. Power-low vein thickness distributions
and positive feedback in vein growth. Geology 23, 975e978.
Coster, M., Chermant, J.-L., 2001. Image analysis and mathematical morphology for
civil engineering materials. Cement and Concrete Composites 23, 133e151.
Da Rocha, B.R.P., Habashy, T.M., 1997. Fractal geometry, porosity and complex
resistivity: from rough pore interfaces to hand specimens. In: Geological Society
London Special Publications 122, pp. 277e286.
Davy, P., 1993. On the frequency-length distribution of the San Andreas Fault
system. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 12.141e12.151.
Davy, P., Sornette, A., Sornette, D., 1990. Some consequences of a proposed fractal
nature of continental faulting. Nature 348, 56e58.
Davy, P., Sornette, A., Sornette, D., 1992. Experimental discovery of scaling laws
relating fractal dimensions and the length distribution exponent of fault
systems. Geophysical Research Letters 19, 361e363.
Dawers, N.H., Anders, M.H., Scholz, C.H., 1993. Growth of normal faults:
displacement-length scaling. Geology 21, 1107e1110.
Denison, C., Carlson, W.D., Ketcham, R.A., 1997. Three-dimensional quantitative
textural analysis of metamorphic rocks using high-resolution computed X-ray
tomography: part I: methods and techniques. Journal of Metamorphic Geology
15, 29e44.
Dougan, L.T., Addison, P.S., McKenzie, W.M.C., 2000. Fractal analysis of fracture:
a comparison of dimension estimates. Mechanics Research Communications 27,
383e392.
Drolon, H., Hoyez, B., Druaux, F., Faure, A., 2003. Multiscale roughness analysis of
particles. Application to the classification of detrital sediments. Mathematical
Geology 35, 805e817.
Evertsz, C.J.G., Mandelbrot, B.B., 1992. Multifractal measures. In: Peitgen, H.-O.,
Jürgens, H., Saupe, D. (Eds.), Chaos and Fractals. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/
New York, pp. 922e953.
Fagereng, Å., 2011. Fractal vein distributions within a fault-fracture mesh in an
exhumed accretionary mélange, Chrystalls Beach Complex, New Zealand.
Journal of Structural Geology 33, 918e927.
Falconer, K., 1990. Fractal Geometry. Wiley, Chichester, 288 pp.
Falconer, K., 1997. Techniques in Fractal Geometry. Wiley, Chichester, 256 pp.
Feder, J., 1988. Fractals. Plenum Press, New York, 283 pp.
Feng, Z.C., Zhao, Y.S., Zhao, D., 2009. Investigating the scale effects in strength of
fractured rock mass. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 41, 2377e2386.
Feranie, S., Fauzi, U., Bijaksana, S., 2011. 3D fractal dimension and flow properties in
the pore structure of geological rocks. Fractals 19, 291e297.
Flook, A.G., 1979. The Characterization of Textural and Structural Profiles by the
Automated Measurement of Their Fractal Dimensions. In: 2nd European
Symposium on Particle Characterization, pp. 591e599.
Fomin, S., Hashida, T., Shimizu, A., Matsuki, K., Sakaguchi, K., 2003. Fractal concept
in numerical simulation of hydraulic fracturing of the hot dry rock geothermal
reservoir. Hydrological Processes 17, 2975e2989.
Ford, A., Blenkinsop, T.G., 2008a. Combining fractal analysis of mineral deposit
clustering with weights of evidence to evaluate patterns of mineralization:
application to copper deposits of the Mount Isa Inlier, NW Queensland,
Australia. Ore Geology Reviews 33, 435e450.
Ford, A., Blenkinsop, T.G., 2008b. Evaluating geological complexity and complexity
gradients as controls on copper mineralisation, Mt. Isa Inlier. Australian Journal
of Earth Sciences 55, 13e23.
Ford, A., Blenkinsop, T.G., 2009. An expanded de Wijs model for multifractal
analysis of mineral production data. Mineralium Deposita 44, 233e240.
Fossen, H., Hesthammer, J., 1997. Geometric analysis and scaling relations of defor-
mation bands in porous sandstone. Journal of Structural Geology 17, 1479e1493.
Fowler, A.D., 1990. Self-organized mineral texture of igneous rocks: the fractal
approach. Earth-Science Reviews 29, 47e55.
Fowler, A.D., Stanley, H.E., Daccord, G., 1989. Disequilibrium silicate mineral
textures: fractal and non-fractal features. Nature 341, 134e136.
Foxford, K.A., Nicholson, R., Polya, D.A., Hebblethwaite, R.P.B., 2000. Extensional
failure and hydraulic valving at Minas da Panasqueira, Portugal: evidence from
vein spatial distributions, displacements and geometries. Journal of Structural
Geology 22, 1065e1086.
Fueten, F., 1997. A computer controlled rotating polarizer stage for the petrographic
microscope. Computers & Geosciences 23, 203e208.
Fueten, F., Mason, J., 2007. An artificial neural net assisted approach to editing edges
in petrographic images collected with the rotating polarizer stage. Computers &
Geosciences 33, 1176e1188.
Gerik, A., Kruhl, J.H., 2009. Towards automated pattern quantification: time-
efficient assessment of anisotropy of 2D pattern with AMOCADO. Computers
& Geosciences 35 (6), 1087e1097.
Gerik, A., Kruhl, J.H., Caggianelli, A., 2010. Quantification of flow patterns in sheared
tonalite crystal-melt mush: application of fractal-geometry methods. Journal
Geological Society of India 75, 210e224.
Gillespie, P.A., Howard, C.B., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1993. Measurement and
characterization of spatial distributions of fractures. Tectonophysics 226,
131e141.
