Geophys. J. Int.

(1998) 132, 275^282

Practical application of fractal analysis: problems and solutions

Guido Gonzato, Francesco Mulargia and Warner Marzocchi

Dipartimento di Fisica, Settore di Geo¢sica, Universita di Bologna, viale Berti-Pichat 8, Bologna 40127, Italy. E-mail: mulargia@ibogfs.df.unibo.it

Accepted 1997 July 19. Received 1997 July 17; in original form 1997 March 20

S U M M A RY
Fractal analysis is now common in many disciplines, but its actual application is often
a¡ected by methodological errors which can bias the results. These problems are com-
monly associated with the evaluation of the fractal dimension D and the range of scale
invariance R.
We show that by applying the most common algorithms for fractal analysis

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023

(Walker's Ruler and box counting), it is always possible to obtain a fractal dimension,
but this value might be physically meaningless. The chief problem is the number of
data points, which is bound to be insu¤cient when the algorithms are implemented by
hand. Further, erroneous application of regression analysis can also lead to incorrect
results.
To remedy the former point, we have implemented a convenient numerical program
for box counting. After discussing the rationale of linear regression and its application
to fractal analysis, we present a methodology that can be followed to obtain meaningful
results.
Key word: fractals.

1 IN T ROD U C T I O N
One of the most striking characteristics in geology is the self-
similarity shown by many natural objects, that is their scale
invariance. For instance, in a picture of a geological outcrop
one cannot detect the scale of length, unless a reference object
is included in the ¢eld. Another common feature is the
jaggedness and irregularity of almost every natural object. A
di¤culty that has always dogged naturalists stems from the
impossibility of classical geometry to cope with actual shapes,
making classi¢cation of objectsöhistorically, the staple of
naturalistic sciencesövery di¤cult. The capability of fractal
geometry to account for scale invariance and, at least in
principle, to ¢ll this gap, justi¢es its great success.
The concept of fractal dimension, on which fractal geometry
hinges, arises from simple theoretical considerations based on
the self-similarity of any object. Let us consider, as a practical
example of a self-similar object, a segment (Fig. 1). Choosing
an integer b, it is always possible to `cover' the segment with
N~b equal parts. Each part can be obtained from the original
segment through the similarity ratio r(N)~1/b~1/N. Next a
rectangle is considered, which can be covered by N~b2 equal
Figure 1. Self-similarity in (a) a linear segment, (b) a square and
parts; here the similarity ratio is r(N)~1/b~1/N 1=2 . The same (c) the Koch curve. The value of the object's dimension stems from the
procedure applied to a parallelepiped yields a similarity ratio application of the similarity ratio (see text), which yields integer values
r(N)~1/N 1=3 ; one can generalize this result for any dimension for Euclidean ¢gures (a) and (b), and a non-integer value for the fractal
D, where the ratio is r(N)~1/N 1=D. one (c).

