Effect of Courtyard Building Morphology and Internal Facade Transparency Ratios on Energy Performance in Hot-Dry Climate Regions: The Şanlıurfa Case Study

Öz

This study examines the Energy Performance of courtyard residential typology in Hot-Dry Climate Regions using Numerical Analysis Methods, focusing on Courtyard geometry (Width-to-length ratio), Number of storeys, and Window-to-wall ratio (WWR) parameters. Within the scope of the study, three different building models (single-storey, two-storey, and three-storey) were created for Şanlıurfa province, which represents Türkiye's hot-dry climate characteristics. Building envelope thermal transmittance values were determined according to TS 825:2024 standards; in all models, the Building footprint area and courtyard area were kept constant, and the Courtyard width-to-length ratio (W/L) was parametrically varied within the range of 0.25–3.00. Window-to-wall ratio scenarios of 0%, 50%, and 100% were defined only for facades facing the courtyard; a total of 108 different scenarios were simulated using DesignBuilder (EnergyPlus engine) software. The findings obtained under Şanlıurfa's climatic conditions and the defined model assumptions can be summarized as follows: In terms of Courtyard geometry, it was determined that square and near-square forms (W/L ≈ 1.00–1.25) exhibited the lowest Energy consumption in all Number of storeys scenarios for completely Opaque (WWR: 0%) scenarios. With the increase in Window-to-wall ratio, the optimum Courtyard geometry shifted from square forms to wide rectangular forms (W/L ≈ 2.25); the WWR ≈ 50% scenario was found to produce the lowest total Energy consumption value (30.37 kWh/m²) among all parametric combinations examined. In terms of building height, it was determined that in completely Opaque buildings, three-storey structures exhibited an average of 13–15% lower Energy consumption compared to single-storey structures, and Mass compactness has the potential to reduce Energy consumption. However, it was observed that this relationship transformed with increasing transparency ratio, and under certain geometric conditions, single-storey structures could achieve lower consumption values. The simultaneous use of Narrow-Long Courtyard geometry (W/L: 0.25) and high transparency ratio (WWR: 100%) was found to create the most unfavorable combination in terms of Energy Performance, with the annual total Energy consumption reaching 44.43 kWh/m² in this scenario. All findings and design parameter recommendations presented in this study are valid within the framework of Şanlıurfa's climatic conditions, TS 825:2024 building envelope standards, and the defined model assumptions, and it is recommended that the relevant conditions be evaluated separately before transferring to different climate regions or building typologies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Courtyard building
• Energy performance
• Hot-dry climate
• Courtyard shape factor
• Window-to-wall ratio
• Parametric simulation

Kaynakça

1. Akalp, S., & Kakdaş Ateş, D. (2025). Reassessing vernacular building envelopes for energy efficiency in hot-dry climates: A case study from Diyarbakır. International Journal of Energy Studies, 10(3), 929–949.
2. Aldawoud, A., & Clark, R. (2007). Comparative analysis of energy performance between courtyard and atrium in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 40(9), 906–910.
3. Almhafdy, A., Al-Mutairi, A., Al-Shargabi, A., & Al-Shargabi, A. (2025). Dataset on energy consumption in buildings within tropical climate based on design aspects of courtyards. Data in Brief, Article 111834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111834
4. Aloshan, M. A., & Aldali, K. M. (2025). Courtyard design for energy efficiency and thermal comfort: Machine learning insights across hot and warm climates. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 43660. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-32297-z
5. Azouqah, H., & Ariffin, A. R. M. (2025). The effect of courtyard and atrium on energy performance of buildings in hot and arid climates: A review. Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43995-025-00217-x
6. Beyhan, F. (2024). Enerji verimliliği ve Diyarbakır'da iklim odaklı bina kabuğu tasarımı. A. Karakaş, A. Ertekin, F. D. Aykal, & M. Cebe (Ed.), Diyarbakırın gelecek tasavvuru: Şehir ve mimari kent tarihinden geleceğe yolculuk içinde (ss. 113–130). Ensar Neşriyat.
7. Dikmen, Ç. B. (2011). Enerji etkin yapı tasarım ölçütlerinin örneklenmesi. Politeknik Dergisi, 14(2), 121–134. https://izlik.org/JA83ED52AM
8. Ertosun Yıldız, M., & Yıldız, M. A. (2024). Yerel mimaride pasif iklimlendirme tasarımı ve sürdürülebilirlik [Bildiri sunumu]. Conference on Climate Change, Sustainability, and International Cooperation (CLICS), Türkiye.