Gillespie, P.A., Johnston, J.D., Loriga, M.A., McCaffrey, K.J.W., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J.,
1999. Influence of layering on vein systematics in line samples. In:
McCaffrey, K.J.W., Lonergan, L., Wilkinson, J.J. (Eds.), Fractures, Fluid Flow and
Mineralization. Geological Society London Special Publications 155, pp. 35e56.
Gillespie, P.A., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Bonson, C.G., Manzocchi, T., 2001. Scaling
relationships of joint and vein arrays from The Burren, Co. Clare, Ireland. Journal
of Structural Geology 23, 183e201.
Gonzato, G., 1998. A practical implementation of the box counting algorithm.
Computers & Geosciences 24, 95e100.
Gonzato, G., Mulargia, F., Marzocchi, W., 1998. Practical application of fractal anal-
ysis: problems and solutions. Geophysical Journal International 132, 275e282.
Gonzato, G., Mulargia, F., Ciccotti, M., 2000. Measuring the fractal dimensions of
ideal and actual objects: implications for application in geology and geophysics.
Geophysical Journal International 142, 108e116.
Goodchild, M.F., 1980. Fractal and the accuracy of geographical measures. Journal of
Mathematical Geology 12, 85e98.
Goodchild, J.S., Fueten, F., 1998. Edge detection in petrographic images using the
rotating polarizer stage. Computers & Geosciences 24, 745e751.
Grassberger, P., Procaccia, I., 1983. Characterization of strange attractor. Physical
Review Letters 50, 346e349.
Hadizadeh, J., Johnson, W., 2003. Estimating local strain due to comminution in
experimental cataclastic textures. Journal of Structural Geology 25, 1973e1979.
Hamdi, E., 2008. A fractal description of simulated 3d discontinuity networks. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 41, 587e599.
Harris, C., Franssen, R., Loosveld, R., 1991. Fractal analysis of fractures in rocks: the
Cantor’s Dust method e comment. Tectonophysics 198, 107e111.
Hasting, H.M., Sugihara, H., 1993. Fractals: A User’s Guide for the Natural Sciences.
Oxford Science Publications, Oxford, 235 pp.
Hatton, C.G., Main, I.G., Meredith, P.G., 1993. A comparison of seismic and structural
measurements of fractal dimension during tensile subcritical crack growth.
Journal of Structural Geology 15, 1485e1494.
Hecht, C.A., 2000. Appolonian packing and fractal shape of grains improving
geomechanical properties in engineering geology. In: Blenkinsop, T.G.,
Kruhl, J.H., Kupkovà, M. (Eds.), Fractals and Dynamic Systems in Geoscience.
Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 157. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp. 539e557 (Topical
Volume).
Heilbronner, R., Keulen, N., 2006. Grain size and grain shape analysis of fault rocks.
Tectonophysics 427, 199e216.
Hentschel, H.G.E., Procaccia, I., 1983. The infinite number of generalized dimensions
of fractals and strange attractors. Physica D 8, 435e444.
Herzfeld, U.C., Overbeck, C., 1999. Analysis and simulation of scale-dependent
fractal surfaces with application to searfloor morphology. Computers & Geo-
sciences 25, 979e1007.
Higgins, M.D., 2006. Quantitative Textural Measurements in Igneous and Meta-
morphic Petrology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 276 pp.
Hirata, T., 1989. Fractal dimension of fault systems in Japan: fractal structure in rock
fracture geometry at various scales. Pure and Applied Geophysics 131, 157e169.
Hirata, T., Imoto, M., 1991. Multifractal analysis of spatial distribution of
microearthquakes in the Kanto region. Geophysical Journal International 107,
155e162.
Hirata, T., Satoh, T., Ito, K., 1987. Fractal structure of spatial distribution of
microfracturing in rock. Royal Astronomical Society Geophysical Journal 90,
369e374.
Hirose, T., Shimamoto, T., 2003. Fractal dimension of molten surfaces as a possible
parameter to infer the slip-weakening distance of faults from natural pseudo-
tachylytes. Journal of Structural Geology 25, 1569e1574.
Hisada, E., 2004. Clast-size analysis of impact-generated pseudotachylite from
Vredefort Dome, South Africa. Journal of Structural Geology 26, 1419e1424.
Hooker, J.N., Laubach, S.E., Gomez, L., Marrett, R., Eichhubl, P., Diaz-Tushman, K.,
Pinzon, E., 2011. Fracture size, frequency, and strain in the Cambrian Eriboll
Formation sandstones, NW Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology 47, 45e56.
Horovistiz, A.L., de Campos, K.A., Shibata, S., Prado, C.C.S., de Oliveira Hein, L.R.,
2010. Fractal characterization of brittle fracture in ceramics under mode I stress
loading. Material Science and Engineering A 527, 4847e4850.
Hull, J., 1988. Thickness-displacement relationships for deformation zones. Journal
of Structural Geology 10, 431e435.
Hyslip, J.P., Vallejo, J.P., 1997. Fractal analysis of the roughness and size distribution
of granular materials. Engineering Geology 48, 231e244.
Imre, B., Laue, J., Springman, S.M., 2010. Fractal fragmentation of rocks within
sturzstroms: insight derived from physical experiments within the ETH
geotechnical drum centrifuge. Granular Matter 12, 267e285.
Jackson, P., Sanderson, D.J., 1992. Scaling of fault displacements from the Badajoz-
Córdoba shear zone, SW Spain. Tectonophysics 210, 179e190.
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Jensen, E., Cembrano, J., Faulkner, D., Veloso, E., Arancibia, G., 2011. Development of
a self-similar strike-slip duplex system in the Atacama Fault system, Chile.
Journal of Structural Geology 33, 1611e1626.
Johnston, J.D., McCaffrey, K.J.W., 1996. Fractal geometries of vein systems and the
variation of scaling relationships with mechanism. Journal of Structural
Geology 18, 349e358.
