See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328836083

The use of the perimeter-area method to calculate the fractal dimension of

aggregates

Article in Powder Technology · February 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2018.11.030

CITATIONS READS
17 2,093

3 authors:

Brendan Florio Phillip Donald Fawell

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Perth A…
24 PUBLICATIONS 145 CITATIONS 93 PUBLICATIONS 1,863 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michael Small
University of Western Australia
405 PUBLICATIONS 8,120 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Water soluble polymers for oil sands tailings treatment View project

Analysis of evolving network structure based on link prediction and null models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brendan Florio on 10 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The use of the perimeter-area method to calculate the fractal dimension of
aggregates.I

Brendan J. Florioa,b,∗, Phillip D. Fawella , Michael Smallb,c

a CSIRO Mineral Resources, Waterford, Western Australia, Australia
b Departmentof Mathematics and Statistics, University of Western Australia
c CSIRO Mineral Resources, Kensington, Western Australia, Australia

Abstract

Complicated geometrical objects like aggregate clusters can be characterised by a simple parameter: the
fractal dimension. There are many ways to measure this fractal dimension. For most methods, it is found
by the exponent of a relationship between an intrinsic value, such as mass or area, to a characteristic value,
such as bulk aggregate length. The perimeter-area method was derived by Mandelbrot to measure the fractal
dimension of chips of ore. In this method, there is no distinction of whether the perimeter and area values
are characteristic or intrinsic.
Various methods of measuring the fractal dimension are used on different known fractal objects to demon-
strate these issues in an idealised setting.
We show that while the distinction is not important for Mandelbrot’s ore chips, which are island-type
objects, it is very important in the analysis of cluster-type objects. The perimeter-area method is a valid
tool in the fractal characterisation of aggregates and clusters, however, researchers must be careful to take
the appropriate intrinsic and characteristic measurements.
Keywords: Fractal dimension, Perimeter-area dimension, Aggregation, Diffusion-limited aggregation

1. Introduction

The formation of aggregates by coagulation or flocculation is a crucial part of solid-liquid separation in

many applications including ore and tailings processing, wastewater treatment and food processing. Unit
operations such as sedimentation and filtration can be enhanced when the effective size of particles is increased
by aggregation [1]. These aggregates, sometimes termed ‘flocs’, may be heavier than the liquid and then
sink to the bottom of the vessel allowing easy separation. The aggregates are composed of many primary
particles attached together and can form a complicated structure where each aggregate is unique. Thus, the
aggregates are often characterised or modelled based on their mean properties. It has been noticed that the

I Published in Powder Technology 343:551-559 (2019) DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2018.11.030

∗ Corresponding author

Preprint submitted to Elsevier December 4, 2018

aggregates can exhibit scale-free properties which allow them to be characterised by a single parameter: the
fractal dimension, D3 [2].
Fractal aggregates exhibit many strange properties which make them novel to model. For example, the
porosity of the aggregates is size-dependent, becoming increasingly sparse as the aggregate grows. Thus,
physical parameters like the settling and collision rates are size-dependent in ways that differ from ordinary
Euclidean objects such as spheres. The fractal dimension of the aggregates is thus a very important parameter
to measure for use in physical models or for characterisation, though fractal analysis can be confusing [3].
Large values of D3 describe highly compact fractals, while low values indicate a very sparse, elongated
structure.
There are many methods used to find the fractal dimension, D3 , of an object. Direct calculation is
possible if the radius and bulk porosity of aggregates can be measured, (usually by settling rates or electrical
conductivity [4], for example). Another method is by taking two-dimensional (2D) images of these aggregates
and calculating the fractal dimension of the area, D2 , or perimeter, D1 , of the projection [5, 6, 7]. These
values cannot be directly used as a parameter in three-dimensional (3D) models, but must first be converted
to an equivalent D3 . This is usually performed using an empirically derived correlation such as those offered
by Lee & Kramer [8] and Maggi & Winterwerp [9]. In some cases, D3 is never sought for modelling purposes
so D1 and D2 are simply used for characterisation purposes [10, 11, 12].
The perimeter-area dimension, Dpf , was first described by Mandelbrot [13, Chap. 12], to describe the
fractal dimension of the perimeter of island-type objects such as chips of ore [14]. It is used favourably in
image analysis as it has a high correlation with D3 [9]. One strange aspect of the perimeter-area dimension
in aggregate literature is that it has an inverse correlation with D3 . That is, large values of Dpf (close to
the maximum of 2) indicate a very sparse nearly linear structure, while low values (close to the minimum of
1) indicate a very tightly packed area-filling structure [15, 16, 8, 17]. This is the opposite of what we see for
D3 . In the present research, we attempt to explain why this somewhat paradoxical behaviour occurs in the
context of cluster-type objects.
The perimeter-area dimension is obtained from the relationship between the perimeter and area of a 2D
projected object. Fractal dimensions are usually calculated by the relationship between an intrinsic property
(such as mass, area or perimeter) with a characteristic property (such as effective length or resolution scale).
We will show in this paper that while this distinction is not necessary for the characterisation of Mandelbrot’s
island-type objects, it is important in cluster-type objects such as aggregates.
In section 2 we introduce the various methods of calculating the fractal dimension of an object, and
demonstrate how the distinction between characteristic and intrinsic values are important. In section 3, we
then outline the construction of sample ideal fractal objects and a simulated aggregate to show how different
measurements of fractal dimension characterise and object. The results are then presented and discussed in

2
 Intrinsic Characteristic

Figure 1: The left figure shows how to measure the intrinsic area (striped region) and perimeter (solid black), of an aggregate.
A characteristic circle is drawn over the aggregate on the right, which shows the object’s characteristic area (striped region)
and perimeter (solid black). The characteristic length would be the circle’s radius or diameter.

section 4 and section 5. Concluding remarks are made in section 6.

