# Performance-Based Evaluation of Courtyard Design in China's Cold-Winter Hot-Summer Climate Regions
## 3 Results of Performance Evaluation
### Results of Adjusting the Ecological Buffer Space of the Courtyard
In Room 2, the improved design saves 1.8% and 8.8% of the peak and total cooling load, respectively, in summer. However, in winter, the improved design could not save energy and has a very similar performance with the initial design. In Room 3, the improved design reduces 6.2% and 10.7% of the peak and total cooling load, respectively, in summer, and reduces 14.7% and 12.8% of the peak and total heating load, respectively, in winter, when compared with the initial design. Considering the total performance of the three rooms, the improved courtyard design \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Room 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Room 2**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Initial** & **Improved** & **Reduce/** & **Initial** & **Improved** & **Reduce/** \\  & & **Design** & **Design** & **Increase** & **Design** & **Design** & **Increase** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Summer} & Average natural operative & & & & & & \\  & temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & 36.8 & 35.0 & 1.8 & 34.5 & 33.5 & 1 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Peak cooling load (\(k\)Wh) & 148.8 & 130.3 & 12.4\% & 33.1 & 32.5 & 1.8\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & Total cooling load (\(k\)Wh) & 2409.8 & 1805.1 & 25.09\% & 558.8 & 509.6 & 8.8\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Winter} & Average natural operative & & & & & & \\  & temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & 4.6 & 5.7 & 1.1 & 4.7 & 5.9 & 1.2 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Peak heating load (\(k\)Wh) & 193.7 & 124.6 & 35.7\% & 52.5 & 53.3 & \(-\)1.5\% \\ \cline{2-8}  & Total heating load (\(k\)Wh) & 3600.7 & 2297.5 & 36.1\% & 1107.8 & 1126.0 & \(-\)1.6\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Summer} & & & **Room 3** & & & & \\  & & **Initial** & **Improved** & **Reduce/** & **Initial** & **Improved** & **Reduce/** \\  & & **Design** & **Design** & **Increase** & **Design** & **Increase** \\ \cline{2-8}  & Average natural operative & 35.2 & 34.2 & 1 & - & - & - \\  & temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & 35.2 & 49.9 & 6.2\% & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-8}  & Peak cooling load (\(k\)W) & 53.2 & 49.9 & 735.4 & 10.7\% & 3792.5 & 3050.1 & 19.6\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Winter} & Average natural operative & & & & & & \\  & temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & 3.4 & 5.4 & 1 & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-8}  & Peak heating load (\(k\)W) & 116.2 & 99.1 & 14.7\% & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-8}  & Total heating load (\(k\)W) & 2453.3 & 2140.4 & 12.8\% & 7161.8 & 5563.9 & 22.3\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Reduce (%) = (initial design \(-\) improved design)/initial design.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Performance results in the three rooms in summer and winter. Figure 13: The energy use for thermal loads in rooms 1, 2, and 3 in summer under the initial design and improved design. can save about 19.6% of cooling loads in summer and about 22.3% of heating loads in winter, proving that the improved courtyard design scheme can improve performance and reduce energy use. This study compared the different design strategies for different climatic conditions in winter and summer. Looking at both the ecological buffer space and energy consumption simulation results for the initial design, it is clear that installing operable glass curtain walls in such buffer spaces as the corridor and passage, opening them wide to dissipate heat in summer and closing them to preserve heat in winter, and using additional buffer spaces for the south-facing house, improves expected performance. In real projects, attention should be paid to the impact of the ecological buffer space of courtyards on energy consumption.