Kagan, Y.Y., 1991. Fractal dimension of brittle fracture. Journal of Nonlinear Science
1, 1e16.
Kagan, Y.Y., 2010. Earthquake size distribution: power-law with exponent b h ½ ?
Tectonophysics 490, 103e114.
Kaye, B.H., 1978. Specification of the ruggedness and/or texture of a fine particle
profile by its fractal dimension. Powder Technology 21, 207e213.
Kaye, B.H., 1984. Fractal description of fineparticle systems. In: Beddow, K. (Ed.),
Particle Characterization in Technology, vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Chapt. 5.
Kaye, B.H., 1989. A Random Walk through Fractal Dimensions. VCH Publishers,
Weinheim.
Kaye, B.H., 1993. Chaos and Complexity. VCH Publishers, Weinheim.
Kaye, B.H., 1994. Fractal Geometry and the Mining Industry, a Review. In: Kruhl, J.H.
(Ed.), Fractals and Dynamic Systems in Geoscience. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/
New York, pp. 233e245.
Kaye, B.H., Clark, G.G., 1985. Fractal Dimension of Extraterrestrial Fineparticles.
Dept. Physics Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. 16 p.
Ketcham, R.A., Iturrino, G.J., 2005. Nondestructive high-resolution visualization and
measurement of anisotropic effective porosity in complex lithologies using high-
resolution X-ray computed tomography. Journal of Hydrogeology 302, 92e106.
Keulen, N., Heilbronner, R., Stünitz, H., Boullier, A.-M., Ito, H., 2007. Grain size
distributions of fault rocks: a comparison between experimentally and natu-
rally deformed granitoids. Journal of Structural Geology 29, 1282e1300.
Kindratenko, V.V., Van Espen, P.J.M., Treiger, B.A., Van Grieken, R.E., 1994. Fractal
dimensional classification of aerosol particles by computer-controlled scanning
electron microscopy. Environmental Science & Technology 28, 2197e2202.
King, G., 1983. The accommodation of large strains in the upper lithosphere of the
earth and other solids by self-similar fault systems: the geometrical origin of b-
value. Pure and Applied Geophysics 121, 761e815.
Korvin, G., 1989. Fractured but not fractal: fragmentation of the Gulf of Suez
basement. Pure and Applied Geophysics 131, 289e305.
Korvin, G., 1992. Fractal Models in the Earth Sciences. Elsevier, p. 396.
Kranz, R.L., Velde, B., 1994. Fractal and length analysis of fractures during brittle to
ductile changes. Comment and reply. Journal of Geophysical Research 99 (B8),
15645e15650.
Kreuzer, O.P., Blenkinsop, T.G., Morrison, R.J., Peters, S.G., 2007. Ore controls in the
Charters Towers goldfield, NE Australia: constraints from geological, geophys-
ical and numerical analyses. Ore Geology Reviews 32, 37e80.
Kristáková, Z., Kupková, M., 1994. Correlation of fractal surface description
parameters with fracture toughness. In: Kruhl, J.H. (Ed.), Fractals and Dynamic
Systems in Geoscience. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp. 77e94.
Krohn, C.E., 1988. Sandstone fractal and Euclidean pore volume distribution. Journal
of Geophysical Research 93 (B4), 3286e3296.
Krohn, E.E., Thompson, A.H.,1986. Fractal sandstone pores: automated measurements
using scanning-electron-microscope images. Physical Review B 33, 6366e6374.
Kruhl, J.H., 1994. The formation of extensional veins: an application of the Cantor-
dust model. In: Kruhl, J.H. (Ed.), Fractals and Dynamics Systems in Geoscience.
Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp. 95e104.
Kruhl, J.H., Nega, M., 1996. The fractal shape of sutured quartz grain boundaries:
application as a geothermometer. Geologische Rundschau, 38e43.
Kruhl, J.H., Andries, F., Peternell, M., Volland, S., 2004. Fractal geometry analyses of
rock fabric anisotropies and inhomogeneities. In: Kolymbas, D. (Ed.), Fractals in
Geotechnical Engineering. Advances in Geotechnical Engineering and Tunnel-
ling, vol. 9. Logos, Berlin, pp. 115e135.
Kueppers, U., Perugini, D., Dingwell, D.B., 2006. “Explosive energy” during volcanic
eruptions from fractal analysis of pyroclasts. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
248, 800e807.
Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Fiedler, R., Panda, B.B., 1997. Box fractal dimension as a meas-
ure of statistical homogeneity of jointed rock masses. Engineering Geology 48,
217e229.
Kusunose, K., Lei, X., Nishizawa, O., Satoh, T., 1991. Effect of grain size on fractal
structure of acoustic emission hypocenter distribution in granitic rocks. Physics
of Earth and Planetary Interior 67, 194e199.
La Pointe, P.R., 1988. A method to characterize fracture density and connectivity
through fractal geometry. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science & Geomechanics Abstracts 25, 421e429.
Launeau, P., Robin, P.Y.F., 1996. Fabric analysis using the intercept method.
Tectonophysics 267, 91e119.
Launeau, P., Bouchez, J.-L., Benn, K., 1990. Shape preferred orientation of
object population: automatic analysis of digitized images. Tectonophysics 180,
201e211.
Ledésert, B., Dubois, J., Velde, B., Meunier, A., Genter, A., Badri, A., 1993a. Geomet-
rical and fractal analysis of a three-dimensional vein network in a fractured
granite. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 56, 267e280.
Ledésert, B., Dubois, J., Genter, A., Meunier, A., 1993b. Fractal analysis of fractures
applied to Soultz-sous-Forêts hot dry rock geothermal program. Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 57, 1e7.
Ledésert, B., Hebert, R., Genter, A., Bartier, D., Clauer, N., Grall, C., 2010. Fractures,
hydrothermal alterations and permeability in the Soultz Enhanced Geothermal
System. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 342, 607e615.