2. Background

Here we introduce multiple different measures of the fractal dimension. For three-dimensional aggregates,
their mass, m, can be related to their characteristic length, lc by

m = BlcD3 , or equivalently m ∝ lcD3 , (1)

where B is a constant [2] and D3 is a measure of fractal dimension. The characteristic length could be
any linear measurement of the aggregate, such as chord-length, radius/diameter of a bounding circle or a
statistical measure like the radius of gyration. To calculate the fractal dimension, we would take m and
lc paired data for either a single aggregate as it grows or a plethora of aggregates over a large size range.
The fractal dimension can then be calculated by the slope of the log(lc )–log(m) plot. The fractal dimension
obtained in this way is often called the mass-radius dimension, D3 . For connected aggregate clusters, D3
can range from 1 to 3, where larger values indicate a highly compact object with the appearance of either a
solid or regular porous medium.
For an aggregation process restricted to two dimensions or the measure of 3D aggregates projected onto
a 2D plane (such as photographic images), the equivalent mass-radius relation is given by

As ∝ lcD2 , (2)

where D2 is the fractal dimension, As is the intrinsic area of the object, and lc is again a characteristic length,
such as the radius [2]. To clarify the two different types of measurement, the intrinsic and characteristic
measures of an object are shown in figure 1. The exponent D2 is often obtained as the slope of the log(lc )–
log(As ) graph, but can only take values from 1 to 2 for a connected cluster. The D2 and D3 measures of
the same object clearly cannot be equal if D3 > 2. It is thought that D2 = D3 if D3 ≤ 2 [2], though Maggi
and Winterwerp [9] state that this is only true for fractal dimensions of higher moments.

3
 An object can also be characterised by the fractal dimension of its perimeter. The intrinsic perimeter,
Ps , is related to the characteristic length of an object by

Ps ∝ lcD1 . (3)

This relationship is essentially a rewritten version of Richardson’s method to calculate the fractal dimension
of coastlines [18], though he uses the resolution scale in lieu of the length scale. Measured on a 2D image, D1
can take values from 1 to 2 for a connected object, where D1 ≈ 2 characterises a highly irregular curve which
is nearly space-filling almost mimicking a 2D object, such as the Hilbert curve [19]. On the other hand,
D ≈ 1 characterises a very regular curve, which may still have fractal properties, such as the blancmange
curve [20].
It is important to note here that D2 and D1 are distinct measures of the area and perimeter dimension
respectively, and may not be equal. For example, for a 2D circle, we find D2 = 2 as the area is proportional
to the length squared, whereas we find D1 = 1 as the perimeter is proportional to the length. We will show
below that in perfect circumstances we will find D1 = D2 for cluster-type aggregates.
Mandelbrot [13] proposed a novel way of measuring the fractal dimension of the perimeter for “island”
type fractals, such as chips of ore [14]. At higher resolutions the perimeter of these islands would increase
without bound while the areas would remain finite. By using a novel way of measuring the perimeter and
area in units of the resolution length-scale, he found the relationship
2/Dpf
A s ∝ Ps , (4)

where As and Ps are the intrinsic measures of area and parameter. The dimension Dpf can range from 1 to
2 and is theoretically equal to D1 , as they are both measures of the perimeter dimension. We can see that
Dpf follows naturally from D1 . From (2) and (3), we find that

Ps ∝ A D
s
1 /D2
, or equivalently As ∝ PsD2 /D1 . (5)

For island-type fractals, the the value of the area converges to a finite value at higher resolutions, so D2
converges to 2. Setting D2 = 2, equations (4) and (5) are consistent for Dpf = D1 as expected. Imre [21]
noted that (4) is only applicable to fractals where D2 = 2, such as island type fractals. This would indicate
that the perimeter-area method is not appropriate for cluster-type objects where D2 6= 2. The perimeter-
area relationship can be salvaged, however, by making use of the characteristic area, Ac , which is always
proportional to lc2 . Now, using (3) (and noting D1 = Dpf ) we can write
2/Dpf
A c ∝ Ps , (6)

which is useful for both cluster-type and island-type fractals. If D2 = 2 as in island-type fractals, then
As ∝ Ac so the distinction between them is not necessary. For D2 < 2 as in cluster-type objects, it is the
characteristic area that needs to be used for the perimeter-area relationship. We will demonstrate this below.