ß 1998 RAS 275

GJI000 21/1/98 16:18:51 3B2 version 5.20

The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077
276 G. Gonzato, F. Mulargia and W. Marzocchi
Fractal geometry deals with a generalized non-integral
value of D, and aims at describing any self-similar object, be it
connected (e.g. the Koch curve) or not (e.g. Cantor dust)
(Mandelbrot 1983). The myriad of synthetic fractal lines that
have been invented show the two main characteristics of fractal
objects: self-similarity and non-di¡erentiability.
For geometrical fractal lines a handy formula is available
to ¢nd D directly from the parameters of the curve's con-
struction procedure. Considering the construction level l, let
Nl be the number of curve `pieces' and Ll their length. One
¢nds that
log (Nl /Nlz1 )
D~ . (1)
log (Llz1 /Ll )
So, considering the Koch curve that is obtained from the
original segment through the similarity ratio 1/3, one has
Nl /Nlz1 ~1/4; Llz1 /Ll ~1/3, whence D~1:2618 (Fig. 1c).
2 M E A S U R I NG A N O B J E C T ' S F R AC TA L
DIMENSION
While D for synthetic fractal curves can be calculated exactly
using analytical formulae, for real objects D must be esti-
mated using special algorithms, some of which are described
in the following paragraph. At the root of their useöand
consequently, at the root of fractal analysis in real-world
situationsöthere is a well-known but often overlooked
mathematical technique: linear regression.
When one looks for fractal behaviour in a data set, one has
to face the problem of how wide the range of scale invariance
should be. This is equivalent to ¢tting a straight line in a range.
As will be shown in Section 3, given a set of observations such
an operation is almost always possible, but there is no
guarantee that the results reveal any meaningful self-similarity.
In general, the linear regression procedure is crucial in deter-
mining the fractal nature of a given morphology, and hence
must be studied in great detail.
2.1 Algorithms
We now examine two of the most common algorithms for
fractal analysis: the Walker's Ruler or dividers method
(Mandelbrot 1983), and box counting (e.g. Grassberger 1993)
(hereafter WR and BC.)
2.1.1 The Walker's Ruler algorithm
The WR is the algorithm employed by Richardson (1961) in his
pioneering work on the length of border lines as a function of
the ruler length. For this method to yield good results, two
conditions must be met: the line to measure must be connected,
and the range of length should be as broad as possible. The line
is therefore continuous but need not be di¡erentiable.
To begin with (Fig. 2), one employs a wide-range map, say
1:100 000. A map divider is then set to, say, 10 cm, ¢xed on one
end of the line, then rotated n1 times until the other end is
reached; the residual, if any, is ignored. (This is an inherent
cause of error in the algorithm.) The ¢rst value of L is given by
n1 |10 km. The divider is then reduced to a length of 5 cm and
rotated n2 times: now L~n2 |5 km. This step is repeated M
times, using increasingly shorter spreads and more accurate
maps (1:50 000, 1:10 000, . . .).
GJI000 21/1/98 16:20:27 3B2 version 5.20
The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077
Figure 2. The Walker's Ruler method. To calculate the length of the
line, several straight segments (radii) of a circle arc are drawn with a
pair of map dividers. The shorter the radius, the more accurate the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023
measure.
At this stage, one has calculated M couples of L(gi ) and gi .
These values are related by the power law
L(g)~g1{D , (2)
which shows how L increases with decreasing g. It is con-
venient to rewrite relation (2) by applying a logarithmic
transformation to both sides:
log (L(g))~az(1{D) log (g) . (3)
Now one has to calculate the coe¤cients of the regression line
between the dependent variable log (L(gi )) and the independent
variable log (gi ), where i~1, . . . , M, and M is the number of g
considered 1 . The fractal dimension D is given by 1{line slope.
One of the problems with the WR method is that it has a
¢nite remainder. This is due to the fact that for each ruler
length L, part of the object is bound to be left uncovered by the
last step. There is no way to solve this inconvenience, which can
cause considerable errors in the estimate of D (Aviles, Scholz &
Boatwright 1987).
The WR method can only be employed for measuring the
D of connected self-similar objects. This limitation, together
with the remainder error and the di¤culty of objective com-
puter implementation, makes this algorithm inferior to the BC
method, which is more powerful and of more general use. We
therefore restrict our subsequent analysis to BC as the general
algorithm for fractal analysis.
2.1.2 The box counting algorithm
This procedure is based on the notion of `covering' discussed
above and comprehends di¡erent de¢nitions of `dimension'
(see below and discussion in Cowie, Vanneste & Sornette 1993).
It is more general than the WR, since it can be used on both
connected and non-connected forms. One takes eq. (2) and lets
L(g)/g~N g†, where N g† is the number of objects whose
linear dimension exceeds g, to obtain
N g†!g{D . (4)
1
The choice of gi is of paramount importance. One must select only the
values of g that are thought to belong to the range of scale invariance.
ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282

