buildings

Article
Resilience and Systems—A Building Structure Case Example
Khalilullah Mayar * , David G. Carmichael and Xuesong Shen

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales,
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; [email protected] (D.G.C.); [email protected] (X.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The resilience of building structures—as plain technical/physical/engineering systems

or complex sociotechnical systems exposed to perturbations and change—has become increasingly
important as natural disasters are on the rise and the world is changing rapidly. Existing resilience
frameworks are focused mainly on the responses of building systems to perturbation events and their
functional recovery, while change appears to be left out. This study applies the resilience system
interpretation framework, which defines resilience in a cross-disciplinary environment as adaptation
and adaptive systems, to analyze actual and conceptual building structure systems. The system
framework, using modern control systems theory, defines resilience as the ability of the system state
and form to return to their initial or other suitable states or forms through passive and active feedback
mechanisms. A sample SMRF office building structure system is utilized to simulate the system state
and form return abilities that are demonstrated by the system functional recovery time and functional
recovery curve shape, respectively. This novel understanding of resilience accommodates a holistic
and systematic integration of both perturbation and change in the portfolios of various building
structures. The framework also provides a practical roadmap for resilience design and building of
structures that effectively respond to perturbation while dynamically adapting to change in order to
avoid obsolescence, as well as to increase the building’s useful life.

Keywords: resilience; building structures; perturbation; change; modern control systems theory

Citation: Mayar, K.; Carmichael, 1. Introduction

D.G.; Shen, X. Resilience and The resilience of building structures, viewed either as plain technical/physical/
Systems—A Building Structure Case engineering systems or complex sociotechnical systems [1] exposed to perturbations and
Example. Buildings 2023, 13, 1520. change, has become increasingly important as disasters are on the rise and the world
https://doi.org/10.3390/ undergoes rapid change. Perturbations related to extreme weather and infectious diseases
buildings13061520
topped the global risks for likelihood and impact, respectively, in the Global Risks Report
Academic Editor: Annalisa Greco 2021 [2]. Natural disasters—primarily extreme weather-related perturbations—inflict a
considerable cost on global economies, with an estimated average loss of $38 billion per
Received: 23 May 2023
year for the Australian economy alone [3,4]. The global megatrends of change in natural,
Revised: 9 June 2023
social, and technological arenas, such as climate change, globalization, urbanization, and
Accepted: 12 June 2023
digitalization, bring new challenges to the built environment, particularly with respect to
Published: 13 June 2023
how building structures are planned, designed, delivered, and operated. To ensure that the
built environment and building structure systems remain relevant in an environment that
is characterized by uncertainty and change, adaptation of system performance and useful
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. life are critical [5].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The built environment and the construction sector account for one-fifth of annual
This article is an open access article global CO2 emissions and half of all materials produced in the economy [6]. The buildings
distributed under the terms and portfolio, the largest part of the built environment, is critical to sustaining essential commu-
conditions of the Creative Commons nity functions such as housing; education; health; business; government; and other lifeline
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and critical infrastructure sectors, such as water, transportation, energy, manufacturing,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ food, and agriculture [7]. Considering the increasing trend of uncertainty, the integration
4.0/).

Buildings 2023, 13, 1520. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061520 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 2 of 17

of adaptive features into the systems of building structures is critical to avoid obsolescence,
enhance their ecological footprint, and ultimately contribute to global sustainability [5,8,9].
Despite the exponential growth in resilience literature, particularly concerning disaster
resilience, over the course of the last two decades [10], the literature on the resilience of
building structures remains chiefly constrained to structural recovery under perturbations,
ensuring only the minimum life-safety requirements specified by the relevant codes [11].
Perturbation events investigated in such studies include natural hazards such as earth-
quakes [12–16], floods [17,18], hurricanes [19,20], and fires [21–24], as well as man-made
perturbation events such as terrorism [25,26] and military action [27,28]. However, over
the course of recent years, several studies have used increasingly realistic and inclusive
approaches, such as performance-based seismic design (PBSD), and relevant tools such as
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58 [29] and the Resilience-Based
Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi) [30] methodologies to measure the resilience of build-
ing structures. However, system dynamic functionality/behavior objectives and change
appear to have been left out of the literature on resilience scenarios. This underpins the lack
of a unified and systematic treatment that addresses both perturbation and change under
one umbrella. In this study, we apply our resilience system interpretation framework [31]
to a building structure system. The framework advances a unified and cross-disciplinary
resilience system interpretation that defines resilience in terms of adaptation and adap-
tive systems, where resilience can be obtained through both passive and active feedback
structures demonstrated in the system state and form return abilities. The framework
was previously applied to simple linear and nonlinear dynamic systems of lumped mass
and simple pendulum [32], as well as to a traffic flow system. This study is an extension
of the resilience system interpretation framework to include a further complex dynamic
system of building structure. This demonstrates the universal and equal application of the
resilience system interpretation framework to various real-life engineering systems, from
a simple linear lumped-mass dynamic system to a further complex nonlinear dynamic
system of building structure, by utilizing the theoretical and practical power of modern
control systems theory—particularly passive and active feedback features—making an
original contribution to the field.
The study is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the control system methodolog-
ical framework for different system state definitions, including perturbations and change,
which is demonstrated by sample building structures categories. Section 3 analyses the
resilience system interpretation under two broad categories—the system state and form—
and their abilities to return to their initial or another suitable state and form, respectively.
A simulation scenario is presented for a sample three-story steel moment resisting frame
(SMRF) office building, along with change integration measures in a closed-loop control
setting. Lastly, Section 4 presents the discussion and conclusions.

2. Methodology and Analysis Tools

The methodology used in this study is a state-space approach based on modern
control systems theory with the fundamental variables of input (control and disturbance),
state (internal system behavior), and output (external system performance and response).
This representation systematically accommodates both the system’s passive and active
feedback structures and their interaction. The system approach has the conceptual power
to holistically accommodate every system in terms of inputs, state, and outputs in a single
or multilevel representation and allows the system designer to draw the system boundaries
as per the intent of the study. For a building structure system, this representation allows
the system boundary to be drawn around a single physical/technical/engineering, social,
organizational, or economic domain of a building structure or around a combination of
two or more thereof. It also accommodates the study of building structures on various
levels, from individual building structures to the neighborhood and city levels, under
single or multiple events of perturbation, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and fires,
including the change processes.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 3 of 17

under single or multiple events of perturbation, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes,
and fires, including the change processes.
Theconceptual
The conceptualand andpractical
practicalpower
powerof of
thethe control
control systems
systems theory
theory approach
approach allowsallows
the
the system designer to define the system state as either simply the building
system designer to define the system state as either simply the building structural design structural de-
sign features under a single event of perturbation with a perfect system
features under a single event of perturbation with a perfect system model developed from model developed
fromprinciples
first first principles
or as aorrather
as a rather
complexcomplex sociotechnical
sociotechnical systemsystem state under
state under both pertur-
both perturbation
bation
and and with
change change with imperfect
imperfect or even black-box-
or even black-box- and data-driven
and data-driven models.
models. Figure Figure 1
1 illustrates
illustrates
the the elastic
elastic design of adesign of astructure
building buildingunder
structure under
seismic orseismic
verticalor vertical
nodal nodalfrom
loading loading
the
from the material to elemental, member, and structural level, and their
material to elemental, member, and structural level, and their subsystem interactions with subsystem inter-
actions
the with
ability the ability
to adjust to adjust
the system the system
controls controls
on various ontovarious
levels maintain levels
the to maintain
desired the
system
desired system
behavior underbehavior under
perturbation perturbation
events. The use events. Thetuned
of active use of mass
activedampers
tuned mass dampers
(ATMD) in
(ATMD) buildings
high-rise in high-rise buildings
exposed exposed
to seismic to seismic
and and wind perturbation
wind perturbation events [33,34] events [33,34] is
is an example
anthe
of example of the
elemental and elemental
structural and structural
level level active
active feedback feedback
structures structures
that manage the thatsystem’s
manage
response within
the system’s the required
response withinlimits.
the required limits.