4
 If Dpf is essentially a re-written version of D1 , and D1 = D2 for cluster-type objects, then Dpf = D2
should also be true. This is, however, inconsistent with the inverse correlation of D2 and Dpf reported in
the literature [8, 9]. There are two major reasons why this inconsistency may be occurring. It could be
that the perimeter of some primary particles is obscured by finite contact or projection of the aggregate to
a 2D plane. Alternatively, it could be that when measuring the fractal dimension, the distinction between
intrinsic and characteristic values is missed.
We now explore how errors of this form can manifest. First, we note that the perimeter of the bounding
circle (the characteristic perimeter Pc ) is proportional to the characteristic length, such that lc ∝ Pc . Now
we rewrite (2) as
As ∝ PcD2 . (7)

Comparing (6) to (7) and noting that D2 = Dpf for perfect cluster-type fractal objects, it can clearly be seen
how confusing it is to measure the fractal dimension if proper care is not taken in defining which measure is
the characteristic. For example, let us define a false “fractal dimension”, Da , by a conflation of (6) and (7)
given by
As ∝ Pc2/Da . (8)

We see from (7) and (8), that

2
D2 = . (9)
Da
Thus, when D2 = 2 (such as for a space-filling curve), we have Da = 1. As Da is inversely proportional to
D2 , it is possible that Da is being reported as the fractal dimension in the literature.
To further explore the errors introduced by the misuse of characteristic and intrinsic measures, we define
a few more measures as erroneous fractal dimensions. Namely, we measure Db , Dc and Dd , where

Ac ∝ PsDb , As ∝ PsDc , As ∝ Ps2/Dd . (10)

The false dimension, Db is defined as an alternative conflation of (6) and (7) to Da . Likewise, Dc and Dd
are defined to show the “fractal dimension” one would obtain if only intrinsic measurements are considered.
We suspect that Dd is often used in the literature, as it is consistent for the island-type fractals for which
the perimeter-area method was defined [13].
The above fractal dimensions (both true and false) will be measured for a sample of fractal and non-fractal
objects in the following section.

3. Measurement of fractal dimensions

Now that the various subtleties of fractal dimension measurements have been outlined, we proceed to a
demonstration of the calculation of the dimension for different fractals by various methods. By doing this,
we will show that in many cases, Dpf = D2 = D1 for cluster type objects. We will begin by analysing

5
the Sierpinski triangle and Sierpinski carpet, which are ideal fractals. These were chosen because their
construction can be thought of in a similar way to aggregate clusters whereby they grow in size by the
addition of primary particles. We will also apply our analysis to an example aggregate formed by a simulation
of diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA). We will also analyse the Koch snowflake, which is an island-type
fractal of the kind Mandelbrot designed the perimeter-area method for. Finally, we apply the dimension
measurements for non-fractal clusters for closure.

3.1. Sierpinski triangle

The Sierpinski triangle, named after its similarity to the fractal curve described by Sierpinski [22], is
an example of an ideal fractal. It is traditionally constructed in a top-down fashion, whereby portions of
a base triangle are removed in progressively finer detail. It can, however, be also thought of in a bottom-
up fashion, where the overall object is constructed by the aggregation of primary triangles in a particular
pattern, making it comparable to physical clusters.
The bottom-up approach to constructing this fractal is to begin with an equilateral triangle of side length
g1 as a primary particle. At stage 2, we attach two extra primary triangles to form a larger equilateral triangle
of side length 2g1 . At stage 3, we again arrange two extra stage 2 triangles into a larger equilateral triangle
of side length 4g1 . Further stages proceed ad infinitum (see figure 2 for a visual aid). Tracking areas and
perimeters in this way would be equivalent to taking the measurements of an aggregate as it grows.
The Sierpinski triangle can also be equivalently constructed in a top-down way by beginning with a
primary triangle of side length G1 . At stage 2, we divide it into 4 triangles and cut the middle one out,
leaving an object of side length G1 made up of smaller triangles of side length G2 = G1 /2. At stage 3, we
take each solid triangle, divide them up into 4 equal triangles and cut out the middle one. Now we are left
with a triangular object of side length G1 , made up of smaller triangles of side length G3 = G1 /4. Tracking
areas and perimeters in this way would be like taking a fully formed image and measuring at higher and
higher resolution, seeing greater detail. In an ideal fractal like this triangle, the bottom-up and top-down
approach are equivalent, differing only in scale. In some situations, the top-down approach is easier to use,
while in aggregation processes, the bottom-up approach is a more natural fit.
The fractal dimension of the Sierpinski triangle is known and can be obtained from the similarity dimen-
sion given by
log(N )
D= , (11)
log (1/r)
where N is the number of copies of each object generated at each stage and r is the ratio of the lengths of
the original and the copy. From a top-down perspective, we generate 3 copies of the primary particle, each of
which has half of the characteristic length. Thus, the similarity dimension is given by D = log(3)/ log(2) ≈
1.5850

6
 n=1 n=2 n=3

G1 G1 G1
g1 G3
G2
g1 g1
Figure 2: The Sierpinski triangle at the first three stages of n. The bottom-up construction is measured in units of g and is
growing in size. The top-down construction measured in units of G, and is maintaining its characteristic size while smaller and
smaller details are inscribed.

For the top-down approach, Mandelbrot’s perimeter-area method [13] requires that the measurements of
perimeter and area at each stage must be made in units of the yardstick (resolution). That is, at stage n
we can resolve details down to length scale Gn , so the perimeter and area are measured in units of Gn and
G2n . The perimeter of the overall aggregate is constant for all stages and is equal to Pc = P1 = 3G1 . We
do, however, need the characteristic perimeter in units of Gn by noting that G1 = 2n−1 Gn , we find that
Pc = p̂c Gn , where
p̂c (n) = 3 × 2n−1 . (12)

From a bottom-up perspective, the characteristic perimeter of the aggregate depends n, the iteration
number. That is pc = pc (n). If we take pc to be the perimeter of the overarching triangle and the perimeter
doubles at each stage, we find
pc (n) = 3 × 2n−1 , (13)

where pc is measured in units of g1 .