Again, it is convenient to turn eq. (4) into
log (N(g))~a{D log (g) .
To calculate D, one covers the object with a grid of squares
(or, in the case of three-dimensional surfaces, of cubes) initially
of side g1, then counts the number N(g1 ) of squares that
include part of the object. The measurement is then carried out
using side g2 , obtaining N(g2 ) squares. This step is repeated
S times, using squares of increasingly shorter side. Eventually,
one calculates the regression line between the independent
variable log (gi ) and the dependent variable log (N(gi )), where
i~1, . . . , S. D is given by the absolute value of the line
slope.
The BC algorithm is also at the root of all the main
de¢nitions of fractal dimension. In fact, high-order dimen-
sions, such as the capacity, information and correlation
dimensions (Mandelbrot 1983; Grassberger & Procaccia 1983),
can all be calculated through the BC algorithm according to
the moments formula:
X
N(g)
Mq (g)~ Pj q ,
j~1
where Pj is proportional to the sum of the objects in a box of
side g. The relation Mq (g)&g(q{1)Dq allows the calculation of
any of the above high-order dimensions, according respectively
to values of q: 0, 1, 2.
Also, in this case, self-similarity can be experimentally
inferred from the goodness of ¢t of line (5) to the data. As seen
above, in order to obtain a realistic and practically useful
estimate of D, one should employ a square side range as wide as
possible. Another requirement is that, for each step, a large
number of boxes should contain part of the object: in other
words, the object to be measured should ¢t the whole map, not
a small part of it, otherwise the result will be biased by the
Figure 3. The parabola y~x2 plotted against a linear regression line of the form y~b1 xzb0 , with b1 ~0:98 and b0 ~{0:15. There are three
systematic clusters of residuals above [regions (a) and (c)] and [region (b)] below the line, showing that the linear model ¢ts the parabola poorly despite
the high regression coe¤cient (R2 ~0:936, see main text).
ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282
GJI000 21/1/98 16:20:56 3B2 version 5.20
The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077
Practical application of fractal analysis 277
outline of the object, a common problem with incomplete
geological exposure.
(5)
2.2 Linear regression: the key to fractal dimension
All the methods for measuring scale invariance in a range and
its characterizing parameter, the fractal dimension D, rely on
linear regression. This technique attempts to verify whether a
linear relationship exists in the data, in other words, whether
a linear model can be used to describe the data. We have seen
that the equations governing the main algorithms for fractal
analysis are power laws, which can be turned into linear laws
after logarithmic transformations.
There seems to be widespread ignorance of the basic
assumptions behind regression analysis. A most common
pitfall is interpreting R2 uncritically as an indicator of the
appropriateness of the linear model. This is not correct (cf :
Draper & Smith 1981). The key tool in studying the adequacy
of linear regression is the analysis of residuals. For instance,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023
calculating R2 (see Appendix A1) for the parabola y~x2 in the
interval 0¦x¦1, one obtains a value of R2 as high as 0.936,
(6)
yet it is obvious from the residuals that the linear model is
inadequate (see below).
What marks an adequate model is, in fact, the way the
residuals scatter around the regression line. A ¢rst requirement
is that the variance (the scatter of the residuals around the line)
be constant across the whole range of Xi . Fortunately, this
requirement is not a strict one, and moderate deviations are
unlikely to give real problems.
The second requirement, and this one is vital, is that
there must be no `clumps' of residuals on either side of the
zero level. An easy way to check the presence of clumps is
through the Runs Test (see Appendix A2). Runs are de¢ned as
uninterrupted sequences of the same state. The parabola y~x2
is not ¢tted appropriately by a line in 10¦x¦1 because the
278 G. Gonzato, F. Mulargia and W. Marzocchi

signs of the residuals are (see Fig. 3): 10z, 29{ and 11z, that
is the number of runs is three. The probability that such a low
number of runs could occur by chance is less than 0.01, and
thus the linear model must be rejected despite its high
regression coe¤cient. Having too few runs is the most common
situation in fractal analysis.
We would like to stress that ¢nding a range in a data set
where a straight line can be ¢tted is always possible; in fact,
application of the algorithms yields necessarily at least two
data points, through which one can always ¢t a straight line.
This is illustrated in Fig. 4, which represents the results of a box
counting analysis performed on a tectonic map (Formazione
Marnoso Arenacea, central Apennines, Italy). The tectonic
map is shown in Fig. 4a.
Taking all the points into account and ¢tting a simple
regression line, we have D~1:249 (Fig. 4b). Fitting two

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023

Figure 4. (Top) Tectonic map representing a portion of the central Apennines (Formazione Marnoso Arenacea, Italy). The map shows the outcrops
of faults as a series of lines on the surface. (Middle) Fractal analysis performed on the data from the map shown in (a). Note that also in this case we
obtain only three systematic clusters runs of residuals, respectively (a) below, (b) above and (c) below the best-¢t line. (Bottom) The same data plotted
against two regression lines ¢tted to di¡erent parts of the data range.

ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282

GJI000 21/1/98 16:21:24 3B2 version 5.20

The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077

Figure 4. (Continued.)
separate regression lines, in the ranges 0¦x¦2:5 and 3¦x¦6,
which individually look more linear, yields D~0:974 and
D~1:468 (Fig. 4c). Finally, using only the ¢rst and last point
yields D~1:199. Which D is the right one? None, and, in
addition, we cannot even establish the correctness of the result
since in all the cases we have used too few points, which
makes the runs test useless. In fact, no test is powerful with few
data: with fewer than *15 data points, the runs test cannot
yield meaningful results, even in this case where there is a
signi¢cant range of scales in the data (six orders of magnitude
in length according to Fig. 4b.)
The lack of su¤cient data points is the real serious problem
in fractal analysis. The chief di¤culty is that the algorithms are
often implemented by hand, which is extremely tedious and
time-consuming. Thus, it is very unlikely that one will perform
all the steps necessary to obtain an adequate number of data
points. Employing computer programs is the only feasible
alternative, and we have developed a package which deals
directly with digitized images, implements a virtual screen
(size 2040|2048, increasable) with a high resolution, and
includes a recursive zooming capability. These features allows
us to perform an adequate fractal analysis by always using a
su¤cient number of data points. (The procedure is detailed in
Appendix B.)
3 CA L C U L ATI NG D I N PR AC TIC E
To sum up, in order to conduct a proper fractal analysis
one must have enough points to have a meaningful linear
regression, and the points must span a su¤ciently wide
interval to be physically meaningful. As a rule of thumb,
(1) around 20 points are needed to substantiate the issue of
linear relation, and (2) at least two or three orders of magni-
tude are needed for the self-similarity to be physically worth
considering. What would be the meaning of ¢nding self-
similarity over half an order of magnitude? Not much. There
is no general rule, but common sense suggests that self-
similarity over less than two to three orders of magnitude is
not indicative of important physical phenomena, and should
therefore be disregarded.
ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282
GJI000 21/1/98 16:21:35 3B2 version 5.20
The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077
Practical application of fractal analysis 279
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023
The ¢rst requirement is the veri¢cation that a true line runs
through the data. The problem here is aggravated by the fact
that both the WR and the BC methods have extreme points
corresponding to the ¢rst and last step (largest and least
divider spread or box side). Thus, by the curve which in general
connects these two points, there will always be a portion that
`looks approximately' linear. One has to be cautious and
ensure that the data really show linearity, that is self-similarity.
If any of the conditions discussed above do not hold, the
value of D that one ¢nds cannot be supported by any test. This
implies that a fractal analysis carried out on few data su¡ers
from a fundamental methodological £aw: scale invariance may
be present, but too few data make it impossible to discriminate
it from the case where it is not present. Thus, using too few
data is a two-fold trap: calculations are easier and positive
results are apparently guaranteed. Unfortunately, what is
really guaranteed is a wealth of incorrect and/or meaningless
results. Some examples of this, extracted from the literature,
are reported in a later section.
3.1 Obtaining bad results
In order to show how fractal analysis is often actually per-
formed, as opposed to how it ought to be performed, we shall
give one example of WR and one of BC. Both analyses will be
compared with similar examples found in the literature,
showing how easily badly incorrect results can be obtained.
Let us consider the data shown in Table 1, which were
obtained performing the WR on a line of total length 59 cm,
Table 1. Data obtained performing the Walker's Ruler algorithm on a
linear segment, total length 59 cm. gi represents the spread of the
dividers and L(gi ) the corresponding line length. The following ruler
lengths were used: 20, 10, 5 and 2 cm.
log(gi ) log(L(gi ))
2:995732 3:688879
2:302585 3:688879
1:609438 4:007333
0:693147 4:060443
280 G. Gonzato, F. Mulargia and W. Marzocchi