Figure 1. Multilevel
Figure1. Multilevel representation
representationof
ofthe
thestructural
structuraldesign
designof
ofaabuilding
buildingsubjected
subjectedto
tonodal
nodalloading
loading
(𝐼—the moment of inertia; 𝑟—radius of curvature). Source: Adapted from [35].
(I—the moment of inertia; r —radius of curvature). Source: Adapted from [35].

Figure
Figure 22 graphically
graphically describes
describes aa single-level
single-level system
system representation
representation for
for aa sample
sample hos-
hos-
pital building exposed to seismic perturbation and technological changes. Table
pital building exposed to seismic perturbation and technological changes. Table 1 lists 1 lists
the
the potential
potential system
system inputs,
inputs, states,
states, andoutputs
and outputsfor
for various
various building
building structure
structure portfolios
portfolios
grouped
grouped based
based onon the
theAustralian
Australian National
National Construction
Construction Code
Code (NCC)
(NCC) classification
classification [36]
[36]
under both perturbation and change.
under both perturbation and change.
Buildings 2023,
Buildings 13, 13,
2023, 1520x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 17
4 of

Figure
Figure 2. Hospital
2. Hospital building
building single-level
single-level representation
representation under
under a perturbation
a perturbation event
event of an
of an earthquake
earthquake
andand technological
technological change.
change.

1. System
Table
Table representation
1. System of various
representation building
of various structures
building exposed
structures to perturbation
exposed andand
to perturbation change.
change.
Building System Use Classifica-
Building System Use Input|Perturbation State Output
tion (NCC) Input|Perturbation State Output
Classification (NCC)
Residential buildings (Classes 1– Occupancy level, damage level, meet-
Occupancy level
4) Possible inputs: Occupancy
ing current level, damage
living standards
Residential buildings
Improving the building’s structural level,
Customer meeting
service current
capacity, living
damage Occupancy level
(Classes 1–4) buildings (Classes 5
Commercial
standards
strength against the perturbation event, level, meeting current customer service Customer service capacity
and 6)
Possible
as well inputs:
as changing the building’s inter- standards
Customer service capacity,
Commercial buildings Improving
nal layout, thefootprint,
external building’sandstructural
num- Student service level,
capacity, damage level, Customer service
Educational buildings (Class 9) damage meeting current Student service capacity
(Classes 5 and 6) strength
ber of againstmovability/con-
stories through the perturbationmeeting current educational standards capacity
customer service standards
event, as well as changing the Patient service capacity, damage level,
vertibility/upgradability/scalabil-
Healthcare buildings (Class 9) Student Patient service capacity
building’s internal layout,
ity/shrinkability/expandability external
and/or meeting currentservice capacity,
health standards Student service
Educational
Warehouse andbuildings
car park(Class
build-9) destructibility.
footprint, and number of stories Storage damage
capacity,level, meeting
damage level, current
meeting capacity
Storage capacity
ings (Class 7) throughevent:
Perturbation movabil- educational standards
current storage standards
Earthquake and/or changing sociotech- Production
ity/convertibility/upgradability/ capacity,
Patient servicedamage level,
capacity,
Industrial and non-hospitable Patient service
Healthcare buildings (Class 9) nical/economic conditions.
scalability/shrinkability/ meeting currentlevel,
damage manufacturing
meeting stand-
current Production capacity
buildings (Classes 8 and 10) capacity
expandability and/or destructibility. ards health standards
Perturbation event:
Storage capacity, damage
Warehouse and car park buildings Earthquake and/or
Both actual andchanging
conceptual building
sociotechnical/economic level,systems modelsstorage
meeting current are used Storage
in this study for simu-
capacity
(Class 7) lation and analysis purposes. The building structure used in the study for simulation pur-
conditions. standards
poses only is a sample 3-story steel moment resisting
Production frame
capacity, (SMRF) office building located
damage
Industrial and non-hospitable in Berkeley, California. The buildinglevel,
was meeting
selectedcurrent
for its simplicity and convenience,
Production capacity as
buildings (Classes 8 and 10)
most of the building structural dynamics aspects are
manufacturing predefined within the Performance
standards
Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT) environment. It is adapted from the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency (FEMA) manual [37] with a typical floor area of 2112 square
Both actual and conceptual building systems models are used in this study for sim-
meters and a height of 4.5 m for the first story and 3.8 m for the subsequent stories. The
ulation and analysis purposes. The building structure used in the study for simulation
structural analysis tool used in this study is the PACT developed by FEMA. PACT uses
purposes only is a sample 3-story steel moment resisting frame (SMRF) office building
building
located performance
in Berkeley, models consisting
California. The building of the
was building’s
selected geometric and geographical
for its simplicity and conve-in-
formation; earthquake hazard; and specification of the building’s
nience, as most of the building structural dynamics aspects are predefined within structural andthenon-
structural elements,
Performance Assessment including their Tool
Calculation fragility and environment.
(PACT) consequence functions for various
It is adapted from the per-
formance groups (PGs); as well as information on the building
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manual [37] with a typical floor area ofoccupancy categories. The
2112 square meters and a height of 4.5 m for the first story and 3.8 m for the subsequentis a
building performance model outcome in the PACT environment utilized in this study
probabilistic,
stories. intensity-based
The structural nonlinear
analysis tool used in analysis
this studywithisathe
total of 8 increasing
PACT developed intensities
by FEMA.of
the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) in each round
PACT uses building performance models consisting of the building’s geometric and of realization [37]. Detailed
geo-
mathematics
graphical and structural
information; earthquakedynamics
hazard;aspects of various performance
and specification of the building’sgroups and relevant
structural and
performance measures, such as components and damage states, loss
non-structural elements, including their fragility and consequence functions for various parameters, fragility
and consequence
performance groupsfunctions
(PGs); asofwell
various PGs, are in on
as information accordance withoccupancy
the building the FIMA requirements
categories.
and not incorporated in this research (refer to [29,37]
The building performance model outcome in the PACT environment utilized for a detailed account of such
in this study
measures for the selected building structure), as this study is majorly concentrated
is a probabilistic, intensity-based nonlinear analysis with a total of 8 increasing intensities with
of the system
maximum state and form earthquake
considered return abilities
(MCE) (as demonstrated
in each round of byrealization
the system[37].functionality).
Detailed
mathematics and structural dynamics aspects of various performance groups and relevant
3. Resilience
performance as System
measures, Interpretation
such as components and damage states, loss parameters, fragility
and consequence
This section functions of various
numerically PGs, are in accordance
and conceptually demonstrateswiththetheapplication
FIMA requirements
of the resil-
and not incorporated
ience in this research
system interpretation (refer to
framework to [29,37] for a detailed
a building structureaccount
system. of such
First, mea-
under
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 5 of 17

sures for the selected building structure), as this study is majorly concentrated with the
system state and form return abilities (as demonstrated by the system functionality).