As p̂c = pc , we note that the top-down method with rescaling at each step gives us the equivalent method
to the bottom-up. As the two perspectives are equivalent, we will henceforth obtain the perimeter and area
methods from a bottom-up perspective.
The intrinsic perimeter will be the total length of the solid/void boundary. That is, the intrinsic perimeter
is the sum of the perimeters of the individual primary particles as they only contact infinitesimally. The
number of primary triangles N at stage n is given by

N = 3n−1 . (14)

Given that the perimeter of the primary particle is equal to 3, the total intrinsic perimeter is given by

ps (n) = 3N = 3n , (15)

7
in units of g1 . The characteristic length would be the side length of the overarching triangle. Thus we find

lc (n) = 2n−1 , (16)

in units of g1 . We also note that lc = pc /3.

The characteristic area would be the area of the overarching triangle. We note that at each iteration, the
total characteristic area increases by a factor of four: three for the copies of the existing aggregate, and one
for the big void. If the area of the primary particle is given by a1 , then

Ac (n) = a1 4n−1 . (17)

The intrinsic area on the other hand only increases by a factor of three, as we must not take into account
the introduced big void. Thus, we have
As (n) = a1 3n−1 . (18)

Using the above definitions, we could plot these data points on a log–log scale, find the line of best fit,
and use its slope to calculate the fractal dimensions. In this case, due to the ideal definition of this fractal,
we can simply find the slope, M , between two points, k and j by



log y(k) − log y(j)
M=

, (19)
log x(k) − log x(j)

which can usefully be rearranged to

 M
y(k) x(k)
= . (20)
y(j) x(j)
As an example, to calculate D2 , from (2) we use y = As and x = lc to find
D2
a1 3k−1 2k−1

= , (21)
a1 3j−1 2j−1

which can can be solved to find that

log(3)
D2 = ≈ 1.5850, (22)
log(2)
which is exactly what we expect from the similarity dimension. A similar calculation is then used to find
the remaining fractal dimensions and false dimensions. The results are presented in table 1 using equations
(3), (6), (8) and (10).

3.2. Sierpinski carpet

Another ideal fractal object which is similar to the Sierpinski triangle is the Sierpinski carpet, [23]. The
carpet is different in that it is composed of square primary particles. A bottom-up construction begins with
a square primary particle. To form a stage 2 aggregate, arrange 8 primary particles into a square loop
leaving a square hole in the centre the size of the primary particles. For a stage 3 aggregate, arrange 8
stage 2 aggregates in a square loop leaving a hole in the centre the size of stage 2 aggregates, (see figure 3

8
 n=1 n=2 n=3

g1 g1 g1

Figure 3: The Sierpinski carpet at the first three stages of n.

for a cartoon of the first three stages). The Sierpinski carpet differs from the triangle in that the intrinsic
perimeter is not the sum of the perimeter of the primary particles as they have a finite contact with each
other.
The Sierpinski carpet has a known similarity dimension of log(8)/ log(3) ≈ 1.8928. To obtain the fractal
dimension using the methods described above, we first define the characteristic values, given by

lc (n) = 3n−1 g1 , (23)

Pc (n) = 4 × 3n−1 g1 = 4lc (n), (24)

Ac (n) = (3n−1 )2 g12 = lc (n)2 , (25)

where lc is the length of the aggregate, and Pc and Ac are the perimeter and area of the bounding box of
the aggregate. The intrinsic values are given by

As (n) = 8n−1 g12 , (26)

4
4 × 3n−1 + 8n−1 g1 .


Ps (n) = (27)
5
We then use (20) to calculate the fractal dimension. The values of D2 and Da are straightforward to obtain
as it does not involve Ps (n). All other calculations using Ps (n) are sensitive to the stage (n) of the fractal,
so may not be accurate for low numbers of n. The most accurate fractal dimension for an object of stage n
is to use points n and n + 1 in (20). The calculated dimensions for n = 2, n = 5 and n = 10, are shown in
table 1.
We can also approximate the dimensions when n is quite large. For large n, we see that the 8n−1 term
is much larger than the 3n−1 term, and we now define

4 n−1
Ps∞ (n) ≡ Ps (n → ∞) = 8 . (28)
5

9
Figure 4: A DLA cluster composed of N = 5000 primary particles. The perimeter and area measurements are recorded at each
step of the cluster’s growth.

We can now calculate the fractal dimensions involving Ps at large values of n. For example, to obtain Dpf ,
we use (20) with y = Ac , x = Ps∞ and M = 2/Dpf . This gives
 k−1 2/Dpf
(3k−1 )2 8
= ,
(3j−1 )2 8j−1
which can be solved to find Dpf = log(8)/ log(3). The other dimensions dependent on Ps∞ , that is, D1 , Db ,
Dc and Dd can be similarly calculated. Their values for large n are displayed in table 1.