for which D is obviously 1. The following ruler lengths were
used: 20, 10, 5 and 2 cm. From these data one obtains the
regression line y~{0:1864+0:058xz4:2155, R2 ~0.837;
whence D~1.1864. Needless to say, this `fractal' dimension is
grossly wrong. We have made the mistake of using too few
data points, and this is the reason why we have obtained an
incorrect value of D; moreover, we have chosen too narrow a
range of `scale invariance' (barely one order of magnitude).
This kind of careless analysis is very common in literature,
and many examples could be cited irrespective of the author's
reputation. Probably the most famous is Mandelbrot (1967),
who in his renowned work presented instances of WR per-
formed with only ¢ve points. Other examples can be found in
the book edited by Scholz & Mandelbrot (1989): the article by
Norton & Sorenson (1989) is a case in point. The authors use
too few data in their analyses, and the inadequacy of the linear
model is visually clear in the charts. In the same book, the
article by Snow (1989) su¡ers from the second type of error: he
uses an adequate number of data points, but the ranges of scale
employing a computer. We have developed a suite of programs
implementing the BC algorithm (see Appendix B) and the
accompanying signi¢cance tests. We now repeat the analysis on
the Koch curve, putting all the precautions discussed into
practice.
We create a map of the Koch curve covering the whole
interval. The program starts with a box side of 2048 pixels,
which is decreased at each step. We obtain the data shown in
Table 3, and we then calculate the parameters of the regression
line and the residuals. Applying eq. (A11) we calculate the
probability PN of obtaining our sequence of runs, obtaining
0.425.
The requirements are met. We have reliably measured D to
be equal to 1:2712+0:0112. Since this holds over three orders
of magnitude, we may interpret this as a physically meaningful
self-similarity. We can then fairly safely assume that the Koch
curve is a fractal, which is, of course, well known.
If we were to perform such a fractal analysis on real
objects, the main di¤culty would probably be the lack of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023

invariance are too narrow and arbitrarily ¢xed.
As a second example, we now consider the well-known Koch
curve, whose theoretical D is *1:2618. We shall employ the BC
algorithm using a 256|256 mm square containing the curve,
and box sides 128, 64, 32, 16 and 8 mm. We obtain the data
shown in Table 2. Once again, we obtain incorrect results:
D~1:0463+0:019, R2 ~0:999. Note that if we assessed the
validity of our estimate of D from R2 , as most analysts do, we
would positively but incorrectly accept it.
As before, we have used too few data. We have found many
examples in the literature of BC analyses invalidated by an
insu¤cient number of data; in Scholz & Mandelbrot (1989),
the application of BC by Hirata (1989) is based on only six box
sides.
In general, the literature abounds with analyses a¡ected by
these methodological errors, regardless of the algorithm
employed for obtaining the data.
data. We therefore believe that fractal analysis is only worth
carrying out when the phenomenon one wants to investigate
is amenable to producing enough data to ful¢l the criteria
discussed above.
We would like to point out that there are works in literature
that meet the above criteria. For instance, Schertzer & Lovejoy
(1991) employ six orders of magnitude in their analysis of some
large sets of meteorological data. In Turcotte (1992) there are
both bad and good examples of fractal analyses, the latter
being the ones where more data were available. In particular,
phenomena linked to fragmentation exhibit clear linearity in
the charts, at least visually; the author, in fact, does not
provide the results of regression analysis. Fragmentation-
related phenomena therefore appear to be the most likely to
produce good results.

3.2 Obtaining good results Table 3. Data obtained performing the box counting algorithm on
All the above examples suggest that the main problems are the Koch curve. The computer used a box side of 2048 pixels; pthe
initial box side was 2048 and was decreased by dividing it by 2 at
caused by lack of data, either in the original source (for
each step.
example a catalogue of earthquakes in a region) or because of
the algorithm employed (for example the manual application log(gi ) log(N(gi ))
of WR or BC). In our opinion, if one cannot obtain enough 7:624619 0:000000
7:277939 0:693147
points for a reliable analysis, such an analysis is not worth 6:931472 0:693147
carrying out. 6:584791 1:609438
Provided the experimental data are not intrinsically lacking 6:238325 1:791759
nor marred by signi¢cant noise, the problem can be solved by 5:891644 2:197225
abandoning any manual approach to the algorithm and 5:545177 2:639057
5:198497 3:218876
4:852030 3:465736
4:510860 4:143135
4:158883 4:477337
Table 2. Data obtained performing the box counting algorithm on the 3:806662 4:912655
Koch curve using a 256|256 mm square containing the curve, and box 3:465736 5:288267
sides 128, 64, 32, 16 and 8 mm. gi represents the box side and N(gi ) the 3:135494 5:834811
number of boxes. 2:772589 6:269096
2:397895 6:824374
log(gi ) log(N(gi )) 2:079442 7:143618
4:852030 1:386294 1:791759 7:552237
4:158883 2:079442 1:386294 8:046549
3:465736 2:772589 1:098612 8:414939
2:772589 3:496508 0:693147 8:867287
2:079442 4:304065 0:000000 9:560152

ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282

GJI000 21/1/98 16:21:47 3B2 version 5.20

The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077
 Practical application of fractal analysis 281

4 C ONC LUS ION S A PPE N D I X A : R EG R E S S I O N A NA LYS I S

A N D T H E RU N S T E ST
We have critically reanalysed the way in which fractal dimen-
sion is commonly measured, ¢nding that the intrinsically A1 Regression analysis
boring process of counting induces the use of too few points.
Let us quickly remind ourselves of the rationale of regression
This, in turn, opens the door to false and/or meaningless
analysis. Let Xi and Yi be measured variables. The theoretical
results. We have developed a suite of computer programs to
regression line is
evaluate fractal dimension through box counting which
potentially solves this problem. The programs deal directly ^ ~b0 zb1 X ,
Y (A1)
with images, implement a virtual screen limited only by
computer memory, and include a zooming capability, which is whose unknown parameters b1 and b0 are estimated by b1
necessary to study subsets of the whole picture. Obviously, as and b0 :
P
with any algorithm, our codes are ine¡ective if the data are SXY (Xi {X )(Yi {Y)
intrinsically de¢cient. b1 ~ ~ P , (A2)
SXX (Xi {X) 2
Our suite of programs implementing the BC and tools
for regression analysis is available by anonymous FTP  {b1 X
b0 ~Y : (A3)
from ibogeo.df.unibo.it (137.204.48.138), in directory
Given the following quantities5
/pub/vsbc. X
SST ~ (Yi {Y )2 , (A4)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023

X
AC K NOW L E D GM E N T S SSR~ (Y  )2 ,
^ i {Y (A5)
This work was performed with partial contributions from X
SSD~ (Yi {Y^ i )2 , (A6)
CNR-GNV and MURST 60%.
related by
REF E R E NC E S SST ~SSRzSSD , (A7)
Aviles, C.A., Scholz, C. & Boatwright, J., 1987. Fractal analysis applied one de¢nes
to characteristic segments of the San Andreas Fault, J. geophys.
Res., 92, 331^344. SSD
Cowie, P.A., Vanneste, C. & Sornette, D., 1993. Statistical physics MSD~ , (A8)
n{2
model for the spatiotemporal evolution of faults, J. geophys. Res.,
98, 21 809^21 821. where n is the number of points,
Draper, N. & Smith, H., 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd edn, r
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. MSD
sb1 ~ , (A9)
Grassberger, P., 1993. On e¤cient box counting algorithms, Int. J. SXX
Mod. Phys. C, 4, 515^523.
Grassberger, P. & Procaccia, I., 1983. Characterization of strange
which is the estimated standard deviation of b1, and
attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett., 50, 346^349. SSR
Hirata, T., 1989. Fractal dimension of fault systems in Japan: fractal R2 ~ , (A10)
SST
structure in rock fracture geometry at various scales, in Fractals in
Geophysics, pp. 157^170, eds Scholz, H. & Mandelbrot, B.B., which is the correlation coe¤cient and measures the pro-
BirkhÌuser Verlag, Basel.  explained by the
portion of total variation about the mean Y
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1967. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical regression.
self-similarity and fractional dimension, Science, 156, 636^638.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature,
W. H. Freeman & Co, New York, NY. A2 The runs test
Norton, D. & Sorenson, S., 1989. Variations in geometric
measures of topographic surfaces underlain by fractured granitic This test is employed to compute the probability that a given
plutons, in Fractals in Geophysics, pp. 77^97, eds Scholz, H. & sequence of runs might have occurred by chance.
Mandelbrot, B.B., BirkhÌuser Verlag. If R is the number of runs of residuals i , of which p are
Richardson, L.F., 1961. The problem of contiguity: an appendix positive and n are negative, the probability PR of obtaining R
of statistics of deadly quarrels, General Systems Yearbook, 6, runs is given by
139^187.
Schertzer, D. & Lovejoy, S., 1991. Nonlinear Variability in X
R X
R
PR ~ odd(n, p, i)z even(n, p, i) , (A11)
Geophysics: Scaling and Fractals, Kluwer Academic, Norwell,
i~3,5,... i~2,4,...
MA.
Scholz, H. & Mandelbrot, B.B. (eds), 1989. Fractals in Geophysics, where odd(n, p, i) and even(n, p, i) are de¢ned as follows:
BirkhÌuser Verlag, Basel. ! ! ! !
Snow, R.S., 1989. Fractal sinuosity of stream channels, in Fractals in n{1 p{1 n{1 p{1
geophysics, pp. 99^109, eds Scholz, H. & Mandelbrot, B.B., i{1 ‡ i{3
i{3 i{1
2
BirkhÌuser Verlag, Basel. odd(n, p, i)~ 2 ! 2 2
,
Turcotte, D.L., 1992. Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics, nzp
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
n
Wirth, N., 1976. AlgorithmszData Structures~Programs, Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. (A12)

ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282

GJI000 21/1/98 16:22:18 3B2 version 5.20

The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077
282 G. Gonzato, F. Mulargia and W. Marzocchi
0 10 1
n{1 p{1 repeat
@i A@ i A NumBox/0
{1 {1 y/0
even(n, p, i)~2 2 2! . (A13) while y¦ScreenSize do
nzp
while x¦ScreenSize do
n if the box (x, y, xzside, yzside) contains
at least one pixel turned on then
If p and n are both > 10, one can employ the normal NumBox/NumBoxz1
approximation for R. The mean and variance of R are end if
2np x/xzSide

R~ , (A14)
nzp end while
y/yzSide
2np(2np{n{p) end while
p2R ~ . (A15)
(nzp)2 (nzp{1) NumSteps/NumStepsz1
LogEta(NumSteps)/log(Side)
The Z test, LogNBox(NumSteps)/log(NumBox)
 Side/Side=2
R{R
Z~ , (A16) until Side¦1
pR `calculate the regression line between the vectors

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/132/2/275/671597 by guest on 26 May 2023

is then carried out at the 0.05 or 0.01 signi¢cance level.
Note that no test is powerful with few data. If there are fewer
than *15 data points the results are not really meaningful.
APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION OF AN
AUTOMATIC BOX COUNTING ALGORITHM
Because manual execution of the BC is such a laborious and
inaccurate task, using a computer is the only sensible choice.
Here we describe the algorithm implementing the method.
Let us imagine one wants to measure the fractal dimension
of the distribution of fault lines in an area such as that shown
in Fig. 4(a): the ¢rst step is to draw a tectonic map. One
possibility is then to digitize the tectonic map and load it in the
computer memory. The following algorithm is applied:
ScreenSize/screenwidth { e.g. 1000 pixels }
Side/ScreenSize/2 { initial box side }
NumSteps/0
LogEta and LogNBox, NumSteps data each'
D/abs(line slope)
If the data are in the form of 2-D or, worse, 3-D coordinates
(for example earthquake hypocentres), implementing the
algorithm entails a potentially large amount of computer
memory and the crucial choice of a quick search algorithm,
whose discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. See
Grassberger (1993) for references, or Wirth (1976) for an
introduction to searching algorithms.
Given the general-purpose nature of BC, this is the
algorithm we chose for computer implementation. Our
program accepts in input a digitized map as a mono PCX ¢le,
and performs the BC using a virtual screen resolution of
2048|2048 pixels. The virtual screen side depends only on
computer memory: a side|side screen uses side2 /8 bytes, thus
2048|2048 uses only half a p megabyte.

The box side is divided by 2 at each step until it becomes 1,
at which point the algorithm stops. This implementation allows
one to obtain 22 points, which is enough for the runs test
described in Appendix A.

ß 1998 RAS, GJI 132, 275^282

GJI000 21/1/98 16:23:03 3B2 version 5.20

The Charlesworth Group, Huddersfield 01484 517077