## 4 Conclusions  
The full-scale/model test comparisons performed to validate the traditional ABL wind tunnel pressure measurement technique cannot reveal the true reason for the observed inaccuracy of the technique using quantifiable data. A new research scheme for future full-scale/model test comparisons is proposed in this regard, which can reasonably separate the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & Angle (Degree) & 0 & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 90 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Mean wind pressure coefficient} & Re effects (\%) & 11.45 & 11.50 & 30.01 & 82.10 & 108.77 & 73.68 & 47.15 & 23.87 & 57.44 & 77.98 \\  & Area-elastic effects (\%) & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 6.72 & 12.01 & 0.00 \\  & Flow characteristic effects (\%) & 0.27 & 8.60 & 36.87 & 212.71 & 16.31 & 25.47 & 15.43 & 3.33 & 11.05 & 29.01 \\  & Total discrepancies (\%) & 11.69 & 3.89 & 4.20 & 44.03 & 74.72 & 29.44 & 24.45 & 36.60 & 53.85 & 129.61 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Angle (Degree) & 100 & 110 & 120 & 130 & 140 & 150 & 160 & 170 & 180 & Average \\ \cline{2-10}  & Re effects (\%) & 194.12 & 219.91 & 91.74 & 47.64 & 28.72 & 59.42 & 41.52 & 36.91 & 35.55 & 52.39 \\  & Area-elastic effects (\%) & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 9.37 & 31.06 & 6.10 & 9.38 & 10.37 & 42.42 & 1.87 \\  & Flow characteristic effects (\%) & 22.82 & 30.18 & 26.50 & 31.85 & 47.32 & 23.75 & 36.02 & 47.42 & 47.62 & 35.91 \\  & Total discrepancies (\%) & 261.24 & 123.37 & 40.93 & 10.04 & 11.13 & 28.97 & 0.36 & 18.99 & 1.13 & 41.25 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Fluctuating wind pressure coefficient} & Angle (Degree) & 0 & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 90 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Re effects (\%) & 61.24 & 52.14 & 33.56 & 28.85 & 48.37 & 94.01 & 166.57 & 189.39 & 178.43 & 123.24 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Area-elastic effects (\%) & 18.50 & 18.67 & 19.52 & 14.82 & 18.28 & 12.91 & 19.39 & 2.99 & 17.41 & 64.32 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Flow characteristic effects (\%) & 10.30 & 1.23 & 19.80 & 27.67 & 6.37 & 4.19 & 18.42 & 40.41 & 20.16 & 53.42 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Total discrepancies (\%) & 17.89 & 22.21 & 28.76 & 32.55 & 28.98 & 61.88 & 75.31 & 77.60 & 83.59 & 70.89 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Angle (Degree) & 100 & 110 & 120 & 130 & 140 & 150 & 160 & 170 & 180 & Average \\ \cline{2-10}  & Re effects (\%) & 232.63 & 403.45 & 181.01 & 82.02 & 95.29 & 69.24 & 94.26 & 66.91 & 60.41 & 97.58 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Aero-elastic effects (\%) & 23.64 & 17.57 & 45.36 & 17.79 & 42.58 & 23.72 & 29.65 & 24.92 & 23.71 & 21.14 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Flow characteristic effects (\%) & 49.71 & 40.38 & 44.12 & 9.29 & 34.19 & 30.25 & 13.29 & 1.74 & 1.90 & 20.20 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Total discrepancies (\%) & 106.83 & 252.91 & 121.29 & 63.55 & 50.48 & 68.14 & 54.82 & 27.50 & 20.05 & 49.97 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The three adverse effects in relative errors. Figure 14: Comparison of the three adverse effects for fluctuating wind pressure coefficients. mingled adverse effects on the traditional ABL wind tunnel pressure measurement results. Based on a specific case study of the Peng-cheng cooling tower, the new full-scale/model test comparison suggests that: (1) as expected, Re effects are extremely significant for pressure measurement model tests of circular cylindrical structures, which can be effectively remedied by sticking paper belts on the model and adjusting the flow velocity in the wind tunnel; (2) flow characteristic effects cannot be ignored, and they can be mitigated by placing actively controlled devices in the beginning of the wind tunnel's working section to increase the turbulence intensity and the turbulence integral scale of the simulated flow or by developing naturally grown boundary layers in large scale wind tunnels, which gives the best reproduction of the ABL characteristics; and (3) aero-elastic effects are negligible for the pressure measurement model tests of cooling towers.