3.3. 2D DLA cluster

We can now apply our fractal analysis methods to non-ideal fractals which only have statistical self-
similarity. We simulate the formation of aggregates rather than form them experimentally, as a complete
knowledge of their components will assist this demonstration. The computational formation of DLA clusters
can often be categorised by on-lattice [24] and off-lattice [25] simulations. We opt to use an off-lattice
simulation as it is a better representation of real-world aggregates. We begin with a single primary particle
“seed” in the centre of a domain. One at a time, primary particles are generated on some random position
on an outer circle and these particles take a random walk until they collide with the seed. Once it collides
with the seed, it sticks, forming a larger aggregate. Particles that wander beyond a certain distance from
the seed are discarded. A new particle is then generated and wanders until it collides with the aggregate
and so on. An example aggregate comprised of N = 5000 particles is shown in figure 4.
The number and position of each primary particle is recorded, so its mass (intrinsic area) is tracked
as it grows. The primary particles are identical circles of radius rc , meaning the total intrinsic area of an

10
aggregate is given by
As (N ) = N πrc2 , (29)

where N is the number of primary particles in the aggregate. Alternatively, we could generate an image of
the aggregate, and calculate the intrinsic area and perimeter, however, then we would have to consider noise
and resolution issues. Here we are simply demonstrating the pitfalls of fractal analysis even in the most ideal
cases.
When two primary circles collide and stick together, they are only touching infinitesimally, so the intrinsic
perimeter of the two particles stuck together is equal to sum of the individual perimeters of the primary
particles. This is more similar to the Sierpinski triangle and unlike the carpet. Thus we have

Ps (N ) = 2N πrc . (30)

The characteristic length can be measured a number of ways. The Feret diameter, or the radius of a
minimal circle which encloses the aggregate, are both appropriate. Here we use the radius of gyration, rg ,
which is given by v
u
u1 XN
rg (N ) = t (r k − r mean )2 , (31)
N
k=1

where r k is the position vector of primary particle k and r mean is the centre of mass of the aggregate, which
is usually (but not necessarily) close to the seed particle. The radius of gyration is chosen as it is statistically
stable. Using rg as the characteristic length, lc , the characteristic perimeter would be the perimeter of a
circle of radius rg . Similarly, the area of this circle would be the characteristic area. Thus we have the
relations
lc (N ) = rg (N ), Pc = 2πrg (N ), Ac = πrg (N )2 . (32)

We simulate an aggregate growing up to N = 5000, with N and rg recorded each time a primary particle
is added. Using the above definitions for the various fractal dimensions, we can plot the growth data on a
log–log scale and find the line of best fit. The slope of the line of best fit yields the fractal dimension. These
scatter plots are shown in figure 5. and the results shown in table 1 and discussed in section 4.

3.4. Koch snowflake

The Koch snowflake is an island-type fractal, based on the curve described by Koch [26]. It is constructed
by taking an equilateral triangle line, removing the middle third of each line segment and replacing it with the
other two sides of an equilateral triangle. At each step, the number of equal-length line segments increases
by a factor of 4 while their length decreases to a third. Figure 6 shows a cartoon of the first three stages.
The Koch snowflake has a known similarity dimension of D = log(4)/ log(3) ≈ 1.2619. This fractal is
straightforward to analyse in a top-down fashion. To assign characteristic area and perimeter values, we

11
 8.5 10

8 9.5

7.5 9
Log(A s )

Log(P s )
7 8.5

6.5 8
Slope = 1.6950 Slope = 1.6950

6 7.5

5.5 7
4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
Log(P c ) Log(l c )

(a) Given the slope, D2 = 1.6950, Da = 1.1799. (b) Given the slope, D1 = 1.6950.

9.5 8.5

9
8

8.5
7.5

8
Log(A c )

Log(A s )

7
7.5

Slope = 1.1799 6.5

Slope = 1
7

6
6.5

6 5.5
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Log(P s ) Log(P s )

(c) Given the slope, Dpf = 1.6951, Db = 1.1799. (d) Given the slope, Dc = 1, Dd = 2.

Figure 5: log–log scatter plots of intrinsic and characteristic measures for 500 ≤ N ≤ 5000. The slope is used to calculate the
fractal dimension.

n=0 n=1 n=2

G0 G1 G2

Figure 6: The first three stages of the Koch snowflake. Note that G0 = 3G1 = 9G2 .

12
take the measures of a bounding box which contains the Koch snowflake. An appropriate box would have
√
dimensions of G0 × (2/ 3)G0 . The characteristic measure are given by
√
2 2 4+2 3
lc (n) = G0 , Ac (n) = √ G0 , Pc (n) = √ G0 . (33)
3 3
Making use of the fact that G0 = 3n Gn we then have the useful definitions
√
n 2 4+2 3 n
lc (n) = 3 Gn , Ac (n) = √ 32n G2n , Pc (n) = √ 3 Gn . (34)
3 3
The intrinsic perimeter is straightforward and is given by
 n
4
Ps (n) = 3 × G0 = 3 × 4n Gn . (35)
3

For the intrinsic area, we take the area enclosed by the curve. We define A0 to be the area of the initial
triangle such that √
3 2
A0 ≡ As (0) = G . (36)
4 0
The area of the next stage is equal to the area of the current stage plus the area of any new triangles
made. The total area of the new triangles is given by the number of new triangles multiplied by the area of
each triangle, which is 9 times smaller than the triangles of the previous stage. Thus, we have
n  k
3 X 4
As (n) = A0 + A0 (37)
4 9
k=1

Using (36), and noting that (37) is almost a geometric series, we have
√


4 n

3 5 + 3 1 − 9
As (n) =  32n G2n (38)
4 5

In our dimension calculations, we find that the fractal dimension value can be dependent on n. To see
the behaviour for large n, we define
√
2 3 2n 2
A∞
s (n) ≡ As (n → ∞) = 3 Gn . (39)
5

The dimension calculations for finite and infinite values of n are shown in table 1. The fractal dimension
values for finite values of n are calculated by finding the slope of the appropriate measures on a log–log scale
for data points from 1 to n.

