## 4 Researchers' Explanations of the Observed Full-Scale/Model Test Discrepancies  
In the literature, many researchers gave their own explanations for their observed full-scale/model test discrepancies:  
Low-rise buildings: [PERSON] [12] thought that the poor comparison between the full-scale and the model spectra recorded over the eaves of the Silsoe Structures Building indicated differences in the approaching flow between the two experiments. [PERSON] et al. [13, 15] believed that bluff-body aerodynamics were _Re_-sensitive, and the observed full-scale/model test discrepancies of wind pressures on the Silsoe Structures Building were _Re_ effects, which were associated with the separated flow recorded on the windward roof slope of that building. [PERSON] et al. [14] suggested that the underestimation of high negative pressures on the roof of the Silsoe Structures Building in the wind tunnel tended to be related to the fact that viscous damping at the model scale attenuated the magnitude of pressure in the separated and vortex flow fields, which were fundamentally _Re_ effects. [PERSON] et al. [16] believed that the velocity profile, the turbulence, and _Re_ could be responsible for the observed discrepancies in wind pressure on low-rise buildings. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [17] briefly considered the effects of reattachment length on the pressure distribution and found that the effects could not account for the differences in wind pressure between the two experiments on the 6 m cube benchmark model. They suggested that the full-scale/model test differences could be related to _Re_. [PERSON] et al. [7] thought that the observed full-scale/model test discrepancies in their study were probably caused by the inadequate simulation of turbulence intensities in the wind tunnel, the small-scale turbulence content in the wind tunnel, the inaccurate details in the scaled model, the different stationary features of the oncoming flow between the two experiments, _Re_ effects, and Jensen number effects. High-rise buildings: According to [PERSON] [26], the discrepancies observed by comparing the field measurement pressures on a 34-storey office building in downtown Montreal with the wind tunnel data were due to the difficulty of establishing a static reference pressure for full-scale measurements, the inadequacy of realistic wind velocity information, and the lack of stationarity and homogeneity of the full-scale velocity field. In addition, [PERSON] [27] thought that the reasons for the discrepancy between full-scale measurement and model test results for Commerce Court Tower in Toronto were that: (1) the full-scale winds were not frequent enough or strong enough to provide sufficient reliable data, and (2) unsteadiness existed in the full-scale wind direction. [PERSON] et al. [40] thought that the discrepancy between the full-scale measurement results and the model test data for the RMIT building 201 was related to the relatively low sampling frequency of the LiDAR and the spatial averaging of the data over a relatively large area in the field experiment. Bridges: [PERSON] and [PERSON] [41] suggested that their full-scale/model test discrepancy for the Troise cable-stayed bridge was a result of the improvement of the bridge between the early design stage and the final project. [PERSON] [42] thought that the observed discrepancy was related to the scaling effects of the Great Belt East bridge model. [PERSON] et al. [44] attributed the full-scale/model test discrepancy of the suspension bridge to _Re_ effects and the flow pattern difference. Large-span structures: [PERSON] et al.