19
Li, J., Du, Q., Sun, C., 2009. An improved box-counting method for image fractal
dimension estimation. Pattern Recognition 42, 2460e2469.
Long, J.J., Imber, J., 2011. Geological controls on fault relay zone scaling. Journal of
Structural Geology 33, 1790e1800.
Loriga, M.A., 1999. Scaling systematics of vein size: an example from the Guanajuato
mining district (Central Mexico). In: McCaffrey, K.J.W., Lonergan, L.,
Wilkinson, J.J. (Eds.), Fractures, Fluid Flow and Mineralization. Geological
Society of London Special Publications 155, pp. 57e67.
Lorilleux, G., Jébrak, M., Cuney, M., Baudemont, D., 2002. Polyphase hydrothermal
breccias associated with unconformity-related uranium mineralization
(Canada): from fractal analysis to structural significance. Journal of Structural
Geology 24, 323e338.
Lovejoy, S., 1982. Area-perimeter relation for rain and cloud areas. Science 216,
185e187.
Lunina, O.V., Mart, Y., Gladkov, A.S., 2005. Fracturing patterns, stress fields
and earthquakes in the Southern Dead Sea rift. Journal of Geodynamics 40,
216e234.
Main, I.G., Peacock, S., Meredith, P.G., 1990. Scattering attenuation and fractal
geometry of fracture systems. Pure and Applied Geophysics 133, 283e304.
Main, I.G., Kwon, O., Ngwenya, B.T., Elphick, S.C., 2000. Fault sealing during
deformation band growth in sandstone. Geology 28, 1131e1134.
Mair, K., Abe, S., 2011. Breaking up: comminution mechanisms in sheared simulated
fault gouge. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168, 2277e2288.
Mair, K., Frye, K.M., Marone, C., 2002. Influence of grain characteristics on the
friction of granular shear zones. Journal of Geophysical Research 107 (B10),
ECV1eECV4.
Majumder, S., Mamtani, M.A., 2009. Fractal analysis of quartz grain boundary
sutures in a granite (Malanjkhand, Central India) e implications to infer
regional tectonics. Journal Geological Society of India 73, 309e319.
Malik, F., 2004. Komplexität, Management und patterns of control. In: Mutius, B.
von (Ed.), Die andere Intelligenz. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, pp. 174e187.
Mamtani, M.A., 2010. Strain-rate estimation using fractal analysis of quartz
grains in naturally deformed rocks. Journal Geological Society of India 75,
202e209.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1967. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity
and fractional dimension. Science 156, 636e638.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1977. Fractals e Form, Chance and Dimension. Freeman, San
Francisco.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1982. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Freeman & Co., New York,
468 pp.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1985. Self-affine fractals and fractal dimension. Physica Scripta 32,
257e260.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1989. Multifractal measures, especially for the geophysicist. Pure
and Applied Geophysics 131, 6e42.
Mandelbrot, B.B., Passoja, D.E., Paullay, A.J., 1984. Fractal character of fracture
surfaces of metals. Nature 308, 721e722.
Manning, C.E., 1994. Fractal clustering of metamorphic veins. Geology 22, 335e338.
Mareschal, J.-C., 1989. Fractal reconstruction of sea-floor topography. Pure and
Applied Geophysics 131, 197e210.
Marone, C., Scholz, C.H., 1989. Particle-size distribution and microstructures within
simulated fault gouge. Journal of Structural Geology 11, 799e814.
Marrett, R., Allmendinger, R.W., 1991. Estimates of strain due to brittle faulting:
sampling of fault populations. Journal of Structural Geology 13, 735e738.
Marrett, R., Ortega, O.J., Kelsey, C.M., 1999. Extent of power-law scaling for natural
fractures in rock. Geology 27, 799e802.
Marschallinger, R., 1997. Automatic mineral classification in the macroscopic scale.
Computers & Geosciences 23, 119e126.
Marschallinger, R., 1998. A method for three-dimensional reconstruction of macro-
scopic features in geological materials. Computers & Geosciences 24, 875e883.
Marschallinger, R., 2001. Three-dimensional reconstruction and visualization of
geological materials with IDL e examples and source code. Computers &
Geosciences 27, 419e426.
Marschallinger, R., Johnson, S.E., 2001. Presenting 3-D models of geological mate-
rials on the World Wide Web. Computers & Geosciences 27, 467e476.
Marsh, B.D., 1988. Crystal size distribution (CSD) in rocks and the kinetics and
dynamics of crystallization I. Theory. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology
99, 277e291.
Mazzarini, F., Armienti, P., 2001. Flank cones at Mount Etna volcano: do they have
a power-law distribution? Bulletin of Volcanology 62, 420e430.
McCaffrey, K.J.W., Johnston, J.D., 1996. Fractal analysis of a mineralised vein
deposit: Curraghinalt gold deposit, County Tyrone. Mineralium Deposita 31,
52e58.
McCaffrey, K.J.W., Johnston, J.D., Feely, M., 1993. Use of fractal statistics in the
analysis of Mo-Cu mineralization at Mace Head, County Galway. Irish Journal of
Earth Sciences 12, 139e148.
Mecholsky, J., Mackin, T.J., 1988. Fractal analysis of fracture in Ocala chert. Journal of
Materials Science Letters 7, 1145e1147.
Mechtcherine, V., 2009. Fracture mechanical behavior of concrete and the condition
of its fracture surface. Cement and Concrete Research 39, 620e628.
Merceron, T., Velde, B., 1991. Application of Cantor’s Method for fractal analysis of
fractures in the Toyoha Mine, Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Geophysical Research
96 (B10), 16641e16650.
Micarelli, L., Benedicto, A., Wibberley, C.A.J., 2006. Structural evolution and
permeability of normal fault zones in highly porous carbonate rocks. Journal of
Structural Geology 28, 1214e1227.