3.5. Non-fractal objects: Clusters of circular and square primary particles.

Here we use our available methods to measure the fractal dimension non-fractal clusters comprised of
circular and square primary particles. We mimic the construction of the above fractal objects by defining
clusters of order n. We define a square cluster of order n to be a grid of N = n2 primary particles arranged
in a square. See figure 7 for an illustration.

13
 n=5 n=5

Figure 7: Two square clusters made up of N = n2 = 25 primary particles. The left and right cluster are comprised of circular
and square primary particles respectively. The interior perimeter of the square primary particles is not visible. For all intents
and purposes, it is a solid 2D square.

The characteristic measures of the clusters are found by drawing a simple bounding box. The intrinsic
measurements are simply the sum of the primary particle values. Thus, for a cluster of circles we have:

lc (n) = 2rp n, ac (n) = 4rp2 n2 , pc (n) = 8rp n, ps (n) = 2πrp n2 , as (n) = πrp2 n2 ,

where rp is the radius of the circular primary particles.

For the cluster of squares we have

lc (n) = nw, ac (n) = n2 w2 , pc (n) = 4nw.

In this very special case, the characteristic and intrinsic measures are exactly the same, as there is no interior
void-space or perimeter. Thus, we have ps (n) = pc (n) and as (n) = ac (n). The calculated fractal dimensions
are shown in table 1.

4. Results.

The true and false measured dimensions of the fractals in the previous section are shown in table 1.
Across all objects, we see that Dpf = D1 , which is expected from its derivation. In all cluster-type
objects, Dpf is consistently equal to D2 , at least in the n → ∞ limit. The only exception to this rule is for
the square cluster of squares. With all primary particles sharing borders, the overall object appears to be a
2D square, as opposed to a cluster of n2 particles. Thus, we encounter a problem with the perimeter-area
method; D2 may not be recovered if the perimeter of the primary particles are obscured, either by finite
contact or by projection. The Sierpinski carpet suffers from finite contact of primary particles; it is only in
the infinite limit where the external perimeter dominates that we can correctly recover D2 .

14
Table 1: The calculation of the various fractal dimensions: D2 (from equation (2)), D1 (from equation (3)) and Dpf (from
equation (6)). Some other exponent measurements were calculated: Da (from equation (8)), Db , Dc and Dd (all from equations
(10)). ∗ The slight error in the Dpf value for the DLA cluster is due to a bias in the least-squares regression method.

Fractal dimension D2 D1 Dpf Da Db Dc Dd

Defining equation (2) (3) (6) (8) (10a) (10b) (10c)
Sierpinski triangle (cluster)
log(3) log(3) log(3) log(4) log(4)
Exact value log(2) log(2) log(2) log(3) log(3) 1 2
Approximate value 1.5850 1.5850 1.5850 1.2619 1.2619 1 2
Sierpinski carpet (cluster)
n=2 1.8928 1.2619 1.2619 1.0566 1.5850 1.5000 1.3333
n=5 1.8928 1.7879 1.7879 1.0566 1.1186 1.0587 1.8891
n = 10 1.8928 1.8919 1.8919 1.0566 1.0571 1.0005 1.9991
n → ∞ (Approximate value) 1.8928 1.8928 1.8928 1.0566 1.0566 1 2
log(8) log(8) log(8) log(9) log(9)
n → ∞ (Exact value) log(3) log(3) log(3) log(8) log(8) 1 2
DLA cluster
1.6950 1.6950 1.6951∗ 1.1799 1.1799 1.0000 2.0000
Koch snowflake (island)
n=2 2.0959 1.2619 1.2619 0.9542 1.5850 1.6610 1.2041
n=5 2.0377 1.2619 1.2619 0.9815 1.5850 1.6148 1.2385
n = 10 2.0132 1.2619 1.2619 0.9934 1.5850 1.5954 1.2536
n → ∞ (Approximate value) 2 1.2619 1.2619 1 1.5850 1.5850 1.2619
log(4) log(4) log(3) log(3) log(4)
n → ∞ (Exact value) 2 log(3) log(3) 1 log(2) log(2) log(3)
Cluster of circles (cluster)
2 2 2 1 1 1 2
Cluster of squares (special)
2 1 1 1 2 2 1

The perimeter-area method defined by Mandelbrot gives the dimension measure Dd . This measure
correctly obtains the fractal dimension for the Koch snowflake, which is an island-type fractal. For the
cluster-type fractals, Dd is not appropriate to find the fractal dimension. In fact, it seems to return integer
values. To better capture the fractal dimension across both cluster- and island-type objects, the perimeter-
area relation defined in equation (6) returning Dpf is the more reliable option.
We defined Da as a “measure of fractal dimension” where there arises confusion between intrinsic and
characteristic values. Across all cluster-type objects, we find that Da is consistently equal to 2/Dpf , and
√
therefore fails to capture the correct fractal dimension, except for the special case where Dpf = 2. For the
Koch snowflake it returns an (incorrect) integer value, as it is associated with the dimension of the area. The
only case where Da showed the “correct” value, was for the square cluster of clusters. This object is unique
in that the characteristic and intrinsic measures are equivalent, so a conflation of the two is irrelevant.
The measures D1 and Dpf consistently return the correct known dimension for all objects studied in
this research (at least for n → ∞). Thus, we must conclude that the definition of the perimeter-area fractal
dimension given by equation (6) is correct and should be used instead of equations (8) or (10). Perhaps the