3. Resilience as System Interpretation

This section numerically and conceptually demonstrates the application of the re-
silience system interpretation framework to a building structure system. First, under
perturbation, the ability of the system state to return to its initial or other suitable state
through its passive feedback mechanism is simulated on the sample three-story steel mo-
ment resisting frame (SMRF) office building under a certain seismic intensity. The structural
strengths are introduced by codes, such as minimum safety requirements or maintenance of
a certain function under the perturbations of various magnitudes, as well as the availability
of previously envisaged disaster response resources on site in the form of redundancy.
Subsequently, under change, the ability of the system form to return to its initial or other
suitable form through its active feedback structure is simulated by adjusting the repair and
reconstruction activities sequencing, including pre-repair redundant activities, as a tool to
achieve the fastest initial or another suitable functional recovery, such as conversion of a
commercial building to a residential building or vice-versa. Additionally in a closed-loop
adaptive systems environment, change measures are incorporated in the form of a synthesis
configuration, as introduced by Carmichael [38].

3.1. Resilience as System State Return Ability

Resilience as the ability of the system state to return to its initial or other suitable state
is determined by the system state rate of return to equilibrium (for linear systems) or the
settling time (for nonlinear systems), as determined by the system’s dominant eigenvalue or
dynamic stability, respectively. The system state return ability is embedded in its resistance
to perturbation, which is determined by the passive feedback features built into the system.
The system state is defined as a one-dimensional state vector in terms of functionality
(occupancy level); this is related to the building’s structural strength (including its non-
structural elements) and maintenance of the minimum life-safety requirements specified by
the relevant building codes against a perturbation event. A more comprehensive state can
be developed as a multidimensional state vector by incorporating the system damage level
and meeting the current living standards (a change feature, which is normally static for the
passive feedback scenario), in addition to the occupancy level. For a building structure, the
ability of the system to resist perturbation is equivalent to over-designing and increasing
the safety factor (redundancy margin) against the perturbation event, which can subse-
quently be translated into an increased level of residual functionality or residual strength
immediately after the perturbation event has occurred. An over-design of the building
does not necessarily require an increase in the size of the structural elements but rather
the selection of innovative and robust structural systems with an integrated system of
nonstructural elements and other relevant functionality features. Overdesign also includes
preset recovery measures available on site, as well as other passive control features that
avoid propagation of a drop in functionality or failure across various levels of the system
through modularity and incorporation of cascade failure prevention features. The level
of residual functionality, along with preset recovery measures on site (part of the larger
redundancy category) and their preset sequence, determines the settling time (recovery
time) for the building structure; this is the main indicator of engineering resilience. Figure 3
indicates a functional recovery time of 14 days under a seismic intensity of 2 with a preset
continuous sequence of repair activities for the sample SMRF office building. Overdesign-
ing of the building elements and enhanced integration of nonstructural elements within
the building’s structural system increases the building structure’s residual functionality,
offsetting the building recovery time and, as a result, increasing the engineering resilience.
Buildings 2023,
Buildings 13, x1520
2023, 13, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 6ofof17
17

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Functional
Functional recovery time for
recovery time for aa three-story
three-storySMRF
SMRFoffice
officebuilding
buildingunder
undera aseismic
seismic intensity
intensity of
of 2 developed in PACT (utilizing fragilities of various performance groups (PGs)).
2 developed in PACT (utilizing fragilities of various performance groups (PGs)).

Due
Duetotothe
theinherent
inherentuncertainty
uncertainty in inboth
boththe thebuilding
buildingstructure
structure system
system models
models and
andthe
the
magnitudes
magnitudes and and types
types of
of perturbation
perturbation events,
events,itit isis not
not desirable
desirable to to rely
rely on
on only
only passive
passive
measures
measures that
that are
are presently
presently incorporated
incorporated in in the
thesystem
systemarchitecture,
architecture, irrespective
irrespective of
offuture
future
changes, for a static recovery time to a fixed functionality (state). An active
changes, for a static recovery time to a fixed functionality (state). An active feedback feedback mech-
anism in thein
mechanism system architecture
the system should
architecture be incorporated
should not only
be incorporated to accommodate
not only to accommodatefor the
for
system
the system functionality’s (state) return to the initial functionality (initial state) but also to
functionality’s (state) return to the initial functionality (initial state) but also to
accommodate
accommodate the change in in the
the system
systemformformwhenwhenthe theinitial
initialstate
statebecomes
becomes undesirable
undesirable in
in
thethe current
current domain,
domain, with
with a need
a need to to cross
cross to to
anan alternative
alternative domain
domain of of attraction.
attraction.

3.2. Resilience
3.2. Resilienceas asSystem
SystemForm
Form Return
ReturnAbility
Ability
For building
For buildingstructures,
structures,any
anychange
changein inthe
thesystem
systemformformgenerally
generallyresults
resultsininaadegra-
degra-
dation in
dation in the
the system
system state’s
state’s ability
ability to
to return
return to
to its
its initial
initial state
state (becoming
(becoming lessless functional)
functional)
orthe
or theaddition
additionororremoval
removalofofanother
another state
state variable
variable from
from thethe system
system state
state vector
vector (trans-
(transfor-
formation). Changes in the system form and its ability to return to the
mation). Changes in the system form and its ability to return to the initial form or another initial form or
another suitable form are accommodated by fixed or adaptive active
suitable form are accommodated by fixed or adaptive active feedback structures built into feedback structures
built
the into the
system. Suchsystem. Such
feedback feedback
structures structures
follow fixed orfollow fixedregulations
adaptive or adaptive onregulations
various levelson
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 7 of 17

