## 1 Introduction
Differences were found at the separated flow region on the windward roof slope, which suggested that the region was associated with significant Re effects. [PERSON] et al. [6] compared wind pressures obtained on a full-scale Silsoe Structures Building with those from two 1:100 scaled models. It was found that the high negative pressures tended to be underestimated in the wind tunnel, which is considered to be associated with a Re effect. [PERSON] et al. [7] compared surface pressures measured on a Silsoe Structures Building at both full scale and model scale. Differences were observed in the separated flow at the windward eaves of the building based on the smoke technique for the full-scale flow visualization, which were suggested to be Re dependent. To deal with this issue, sticking paper belts on the model and adjusting the flow velocity in the wind tunnel have been extensively used in the wind-engineering community to reduce Re effects; thus, it is called high Re effects simulation. Through high Re effects simulation, model test data obtained with a low Re can approach the full-scale measurement results with a high Re. In recent years, some researchers suggested that a third reason might exist for the inaccuracies of the rigid pressure measurement model tests, which is that the aero-elastic effects and the aerodynamic damping are wrongfully ignored for those model tests (the corresponding influences are referred to as aero-elastic effects hereinafter) [9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14]. For example, [PERSON] et al. [9] developed a bi-axial forced vibration device to evaluate the aero-elastic effects of tall buildings via wind tunnel tests. It was found that the aero-elastic effects cannot be ignored for wind-induced responses of the targeted building under strong winds. [PERSON] et al. [10], [PERSON] et al. [11], [PERSON] et al. [12], [PERSON] et al. [13] and [PERSON] et al. [14] conductedwind tunnel tests to investigate the along-wind and the across-wind aerodynamic damping ratios of tall buildings, and they found that the aerodynamic damping in certain conditions appears to have a negative value, which increases the dynamic response of a tall building. Therefore, it should not be ignored in physical model tests for conservativeness. It should be realized that the above-mentioned explanations for the causes of the observed full-scale/model test differences are given by the researchers without scientific validations. In this regard, endeavors should be made to validate those explanations using reliable data. In practice, flow characteristic effects, Re effects and aero-elastic effects should be respectively quantified. Since these adverse effects are mingled for the traditional full-scale/model test comparisons, a new research scheme relying on the aero-elastic pressure measurement modeling technique is proposed and validated for future full-scale/model test comparisons in order to verify the wind tunnel pressure measurement technique by the wind engineering community in this article, which can reasonably separate the flow characteristic effects, the Re effects and the aero-elastic effects. We hope the wind engineering community can finally find the most significant adverse influence on the reliability of the traditional ABL wind tunnel pressure measurement technique after extensive comparisons using the proposed research scheme. If Re effects and flow characteristic effects are found to be as unfavorably significant as they are traditionally thought to be, they should be mitigated using corresponding approaches, i.e., sticking paper belts on the model and placing actively controlled devices in the beginning of the wind tunnel's working section [15; 16; 17; 18], respectively. If aero-elastic effects are also found to be significant, we should further explore some new ways to deal with this new practical issue.