15
only exception is for the cluster of squares which has the limitation that all internal perimeters are hidden.
Without knowing that an internal perimeter exists, the object is effectively a 2D square, and D1 = Dpf = 1,
which is expected.
In the 2D clusters studied in this research, D2 is a very stable measure of fractal dimension, recovering the
known value even for low values of n. For some objects, the hidden internal perimeter of primary particles
contributed to an incorrect perimeter fractal dimension (D1 , Dpf ), which was only resolved if the cluster was
large enough. We do note, however, that in the projections of 3D aggregates on to 2D, we will see similar
issues arise where the “area” of some primary particles are hidden behind others.
For the DLA cluster, the scatter plots in figure 5 are remarkably linear, so a single fractal dimension is
appropriate to describe the cluster in this size regime (as opposed to multifractal analysis in DLA [27]). The
dimensions D2 , D1 and Dpf are in excellent agreement, showing that any of these methods are appropriate
to use if we have exact knowledge of the intrinsic properties. Even then, if the primary particles were to
contact over a finite area, we would perhaps need a larger aggregate to obtain an accurate fractal dimension,
which was the case for the Sierpinski carpet. The very slight error in Dpf occurs due to the slight bias in the
least squares regression. If the axes are reversed in figure 5c, then Dpf is exactly equivalent to D1 and D2 .
If we were to erroneously calculate Da as the perimeter-area dimension, then the fractal dimension would
be too small.
The results for Dd are important, as this is the fractal dimensions one would obtain for the perimeter-area
method with no consideration for characteristic value. We see that Dd is incorrect, giving integer values for
all cluster-type objects. The only instances where Dd is correct is for the Koch curve, an island-type fractal,
and the cluster of square, which, for all intents and purposes, is also an island-type object.

5. Discussion

The main point to be taken from the results in table 1 is that there are many ways to obtain an incorrect
fractal dimension if one confuses characteristic and intrinsic measures. Given the definition of the perimeter-
area method, a study returning Da or Dd is likely, but difficult to identify given that the perimeter and area
values are rarely disclosed as characteristic or intrinsic. If Da is mistakenly given, then the correct dimension
can be obtained from equation (9).
We noted in the introduction that many authors observe an inverse relation between D2 and Dpf . For
ideal fractal objects where we have absolute knowledge of the intrinsic perimeter, this could be caused by
an erroneous measure of Da in lieu of Dpf . To verify, one can check the relationship of D1 , which should
always be equal to Dpf but is well-understood, and difficult to misinterpret. If D1 is following the behaviour
of Dpf , then it is likely that Dpf is being measured correctly and that the inverse relationship is arising from
hidden perimeters.

16
 For clusters with a hidden internal perimeter, the solution is murky. This is particularly problematic in
2D images of 3D clusters where information is lost in the projection. It is difficult to recover the true fractal
dimension of the cluster, D3 , from these images without resorting to empirical correlations. Further research
is required in this area.
It is clear from the results of table 1, that Dc and Dd are not measuring a fractal dimension, as they
often return integer values for fractal objects. To see what these values actually mean, we can rearrange
relations (2) and (3) to find that
D2 2D1
Dc = , Dd = . (40)
D1 D2
That is, Dc and Dd are simple functions of the ratio of D1 and D2 . This is consistent with the results in
table 1. If D1 = D2 , as is the case for ideal cluster-type fractals, then Dd is identically 2. For island-type
objects where D2 = 2, then Dd is identically D1 and we recover the correct dimension. If there are hidden
perimeters then it is not straightforward, though we can see that Dd is inversely proportional to D2 . If Dd is
presented as Dpf , perhaps this explains its inverse correlation with D2 . Of course, there is still the question
of whether D1 and D2 act independently for an object, which is unlikely. Ultimately, this means that if Dd
is erroneously reported alongside the correct D2 , then we can recover D1 , or equivalently, Dpf . If a paper
were to report a fractal dimension using only a intrinsic measures of area and perimeter, then they would
be obtaining Dc or Dd . If D1 is known, then D2 can be calculated from (40) or vice versa. Note that D1
and Dpf should take identical values.
While we see many examples in table 1 where D2 = Dpf , this is only the case for ideal cluster-type
fractals where we have complete knowledge of all internal perimeters. In a practical applications, this is
rarely the case and we expect D2 6= Dpf , and this does not reflect an error in the measurement of Dpf .
In this paper, we have labelled some measures of fractal dimension as “correct”, (D2 , D1 , Dpf ) and some
“incorrect” (Da , Db , Dc , and Dd ). These are “incorrect” in the sense that they are not fractal dimensions,
but they are still valid measures which may or may not be useful. Ultimately these measures need to be
converted to an equivalent D3 for the purpose of simulating or modelling aggregates in 3D. This is usually
done by using an empirically-derived correlation relation between D3 and any of the fractal dimensions
mentioned above. In that sense, it does not matter if the 2D fractal dimensions are “correct” or not, as
long as they have a consistent correlation with D3 . There does, however, lie a problem in consistency. For
example, let us say that one author (A) takes measurements of D3 and Dd for a given aggregation system.
They would then define a correlation function, f , such that

D3 = f (Dd ). (41)

Given the confusion outlined in the present paper, this hypothetical author could state that Dd is the
perimeter-area dimension. Another author (B) may seek to obtain D3 from only image analysis, obtaining

17
Dpf . Seeking a correlation between D3 and the perimeter-area dimension to calculate D3 , author B would
find the function of author A and try to calculate