20 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Milman, V.Y., Stelmashenko, N.A., Blumenfeld, R., 1994. Fracture surfaces:
a critical review of fractal studies and a novel morphological analysis of
scanning tunneling microscopy measurements. Progress in Material Science
38, 425e474.
Mohsen, A.I., Mahmoud, A.I., Islam, Md.S., Chudnovsky, A., 2003. Fractal dimen-
sion e a measure of fracture roughness and toughness of concrete. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 70, 125e137.
Monzawa, N., Otsuki, K., 2003. Comminution and fluidization of granular fault
materials: implications for fault slip behavior. Tectonophysics 367, 127e143.
Morgan, J.K., Boettcher, M.S., 1999. Numerical simulations of granular shear zones
using the distinct element method. 1. Shear zone kinematic and the micro-
mechanics of localization. Journal of Geophysical Research 104, 2703e2719.
Morse, D.R., Lawton, J.H., Dodson, M.M., Williamson, M.H., 1985. Fractal dimension of
vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body lengths. Nature 314, 731e733.
Nagahama, H., 1991. Fracturing in the solid earth. The Science Reports of the Tohoku
University. Second Series, Geology 61, 103e126.
Nagahama, H., 1993. Fractal fragment size distribution for brittle rocks. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts
30, 469e471.
Nagahama, H., Yoshii, K., 1993. Fractal dimension and fracture of brittle rocks.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics
Abstracts 30, 173e175.
Nakaya, S., Nakamura, K., 2007. Percolation conditions in fractured hard rocks:
a numerical approach using the three-dimensional binary fractal fracture
network (3D-BFFN) model. Journal of Geophysical Research e Solid Earth 112,
B12203.
Nanjo, K., Nagahama, H., 2000. Spatial distribution of aftershocks and the fractal
structure of active fault systems. Pure and Applied Geophysics 157, 575e588.
Nanjo, K., Nagahama, H., Satomura, M., 1998. Rates of aftershock decay and the
fractal structure of active fault systems. Tectonophysics 287, 173e186.
Narr, W., Suppe, J., 1991. Joint spacing in sedimentary rocks. Journal of Structural
Geology 13, 1037e1048.
Nicol, A., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Gillespie, P.A., 1996. Fault size distributions e are
they really power-law? Journal of Structural Geology 18, 191e199.
Nolte, D.D., Pyrak-Nolte, L.J., Cook, N.G.W., 1989. The fractal geometry of flow paths
in natural fractures in rock and the approach to percolation. Pure and Applied
Geophysics 131, 111e138.
Odling, N.E., Gillespie, P., Bourgine, B., Castaing, C., Chilés, J.P., Christensen, N.P.,
Fillion, E., Genter, A., Olsen, C., Thrane, L., Trice, R., Aarseth, E., Walsh, J.J.,
Watterson, J., 1999. Variations in fracture system geometry and their implica-
tions for fluid flow in fractured hydrocarbon reservoirs. Petroleum Geoscience
5, 373e384.
Okubo, P.G., Aki, K., 1987. Fractal geometry in the San Andreas fault system. Journal
of Geophysical Research 92, 345e355.
Orford, J.D., Whalley, W.B., 1983. The use of the fractal dimension to quantify the
morphology of irregular-shaped particles. Sedimentology 30, 655e668.
Orford, J.D., Whalley, W.B., 1987. The quantitative description of highly irregular
sedimentary particles: the use of fractal dimension. In: Marshall, J.R. (Ed.),
Clastic Particles. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, pp. 267e280.
Paggi, M., Carpinteri, A., 2007. Fractal and multifractal approaches for the analysis of
crack-size dependent scaling laws in fatigue. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 40,
1136e1145.
Panozzo, R., 1984. Two-dimensional strain from the orientation of lines in a plane.
Journal of Structural Geology 6, 215e221.
Panozzo Heilbronner, R.P., Pauli, C., 1993. Integrated spatial and orientation analysis
of quartz c-axes by computer-aided microscopy. Journal of Structural Geology
15, 369e382.
Park, S.-I., Kim, Y.-S., Ryoo, C.-R., Sanderson, D.J., 2010. Fractal analysis of the
evolution of a fracture network in a granite outcrop, SE Korea. Geoscience
Journal 14, 99e234.
Peitgen, H.-O., Richter, H.P. (Eds.), 1986. The Beauty of Fractals. Springer, Berlin/
Heidelberg/New York.
Peitgen, H.-O., Saupe, D. (Eds.), 1988. The Science of Fractal Images. Springer, Berlin/
Heidelberg/New York, 312 pp.
Peitgen, H.-O., Jürgens, H., Saupe, D., 1992a. Fractals for the Classroom, Part 1.
Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
Peitgen, H.-O., Jürgens, H., Saupe, D., 1992b. Chaos and Fractals: New Frontiers of
Science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York.
Pérez-López, R., Paredes, C., 2006. On measuring the fractal anisotropy of 2-D
geometrical sets: application to the spatial distribution of fractures. Geoderma
134, 402e414.
Pérez-López, R., Paredes, C., Muñoz-Martín, A., 2005. Relationship between the
fractal dimension anisotropy of the spatial faults distribution and the paleo-
stress fields on a Variscan granitic massif (Central Spain): the F-parameter.
Journal of Structural Geology 27, 663e677.
Perugini, D., Kueppers, U., 2012. Fractal analysis of experimentally generated
pyroclasts: a tool for volcanic hazard assessment. Acta Geophysica 60,
682e698.
Perugini, D., Poli, G., 2000. Chaotic dynamics and fractals in magmatic interaction
processes: a different approach to the interpretation of mafic microgranular
enclaves. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 175, 93e103.
Perugini, D., Speziali, A., Caricchi, L., Kueppers, U., 2011. Application of fractal
fragmentation theory to natural pyroclastic deposits: insights into volcanic
explosivity of the Valentano scoria cone (Italy). Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research 2002, 200e210.
