## 5 Wind Pressure Field Prediction
### Power Spectrum Analysis  
The measuring points in typical zones were selected, and the wind pressure power spectral densities of predicted points obtained by different interpolation methods were compared with the test results, as shown in Figure 9.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tested Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Adjacent Point**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bilinear Method**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bicubic Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Griddata V4**} \\  & & & **Method** & & **Method** \\ \hline Mean value & \(-0.207\) & \(-0.216\) & \(-0.215\) & \(-0.218\) & \(-0.270\) \\ Error of mean value & & \(4.3\%\) & \(3.9\%\) & \(5.6\%\) & \(30.8\%\) \\ RMS value & \(0.244\) & \(0.235\) & \(0.240\) & \(0.272\) & \(0.337\) \\ Error of RMS value & & \(-3.8\%\) & \(-1.6\%\) & \(11.4\%\) & \(38.3\%\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Statistical value and error of wind pressure coefficient at predicted point K2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tested Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Adjacent Point**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bilinear Method**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bicubic Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Griddata V4**} \\  & & & & \(-0.234\) & \(-0.238\) & \(-0.237\) \\ Error of mean value & & \(-5.7\%\) & \(-4.5\%\) & \(-2.8\%\) & \(-3.2\%\) \\ RMS value & \(0.315\) & \(0.283\) & \(0.322\) & \(0.300\) & \(0.339\) \\ Error of RMS value & & \(-10.2\%\) & \(2.2\%\) & \(-4.8\%\) & \(7.6\%\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Statistical value and error of wind pressure coefficient at predicted point C2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tested Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Adjacent Point**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bilinear Method**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Bicubic Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Griddata V4**} \\  & & & & & **Method** \\ \hline Mean value & \(-0.429\) & \(-0.285\) & \(-0.394\) & \(-0.332\) & \(-0.366\) \\ Error of mean value & & \(-33.6\%\) & \(-8.1\%\) & \(24.7\%\) & \(14.7\%\) \\ RMS value & \(0.242\) & \(0.301\) & \(0.226\) & \(0.240\) & \(0.  
As shown in Figure 9, from the perspective of the wind pressure power spectral density at the predicted points, within a certain error range, the surface wind pressure of the large-span roof structure is predicted with good accuracy based on the above four different interpolation methods. The overall error of the windward folded plate (C2) is the smallest, followed by the leeward folded plate (F2), and the side folded plate (E2) and the roof flat plate (K2) have larger errors than the former two. Among the four interpolation methods, the bilinear method and the bicubic method have the highest accuracy, and both have very small errors with the test results in different zones. Except for zone C, the prediction results of the adjacent point method and the Griddata V4 method have certain differences with the test results in the low-frequency region. The prediction results of the former are generally smaller than the test results, especially in zone E of the side folded plate; the latter has a large error in zone K of the roof flat plate, and the predicted results are significantly larger than the test results.