Fractal Methods in Self-Potential Signals Measured in Seismic Areas

  • Luciano Telesca
  • Vincenzo Lapenna


The self-potential (SP) signals are mainly generated by the streaming potential, which causes a voltage difference when a fluid flows in a porous rock. In seismic focal areas, this effect is strengthened by the increasing accumulation strain, which can produce dilatancy of rocks. Therefore, tectonic processes can be directly revealed by the investigation of the temporal fluctuations of SP signals, which may be useful to monitor and understand complex phenomena related with earthquakes.

Can the concept of fractal be used to qualitatively and quantitatively characterize an SP signal? Fractals are featured by power-law statistics, and, if applied to time series, can be a powerful tool to investigate their temporal fluctuations, in terms of correlations structures and memory phenomena. In the present review we describe monofractal and multifractal methods applied to SP signals measured in seismic areas. Persistent scaling behaviour characterizes SP signals, which, therefore, are not realizations of a white noise process. Furthermore, in multifractal domain SP signals measured in intense-seismicity areas and those recorded in low-seismicity areas are discriminated.


Hurst Exponent Fractal Method Surrogate Data Detrended Fluctuation Analysis Multifractal Spectrum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashkenazy Y, Ivanov PC, Havlin S, Peng C-H, Goldberger AL, Stanley HE (2001) Magnitude and sign correlations in heartbeat fluctuations. Phys Rev Lett 86: 1900–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashkenazy Y, Havlin S, Ivanov PC, Peng C-K, Schulte-Frohlinde V, Stanley HE (2003) Magnitude and sign scaling in power-law correlated time series. Physica A 323: 19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry MV (1979) Diffractals. J Phys A Math Gentile 12: 781–792Google Scholar
  4. Buldyrev SV, Goldberger AL, Havlin S, Peng C-K, Stanley HE (1994) Fractals in biology and medicine: From DNA to the Heartbeat. In: Bunde A, Havlin S (eds) Fractals in Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 48–87Google Scholar
  5. Burlaga LF, Klein LW (1986) Fractal structure of the interplanetary magnetic field. J Geophys Res 91: 347Google Scholar
  6. Brace WF, Paulding Jr BW, Scholz CH (1966) Dilatancy in the fracture of cristalline rocks. J Geophys Res 71: 3939–3953Google Scholar
  7. Box GEP, Jenkins GM (1976) Time Series Analysis. Holden-Day, S. FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Colangelo G, Lapenna V, Telesca L (2003) Analysis of correlation properties in geoelectrical data. Fractals 11: 27–38Google Scholar
  9. Corwin RF, Hoover DB (1979) The SP method in geothermal exploration. Geophysics 44: 226–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuomo V, Lapenna V, Macchiato M, Serio C, Telesca L (1999) Stochastic behaviour and scaling laws in geoelectrical signals measured in a seismic area of southern Italy. Geophys J Int 139: 889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis A, Marshak A, Wiscombe W (1994) Wavelet-based multifractal analysis of non-stationary and/or intermittent geophysical signals. In: Foufoula-Georgiou E, Kumar P (eds) Wavelets in geophysics: Academic Press, New York, pp 249–298Google Scholar
  12. Di Bello G, Heinicke J, Koch U, Lapenna V, Macchiato M, Martinelli G, Piscitelli S (1998) Geophysical and geochemical parameters jointly monitored in a seismic area of Southern Apennines (Italy). Phys Chem Earth 23: 909–914Google Scholar
  13. Diego JM, Martinez-Gonzales E, Sanz JL, Mollerach S, Mart VJ (1999) Partition function based analysis of cosmic microwave background maps. Mon Not R Astron Soc 306: 427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Maio R, Patella D (1991) Basic theory of electrokinetic effects associated with earthquake. Boll Geof Teor Appl 33: 130–131Google Scholar