Peternell, M., 2007. Fabric Patterns in Magmatic Rocks: Method Development,
Automation and Geological Significance. PhD thesis., Technical University
Munich, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, p. 124.
Peternell, M., Kruhl, J.H., 2009. Automation of pattern recognition and
fractal-geometry-based pattern quantification, exemplified by mineral-phase
distribution patterns in igneous rocks. Computers & Geosciences 35, 1415e1426.
Peternell, M., Andries, F., Kruhl, J.H., 2003. Magmatic flow-pattern anisotropies e
analyzed on the basis of a new ‘map-counting’ fractal geometry method.
Journal of the Czech Geological Society 48, 104.
Peternell, M., Bitencourt, M.F., Kruhl, J.H., Stäb, C., 2010. Macro and microstructures
as indicators of the development of syntectonic granitoids and host rocks in the
Camboriú region, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Journal of South American Earth
Sciences 29, 738e750.
Peternell, M., Bitencourt, M.F., Kruhl, J.H., 2011. Combined quantification of
anisotropy and inhomogeneity of magmatic rock fabrics e an outcrop scale
analysis recorded in high resolution. Journal of Structural Geology 33, 609e623.
Petford, N., Bryon, D., Atherton, M.P., Hunter, R.H., 1993. Fractal analysis in granitoid
petrology: a means of quantifying irregular grain morphologies. European
Journal of Mineralogy 5, 593e598.
Pettijohn, E.J., 1975. Sedimentary Rocks, third ed. Harper & Row, New York, 628 pp.
Pickering, G., Bull, J.M., Sanderson, D.J., Harrison, P., 1994. Fractal fault displace-
ments: a case study from the Moray Firth, Scotland. In: Kruhl, J.H. (Ed.), Fractal
and Dynamic Systems in Geoscience. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York,
pp. 105e119.
Pickering, G., Bull, J.M., Sanderson, D.J., 1995. Sampling power-law distributions.
Tectonophysics 248, 1e20.
Piggott, A.R., 1997. Fractal relations for the diameter and trace length of disc-shaped
fractures. Journal of Geophysical Research 102 (B8), 18,121e18,125.
Power, W.L., Tullis, T.E., 1991. Euclidian and fractal models for the description of rock
surface roughness. Journal of Geophysical Research 96 (B1), 415e424.
Qin, J., Zhong, D., Ng, S.L., Wang, G., 2012. Scaling behavior of gravel surfaces.
Mathematical Geosciences 44, 583e594.
Rantzsch, U., Franz, A., Kloess, G., 2012. Fractal dimension and maximum roughness
applied as sculpture descriptor for tektites. Mathematical Geosciences 44, 711e720.
Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., 1995. Utilizing fractal principles for predicting soil
hydraulic properties. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50, 463e465.
Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., Logsdon, S.D., 1993. Predicting saturated hydraulic
conductivity utilizing fractal principles. Soil Science Society of America Journal
57, 1193e1197.
Reither, F., 2004. Komplexität als Herausforderung und Chance e Befunde aus
Forschung, Praxis und Simulation. In: Mutius, B. von (Ed.), Die andere Intelli-
genz. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, pp. 160e173.
Renshaw, C.E., 1999. Connectivity of joints networks with power-law length
distributions. Water Resources Research 35, 2661e2670.
Renshaw, C.E., Park, J.C., 1997. Effect of mechanical interactions on the scaling of
fracture length and aperture. Nature 386, 482e484.
Richardson, R.L., 1961. The problem of contiguity: an appendix to statistics of deadly
quarrels. General Systems Yearbook 6, 139e187.
Roach, D.E., Fowler, A.D., 1993. Dimensionality analysis of patterns: fractal
measurements. Computers & Geosciences 19, 849e869.
Roberts, S., Sanderson, D.J., Gumiel, P., 1999. Fractal analysis and percolation
properties of veins. In: McCaffrey, K.J.W., Lonergan, L., Wilkinson, J.J. (Eds.),
Fractures, Fluid Flow and Mineralization. Geological Society London Special
Publication 155, pp. 7e16.
Rundle, J.B., 1989. Derivation of the complete Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-
frequency relation using the principle of scale invariance. Journal of Geophys-
ical Research 94, 12337e12342.
Russ, J.C., Russ, J.C., 1989. Uses of the Euclidean distance map for the measurement
of features in images. Journal of Computer Assisted Microscopy 1, 343.
Sadovskii, M.A., 1986. Some results in seismology obtained on the basis of the new
media model. Bulgarian Geophysical Journal 3, 3e7.
Sadovskii, M.A., Golubeva, T.V., Pisarenko, V.F., Shnirman, M.G., 1984. Characteristic
dimensions of rock and hierarchical properties of seismicity. Izvestiya, Academy
of Sciences, USSR, Physics of the Solid Earth 20, 87e96 (English translation).
Sahimi, M., Robertson, M.C., Sammis, C.G., 1993. Fractal distribution of earthquake
hypocenters and its relation to fault patterns and percolation. Physical Review
Letters 70, 2186e2189.
Sammis, C.G., Biegel, R.L., 1989. Fractals, fault-gouge, and friction. Pure and Applied
Geophysics 131, 255e271.
Sammis, C.G., Osborne, R.H., Anderson, J.L., Banerdt, M., White, P., 1986. Self-similar
cataclasis in the formation of fault gouge. Pure and Applied Geophysics 124,
53e78.
Sammis, C.G., King, G., Biegel, R., 1987. The kinematics of gouge deformation. Pure
and Applied Geophysics 125, 777e812.
Sanderson, D.J., Zhang, X., 1999. Critical stress localization of flow associated with
deformation of well-fractured rock masses, with implications mineral deposits.
