## 3 Results and Discussion
### Reference Static Pressure Correction  
To obtain more accurate results for the average wind pressure coefficients, the CQU wind tunnel laboratory conducted a correction experiment for the reference static pressure. As shown in Figure 6, all test models were removed from the wind tunnel, and two pitot tubes were placed at locations P1 and P2, respectively. The P2 location corresponds to the height above the footprint area of the target building that corresponds to the top of the model. After installing the pitot tubes at positions P1 and P2, calibration measurements were conducted to obtain the difference in reference static pressure between the two points, thereby quantifying the correlation of the reference static pressure at the two points. In reality, the distance between points P1 and P2 is only 1 m.  
The results suggest that the static pressure contrast between locations P1 and P2 (i.e., \(\triangle\text{P}=\text{P}_{\infty,\text{P1}}-\text{P}_{\infty,\text{P2}}\)) exhibits a linear relationship with the square of the wind speed at point P1, hence a linear fit is performed to obtain the correction curve of static pressure between the two locations, as shown in Figure 7, and the result satisfies Equation (5) well, which can be utilized for pressure results correction [21]. At a certain wind speed, the static pressure at point P1 is higher than the actual static pressure, which will cause the calculated mean wind pressure coefficient to be lower than the actual value. The reason for this phenomenon is that the P2 point is closer to the outlet of the open-circuit wind tunnel laboratory. Furthermore, Figure 8 illustrates the differences in total pressure and static pressure between the two locations at various wind speeds; it is evident that the disparities  
Figure 5: RMS pressure coefficients for the considered CAARC models: (**a**) in the \(0^{\circ}\) direction; (**b**) in the \(90^{\circ}\) direction. Figure 6: Schematic diagram of the reference static pressure correction experiment. in pressure between the two locations are minimal, indicating uniform mean wind speed along the wind direction. Therefore, considering that the RMS wind pressure coefficient is primarily influenced by mean wind speed and fluctuating wind pressure, it can be inferred that placing the pitot tube at point P1 in the CQU wind tunnel will not significantly impact the results of the RMS wind pressure coefficients. The variations between the two wind tunnels are predominantly attributed to differences in the turbulent integral length scale, which significantly affects the fluctuating wind pressure of the test model. \[\Delta\text{P}=0.019\text{U}_{1}^{2}+0.1175 \tag{5}\]  
Based on the obtaining relationship of reference static pressure between the two locations, as defined by Equation (5), the actual static pressure at the top of the test model can be calculated by adjusting the test data of the static pressure collected at location P1 during the wind tunnel experiment. The mean wind pressure coefficient is further calculated using the corrected reference static pressure, yielding the adjusted results, as illustrated in Figure 9. The results show that after correcting the reference static pressure, the subsequently calculated mean wind pressure coefficient exhibits strong consistency, particularly at the windward measurement points. To evaluate the impact of the correction on the mean wind pressure coefficients, the percentage error before and after correction was computed using the formula in Equation (6). Figure 10 displays the comparative results for each measurement point at 2/3 H. The errors at the majority of the measurement points were reduced to within 10%. Therefore, based on the correction effects, it can be concluded that the use of indirect measurement for correcting the reference static pressure is effective.