9. Kaya, G. N., Budak, Y., & Beyhan, F. (2024). Sıcak kuru iklim bölgelerindeki geleneksel mimarinin iklime duyarlı tasarım bağlamında incelenmesi. A. Karakaş, A. Ertekin, F. D. Aykal, & M. Cebe (Ed.), Diyarbakırın gelecek tasavvuru: Şehir ve mimari kent tarihinden geleceğe yolculuk içinde (ss. 199–221). Ensar Neşriyat.
10. Khan, H. M., Lane-Serff, G. F., & Dewsbury, J. (2023). Optimizing the design of courtyard houses for passive cooling in hot, dry regions. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 16(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2022.2134460
11. Manioğlu, G., & Koçlar Oral, G. (2015). Effect of courtyard shape factor on heating and cooling energy loads in hot-dry climatic zone. Energy Procedia, 78, 2100–2105.
12. Mohsen, M. A. (1979). Solar radiation and courtyard house forms—II: Application of the model. Building and Environment, 14(2), 185–201.
13. Muhaisen, A. S., & Gadi, M. B. (2005). Mathematical model for calculating the shaded and sunlit areas in a circular courtyard geometry. Building and Environment, 40(12), 1619–1625.
14. Muhaisen, A. S., & Gadi, M. B. (2006a). Effect of courtyard proportions on solar heat gain and energy requirement in the temperate climate of Rome. Building and Environment, 41(3), 245–253.
15. Muhaisen, A. S., & Gadi, M. B. (2006b). Shading performance of polygonal courtyard forms. Building and Environment, 41(8), 1050–1059.
16. Rajapaksha, I., Nagai, H., & Okumiya, M. (2003). A ventilated courtyard as a passive cooling strategy in the warm humid tropics. Renewable Energy, 28(11), 1755–1778.
17. Ratti, C., Raydan, D., & Steemers, K. (2003). Building form and environmental performance: Archetypes, analysis and an arid climate. Energy and Buildings, 35(1), 49–59.
18. Safarzadeh, H., & Bahadori, M. N. (2005a). Airflow in buildings with courtyards. Sharif University of Technology.
19. Safarzadeh, H., & Bahadori, M. N. (2005b). Passive cooling effects of courtyards. Building and Environment, 40(1), 89–104.
20. Tabadkani, A., Aghasizadeh, S., Banihashemi, S., & Hajirasouli, A. (2022). Courtyard design impact on indoor thermal comfort and utility costs for residential households: Comparative analysis and deep-learning predictive model. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(5), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2022.02.006
21. Tayari, N., & Nikpour, M. (2022). Effect of different proportions of courtyard buildings in hot-dry climate on energy consumption (Case study: Traditional courtyard houses of Kerman, Iran). Iranian (Iranica) Journal of Energy and Environment, 13(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.5829/ijee.2022.13.01.05
22. Turkish Standards Institution. (2024). TS 825 thermal insulation requirements for buildings.
23. Yaşa, E. (2010). Avlulu bina biçiminin farklı iklim bölgelerinde iklimsel performansa göre optimizasyonu için geliştirilen bir yöntem [Doktora tezi]. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
24. Yaşa, E., & Ok, V. (2014). Evaluation of the effects of courtyard building shapes on solar heat gains and energy efficiency according to different climatic regions. Energy and Buildings, 73, 192–199.