In: McCaffrey, K.J.W., et al. (Eds.), Fractures, Fluid Flow and Mineralization.
Geological Society London Special Publications 155, pp. 69e81.
Sanderson, D.J., Roberts, S., Gumiel, P., Greenfield, C., 2008. Quantitative analysis
of tin and tungsten bearing sheeted vein systems. Economic Geology 103,
1043e1056.
Schmittbuhl, J., Gentier, S., Roux, S., 1993. Field measurement of the roughness of
fault surfaces. Geophysical Research Letters 20, 639e641.
Schmittbuhl, J., Schmitt, F., Scholz, C., 1995. Scaling invariance of crack surfaces.
Journal of Geophysical Research 100, 5953e5973.
 J.H. Kruhl / Journal of Structural Geology 46 (2013) 2e21
Sharon, E., Fineberg, J., 1999. Confirming the continuum theory of dynamic brittle
fracture for fast cracks. Nature 397, 332e335.
Shepherd, R.G., 1989. Correlations of permeability and grain-size. Ground Water 27,
633e638.
Shimamoto, T., Nagahama, H., 1992. An argument against the crush origin of
pseudotachylytes based on the analysis of clast-size distribution. Journal of
Structural Geology 14, 999e1006.
Shorrocks, B., Marsters, J., Ward, I., Evennett, P.J., 1991. The fractal dimension of
lichens and the distribution of arthropod body length. Functional Ecology 5,
457e460.
Singer, H.M., Bilgram, J.H., 2006. Integral scaling behaviour of different morphol-
ogies of 3D xenon crystals. Physica D 219, 101e110.
Smalley, R.F., Chatellain, L.L., Turcotte, D.L., Prevot, R.A., 1987. Fractal approach to the
clustering of earthquakes: applications to the seismicity of the New-Hebrides.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 77, 1368e1381.
Sornette, D., Davy, P., Sornette, A., 1990a. Structuration of the lithosphere in plate
tectonics as a self-organized critical phenomenon. Journal of Geophysical
Research 95, 17353e17361.
Sornette, A., Davy, P., Sornette, D., 1990b. Growth of fractal fault patterns. Physical
Review Letters 65, 2266e2269.
Sornette, A., Davy, P., Sornette, D., 1993. Fault growth in brittle-ductile experiments
and the mechanics of continental collisions. Journal of Geophysical Research 98,
111e139.
Stakhovsky, I.R., 2011. A multifractal model of crack coalescence in rocks. Physics of
the Solid Earth 47, 371e378.
Stanley, H.E., Meakin, P., 1988. Multifractal phenomena in physics and chemistry.
Nature 335 (6189), 405e409.
Stanley, H.E., Ostrowsky, N. (Eds.), 1988. Random Fluctuations and Pattern Growth:
Experiments and Models. Kluwer, Dordrecht. NATO ASI Series E 157.
Steacy, S.J., Sammis, C.G., 1991. An automaton for fractal patterns of fragmentation.
Nature 353, 250e252.
Şuţeanu, C., 2004. Characterization of anisotropyescale relations for complex
irregular structures. In: Kolymbas, D. (Ed.), Fractals in Geotechnical Engineering.
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering and Tunnelling, vol. 9. Logos, Berlin,
pp. 103e114.
Şuţeanu, C., Ioana, C., 2007. Pattern identification in the dynamic fingerprint of
seismically active zones. Quaternary International 171-172, 45e51.
Şuţeanu, C., Kruhl, J.H., 2002. Investigation of heterogeneous scaling intervals
exemplified by sutured quartz grain boundaries. Fractals 10 (4), 435e449.
Şuţeanu, C., Munteanu, F., Zugrặvescu, D., 1995. Hierarchies, scaling and anisotropy
in dehydration cracking. Revue Roumaine de Géophysique 39, 21e39.
Şuţeanu, C., Munteanu, F., Zugrặvescu, D., 1997. Scaling regimes and anisotropy:
towards an effective approach to complex geologic structures. Revue Roumaine
de Géophysique 41, 25e43.
Şuţeanu, C., Zugrặvescu, D., Munteanu, F., 2000. Fractal approach of structuring by
fragmentation. In: Blenkinsop, T.G., Kruhl, J.H., Kupková, M. (Eds.), Fractals and
Dynamic Systems in Geoscience. Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 157. Bir-
khäuser, Basel, pp. 539e557 (Topical Volume).
Takahashi, M., Nagahama, T., Masuda, T., Fujimura, A., 1998. Fractal analysis of
experimentally, dynamically recrystallized quartz grains and its possible
application as a strain rate meter. Journal of Structural Geology 20, 269e275.
Tang, Y.-J., Chang, Y.-F., Liou, T.-S., Chen, C.-C., Wu, Y.-M., 2012. Evolution of the
temporal multifractal scaling properties of the Chiayi earthquake (ML ¼ 6.4),
Taiwan. Tectonophysics 546e547, 1e9.
Taylor, R.P., Micolich, A.P., Jonas, D., 1999. Fractal analysis of Pollock’s drip paintings.
Nature 399, 422.
Tejedor, A., Gómez, J.B., Pacheco, A.F., 2010. Hierarchical model for distributed
seismicity. Physical Review E 82, 016118.
Thompson, S., Fueten, F., Bockus, D., 2001. Mineral identification using artificial
neural networks and the rotating polarizer stage. Computers & Geosciences 27,
1081e1089.
Tonon, F., Kottenstette, J.T. (Eds.), 2006. Laser and Photogrammetric Methods for
Rock Face Characterization. American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria,
Virginia.
Tricot, C., 1995. Curves and Fractal Dimension. Springer, New York, 323 pp.
Tullis, J., Yund, R.A., 1985. Dynamic recrystallization of feldspar: a mechanism for
ductile shear zone formation. Geology 13, 238e241.