  15. Di Maio R, Mauriello P, Patella D, Petrillo Z, Piscitelli S, Siniscalchi A, Veneruso M (1997) Self-potential, geoelectric and magnetotelluric studies in Italian active volcanic areas. Annali di Geofisica 40: 519–537Google Scholar
  16. Dimri VP, Ravi Prakash M (2001) Scaling of power spectrum of extinction events in the fossil record. Earth Planet Sci Lett 186: 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dobrovolsky, IP (1993) Analysis of preparation of a strong tectonic earthquake. Phys Solid Earth 28: 481–492Google Scholar
  18. Dobrovolsky IP, Zubkov SI, Miachkin VI (1979) Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones. Pure Appl Geoph 117: 1025–1044Google Scholar
  19. Kantelhardt JW, Koscienly-Bunde E, Rego HHA, Havlin S, Bunde A (2001) Detecting long-range correlations with detrended fluctuation analysis. Physica A 295: 441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kantelhardt JW, Zschiegner SA, Konscienly-Bunde E, Havlin S, Bunde A, Stanley HE (2002) Multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis of nonstationary time series. Physica A 316: 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC (1966) Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting, Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Havlin S, Amaral LAN, Ashkenazy Y, Goldberger AL, Ivanov PCh, Peng C-K, Stanley HE (1999) Application of statistical physics to heartbeat diagnosis. Physica A 274: 99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayakawa M (1994) Direction finding of seismogenic emissions. In: Hayakawa M, Fujinawa Y, (eds). Electromagnetic phenomena related to earthquake prediction. Terra Sci. Pub. Co., Tokyo, pp 493–494Google Scholar
  24. Hayakawa M, Hattori K, Itoh T, Yumoto K (2000) ULF electromagnetic precursors for an earthquake at Biak, Indonesia on February 17, 1996. Geophys Res Lett 27: 1531–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayakawa M, Ito T, Smirnova N (1999) Fractal analysis of ULF geomagnetic data associated with the Guam earthquake on August 8, 1993. Geophys Res Lett 26: 2797–2800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Higuchi T (1988) Approach to an irregular time series on the basis of the fractal theory. Physica D 31: 277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Higuchi T (1990) Relationship between the fractal dimension and the power law index for a time series: a numerical investigation. Physica D 46: 254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feder J (1988) Fractals, Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Lapenna V, Patella D, Piscitelli S (2000) Tomographic analysis of SP data in a seismic area of Southern Italy. Annali di Geofisica 43: 361–373Google Scholar
  30. Lei X, Kusunose K, Nishizawa O, Satoh T (2003) The hierarchical rupture process of a fault: an experimental study. Phys Earth Planet Int 137: 213Google Scholar
  31. Lomb NR (1976) Least-squares frequency analysis of unequally spaced data. Astrophyisics and Space Science 39: 447–462Google Scholar
  32. Martinelli G, Albarello D (1997) Main constraints for siting monitoring networks devoted to the study of earthquake related hydrogeochemical phenomena in Italy. Annali di Geofisica 40: 1505–1522Google Scholar
  33. Mizutani H, Ishido T, Yokokura T, Ohnishi S (1976) Electrokinetic phenomena associated with earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 3: 365–368Google Scholar
  34. Nur A (1972) Dilatancy pore fluids and premonitory variations of ts/tp travel times. Bull Seism Soc Am 62: 1217–1222Google Scholar
  35. O’Brien GS, Bean CJ, McDermott F (2003) A numerical study of passive transport through fault zones. Earth Planet Sci Lett 214: 633–643Google Scholar
  36. Ogilvy AA, Ayed MA, Bogoslovsky VA (1969) Geophysical studies of water leakages from reservoirs. Geophys Prosp 22: 36–62Google Scholar
  37. Parasnis DS (1986) Principles of Applied Geophysics. Chapman and Hall, London/ New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Park SK (1997) Monitoring resistivity changes in Parkfield, California 1988–1995. J Geophy Res 102: 24545–24559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patella D (1997) Introduction to ground surface SP tomography. Geophys Prospect 45: 653–681Google Scholar