to avoidlevels
various obsolescence
to avoidofobsolescence
the buildingof structure itself structure
the building and increase itsand
itself useful life. Therefore,
increase its useful
life. Therefore, it is critical to understand how the architecture of any such in
it is critical to understand how the architecture of any such change is designed the sys-
change is
tem at various levels and outline the stakeholders that can influence
designed in the system at various levels and outline the stakeholders that can influence such an architecture.
The design
such of building The
an architecture. structures
designasofpart of larger
building infrastructure
structures as part system groups
of larger falls under
infrastructure
the synthesis
system groups treatment,
falls under which is a closed-loop
the synthesis treatment,control withisthe
which three main elements:
a closed-loop control with the
system
the threemodel,
main objective
elements:function,
the systemandmodel,
constraints [38]. The
objective synthesis
function, andconfiguration
constraints [38]. is pow-
The
erful in that
synthesis it can accommodate
configuration is powerful working
in that itwith
can imperfect
accommodate models, including
working black-box
with imperfect
models with the ability to choose a static or dynamic objective function
models, including black-box models with the ability to choose a static or dynamic objective as per the system
function as per the system designer’s choice, as well as catering to the limitations of and
designer’s choice, as well as catering to the limitations of the system controls, state, the
output architecture.
system controls, state, Theand non-uniqueness
output architecture.of the system state and, subsequently,
The non-uniqueness of the system thestate
sys-
tem control
and, values, the
subsequently, is an addedcontrol
system value in the modern
values, controlvalue
is an added system theory
in the modernapproach.
control It
allows the
system system
theory designerIt to
approach. choose
allows thethe system
system state into
designer a synthesis
choose theconfiguration.
system state This in a
can be as configuration.
synthesis simple as a single-dimensional
This can be as simple stateasofa nodal displacementsstate
single-dimensional in the structural
of nodal dis-
design system (Figure 1) with the objective of minimizing
placements in the structural design system (Figure 1) with the objective of minimizingthe building story drifts/dis-
placements
the buildingand/or vibrations during a seismic
story drifts/displacements and/or perturbation event through
vibrations during a seismic theperturbation
application
event through theforces
of counteracting application of counteracting
by the active tuned massforces dampersby the active tuned
(ATMD) mass dampers
or an active feedback
(ATMD)
structureor an active
built into the feedback
structural structure
system built
at theinto the structural
elemental level [39]system
(Figure at 4).
theForelemental
a more
level [39] (Figurebuilding
comprehensive 4). For astructure
more comprehensive building structure
system that incorporates system
the social that incorporates
dimension along its
the social dimensioncomponent,
technical/structural along its technical/structural
the system state cancomponent,be considered the asystem state can be
three-dimensional
considered a three-dimensional vector of occupancy level,
vector of occupancy level, damage/displacement level, and meeting current living damage/displacement level, and
stand-
meeting current living standards. Here, the objective function
ards. Here, the objective function might be to match current commercial rental prices might be to match current
commercial
(which include rental prices (whichfactors)
socioeconomic includeby socioeconomic
actively adapting factors)theby activelysystem
building adapting to the
building
change. system to the change.

Figure 4. Closed-loop control architecture of a simple ATMD to control story drifts at the elemental
level of
level of the
the building
building structural
structural system.
system.

order to
In order to systematically
systematicallyaccommodate
accommodatefor forthe
thechange
changeininthethesystem
systemform
formand,
and,subse-
sub-
sequently,
quently, its its return
return abilities,
abilities, the the closed-loop
closed-loop control
control system’s
system’s architecture
architecture shouldshould be in-
be incorpo-
rated into the
corporated intosystem design
the system upfront
design or even
upfront into existing
or even systems,
into existing where
systems, the feasibility
where the feasi-
is not is
bility necessarily
not necessarilyguaranteed. A closed-loop
guaranteed. architecture
A closed-loop can becan
architecture thought of as aofsynthesis
be thought as a syn-
configuration, irrespective of the system domain, be it physical or social,
thesis configuration, irrespective of the system domain, be it physical or social, organiza- organizational,
economic, or a combination
tional, economic, of thereof.
or a combination However,
of thereof. the literature
However, predominantly
the literature employs two
predominantly em-
distinctive terms: engineering
ploys two distinctive adaptability
terms: engineering [40,41] and[40,41]
adaptability managerial adaptability
and managerial [42,43]. To
adaptability
handle
[42,43].change
To handle in the designin
change andthemanagement
design and of building structure
management systems,
of building the closed-loop
structure systems,
architecture
the closed-loop caters to both those
architecture notions
caters andthose
to both brings them under
notions the single
and brings themumbrella
under the ofsingle
a sys-
tem closed-loop architecture. Depending on the system domain,
umbrella of a system closed-loop architecture. Depending on the system domain, engi- engineering adaptability
can be also
neering thought of
adaptability as be
can managerial
also thought when themanagerial
of as systems arewhensoft, the
such as in organizational
systems are soft, such
and
as in organizational and economic domains, while in simple electrical and managerial
economic domains, while in simple electrical and mechanical systems, mechanical
adaptability can be similarly
systems, managerial thought
adaptability can of
beas engineering
similarly thought adaptability. In a closed-loop
of as engineering feed-
adaptability.
back setting, engineering
In a closed-loop feedbackadaptability is mostlyadaptability
setting, engineering concerned with the feedback
is mostly concernedarchitecture
with the
(mostly physical) incorporated into the system, while managerial
feedback architecture (mostly physical) incorporated into the system, while managerial adaptability is majorly
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 8 of 17

concerned with the feedback laws, i.e., objective functions in terms of the relevant laws and
regulations.
The existing literature fails to provide a consensus on a universal and systematic
approach to address change within the built environment. Primarily verbal modeling under
often-conflicting definitions of adaptability and flexibility introduces overlapping concepts
such as extendibility and scalability [44], reusability and recyclability [45], convertibility and
upgradability [46], and transformability [47,48] to address certain elements of change in the
built environment. Some of these concepts with apparent overlaps, such as open buildings,
transformable buildings, modularity, and adaptive zoning/rezoning and regulations, are
more dominant than others and can be brought under a closed-loop feedback architecture
within the synthesis configuration to systematically address change in building structure
systems.

3.2.1. Open Buildings

The term open building was coined by Age Van Randen at TU Delft—Netherlands in
the mid-1980s. The concept was inspired the Dutch architect and professor John Habraken
and is a support and infill concept for residential buildings proposed in his seminal 1961
book, Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing [49,50]. The concept of open buildings,
pioneered in the Netherlands and Japan, bypasses the functional rigidity of traditional
architectural design of building structure systems and replaces it with a life-cycle design
through adaptation to social and technological changes to building structures. The open
building concept offers a novel multilayer control mechanism to be implemented by rele-
vant stakeholders across the building architectural design spectrum; the two main layers of
base building or support and infill or fit-out are controlled by the building owner/investor
and the building users, respectively. Other studies also include furnishing, fixtures, and
equipment (FF&E), in addition to the base building and interior construction, in the multi-
layer control mechanism structure of open buildings [51]. The base building in a multifamily
residential building is the part of the building that directly affects all inhabitants and in-
cludes the building structural system and envelope; shared spaces; main ingress and egress;
and primary mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Infill or fit-out for a residential
building indicates that individual building users can control and change the habitable
space within the base building without any changes to the base building itself [52].

