1: \subsection{Multi-Point Statistics: FP-Analysis}

2: 

3: In this section we present the analysis of the multi-point statistics separately for the longitudinal and transverse increments as it was described in section \ref{theory}. There are in essential three steps: First we show the validity of the Markov properties. Secondly, we calculate the Kramers-Moyal coefficients and show that the data obey a diffusion process. At last, as a verification, we integrate the resulting Fokker-Planck equation for the simple and for the conditioned probability distribution and show that the estimated Fokker-Planck equation describes correctly the data.

4: 

5: Inserting a comment on the increment definition: different from the usual increment definition, we define increments for the multi-point examinations according to $u_r:={\bf e}\cdot\left[ {\bf U}({\bf x}+{\bf r}/2)-{\bf U}({\bf x}-{\bf r}/2)\right]$. In appendix \ref{appendix}, we compare both definitions.

6: 

7: 

8: \subsubsection{Markov Properties}

9: 

10: The foundation of the following analysis is the validity of the Markov properties. They can be tested directly on data by their definition (\ref{MarkovCond}). Because of the finite numbers of measured data points we restrict ourself to the verification of $p(u_1,r_{1}|u_2,r_{2}) = p(u_1,r_{1}|u_2,r_{2};u_3,r_{3})$. Fig. \ref{fig:markov1} shows both side of this equation for the longitudinal increments for the three length scales $r_1=\Delta r$, $r_2=2\Delta r$ and $r_3=3\Delta r$ with $\Delta r=68.3\;$mm$\approx L/2$ . It can be seen that both distributions coincide. For a length scale below a certain threshold, the Markov properties are not fulfilled, see Fig. \ref{fig:markov2}. We call the associated length scale `Markov coherence length' or short `Markov length' $l_m$, i.e. above $l_m$ the Markovian properties are fulfilled, below $l_m$ not \cite{friedrich98}.

11:  

12:  \begin{figure}[tbp]

13:  \begin{center}

14: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Markov_pdf_1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

15: \end{center}

16: \caption{a) Contour plot of the single (straight line) and double conditioned probability distribution (dashed line) $p(u_1,r_{1}|u_2,r_{2})$ and $p(u_1,r_{1}|u_2,r_{2};u_3\equiv 0,r_{3})$ of the longitudinal increments for the length scales $r_1=\Delta r$, $r_2=2\Delta r$ and $r_3=3\Delta r$ with $\Delta r=68.3\;$mm. The distance between the contour lines is $\Delta p = 0.05$. b) Three cuts through the contour plot are presented for $u_2=-2\sigma$, $u_2=0$ and $u_2=-2\sigma$. It can be seen that the Markov properties are fulfilled.\label{fig:markov1}}

17: \end{figure}

18: \begin{figure}[tbp]

19: \begin{center}

20: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Markov_pdf2_1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

21: \end{center}

22: \caption{The same plot as in Fig. \ref{fig:markov1} but for smaller values $\Delta r=2.54\;\textrm{mm}\approx \lambda/3$. a) Contour plot for the single conditioned (straight line) and double conditioned probability distribution (dashed line). Deviations between both are visible. The distance between the lines correspond to a factor 10. b) Three cuts through the contour plot are presented for $u_2=-2\sigma$, $u_2=0$ and $u_2=-2\sigma$. It can be seen that the Markov properties are not fulfilled.\label{fig:markov2}}

23: \end{figure}

24: To quantify the results and to get a more objective and systematic measure for the Markov properties and the Markov length, we perform a Wilcoxon test, which compares two random samples with size $m$ and $n$ (see \cite{wilcoxon45,renner01a}). For the Wilcoxon test, one has to count the number of inversions of two samples, here for the single and double conditioned variable $u_1|_{u_2}$ and $u_1|_{u_2,u_3}$. We calculate $\langle t\rangle:=|Q-\langle Q\rangle_{\tilde{p}=p}|/\sigma(m,n)$, where $Q$ is the number of inversions calculated from the experimental data for the variables $u_1|_{u_2}$ and $u_1|_{u_2,u_3}$; $\langle Q\rangle_{\tilde{p}=p}=mn/2$ and $\sigma(m,n)=\sqrt{mn(m+n+1)/12}$ are the number of inversions and the standard deviation, respectively, assuming that both variables have the same distribution. Thus, it is $\langle t\rangle=1$ if both samples come from the same universe, or have the same distribution. Fig. \ref{fig:markov3} shows this measurement in dependence of $\Delta r$. For small $\Delta r$ the Markov properties are not fulfilled, whereas for larger distances the deviations are not significant anymore. We identify the distance $\Delta r=l_{m}$, where $\langle t\rangle$ drops to 1 as the Markov length \footnote{We have also performed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with similar results, but for our purpose the Wilcoxon test seems to be more sensitive.}. This value can be estimated by fitting an exponential function to the values and by interpreting the passage through the value 1 as the Markov length, as it is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:markov3}. The Markov properties are also fulfilled for transverse increments, but with a smaller Markov length, see Fig. \ref{fig:markov4}. The Markov length varies within 20\% with respect to the condition $u_2$ but remains about constant with respect to $r$. For the longitudinal increments the Markov length lies in the range $7.4\,\textrm{mm}<l_{m,l}<9.6\,\textrm{mm}$,  for the transversal increments the Markov length lies in the range $5.5\,\textrm{mm}<l_{m,t}<6.8\,\textrm{mm}$.  The ratio is $l_{m,l}/l_{m,t}\approx 1.4$ as it is known for the Taylor length \cite{Pope00}. Note, that up to now wee see that $l_{m}\approx \lambda$ \cite{renner01a}. The analysis of the data R$\lambda$=550 give in principle analogous results.