  40. Peng C.-K, Havlin S, Stanley HE, Goldberger AL (1995) Quantification of scaling exponents and crossover phenomena in nonstationary heartbeat time series. CHAOS 5: 82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rikitake T(1988) Earthquake prediction: an empirical approach. Tectonophysics 148: 195–210Google Scholar
  42. Scholz CH (1990) The mechanics of earthquakes and faulting. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharma PS (1997) Environmental and engineering geophysics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Shimizu Y, Thurner S, Ehrenberger K (2002) Multifractal spectra as a measure of complexity in human posture. Fractals10:103–116Google Scholar
  45. Stanley HE, Afanasyev V, Amaral LAN, Buldyrev SV, Goldberger AL, Havlin S, and Leschhorn H, Maass P, Mantegna RN, Peng C.-K., Prince PA, Salinger RA, Stanley MHR, Viswanathan GM (1996) Anomalous fluctuations in the dynamics of complex systems: from DNA and physiology to econophysics. Physica A 224: 302–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stanley HE, Amaral LAN, Goldberger AL, Havlin S, Ivanov PCh, Peng C-K (1999) Statistical physics and physiology: Monofractal and multifractal approaches. Physica A 270: 309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Telesca L, Cuomo V, Lapenna V, Macchiato M (2001) A new approach to investigate the correlation between geoelectrical time fluctuations and earthquakes in a seismic area of southern Italy. Geophys Res Lett 28: 4375–4378Google Scholar
  48. Telesca L, Lapenna V, Macchiato M (2002) Fluctuation analysis of the hourly time variability in observational geoelectrical signals. Fluctuation Noise Lett 2: L235–L242Google Scholar
  49. Telesca L, Colangelo G, Lapenna V, Macchiato M (2003) Monofractal and multifractal characterization of geoelectrical signals measured in southern Italy. Chaos Solitons & Fractals 18: 385–399Google Scholar
  50. Telesca L, Balasco M, Colangelo G, Lapenna V, Macchiato M (2004a). Investigating the multifractal properties of geoelectrical signals measured in southern Italy. Phys Chem Earth 29: 295–303Google Scholar
  51. Telesca L, Colangelo G, Lapenna V, Macchiato M (2004b) A preliminary study of the site-dependence of the multifractal features of geoelectric measurements. Annals of Geophysics 47: 11–20Google Scholar
  52. Theiler J, Eubank S, Longtin A, Galdrikian B, Farmer JD (1992) Testing for nonlinearity in time series: the method of surrogate data. Physica D 58: 77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thurner S, Lowen SB, Feurstein MC, Heneghan C, Feichtinger HC, Teich MC (1997) Analysis, Synthesis, and Estimation of Fractal-Rate Stochastic Point Processes. Fractals 5: 565–596Google Scholar
  54. Tramutoli V, Di Bello G, Pergola N, Piscitelli S (2001) Robust satellite techniques for remote sensing of seismically active areas. Annali di Geofisica 44: 295–312Google Scholar
  55. Troyan VN, Smirnova NA, Kopytenko YA, Peterson T, Hayakawa M (1999) Development of a complex approach for searching and investigation of electromagnetic precursors of earthquakes: Organization of experiments and analysis procedures. In: Hayakawa, M., (ed) Atmospheric and ionospheric electromagnetic phenomena associated with earthquakes, Terra Sci. Pub. Co., Tokyo, pp 147–170Google Scholar
  56. Vallianatos F, Tzanis A (1999) On possible scaling laws between Electric Earthquake Precursors (EEP) and Earthquake Magnitude. Geophys Res Lett 26: 2013–2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao Y, Qian F (1994) Geoelectric precursors to strong earthquakes in China Tectonophysics 233: 99–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano Telesca
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Lapenna
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Methodologies for Environmental AnalysisNational Research CouncilTito (PZ)Italy

Personalised recommendations