Turcotte, D.L., 1986a. Fractals and fragmentation. Journal of Geophysical Research
91, 1921e1926.
Turcotte, D.L., 1986b. A fractal model for crustal deformation. Tectonophysics 132,
261e269.
Turcotte, D.L., 1997. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics, second ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Velde, B., Dubois, J., Touchard, G., Badri, A., 1990. Fractal analysis of fractures in
rocks: the Cantor’s Dust method. Tectonophysics 179, 345e352.
Velde, B., Dubois, J., Moore, D., Touchard, G., 1991. Fractal patterns of fractures in
granites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 104, 25e35.
21
Velde, B., Moore, D., Badri, A., Ledesert, B., 1993. Fractal and length analysis of
fractures during brittle to ductile changes. Journal of Geophysical Research 98
(B7), 11935e11940.
Vignes-Adler, M., Le Page, A., Adler, P.M., 1991. Fractal analysis of fracturing in
two African regions from satellite imagery to ground scale. Tectonophysics 196,
69e86.
Villemin, T., Angelier, J., Sunwoo, C., 1995. Fractal distribution of fault length and
offsets: implications of brittle deformation evaluation e Lorraine Coal Basin. In:
Barton, C.C., La Pointe, P.R. (Eds.), Fractals in the Earth Sciences. Plenum Press,
New York, pp. 205e226.
Vincent, L., Soille, P., 1991. Watersheds in digital space: an efficient algorithm based
on immersion simulations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence 13, 583e598.
Volland, S., Kruhl, J.H., 2004. Anisotropy quantification: the application of fractal
geometry methods on tectonic fracture patterns of a Hercynian fault zone in
NW-Sardinia. Journal of Structural Geology 26, 1489e1500.
Vontobel, P., Lehmann, E., Carlson, W.D., 2005. Comparison of X-ray and neutron
tomography investigations of geological materials. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear
Science 52, 338e341.
Voss, R.R., Clarke, J., 1975. 1/f noise in music and speech. Nature 258, 317e318.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1988. Analysis of the relationship between displacements
and dimensions of faults. Journal of Structural Geology 10, 239e247.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., 1993. Fractal analysis of fracture patterns using the
standard box-counting technique: valid and invalid methodologies. Journal of
Structural Geology 15, 1509e1512.
Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J., Yielding, G., 1991. The importance of small-scale faulting in
regional extension. Nature 351, 391e393.
Wang, Z., Cheng, Q., Cao, L., Xia, Q., Chen, Z., 2007. Fractal modelling of the
microstructure property of quartz mylonite during deformation process.
Mathematical Geology 39, 53e68.
Watanabe, K., Takahashi, H., 1995. Fractal geometry characterization of
geothermal reservoir fracture networks. Journal of Geophysical Research 100
(B1), 521e528.
Watterson, J., 1986. Fault dimensions, displacements and growth. Pure and Applied
Geophysics 124, 365e373.
Watterson, J., Walsh, J.J., Gillespie, P.A., Easton, S., 1996. Scaling systematic of
fault sizes on a large-scale range fault map. Journal of Structural Geology 18,
199e214.
Weinberg, R.F., Hodkiewicz, P.F., Groves, D.I., 2004. What controls gold distribution
in Archean terranes? Geology 32, 545e548.
Wibberley, C.A.J., Shimamoto, T., 2003. Internal structure and permeability of major
strike-slip fault zones: the Median Tectonic Line in Mie Prefecture, Southwest
Japan. Journal of Structural Geology 25, 59e78.
Wiener, N., 1948. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the
Machine. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wilson, B., Dewers, T., Reches, Z., Brune, J., 2005. Particle size and energetics of
gouge from earthquake rupture zones. Nature 434, 749e752.
Winkler, B., Knorr, K., Kahle, A., Vontobel, P., Lehman, E., Hennion, B., Bayon, G.,
2002. Neutron imaging and neutron tomography as non-destructive tools to
study bulk-rock samples. European Journal of Mineralogy 14, 349e454.
Wong, P.-Z., Lin, J.-S., 1988. Studying fractal geometry on submicron length scales by
small-angle scattering. Mathematical Geology 20, 655e665.
Xie, H., Pariseau, W.G., 1993. Fractal character and mechanisms of rock bursts.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics
Abstracts 30, 343e350.
Yfantis, E.A., Flatman, G.T., Englund, E.J., 1988. Simulation of geological surfaces
using fractals. Mathematical Geology 20, 667e672.
Yuan, R.F., Li, Y.H., 2009. Fractal analysis on the spatial distribution of acoustic
emission in the failure process of rock specimens. International Journal of
Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 16, 19e24.
Zazoun, R.S., 2008. The Fadnoun area, Tassili-n-Azdjer, Algeria: fracture network
geometry analysis. Journal of African Earth Sciences 50, 273e285.
Zhang, X., Sanderson, D., 1994. Fractal structure and deformation of fractured rock
masses. In: Kruhl, J.H. (Ed.), Fractals and Dynamic Systems in Geoscience.
Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp. 37e52.
Zhao, Y.H., 1998. Crack pattern evolution and a fractal damage constitutive mod-
el for rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 35,
349e366.
Zhao, Z.Y., Wang, Y., Liu, X.H., 1990. Fractal analysis applied to cataclastic rocks.
Tectonophysics 178, 373e377.
Zhao, Y.S., Feng, Z.C., Liang, W.G., Yang, D., Hu, Y.Q., Kang, T.H., 2009.
Investigation of fractal distribution law for the trace number of random
and grouped fractures in a geological mass. Engineering Geology 109,
224e229.
Zygouri, V., Verroios, S., Kokkalas, S., Xypolias, P., Koukouvelas, I.K., 2008. Scaling
properties within the Gulf of Corinth, Greece; comparison between offshore
and onshore active faults. Tectonophysics 453, 193e210.