25: 

26: \begin{figure}[tbp]

27: \begin{center}

28: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Markov_wil_1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

29: \end{center}

30: \caption{The expectation value $\langle t\rangle$ of the Wilcoxon test in dependence of the length scale differences $\Delta r$ for the longitudinal increments with the reference scale $r_1=14.64\;$mm; a) for $u_3=0$ and b) for $u_3=\sigma$. The constant line marks the expectation value for fulfilled Markov properties, the dotted line is an exponential decay.\label{fig:markov3}}

31: \end{figure}

32: \begin{figure}[tbp]

33: \begin{center}

34: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Markov_wil_2.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

35: \end{center}

36: \caption{ The same plot as in Fig. \ref{fig:markov3} but for the transverse increments. The only differences can be found in the smaller Markov-length. \label{fig:markov4}}

37: \end{figure}

38: 

39: We conclude from the results that the `cascade' of longitudinal and transverse increments can be described by a Markov-process for stepsizes larger than the Markov length $l_m$, which becomes important again for the estimation of the Kramers-Moyal coefficients, as will be seen below.

40: 

41: \subsubsection{Kramers-Moyal Coefficients}

42: 

43: The drift coefficients $D^{(1)}$ and the diffusion coefficients $D^{(2)}$ are calculated according to Eq. (\ref{DkDef}) directly from the measured data following the procedure described in \cite{renner01a,friedrich02}. The crucial point is the estimation of the limit $\lim_{\Delta r\to 0}M^{(i)}$, see Fig. \ref{fig:limes}. Only the points with $\Delta r>l_\textrm{m}$ are used to estimate the limit. For $\Delta r<l_\textrm{m}$ the Markov-properties are violated, for $\Delta r>l_\textrm{m}$ the dependence of $M^{(i)}$ with respect to $\Delta r$ is linear, see Fig. \ref{fig:limes}. We thus use a first order polynomial to extrapolate the limit $\Delta r\to 0$. The linear dependence is the first order approximation of the limit, see \cite{friedrich02}.

44: \begin{figure}[tbp]

45: \begin{center}

46: \includegraphics[width=5in]{Limes.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

47: \end{center}

48: \caption{The coefficients $M^{(1)}$ and $M^{(2)}$ in dependence of the step-size $\Delta r$ for $r=L/2$. The two upper figures show the limit of the drift coefficient for the longitudinal and transverse increments, respectively. The two lower figures show the limit of the diffusion coefficient for the longitudinal and transverse increments. The dotted lines represent the Markov length. Circles: $u,\,v=-2\sigma$, diamonts: $u,\,v=0$, squares: $u,\,v=2\sigma$.\label{fig:limes}}

49: \end{figure} 

50: 

51: The resulting drift coefficients $D^{(1)}$ and diffusion coefficients $D^{(2)}$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:uDependence} for the length scale $r=L/2$. The drift coefficient can be approximated by a straight line with negative slope. Small deviations from this behavior are visible for the transverse component. For the diffusion coefficient qualitative differences between both increments are visible. In contrast to the transverse coefficient, the longitudinal coefficient is not symmetric under reflection $u\to -u$. This is compatible with Kolmogorov's 4/5-law, which states that the longitudinal distribution are skewed. The diffusion coefficient can be approximated by a second order polynomial, so we have

52: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ds1}

53: D^{(1)}(\alpha,r)&=&d^\alpha_1(r)\alpha\\\nonumber

54: D^{(2)}(\alpha,r)&=&d_{2}(r)+d^\alpha_{2}(r)\alpha+d^{\alpha\alpha}_{2}(r)\alpha^2,\\\nonumber

55: \end{eqnarray}

56: where $\alpha=u,v$. Due to the reflection symmetry $v\to -v$ of the transverse increments it is $d^v_{2}(r)\equiv 0$.

