## 3 Results and Discussion
### Distribution Characteristic of the Fluctuating Pressure
Figure 13 illustrates the comparison of calculated peak factors for each pressure tap at 2/3 H. The values exhibit variations among different pressure taps, particularly on the lateral and leeward sides, and demonstrate disparities between the two laboratories. Specifically, in the 0\({}^{\circ}\) direction, the peak factors for the windward and lateral sides of CQU are lower than those of HIT, while the peak factor for the leeward side slightly surpasses that of HIT. Values for the leeward are smaller than those for the lateral sides in the 0\({}^{\circ}\) direction, while the reverse results are observed in the 90\({}^{\circ}\) direction. Furthermore, compared to the 0\({}^{\circ}\) direction results, differences in g values for the leeward side between the two facilities are less pronounced in the 90\({}^{\circ}\) direction. The results of Yang [11] indicated that the values of the windward surface gradually increase with \(\rm L_{u}^{x}/D\), while the values of the side surface tend to decrease with increasing \(\rm L_{u}^{x}/D\) in the range of 1.12 to 2.90. Considering the lower values of \(\rm L_{u}^{x}/D\) at CQU compared to HIT, therefore, discrepancies in between the two laboratories are mainly attributable to turbulence integral scale variations. Additionally, variations in the depth-to-width ratio can influence flow separation and vortex shedding. At the 0\({}^{\circ}\) direction, the peak factors for the leeward side are smaller than those for the side values; however, at the 90\({}^{\circ}\) direction, the trend reverses, with the leeward side exhibiting larger peak factors. Meanwhile, the difference in the leeward at the 90\({}^{\circ}\) direction is less pronounced, primarily due to the larger depth-to-width ratio, which reduces the sensitivity of the leeward side to changes in the turbulence integral scale. Figure 14 illustrates the computation of the extreme wind load coefficients using the estimated peak factor values, with the calculation formula provided by Equation (7). The depicted results reveal that the extreme value wind pressure coefficient of CQU is lower than that of HIT, indicating a more significant impact of RMS wind pressure coefficients on the extreme value wind load coefficients compared to peak factors. Additionally, the outcomes demonstrate an escalation in the extreme value wind load coefficients with an increase in the ratio of turbulent integral scale to windward face width. This trend is highly consistent with the study conducted by [PERSON] et al. in 2022 [11]. In Figure 14, the extreme wind pressure coefficients for HIT were also calculated using the peak factor of 2.5 provided in the code. The results indicate that in non-Gaussian regions, such as the side and leeward surfaces, the values given by the code underestimate the extreme wind pressure coefficients. Figure 13: Peak factors of fluctuating pressure: (**a**) in the 0\({}^{\circ}\) direction; and (**b**) in the 90\({}^{\circ}\) direction. The formulas for determining the error range of turbulent integral scale and extreme wind loads are outlined in Equations (9) and (10). Variations in turbulent integral scale between the two research facilities lead to the representation of the error range of extreme wind loads in Figure 15, where the left vertical axis signifies the error of extreme wind loads and the right vertical axis denotes the error of turbulent integral scale. With the HIT outcomes as the baseline, the magnitude of the error is evaluated. HIT's turbulent integral scale measures 0.4, whereas CQU's stands at 0.34, resulting in a 15% deviation in turbulent integral scale, and the corresponding calculated error range of extreme wind loads at 0\({}^{\circ}\) and 90\({}^{\circ}\) is projected to fall by 2.9% to 6.3% and 0.4% to 12.8%, respectively. Therefore, ensuring precise simulation of turbulent integral scale in wind tunnel experiments is important for the accurate estimating of wind loads for structures.