3.2.2. Transformable Buildings

Conventional buildings with a static functional objective have increasingly become va-
cant, in need of minor or major refurbishments, totally obsolete, and even demolished [53],
since they cannot accommodate the rapidly changing and dynamic objectives caused by
social and technological changes; they do not have the necessary change architecture
within their respective systems. Adopting ideas from open buildings [54], the notion of
transformable buildings was introduced as a dynamic design strategy, also known as the
Hendrickx–Vanwalleghem strategy [55,56]. The design strategy for transformable build-
ings indicates the capacity of a building structure system to effectively alter itself or its
constituent systems to accommodate changing requirements. The capacity to transform is,
in turn, accommodated by the “generative form and dimensioning systems” and “disassem-
bly” capacities, which require exchangeable and demountable system components in both
the building envelope and the infill. The Hendrickx–Vanwalleghem strategy introduces
adaptive capacities to building design for materials, elements, construction kits, and system
levels [55]. One of the measures that distinguishes transformable buildings from open
buildings is the level of adaptation in the building design; transformable buildings can
include kinetic envelopes in addition to building infills [48].

3.2.3. Modularity and Standardization

Concepts such as open buildings and transformable buildings can be thought of as the
ends of system adaptation to change, while modularity and standardization are among the
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 9 of 17

means that make system change architecture feasible, irrespective of the system domain,
whether physical or nonphysical in nature. The first known instance of modular construc-
tion is attributed to English carpenter John Manning, who made a completely modular
and prefabricated house for his son, who was relocating to Australia [57]. In modular
construction, the building structure is made of standardized parts known as modules.
These are normally manufactured in a factory environment and can be independently
modified or replaced with other modules [58]. Modularity and standardization are not
limited to building components but also encompass building materials and the entire
structure level [59]. There is a growing consensus that modularity and standardization
improve quality [60], performance [61], and safety [62], in addition to reducing costs [63]
and the ecological footprint [64]; others list a lack of flexibility as a downside of modularity
and standardization [65]. While acknowledging that geometric complexity and the unique-
ness of design is an inherent challenge in modular building structure [65], optimization
of modularity and standardization at various levels, including at the material, elemental,
member, and structural levels, as well as the interaction of the various subsystems through
simple connections, can contribute to the enhanced adaptability of building structures
to change.

3.2.4. Adaptive Regulations and Zoning Requirements

There is often a rigidity and lack of sufficient adaptability in building codes and
regulations at various levels, as well as a lack of incentives on the part of regulators [66]
to systematically accommodate for the change process adapted within building structure
systems by the designers or owners. As with the change architecture built within the
system itself, the building codes and regulations also require a multiscale and holistic
mechanism to adapt to change. This includes regulations at the lower levels, such as
allowance of modest changes in the building’s functional use by the building users. This
was piloted by the Japanese construction regulations for skeleton infill systems [67]; these
higher-level regulations include adaptive zoning and rezoning at the neighborhood and
building portfolio levels. However, current building codes establish minimum essential
standards for health, safety, amenities, and sustainability [68], whereas resilience indicators,
particularly change indicators (including performance-based building codes), are not
sufficiently incorporated. The Regulatory Impact Statements (RISs) used by regulators in
assessing cost–benefit implications for new and changed code requirements [69,70] have
to be more holistic and systematic by including all stakeholders in the system design.
Additional dimensions of sustainability and resilience indicators should be included to
document various perturbations and change categories. Furthermore, there is a need for
synchronization of such documents by regulators and those within the industry, such as the
Adaptive Reuse Potential (ARP) model [71] for assessing the potential of existing buildings
for an altered functional use.

3.2.5. Synthesis Treatment—An Overarching Umbrella for Change Management

A synthesis treatment can systemically bring existing adaptation to change-related con-
cepts under one umbrella, accommodate for the limitations in the adaptation process, and
provide an opportunity to reconcile perturbation and change. Open buildings primarily
cover the convertibility and reusability of building structures in terms of smaller functional
changes in the same class of buildings. Transformable buildings can be grouped under par-
tially transformable buildings and building transformation categories. The former has the
potential for minor adaptations, including ideas of upgradability/scalability/extendibility
within the same or a closely related class of buildings, crossing a soft threshold from which
reversal is a reasonably feasible option. The latter accommodates major changes that are not
reversible or are difficult to reverse, including changing the building class to a different (not
closely related) type or another infrastructure class, using the system’s change architecture,
or through a sustainable demolition process. The transformation of a 5.6 km long obsolete
railway into the Queensway Linear Park in Queens, New York, is a good example of built
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 10 of 17

infrastructure transformation [72]. While the system’s change architecture discussed here is
mostly designed for long-term or permanent use, temporary change potential, particularly
within the building’s functional use under the minor adaptation class, cannot be ignored.
Turning sports halls and community centers into temporary health facilities during the
COVID-19 pandemic is a good example of this category.
Modularity and standardization are the tools used to achieve the goals of the system
adaptation to change as defined by the system’s form return abilities. The techniques and
products developed as a result of modularity and standardization practices provide the
system with replaceability, whereby broken or outdated elements of the system can be easily
replaced with new and updated ones without destroying or replacing the entire system.
On the other hand, adaptive regulations and adaptive zoning/rezoning requirements are
the adaptive feedback laws and constraints that need to conform and be incorporated
into the system’s change architecture to make the system treatment of change a holistic
process. Using a systems approach, the change architecture built into the system can
be thought of as the same, irrespective of the system domain association. However, for
organizational/social or soft systems, the change architecture might look simpler and
more convenient when incorporated into the system upfront or later in the system life
cycle; changing the organizational/social dynamics in some systems is as difficult as in
technical/physical systems. Table 2 presents existing concepts of adaptations to change in
building structure, using the synthesis treatment for the residential buildings class.

Table 2. Synthesis treatment for handling change in the sample residential building structures systems
class.

Change Architecture Incorporated within the

Objective Constraints
System Model
Limited change potential within a smaller
Open Buildings: and known radius of the initial/optimum
state value:
- Modularity in the infill and partition
- Only building floorplan layout
systems; Keeping a certain occupancy level changes within the same building
- Flexibility in infill and partition while meeting current living class;
connections. standards. - Adaptable organizational
Example: Improving floorspace layout within regulations in place that allow
the same residential building class of a building users to make the required
multifamily building. changes.

Transformable buildings keeping the identity

or partially transforming buildings:
- Modularity in the infill and partition Crossing a soft threshold: a major change
systems; with a reasonable reversibility option,
- Flexibility in infill and partition crossing to another domain of attraction:
connections;
Keeping a certain occupancy level, - Building floorplan layout changes,
- Larger size/stronger foundations and/or
along with the ability to change to along with a building class change;
larger/stronger perimeter columns;
another closely related category of - Adaptive zoning/rezoning
- Innovative structural systems;
building system state standards. requirements in place, allowing the
- High-displacement tolerant façade
systems. building owners to make the
required changes.
Example: Changes to the floorspace layout,
along with potential envelope changes from a
residential building class to an office building
class or vice-versa.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 11 of 17

Table 2. Cont.

Change Architecture Incorporated within the

Objective Constraints
System Model
Transformable buildings with loss of identity
or building transformation:
Crossing a hard threshold: a major
- Modularity in the infill and partition change with a hard or impossible
systems; reversibility option, crossing to another
Keeping a certain occupancy level,
- Adaptability in infill and partition domain of attraction:
along with the ability to change to
connections;
another completely different - Major support and infill changes
- Prefabricated slab systems;
category of building system state that are equivalent to the loss of
- Modularity and adaptability in building
standards or even to another identity with or without a
structural systems;
infrastructure system with or sustainable demolition option.
- Ease of disassembly and reusability in
without a sustainable demolition Direct management action for change in
both building infill and support
option. the site and zoning requirements in
components.
compliance with the building owner’s
Example: Major envelope and infill changes,
requirements.
such as transitioning from a residential
building class to an industrial building class.

These concepts fall under change architecture and regulations. Open buildings nor-
mally cover the convertibility/reusability and small functional changes in the area within
the same class of buildings. Transformable buildings often have more space for change
through either minor adaptation, including upgradability/scalability/extendibility within
the same class of buildings, or major adaptations and transformations, such as conversion
to a different building class, which means a different domain of attraction, crossing a soft
threshold. However, major changes that are not reversible, such as a change from one
building class to another or to another type of built infrastructure through sustainable
demolition, can be called transformation. Modularity and standardization are tools that
help to achieve the end use of adaptation to change process, as defined by the return ability
of the system’s form. Adaptive zoning refers to the adaptive feedback laws that are in
conformity with the change and make the system handling of change a holistic process.

3.2.6. An Example of the Return Ability of the System Form

A synthesis treatment can be used to optimize the building’s structure repair activities
sequence after a seismic perturbation has taken place to obtain a target level of state
(functional) recovery time as an objective function. The length of the repair activities, their
sequence, and the work method, along with the relevant resources and constraints on
site, determine the shape of the system state recovery path (system form return abilities),
which changes the system settling/repair time (state return abilities). Figure 5 illustrates a
system state (one dimension state of building function) recovery time of 6.7 days under a
seismic intensity of 2 with a parallel sequence of repair activities for the sample SMRF office
building. This change in settling time is accommodated by a change in the system form
and is almost half of the settling time under a continuous, preset sequence of activities, as
shown in Figure 3.
 x FOR PEER REVIEW
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 1212of
of 17

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Functional recovery time for a three-story SMRF office
office building after a seismic intensity of
22 as developed in PACT, with parallel sequencing of the repair activities.
as developed in PACT, with parallel sequencing of the repair activities.

By selecting
selecting aa further
further comprehensive
comprehensivesystem systemstatestate(such
(suchasasthose
thoselisted
listedininTable 1),1),
Table a
broader
a broader change
change process
process cancanbebeincorporated
incorporated into thethe
into system
system change
change architecture. ForFor
architecture. in-
stance,
instance,forfora acommercial/office
commercial/officebuilding buildingclass,
class,“meeting
“meetingthe thecurrent
currentservice
service standards”
standards” is
the dynamic component of the system state vector in the the objective
objective function.
function. Additionally,
Additionally,
system administrators and regulators need to implement dynamic policies and adaptive
regulations that are consistent with the system change architecture in order to make the
system adapt
adapt to to change
changeboth bothsystematically
systematicallyand andholistically.
holistically.The The shape
shape of the
of the system
system re-
covery paths mainly depends on the repair activities sequence, the work method, andand
recovery paths mainly depends on the repair activities sequence, the work method, the
the availability
availability of the
of the required
required resources
resources on on
site.site. Linear,
Linear, exponential
exponential [73],
[73], andand trigonomet-
trigonometric
ric [74]
[74] functional
functional recovery
recovery path path shapes
shapes are are selected
selected in cases
in cases withwith (i) resource-specific
(i) no no resource-specific in-
information
formation available,
available, (ii)(ii)a ahigh
highearly
earlyinflow
inflowofofresources
resourcesfollowed
followedby by aa slower
slower rate
rate at the
end, and
end, and (iii)
(iii) aalack
lackof
ofresources,
resources,respectively.
respectively.InInaddition
addition toto
thethe sequence
sequence of of
thethe build-
building
ing structure’s main repair activities, pre-repair or impeding factors,
structure’s main repair activities, pre-repair or impeding factors, such as inspections, per- such as inspections,
permits, financing,
mits, financing, andand mobilizations,
mobilizations, areare criticaltotothe
critical therecovery
recoverytime timeandand recovery
recovery path
path
shape [75] (Figure 6). Given the nature and sequencing of the recovery activities, work
shape [75] (Figure 6). Given the nature and sequencing of the recovery activities, work
method, and
method, and resource
resource availability,
availability, along along with
with the the relevant
relevant impeding factors, the
impeding factors, the recovery
recovery
path shapes shown in Figures 3 and 5 are trigonometric
path shapes shown in Figures 3 and 5 are trigonometric with impending factors. with impending factors.
 Buildings
Buildings 13, x13,
2023,2023, FOR1520
PEER REVIEW 13 of 13
17of 17

Figure 6. Shapes
Figure of functional
6. Shapes recovery
of functional curves.
recovery Source:
curves. Adapted
Source: fromfrom
Adapted [76] [76]
withwith
additional impeding
additional impeding
factors from [77].
factors from [77].

4. Discussion
4. Discussion andand Conclusions
Conclusions
ThisThis study
study demonstratesthat
demonstrates thatthe
the resilience
resilience system
systeminterpretation
interpretationframework,
framework, in terms
in
of adaptation
terms of adaptation andandadaptive
adaptivesystems,
systems,can canbe
beapplied
applied toto any system, including
any system, includingbuild-building
ing structure
structuresystems,
systems,regardless
regardlessofof their domain
their domain association.
association. Utilizing the the
Utilizing conceptual
conceptual power
power of modern control systems theory and defining the appropriate system state, out-and
of modern control systems theory and defining the appropriate system state, output,
put,controls, in addition
and controls, to the incorporation
in addition of clear passive
to the incorporation of clear and active
passive feedback
and mechanisms
active feedback
into the systems, systematically advances the application and
mechanisms into the systems, systematically advances the application and measurement measurement of a unified
of aand universal
unified resilience
and universal interpretation
resilience within the
interpretation builtthe
within environment sector. In
built environment this study,
sector. In
this study, we used a closed-loop system approach that brings both perturbations and a
we used a closed-loop system approach that brings both perturbations and changes under
synthesis
changes underconfiguration,
a synthesis such as dynamic
configuration, programming
such as dynamic and optimization,and
programming thatoptimiza-
is applicable
to both simple one-dimensional or more complex multidimensional
tion, that is applicable to both simple one-dimensional or more complex multidimensional state-space systems.
state-space systems. A sample three-story SMRF office building exposed to a seismic per-was
A sample three-story SMRF office building exposed to a seismic perturbation event
utilized as a case study, successfully demonstrating the one-dimensional dynamic system’s
turbation event was utilized as a case study, successfully demonstrating the one-dimen-
state and form return abilities using a state-space approach. The two abilities were, in
sional dynamic system’s state and form return abilities using a state-space approach. The
turn, demonstrated by quantitative and qualitative measures of the building functional
two abilities were, in turn, demonstrated by quantitative and qualitative measures of the
recovery time and functional recovery curve shape, respectively. The state-space approach
building functional recovery time and functional recovery curve shape, respectively. The
can accommodate the time-varying nature of both perturbations and change by developing
state-space approach can accommodate the time-varying nature of both perturbations and
time series and data-driven models in complex building infrastructure projects using project
change by developing time series and data-driven models in complex building infrastruc-
life-cycle approaches. This allows for a more holistic evaluation of resilience in building
ture projects using project life-cycle approaches. This allows for a more holistic evaluation
structure projects, contrary to the current short-sighted single-phased approaches that focus
of resilience in building structure projects, contrary to the current short-sighted single-
on certain perturbations.
phased approaches that focus on certain perturbations.
Despite advances in data-driven modeling techniques and the availability of big data,
Despite advances in data-driven modeling techniques and the availability of big data,
the prevalent discrete nature and time lag of the relevant data and models pose a major
the challenge
prevalent in discrete nature projects,
construction and timewhich
lag ofpartly
the relevant
depends data
on and models pose
the limitation a major
of information
challenge in construction projects, which partly depends on the limitation
flow in real time and full automation of construction processes. Additionally, the liter- of information
flowature
in real
on time and full
building automation
structures of construction
that are adaptable toprocesses.
change is Additionally,
limited, oftenthe litera-
fragmented,
tureand
on building structures that are adaptable to change is limited, often fragmented,
isolated from the resilience concept. A notable concern argued within the literature and
isolated from the resilience concept. A notable concern argued within
related to the implementation of change management concepts, such as open buildings,the literature related
to the implementation
transformable of change
buildings, management
modularity, concepts,
and adaptive such as is
regulations, open
theirbuildings, trans-
financial feasibility.
formable buildings, modularity, and adaptive regulations, is their financial feasibility.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 14 of 17

