## 4 Researchers' Explanations of the Observed Full-Scale/Model Test Discrepancies
[46] suggested that the difference in the stadium's dynamic responses between the prototype measurements and the prediction utilizing model test data and finite element calculations might be attributed to inaccuracy in the full-scale measurements, the inaccurate modeling of wind loads on the roof of the stadium in the wind tunnel, the difference in wind direction, the mismatches of the turbulence intensity and the turbulence scale between the two experiments, the damping issue, and limitations in the finite element simulation. Summarizing the researchers' explanations for the observed full-scale/model test discrepancies presented above, [PERSON] et al. [14], [PERSON] et al. [13, 15], and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [17] attributed the observed differences to _Re_ effects. [PERSON] [22], [PERSON] et al. [8], and [PERSON] [12] proposed that the observed differences could be associated with the fact that the complete turbulent flow characteristics of a realistic ABL flow field canhardly be truthfully simulated in a traditional, passive wind tunnel (hereinafter referred to as turbulent flow characteristic effects). [PERSON] et al. [16], [PERSON] et al. [44], and [PERSON] et al. [46] thought that both \(Re\) effects and turbulent flow characteristics effects existed. [PERSON] [26] and [PERSON] et al. [48, 50] attributed the observed differences to the fact that the non-stationary features of realistic ABL winds can hardly be truthfully simulated in a traditional passive wind tunnel (hereinafter referred to as non-stationarity effects). [PERSON] et al. [7] believed that all the above adverse effects existed. It is clear that the wind engineering community has arrived at the consistent conclusion that three main similarity problems adversely affect the reliability of the traditional ABL wind tunnel simulation technique. (1) Turbulent flow characteristics effects: Wind tunnel tests treat the empirical ABL flow characteristics presented in Codes of Practice and monographs as simulation targets. However, it was found that the turbulent flow characteristics simulated in the wind tunnel deviated from their simulation targets in many cases, causing significant negative effects. (2) \(Re\) effects: Basically, the flow separation location for flow around a bluff body without corners is sensitive to \(Re\). Since the \(Re\) for model tests is usually two orders of magnitude smaller than the \(Re\) for the prototype flow event, significant distortions might be caused to the model test data. (3) Non-stationarity effects: Hurricanes, tornadoes, downbursts, and gust fronts are non-stationary in nature and are often highly transient. Being different from those extreme wind events, the common ABL strong winds were assumed to be stationary before. However, recent studies have indicated that the realistic ABL strong winds lack stationarity compared with the flow simulated in the passive ABL wind tunnel [26, 48]. Although the non-stationarity of ABL strong winds may not be as significant as those of extreme wind events, this possibly makes the flow field harder to understand and has a significant influence on the wind effects on structures [50].