57: \begin{figure}[tbp]

58: \begin{center}

59: \includegraphics[width=5in]{uDependence.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

60: \end{center}

61: \caption{The Kramers-Moyal coefficients $D^{(1)}$ and $D^{(2)}$ and their dependence of the increments $u$ and $v$, respectively for $r=L/2$. a) and b) longitudinal, c) and d) transverse increments. \label{fig:uDependence}}

62: \end{figure} 

63: 

64: The drift and diffusion coefficients are the first two coefficients of the Kramers-Moyal expansion. According to the Pawula-theorem all higher coefficients vanish, if the fourth-order coefficients are zero and thus the expansion simplifies to a Fokker-Planck equation. In Fig. \ref{fig:M4} this fourth order coefficients are plotted for $r=L/2$. The coefficient $D^{(4)}$ for the longitudinal coefficient vanish within the error bars. The corresponding transversal coefficient has a value slightly above zero. But one can estimate with the Kramers-Moyal expansion that the contribution of this coefficient is less than one-hundredth in comparison to the diffusion coefficient. Therefore, we want to assume in the following a vanishing fourth order coefficient. This assumption is additionally justified below by showing that the Fokker-Planck equation describes the increment statistics well.

65: 

66: \begin{figure}[tbp]

67: \begin{center}

68: \includegraphics[width=5in]{M4.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

69: \end{center}

70: \caption{The fourth order Kramers-Moyal coefficients $D^{(4)}(u,r)$ and $D^{(4)}(v,r)$ for $r=L/2$. It can be seen that within the error-bars the longitudinal coefficient is zero. The transversal coefficient is slightly above zero, but its contribution to the Kramers-Moyal expansion is small.\label{fig:M4}}

71: \end{figure}

72: 

73: Next, the $r$-dependence in Eq. (\ref{ds1}) is investigated. It can be estimated by fitting the approximation (\ref{ds1}) to the numerical Kramers-Moyal coefficients. The result is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:CoeffCenterNorm} for the longitudinal (black squares) and transverse increments (white squares). The form is remarkably simple, it can be approximated by

74: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ds1d}

75: &&D^{(1)}_\textrm{l}:\;\;\;\;d^u_{1,\textrm{l}}(r)=\alpha^u_{1,\textrm{l}}+\beta^u_{1,\textrm{l}}r\;\;\;\\\nonumber

76: &&D^{(1)}_\textrm{t}:\;\;\;\;d^v_{1,\textrm{t}}(r)=\alpha^v_{1,\textrm{t}}+\beta^v_{1,\textrm{t}}r+\gamma^v_{1,\textrm{t}}r^2\\\nonumber

77: &&D^{(2)}_\textrm{l}:\;\;\;\;d_{2,\textrm{l}}(r)=\beta_{2,\textrm{l}}r,\;\;\;d^u_{2,\textrm{l}}(r)=\beta^u_{2,\textrm{l}}r,\;\;\;d^{uu}_{2,\textrm{l}}(r)=\alpha^{uu}_{2,\textrm{l}}\\\nonumber

78: &&D^{(2)}_\textrm{t}:\;\;\;\;d_{2,\textrm{t}}(r)=\beta_{2,\textrm{t}}r,\;\;\;

79: d^{vv}_{2,\textrm{t}}(r)=\alpha^{vv}_{2,\textrm{t}}+\beta^{vv}_{2,\textrm{t}}r+\gamma^{vv}_{2,\textrm{t}}r^2.\\\nonumber

80: \end{eqnarray}

81: Here, we denote by $X_l$ and $X_t$ the longitudinal and transverse quantities, respectively.

82: \begin{figure}[tbp]

83: \begin{center}

84: \includegraphics[width=5in]{CoeffCenterNorm.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

85: \end{center}

86: \caption{The $r$-dependence of the expansion coefficients of the Kramers-Moyal coefficients according to Eq. (\ref{ds1}) for the longitudinal (black squares; $\alpha=u$) and transverse increments (white squares; $\alpha=v$) If the notation is unique, we omit the index $l$ or $t$. \label{fig:CoeffCenterNorm}}

87: \end{figure}

88: 

89: \subsubsection{Integration of the Fokker-Planck Equation}

90: 

91: Next we want to demonstrate that the Fokker-Planck equation can describe correctly the statistics of the turbulent field. If the estimated drift and diffusion coefficients (\ref{ds1d}) are used to solve the Fokker-Planck equation numerically, the resulting distributions can be compared with the distributions estimated directly from the data. First, the numerical estimation of the single distributions $p(u,r)$ and $p(v,r)$ in dependence of $r$ are discussed, for which the distribution on the integral scale $p(u,r=L)$ and $p(v,r=L)$ are used as initial conditions. In Fig. \ref{fig:fopla} $p(u,r)$ and $p(v,r)$ are shown for several length scales. The curves are in good agreement with the data. It is important to stress that also the intermittency effects and the skewness can be described well. A similar calculation has been done for the conditional distributions $p(u,r|u_0,r_0)$ and $p(v,r|v_0,r_0)$ starting at the integral scale with Dirac's delta function $p(u,r=L|u_0,r_0=L)=\delta(u)$ and $p(v,r=L|v_0,r_0=L)=\delta(v)$ as initial condition. The solutions down to $r=L/2$ are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:trans1} and \ref{fig:trans2} in dependence of the initial value $u_0$ and $v_0$.

