## 1 Introduction  
The development of boundary layer wind tunnels (BLWTs) has provided a dependable methodology for quantifying wind characteristics and effects, overcoming previous barriers and solidifying wind engineering as a crucial discipline. It stands as the most direct, widely employed, and reliable method for conducting research in this field [1, 2, 3]. To enhance the credibility of wind tunnel test data, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] proposed a Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Research Council (CAARC) standard tall building model. This model facilitates direct comparison of aerodynamic responses and surface pressure test results among different laboratories, aiming to standardize wind tunnel testing techniques and ensure consistency of test results among different laboratories. Furthermore, to enhance the accuracy of wind tunnel tests, related guidelines and standards are continuously evolving. The National Standard of the People's Republic of China [5] specifies the experimental requirements for wind tunnel testing and the relevant guidelines for simulating atmospheric boundary layer wind fields. The wind tunnel laboratory is a systematic experimental facility where variations in wind tunnel size, flow field quality, model size, and test wind speed can lead to disparate experimental results for the same test model [6]. Even under the same guidelines, wind tunnel tests can still produce discrepancies that may lead to underestimating wind loads on buildings, thereby increasing the risk of underestimating the danger. Therefore, it is crucial to study the error analysis and correction of wind tunnel tests conducted by different laboratories. This research provides an important reference for improving wind tunnel testing standards, enhancing result consistency across different wind tunnel laboratories, and ultimately improving the safety of wind-engineered structures. To improve the reliability of wind tunnel tests, numerous researchers have conducted parametric analysis studies on the CAARC model from both the aspects of the test model and the characteristics of the approaching wind field. Six wind tunnel laboratories conducted wind tunnel tests in boundary layer wind fields using different geometric scale ratios. Through the comparison of test results, it was found that differences in the power spectra of along-wind fluctuating wind speeds would cause variations in surface pressure measurement results. Moreover, for laboratories with model blockage ratios greater than 4%, the absolute values of the average wind pressure coefficients in the suction region were significantly larger [7]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [8] investigated the sensitivity of wind tunnel test results to changes in geometric scale ratios and along-wind turbulence intensity. The results showed that a 50% change in geometric scale ratio had a negligible effect on test results, whereas a 50% change in along-wind turbulence intensity resulted in smaller differences in structural response results. Regarding the turbulence integral scale, studies have indicated that it strongly influences the RMS wind pressure coefficient test results but has a minor impact on the average wind pressure coefficient. Increasing the turbulence integral scale enhances the fluctuation of surface wind pressure, leading to significant increases in RMS wind pressure coefficients, peak factor, and extreme wind loads [9; 10; 11]. The turbulence integral scale is a critical parameter in wind tunnel tests, typically ranging from a few meters to several hundred meters in actual atmospheric boundary layers (ABLs), as reported in field measurements [12; 13; 14]. However, due to the size limitations of conventional wind tunnels, it is difficult to accurately simulate large-scale turbulence in wind tunnel tests [15]. This turbulence integral scale plays a key role in evaluating wind loads on tall buildings exposed to atmospheric turbulence.