However, this is not sufficiently backed up, owing to the limitations of relevant financial
data and the added benefits provided by these concepts in terms of reduced ecological
footprint and reduced life-cycle costs [54]. Moreover, adaptation to change contributes to a
sustainable built environment [78] and circular economy [79]. The main barriers to achiev-
ing resilience in the built environment, particularly building structures, through design and
the incorporation of foundational active feedback structures within the respective systems
for handling change are convincing stakeholders of the long-term advantages. There is a
lack of leadership, supporting calls for a holistic and systematic approach to the definition
of resilience, design, and valuations in the built environment.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.M. and D.G.C.; methodological framework, K.M.;

theoretical background, content analysis, and results, K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M.;
writing—review and editing, K.M. and X.S.; visualization, K.M.; supervision, D.G.C. and X.S. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data collected and used for analysis will be available from the
corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ottens, M.; Franssen, M.; Kroes, P.; Poel, I. Modelling Infrastructures as Socio-Technical Systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 2006, 2,
133–145. [CrossRef]
2. McLennan, M. The Global Risks Report 2021, 16th ed.; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2021.
3. Ronnenberg, R.; O’Sullivan, P.; Hartzer, B. Building Resilience to Natural Disasters in Our States and Territories. 2017. Available
online: https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/building-resilience-natural-disasters-our-states-and-territories (accessed
on 12 December 2022).
4. Deloitte. Special Report: Update to the Economic Costs of Natural Disasters in Australia. Available online: http:
//australianbusinessroundtable.com.au/assets/documents/Special%20report%3A%20Update%20to%20the%20economic%
20costs%20of%20natural%Australia/Special%20report%20_Update%20to%20the%20economic%20costs%20of%20natural%20
disasters%20in%20Australia.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).
5. Wilkinson, S.J.; James, K.; Reed, R. Using Building Adaptation to Deliver Sustainability in Australia. Struct. Surv. 2009, 27, 46–61.
[CrossRef]
6. Acharya, D.; Boyd, R.; Finch, O. From Principles to Practices: First Steps towards a Circular Built Environment; ARUP, Ellen MacArthur
Foundation: London, UK, 2018.
7. Lin, P.; Wang, N. A Probabilistic Framework for Post-Disaster Functionality Recovery of Community Building Portfolios. In
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP13,
Seoul, Republic of Korea, 26–30 May 2019.
8. Gann, D.M.; Barlow, J. Flexibility in Building Use: The Technical Feasibility of Converting Redundant Offices into Flats. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 1996, 14, 55–66. [CrossRef]
9. Chester, M.V.; Allenby, B. Toward Adaptive Infrastructure: Flexibility and Agility in a Non-Stationarity Age. Sustain. Resilient
Infrastruct. 2019, 4, 173–191. [CrossRef]
10. Singh, R.R.; Bruneau, M.; Stavridis, A.; Sett, K. Resilience Deficit Index for Quantification of Resilience. Resilient Cities Struct.
2022, 1, 1–9. [CrossRef]
11. Molina Hutt, C.; Hulsey, A.M.; Kakoty, P.; Deierlein, G.G.; Eksir Monfared, A.; Wen-Yi, Y.; Hooper, J.D. Toward Functional
Recovery Performance in the Seismic Design of Modern Tall Buildings. Earthq. Spectra 2022, 38, 283–309. [CrossRef]
12. Biondini, F.; Camnasio, E.; Titi, A. Seismic Resilience of Concrete Structures under Corrosion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 44,
2445–2466. [CrossRef]
13. Anwar, G.A.; Dong, Y. Seismic Resilience of Retrofitted RC Buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2020, 19, 561–571. [CrossRef]
14. Molina Hutt, C.; Almufti, I.; Willford, M.; Deierlein, G. Seismic Loss and Downtime Assessment of Existing Tall Steel-Framed
Buildings and Strategies for Increased Resilience. J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 142, C4015005. [CrossRef]
15. Sani, H.P.; Gholhaki, M.; Banazadeh, M. Seismic Performance Assessment of Isolated Low-Rise Steel Structures Based on Loss
Estimation. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017028. [CrossRef]
16. Banazadeh, M.; Parvini, S.H.; Gholhaki, M. Decision-Making Analysis for Seismic Retrofit Based on Risk Management. Asian J.
Civ. Eng. 2013, 14, 735–746.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 15 of 17

