## 1 Introduction  
Over the past 50 years, the wind engineering community has relied heavily on the traditional atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) wind tunnel simulation technique for scientific research and engineering practices. This technique has yielded theoretical achievements and ensured the safety of numerous engineering structures against strong winds. However, the reliability of ABL wind tunnel model tests has become a major concern of the wind engineering community. Countless studies have attempted to validate this simulation technique by comparing the model test and the full-scale measurement data of various engineering structures, with the results disseminated through the literature. Through extensive literature review, it becomes apparent that most full-scale/model test comparisons lead to noticeable discrepancies between the full-scale measurement results and wind tunnel data. These discrepancies can take various forms, including underestimation of mean and/or peak negative pressures at flow separation regions on low-rise building models' roofs [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6], differing local fluctuating pressures due to vortex shedding on high-rise building models [7], underestimation of dynamic structural responses in the intermediate-frequency range for aero-elastic model tests on high-rise buildings [8], differences in the root-mean-square acceleration between full-scale measurements and force balance model tests for high-rise buildings [9; 10; 11; 12; 13], much lower vertical-vortex-induced vibration amplitudes for long-span bridges obtained through section models and aero-elastic models compared to those observed on prototypes [14; 15], non-Gaussian pressure fluctuations on prototypes compared to Gaussian-distributed model test samples [13; 16; 17], and stronger coherences between wind pressure samples at different locations during model tests than full-scale measurements [17; 18]. Details of the above-mentioned full-scale/model test comparisons are listed in Table 1 for reference. Numerous researchers have attempted to explain the observed full-scale/model test discrepancies. [PERSON] et al. [19] attributed these discrepancies to the turbulence, the velocity profile, and Reynolds number (Re). [PERSON] et al. [15] linked the full-scale/model test discrepancy of the suspension bridge to Re effects and flow pattern differences. [PERSON] et al. [20] proposed that the difference in a stadium's dynamic response between the prototype measurements and the prediction using model test data and finite element calculations may result from inaccuracies in full-scale measurements, inaccurately modeled wind loads on the stadium roof in the wind tunnel, wind direction differences, turbulence intensity and scale mismatches between the two experiments, damping issues, and limitations in finite element simulation. [PERSON] [21] suggested that the observed discrepancies in comparing field measurement results on the 34-story office building in downtown Montreal with wind tunnel data resulted from the difficulty in establishing a static reference pressure for full-scale measurements, the inadequate simulation of the realistic wind velocity in the wind tunnel, and the lack of stationarity and homogeneity of the full-scale velocity field. [PERSON] et al. [1] proposed that their full-scale/model test discrepancies observed were likely due to inadequate simulation of turbulence intensities in the wind tunnel, small-scale turbulence content in the wind tunnel, inaccurate details of the scaled model, different