Nonlinear Dynamics

, Volume 96, Issue 4, pp 2413–2436 | Cite as

General fractal topography: an open mathematical framework to characterize and model mono-scale-invariances

  • Yi JinEmail author
  • Xianhe Liu
  • Huibo Song
  • Junling Zheng
  • Jienan Pan
Original Paper


In this work, we reported there are two kinds of independent complexities in mono-scale-invariance, namely to be behavioral complexity determined by fractal behavior and original one wrapped in scaling object. Quantitative characterization of the complexities is fundamentally important for mechanism exploration and essential understanding of nonlinear systems. Recently, a new concept of fractal topography (\(\mathrm {\Omega }\)) was emerged to define the fractal behavior in self-similarities by scaling lacunarity (P) and scaling coverage (F) as \(\mathrm {\Omega }(P, F)\). It is, however, a “special fractal topography” because fractals are rarely deterministic and always appear stochastic, heterogeneous, and even anisotropic. For that, we reviewed a novel concept of “general fractal topography”, \({\varvec{\Omega }}(\mathrm {{\mathbf {P}}}, \mathrm {{\mathbf {F}}})\). In \({\varvec{\Omega }}\), \(\mathrm {{\mathbf {P}}}\) is generalized to a set accounting for direction-dependent scaling behaviors of the scaling object G, while \(\mathrm {{\mathbf {F}}}\) is extended to consider stochastic and heterogeneous effects. And then, we decomposed G into \(\mathrm {{\mathbf {G}}}\left( G_+, G_-\right) \) to ease type controlling and measurement quantification, with \(G_+\) wrapping the original complexity while \(G_-\) enclosing behavioral complexity. Together with \({\varvec{\Omega }}\) and \(\mathrm {{\mathbf {G}}}\), a mathematical model \(F_\mathrm {3S}\left( {\varvec{\Omega }}, \mathrm {{\mathbf {G}}}\right) \) was then established to unify the definition of deterministic or statistical, self-similar or self-affine, single- or multi-phase properties. For demonstration, algorithms are developed to model natural scale-invariances. Our investigations indicated that the general fractal topography is an open mathematic framework which can admit most complex scaling objects and fractal behaviors.


Scale-invariance Fractal dimension Hurst exponent Porous media Fractal networks Fractal topography Self-sameness self-similarity self-affinity (3S) 

List of symbols


Space fractal dimension


Space fractal dimension in x-direction

\({\mathcal {D}}\)

Property fractal dimension


General Space fractal dimension


Mass fractal dimension


Hurst exponent


General Hurst exponent


Scaling lacunarity


Scaling lacunarity in x-direction

\(\mathrm {{\mathbf {P}}}\)

Scaling lacunarity set


Effective scaling lacunarity, scalar quantity of \(\mathrm {{\mathbf {P}}}\)


Scaling coverage

\(\mathrm {{\mathbf {F}}}\)

Scaling coverage set

\(\langle F\rangle \)

Expectation of scaling coverage


Scaling object


Regime wrapping original complexity in G


Regime enclosing behavioral complexity in G


Characteristic linear size of G

\(\mathrm {{\mathbf {l}}}\)

Vector of l

\(\mathrm {{\mathbf {L}}}\)

Range of \(\mathrm {{\mathbf {l}}}\)


Characteristic linear size of G in x-direction


Effective characteristic size of G

\({\mathcal {P}}\)

A desired property

Greek symbols

\(\mathrm {\Omega }\)

Special fractal topography

\({\varvec{\Omega }}\)

General fractal topography

\(\varphi \)


\(\rho \)

Density of desired property \({\mathcal {P}}\)

\(\epsilon \)

A dimensionless constant



Maximum values


Minimum values


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This manuscript has not been published in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have been informed and consent to this submission. We declare no competing interests (financial or non-financial) or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. In this research, all funding sources were correctly included and there are no animals involved. We have read and understood your journal’s policies, and we believe that neither the manuscript nor the study violates any of these.


  1. 1.
    Mandelbrot, B.B.: How long is the coast of britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156(3775), 636 (1967). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stanley, H.E., Meakin, P.: Multifractal phenomena in physics and chemistry. Nature 335(6189), 405 (1988). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, X., Li, N., Gu, G.C., Wang, H., Nieckarz, D., Szabelski, P., He, Y., Wang, Y., Xie, C., Shen, Z.Y., L, J.T., Tang, H., Peng, L.M., Hou, S.M., Wu, K., Wang, Y.F.: Controlling Molecular Growth between Fractals and Crystals on Surfaces. ACS Nano. 9(12), 11909 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandelbrot, B.B., Passoja, D.E., Paullay, A.J.: Fractal character of fracture surfaces of metals. Nature 308(5961), 721 (1984). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jonkers, A.R.T.: Long-range dependence in the Cenozoic reversal record. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 135(4), 253 (2003). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gneiting, T., Schlather, M.: Stochastic models that separate fractal dimension and the Hurst effect. SIAM Rev. 46(2), 269 (2004). MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bejan, A., Lorente, S.: Constructal theory of generation of configuration in nature and engineering. J. Appl. Phys. 100(4), 041301 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lanotte, A.S., Benzi, R., Malapaka, S.K., Toschi, F., Biferale, L.: Turbulence on a fractal fourier set. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 26 (2015). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turcotte, D.L.: Fractals and Choas in Geology and Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, New York (1997). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubuc, B., Quiniou, J.F., Roquescarmes, C., Tricot, C., Zucker, S.W.: Evaluating the fractal dimension of profiles. Phys. Rev. A 39(3), 1500 (1989). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schlager, W.: Fractal nature of stratigraphic sequences. Geology 32(3), 185 (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bailey, R.J., Smith, D.G.: Quantitative evidence for the fractal nature of the stratigraphic record: results and implications. P. Geologist Assoc. 116(2), 129 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koutsoyiannis, D.: Climate change, the Hurst phenomenon, and hydrological statistics. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48(1), 3 (2003). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R., Newman, M.E.J.: Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 51(4), 661 (2009). MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montanari, A., Rosso, R., Taqqu, M.S.: A seasonal fractional ARIMA model applied to the Nile river monthly flows at Aswan. Water Resour. Res. 36(5), 1249 (2000). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    West, G.B., Brown, J.H., Enquist, B.J.: A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276(5309), 122 (1997). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ivanov, P.C., Amaral, L.A.N., Goldberger, A.L., Havlin, S., Rosenblum, M.G., Struzik, Z.R., Stanley, H.E.: Multifractality in human heartbeat dynamics. Nature 399(6735), 461 (1999). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ashkenazy, Y., Ivanov, P.C., Havlin, S., Peng, C.K., Goldberger, A.L., Stanley, H.E.: Magnitude and sign correlations in heartbeat fluctuations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(9), 1900 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    King, R.D., George, A.T., Jeon, T., Hynan, L.S., Youn, T.S., Kennedy, D.N., Dickerson, B.: Characterization of atrophic changes in the cerebral cortex using fractal dimensional analysis. Brain Imaging Behav. 3(2), 154 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Popescu, D.P., Flueraru, C., Mao, Y., Chang, S., Sowa, M.G.: Signal attenuation and box-counting fractal analysis of optical coherence tomography images of arterial tissue. Biomed. Opt. Express 1(1), 268 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adler, P.M., Thovert, J.F.: Real porous media: local geometry and macroscopic properties. Appl. Mech. Rev. 51(9), 537 (1998). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonnet, E., Bour, O., Odling, N.E., Davy, P., Main, I., Cowie, P., Berkowitz, B.: Scaling of fracture systems in geological media. Rev. Geophys. 39(3), 347 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheng, Q.M.: Singularity theory and methods for mapping geochemical anomalies caused by buried sources and for predicting undiscovered mineral deposits in covered areas. J. Geochem. Explor. 122, 55 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thovert, J.F., Wary, F., Adler, P.M.: Thermal conductivity of random media and regular fractals. J. Appl. Phys. 68(8), 3872 (1990). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, G.X., Moon, F.C.: Fractal basin boundaries in a two-degree-of-freedom nonlinear system. Nonlinear Dyn. 1(3), 209 (1990). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, Y.T., Shyu, K.K., Chen, T.R., Guo, W.Y.: Using three-dimensional fractal dimension to analyze the complexity of fetal cortical surface from magnetic resonance images. Nonlinear Dyn. 58(4), 745 (2009). zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anishchenko V.S.: Fractals in nonlinear dynamics. In: Deterministic Nonlinear Systems. Fractals in Nonlinear Dynamics. Deterministic Nonlinear Systems. Springer Series in Synergetics, Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    He, Z.: Integer-dimensional fractals of nonlinear dynamics, control mechanisms, and physical implications. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 10324 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    El-Nabulsi, R.A.: Path integral formulation of fractionally perturbed lagrangian oscillators on fractal. J. Stat. Phys. 172(6), 1617 (2018). MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yu, B.M., Li, J.H.: Some fractal Characters of porous media. Fractals 9(3), 365 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Friesen, W.I., Mikula, R.J.: Fractal dimensions of coal particles. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 120(1), 263 (1987). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tyler, S.W., Wheatcraft, S.W.: Fractal processes in soil water retention. Water Resour. Res. 26(5), 1047 (1990). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sui, L., Ju, Y., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Li, A.: A quantification method for shale fracability based on analytic hierarchy process. Energy 115, 637 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jin, Y., Zhu, Y.B., Li, X., Zheng, J.L., Dong, J.B.: Scaling invariant effects on the permeability of fractal porous media. Transport Porous Med. 109(2), 433 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yousefi, M., Carranza, E.J.M.: Prediction-area (P-A) plot and C-A fractal analysis to classify and evaluate evidential maps for mineral prospectivity modeling. Comput. Geosci. 79, 69 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhao, J.N., Chen, S.Y., Zuo, R.G., Carranza, E.J.M.: Mapping complexity of spatial distribution of faults using fractal and multifractal models: vectoring towards exploration targets. Comput. Geosci. 37(12), 1958 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheng, Q.M., Agterberg, F.P.: Singularity analysis of ore-mineral and toxic trace elements in stream sediments. Comput. Geosci. 35(2), 234 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zuo, R.G., Agterberg, F.P., Cheng, Q.M., Yao, L.Q.: Fractal characterization of the spatial distribution of geological point processes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. 11(6), 394 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wheatcraft, S.W., Tyler, S.W.: An explanation of scale-dependent dispersivity in heterogeneous aquifers using concepts of fractal geometry. Water Resour. Res. 24(4), 566 (1988). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jin, Y., Dong, J.B., Zhang, X.Y., Li, X., Wu, Y.: Scale and size effects on fluid flow through self-affine rough fractures. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 105, 443 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Katz, A.J., Thompson, A.H.: Fractal sandstone pores: implications for conductivity and pore formation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1325 (1985). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wheatcraft, S.W., Cushman, J.H.: Hierarchical approaches to transport in heterogeneous porous media. Rev. Geophys. 29(S1), 263 (1991). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Molz, F.J., Rajaram, H., Lu, S.: Stochastic fractal-based models of heterogeneity in subsurface hydrology: origins, applications, limitations, and future research questions. Rev. Geophys. 42(1), RG1002 (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gaci, S.: A new method for characterizing heterogeneities from a core image using local Holder exponents. Arab. J. Geosci. 6(8), 2719 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pesin, Y.B.: Dimension Theory in Dynamical Systems: Contemporary Views and Applications. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Costa, A.: Permeability-porosity relationship: a reexamination of the Kozeny–Carman equation based on a fractal pore-space geometry assumption. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L02318 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xu, P., Yu, B.M.: Developing a new form of permeability and Kozeny–Carman constant for homogeneous porous media by means of fractal geometry. Adv. Water Resour. 31(1), 74 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jin, Y., Song, H.B., Hu, B., Zhu, Y.B., Zheng, J.L.: Lattice Boltzmann simulation of fluid flow through coal reservoir’s fractal pore structure. Sci. China Earth Sci. 56, 1519 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cai, J.C., Perfect, E., Cheng, C.L., Hu, X.Y.: Generalized modeling of spontaneous imbibition based on Hagen–Poiseuille flow in tortuous capillaries with variably shaped apertures. Langmuir 30(18), 5142 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Turner, M.J., Andrews, P.R., Blackledge, J.M.: Fractal Geometry in Digital Imaging, 1st edn. Academic Press, Orlando (1998)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jin, Y., Wu, Y., Li, H., Zhao, M.Y., Pan, J.N.: Definition of fractal topography to essential understanding of scale-invariance. Sci. Rep. 7, 46672 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yu, B.M., Li, J.H.: Fractal dimensions for unsaturated porous media. Fractals 12(1), 17 (2004). zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shokri, N., Sahimi, M.: Structure of drying fronts in three-dimensional porous media. Phys. Rev. E 85, 066312 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Perrier, E., Bird, N., Rieu, M.: Generalizing the fractal model of soil structure: the pore-solid fractal approach. Geoderma 88(3), 137 (1999). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mandelbrot, B.B.: Self-affine fractals and fractal dimension. Phys. Scr. 32(4), 257 (1985). MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lovejoy, S., Schertzer, D.: Scaling and multifractal fields in the solid earth and topography. Nonlinear Process. Geophs. 14(4), 465 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Turcotte, D.L., Newman, W.I.: Symmetries in geology and geophysics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93(25), 14295 (1996). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Madadi, M., Sahimi, M.: Lattice Boltzmann simulation of fluid flow in fracture networks with rough, self-affine surfaces. Phys. Rev. E 67(2), 026309 (2003). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Berry, M.V., Lewis, Z.V.: On the Weierstrass–Mandelbrot fractal function. Proc. R. Soc. A. 370(1743), 459 (1980). MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yan, W., Komvopoulos, K.: Contact analysis of elastic-plastic fractal surfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 84(7), 3617 (1998). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Keller, A.A., Auset, M.: A review of visualization techniques of biocolloid transport processes at the pore scale under saturated and unsaturated conditions. Adv. Water Resour. 30(6–7), 1392 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Joekar-Niasar, V., Doster, F., Armstrong, R.T., Wildenschild, D., Celia, M.A.: Trapping and hysteresis in two-phase flow in porous media: a pore-network study. Water Resour. Res. 49(7), 4244 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hunt, A.G., Sahimi, M.: Flow, transport, and reaction in porous media: percolation scaling, critical-path analysis, and effective medium approximation. Rev. Geophys. 55(4), 993 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., Unsworth, M.: Nanoscale gas flow in shale gas sediments. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 46(10), 55 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang, B.Y., Jin, Y., Chen, Q., Zheng, J.L., Zhu, Y.B., Zhang, X.B.: Derivation of permeability-pore relationship for fractal porous reservoirs using series-parallel flow resistance model and lattice Boltzmann method. Fractals 22(3), 1440005 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ghanbarian-Alavijeh, B., Hunt, A.G.: Comments on More general capillary pressure and relative permeability models from fractal geometry by Kewen Li. J. Contam. Hydrol. 140–141, 21 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Liang, Z., RONG, H.E., Chen, Q., Xu, X., SATO, J.: Fractal generation of char pores through random walk. Combust. Sci. Technol. 179(3), 637 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wang, M.R., Wang, J.K., Pan, N., Chen, S.Y.: Mesoscopic predictions of the effective thermal conductivity for microscale random porous media. Phys. Rev. E 75, 036702 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lanning, L.M., Ford, R.M.: Glass micromodel study of bacterial dispersion in spatially periodic porous networks. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 78(5), 556 (2002). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wu, M., Xiao, F., Johnson-Paben, R.M., Retterer, S.T., Yin, X., Neeves, K.B.: Single- and two-phase flow in microfluidic porous media analogs based on Voronoi tessellation. Lab Chip 12(2), 253 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chatzis, I., Dullien, F.A.L.: Application of the percolation theory for the simulation of penetration into porous media of a non wetting fluid and the prediction of the relative permeability curve. Rev. Inst. Fr. Pét. 37(2), 183 (1982). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dullien, F.A.L.: Porous Media: Fluid Transport and Pore Structure, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York (1992). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ayón, A.A., Braff, R., Lin, C.C., Sawin, H.H., Schmidt, M.A.: Characterization of a time multiplexed inductively coupled plasma etcher. J. Electrochem. Soc. 146(1), 339 (1999). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gostick, J.T.: Random pore network modeling of fibrous PEMFC gas diffusion media using voronoi and delaunay tessellations. J. Electrochem. Soc. 160(8), F731 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jin, Y., Li, X., Zhao, M.Y., Liu, X.H., Li, H.: A mathematical model of fluid flow in tight porous media based on fractal assumptions. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 108(Part A), 1078 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Moon, F.C.M.: Chaotic and Fractal Dynamics: An Introduction for Applied Scientists and Engineers. Wiley, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hilborn, R.: Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resources and EnvironmentHenan Polytechnic UniversityJiaozuoChina
  2. 2.Collaborative Innovation Center of Coalbed Methane and Shale Gas for Central Plains Economic RegionJiaozuoChina

Personalised recommendations