92: Comparing the conditional probability distributions in Fig. \ref{fig:trans1} with those in Fig. \ref{fig:trans2} it is evident that the transverse statistics relaxes faster (the contour lines are more horizontal).

93: \begin{figure}[tbp]

94: \begin{center}

95: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fopla_1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

96: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Fopla_2.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

97: \end{center}

98: \caption{The solution of the Fokker-Planck equation in comparison to the data. With the initial distribution on the scale $r=L$ the Fokker-Planck equation is solved numericaly. The curves belongs to the scales  $r=$131, 74, 41, 23, 12$\;$mm from top to bottom. For a better visibility the curves are shifted by a constant factor. a) The solution for longitudinal and b) for transverse increments. In both pictures the intermittency is visible, for the longitudinal increments also the skewness can be seen.\label{fig:fopla}}

99: \end{figure}

100: \begin{figure}[tbp]

101: \begin{center}

102: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{CondPDF_1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

103: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{CondPDFCut_1.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

104: \end{center}

105: \caption{The longitudinal conditional pdfs $p(u_2,r=L/2|u_1,r=L)$ calculated from $r=L$ down to $r=L/2$. a) The contour plot for the numerical solution (dashed line) and pdfs calculated from the data (straight line). The distance between the contour lines is $\Delta p = 0.05$. b) Cuts through the contour plot for  $u_2=-2.5\sigma,\;0,\;2.5\sigma$. The lines are the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation, the symbols represent the pdfs from the data.\label{fig:trans1}}

106: \end{figure}

107: \begin{figure}[tbp]

108: \begin{center}

109: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{CondPDF_2.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

110: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{CondPDFCut_2.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

111: \end{center}

112: \caption{The same as Fig. \ref{fig:trans1} but for the transverse increments. a) The contour plot for the numerical solution (dashed line) and pdfs calculated from the data (straight line). The distance between the contour lines is $\Delta p = 0.05$. b) Cuts through the contour plot for  $u_2=0$. The line is the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation, the symbols represent the pdf from the data.\label{fig:trans2}}

113: \end{figure}

114: 

115: On the basis of these results we conclude that the increment statistics can be well described by a Fokker-Planck equation, whose drift and diffusion coefficients are given by (\ref{ds1d}). Thus, we can examine the increment statistics by means of the drift coefficient $D^{(1)}$ and diffusion coefficient  $D^{(2)}$.

116: 

117: A closer look at the $d$-coefficients of Eq. (\ref{ds1d}) shown in Fig. \ref{fig:CoeffCenterNorm} gives insight into the differences of the longitudinal and transverse increment statistic. It can be seen in Fig. \ref{fig:CoeffCenterNorm}a) b) and d) that the absolute value of the transverse coefficients are larger than the longitudinal one. This means that the transverse cascade are in a way `faster' and more noisy. This behavior can be state more precisely by taking into account a remarkably symmetry, namely, if the $r$-dependence of the transverse increments is rescaled by the factor 2/3, i.e. $r\to 2r/3$, the dominating terms fall on top of the others, see Fig. \ref{fig:2_3_1D}. Thus the main statistical differences between longitudinal and transverse increments vanish by this rescaling. Differences only remains in the diffusion term, see Fig. \ref{fig:2_3_D2}. In section \ref{sec:discussion} we discuss this result in further detail.

118: 

119: \begin{figure}[tbp]

120: \begin{center}

121: \includegraphics[width=5in]{2_3_1D.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

122: \end{center}

123: \caption{The drift coefficient a) and the constant term of diffusion coefficient b) of the longitudinal (black squares) and transverse component (interrupted line) can be shifted on top of the other by stretching the $r$-dependence of the transverse coefficients by a factor 2/3 (white squares).\label{fig:2_3_1D}}

124: \end{figure}

125: \begin{figure}[tbp]

126: \begin{center}

127: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{2_3_D2.eps}% Here is how to import EPS art

128: \end{center}

129: \caption{The diffusion coefficient of the longitudinal increments on $r=L/2$ (black squares) and the transverse increments on $r=2/3\cdot L/2$ (white squares). It can be seen the minima for both are the same.\label{fig:2_3_D2}}

130: \end{figure}

131: 

132: 

133: