Mass fractal dimension of soil macropores using computed tomography: from the box‐counting to the cube‐counting algorithm

By J. Perret, Shiv O. Prasher, A. Kacimov. 2003

99 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Fractal parameters of individual soot particles determined using electron tomography: Implications for optical properties (2007, methodology): “Sierpinski carpet, which have known values of Df (2.73 and 1.89, respectively [ Perret et al., 2003 ]), were used to test our method (Figure 3). The Df values we determined using the cube-counting method are 2.68 (R 2 = 0.998) and 1.86 (R 2 = 0.999), respectively, which differ from the theoretical”
Macropores and water flow in soils revisited (2013, background): “The fractal dimensions of pore networks in permeable media have been reported, but only for rather small samples [e.g., Brakensiek et al., 1992; Hatano and Booltink, 1992; Preston et al., 1993; Baveye et al., 1998; Perret et al., 1999, 2003].”
Effects of vegetation restoration on soil aggregate microstructure quantified with synchrotron-based micro-computed tomography (2012, methodology): “By extending the box-counting method to a cube-counting method, the mass fractal dimension of the 3D soil pore structure can be estimated (Perret et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2006; Kravchenko et al., 2011).”