D3 = f (Dpf ), (42)

but would obtain the incorrect values of D3 , as Dd 6= Dpf . To use a historical correlation, one should ensure
that the perimeter-area dimension used in the correlation (whether correct or “incorrect”) is consistent with
one’s own dimension measure.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we have demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between characteristic and intrinsic
measurements to measure the perimeter-area fractal dimension. While the distinction is not necessary for
island-type fractals for which the relation was defined, it becomes important in cluster-type objects. Using
the perimeter-area relationship incorrectly for known ideal fractals can result in incorrect dimension values,
including possible integers. Care is required to ensure consistency of measurements across the literature,
especially in the use of correlation equations to obtain D3 values.
With the core terminology defined, we can move onto issues with hidden perimeters and projection, with
the aim to improve the calculation of D3 obtained from analysis of 2D images.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Thomas Stemler and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. This
research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

References

[1] J. Gregory, C. R. O’Melia, Fundamentals of flocculation, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science

and Technology 19 (1989) 185–230.

[2] P. Meakin, Fractal aggregates in geophysics, Reviews of Geophysics 29 (1991) 317–354.

[3] H. F. Jelinek, C. L. Jones, M. D. Warfel, C. Lucas, C. Depardieu, G. Aurel, Understanding fractal

analysis? The case of fractal linguistics, Complexus 3 (2006) 66–73.

[4] S. Tang, C. M. McFarlane, G. C. Paul, C. R. Thomas, Charactersing latex particles and fractal aggre-
gates using image analyisis, Colloid and Polymer Science 277 (1999) 325–333.

[5] L. Smoczyński, H. Ratnaweera, M. Kosobucka, M. Smoczyński, Image analysis of sludge aggregates,

Separation and Purification Technology 122 (2014) 412–420.

18
 [6] B. Yang, P. Huang, S. Song, H. Luo, Y. Zhang, Hydrophobic agglomeration of apatite fines induced by
sodium oleate in aqueous solutions, Results in Physics 9 (2018) 970–977.

[7] V. Vajihinejad, J. B. P. Soares, Monitering polymer flocculation in oil sands tailings: A population
balance model approach, Chemical Engineering Journal 346 (2018) 447–457.

[8] C. Lee, T. A. Kramer, Prediction of three-dimensional fractal dimensions using the two-dimensional
properties of fractal aggregates, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 112 (2004) 49–57.

[9] F. Maggi, J. C. Winterwerp, Method for computing the three-dimensional capacity dimension from
two-dimensional projections of fractal aggregates, Physical Review E 69 (2004) 011405.

[10] D. H. de Boer, M. Stone, L. M. J. Lévesque, Fractal dimensions of individual flocs and floc populations
in streams, Hydrological Processes 14 (2000) 653–667.

[11] M. Stone, B. G. Krishnappan, Floc morphology and size distributions of cohesive sediment in steady-
state flow, Water Research 37 (2003) 2739–2747.

[12] D. Li, J. Ganczarczyk, Fractal geometry of particle aggregates generated in water and wastewater
treatment processes, Environmental Science and Technology 23 (1989) 1385–1389.

[13] B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1983.

[14] B. B. Mandelbrot, D. E. Passoja, A. J. Paullay, Fractal character of surfaces of metals, Nature 308
(1984) 721–722.

[15] P. T. Spicer, S. E. Pratsinis, Shear-induced flocculation: The evolution of floc structure and the shape
of the size distribution at steady state, Water Research 30 (1996) 1049–1056.

[16] T. Serra, X. Casamitjana, Structure of the aggregates during the process of aggregation and breakup
under a shear flow, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 206 (1998) 505–511.

[17] Z. Zhu, D. Peng, J. Dou, Changes in the two-dimensional and perimeter-based fractal dimensions of
kaolinite flocs during flocculation: a simple experimental study, Water Science & Technology 77 (2018)
861–870.

[18] B. B. Mandelbrot, How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension,
Science 156 (3775) (1967) 636–638.

[19] D. Hilbert, Über die stetige abbildung einer linie auf ein flächenstück, Mathematische Annalen 38 (1891)
459–460.

19
 [20] T. Takagi, A simple example of the continuous function without derivative, Proceedings of the Physico-
Mathematical Society of Japan 1 (1901) 176–177.

[21] A. R. Imre, Artificial fractal dimension obtained by using perimeter-area relationship on digitalized
images, Applied Mathematics and Computation 173 (2006) 443–449.

[22] W. Sierpiński, Sur une courbe dont tout point est un point de ramification, Comptes Rendus 160 (1915)
99–106.

[23] W. Sierpiński, Sur une courbe cantorienne qui contient une image biunivoque et continue de toute
courbe donnée, Comptes Rendus 162 (1916) 107–119.

[24] T. A. Witten, L. M. Sander, Diffusion-limited aggregation, a kinetic critical phenomenon, Physical

Review Letters 47 (1981) 1400–1403.

[25] A. Y. Menshutin, L. N. Shchur, Test of multiscaling in a diffusion-limited-aggregation model using an

off-lattice killing-free algorithm, Physical Review E 73 (2006) 011407.

[26] H. Koch, Sur une courbe continue sans tangente, obtenue par une construction géométrique élémentaire,
Arkiv för Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik 1 (1904) 681–702.

[27] H. E. Stanley, P. Meakin, Multifractal phenomena in physics and chemistry, Nature 335 (1988) 405–409.

20

View publication stats