17. Naumann, T.; Nikolowski, J.; Golz, S.; Schinke, R. Resilience and Resistance of Buildings and Built Structures to Flood Impacts—
Approaches to Analysis and Evaluation. In German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy 2010: Urban Regional Resilience: How Do
Cities and Regions Deal with Change? Müller, B., Ed.; German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2011; pp. 89–100, ISBN 978-3-642-12785-4.
18. Sen, M.K.; Dutta, S.; Kabir, G.; Pujari, N.N.; Laskar, S.A. An Integrated Approach for Modelling and Quantifying Housing
Infrastructure Resilience against Flood Hazard. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125526. [CrossRef]
19. Tokgoz, B.E.; Gheorghe, A.V. Resilience Quantification and Its Application to a Residential Building Subject to Hurricane Winds.
Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2013, 4, 105–114. [CrossRef]
20. Abdelhady, A.U.; Spence, S.M.; McCormick, J. A Framework for the Probabilistic Quantification of the Resilience of Communities
to Hurricane Winds. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2020, 206, 104376. [CrossRef]
21. Gerasimidis, S.; Khorasani, N.E.; Garlock, M.; Pantidis, P.; Glassman, J. Resilience of Tall Steel Moment Resisting Frame Buildings
with Multi-Hazard Post-Event Fire. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 139, 202–219. [CrossRef]
22. Fischer, E.C.; Varma, A.H. Fire Resilience of Composite Beams with Simple Connections: Parametric Studies and Design. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2017, 128, 119–135. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, Z.; Lu, J.; Liu, H.; Liao, X. Experimental Investigation on the Post-Fire Mechanical Properties of Structural Aluminum
Alloys 6061-T6 and 7075-T73. Thin-Walled Struct. 2016, 106, 187–200. [CrossRef]
24. Sun, Y.; Fu, Z.; Song, Y.; Xia, J. Cross-Sectional Behavior of Aluminum Alloy Channel Section Stub Columns after Exposure to Fire.
J. Struct. Eng. 2023, 149, 04023085. [CrossRef]
25. Coaffee, J.; Bosher, L. Integrating Counter-Terrorist Resilience into Sustainability. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2008, 161,
75–83. [CrossRef]
26. Pasman, H.; Kirillov, I. Resilience of Cities to Terrorist and Other Threats: Learning from 9/11 and Further Research Issues; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; ISBN 1-4020-8489-7.
27. Lori, G.; Morison, C.; Larcher, M.; Belis, J. Sustainable Facade Design for Glazed Buildings in a Blast Resilient Urban Environment.
Glass Struct. Eng. 2019, 4, 145–173. [CrossRef]
28. Cormie, D.; Mays, G.; Smith, P. Basic Guidelines for Enhancing Blast Resilience. In Blast Effects on Buildings; ICE Publishing:
London, UK, 2019; pp. 11–29.
29. Cremen, G.; Baker, J.W. A Methodology for Evaluating Component-Level Loss Predictions of the FEMA P-58 Seismic Performance
Assessment Procedure. Earthq. Spectra 2019, 35, 193–210. [CrossRef]
30. Almufti, I.; Willford, M. The Resilience-Based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDiTM) Rating System; ARUP, Ellen MacArthur
Foundation: London, UK, 2013.
31. Mayar, K.; Carmichael, D.G.; Shen, X. Resilience and Systems—A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8327. [CrossRef]
32. Mayar, K.; Carmichael, D.G.; Shen, X. Stability and Resilience—A Systematic Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 1242. [CrossRef]
33. Sladek, J.R.; Klingner, R.E. Effect of Tuned-Mass Dampers on Seismic Response. J. Struct. Eng. 1983, 109, 2004–2009. [CrossRef]
34. Elias, S.; Matsagar, V. Optimum Tuned Mass Damper for Wind and Earthquake Response Control of High-Rise Building. In
Advances in Structural Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1475–1487.
35. Carmichael, D.G. Structural Modelling and Optimization: A General Methodology for Engineering and Control; Ellis Horwood:
Chichester, UK, 1981; ISBN 0-470-27114-0.
36. Board, A.B.C. Understanding the NCC Building Classifications; Australian Building Codes Board: Canberra, Australia, 2017; Volume
28, p. 2018.
37. FEMA. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1-Methodology; FEMA P-58-1; FEMA: Redwood City, CA, USA, 2018.
38. Carmichael, D.G. The Conceptual Power of Control Systems Theory in Engineering Practice. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2013, 30,
231–242. [CrossRef]
39. Yao, J.T.P. Concept of Structural Control. J. Struct. Div. 1972, 98, 1567–1574. [CrossRef]
40. Arge, K. Adaptable Office Buildings: Theory and Practice. Facilities 2005, 23, 119–127. [CrossRef]
41. Carmichael, D.G. Infrastructure Investment: An Engineering Perspective; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4665-
7670-4.
42. Sánchez-Silva, M.; Calderón-Guevara, W. Flexibility and Adaptability within the Context of Decision-Making in Infrastructure
Management. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2022, 18, 950–966. [CrossRef]
43. Sánchez-Silva, M. Design of Flexible and Adaptable Infrastructure Systems. Infrastruct. Asset Manag. 2021, 8, 36–48. [CrossRef]
44. Schmidt III, R.; Eguchi, T.; Austin, S.; Gibb, A. What Is the Meaning of Adaptability in the Building Industry. In Proceedings of
the 16th International Conference on Open and Sustainable Building, Bilbao, Spain, 7–19 May 2010; pp. 233–242.
45. Manewa, A.; Siriwardena, M.; Ross, A.; Madanayake, U. Adaptable Buildings for Sustainable Built Environment. Built Environ.
Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 139–158. [CrossRef]
46. Moffatt, S.; Russell, P. Assessing the Adaptability of Buildings. IEA Annex 2001, 31, 1355–1755.
47. Durmisevic, E. Transformable Building Structures: Design for Dissassembly as a Way to Introduce Sustainable Engineering to Building
Design & Construction; Cedris M&CC: Delft, The Netherlands, 2006.
48. Matheou, M.; Couvelas, A.; Phocas, M.C. Transformable Building Envelope Design in Architectural Education. Procedia Manuf.
2020, 44, 116–123. [CrossRef]
49. Kendall, S.H.; Teicher, J. Residential Open Building; Spon Press: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 0-203-05676-0.
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 16 of 17

50. Habraken, N.J. Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2021; ISBN 1-00-002579-9.
51. Kendall, S. Open Building: An Approach to Sustainable Architecture. J. Urban Technol. 1999, 6, 1–16. [CrossRef]
52. Habraken, N.J. The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Environment; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000;
ISBN 0-262-58195-7.
53. Schwehr, P.; Plagaro Cowee, N. Resonance Based Design Method for Preventive Architecture Learning from Evolutionary
Principles and Their Key Success Factors. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of CIB W104 and W110 on Architecture in the
Fourth Dimension. Boston: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building Construction, Boston, MA, USA, 15–17
November 2011.
54. Galle, W.; De Troyer, F.; De Temmerman, N. The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of Open and Transformable
Building Related to Its Financial Feasibility. In Proceedings of the Future of Open Building Conference; ETH Zürich: Zurich,
Switzerland, 2015.
55. Debacker, W.; Henrotay, C.; De Wilde, W.P.; Hendrickx, H. The HENDRICKX–VANWALLEGHEM Design Strategy. WIT Trans.
Built Environ. 2006, 85, 10.
56. Galle, W.; De Temmerman, N. Multiple Design Approaches to Transformable Building: Case Studies. In Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference Central Europe toward Sustainable Building, Prague, Czech Republic, 26–28 June 2013.
57. Smith, R.E. History of Prefabrication: A Cultural Survey. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction
History, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany, 20–24 May 2009; p. 1.
58. Lawson, M.; Ogden, R.; Goodier, C.I. Design in Modular Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; Volume 476, ISBN
0-415-55450-0.
59. Geldermans, R.J. Design for Change and Circularity—Accommodating Circular Material & Product Flows in Construction.
Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 301–311.
60. Jones, P.; Hudson, J. Standardization and the Costs of Assessing Quality. Eur. J. Political Econ. 1996, 12, 355–361. [CrossRef]
61. Pasquire, C.L.; Gibb, A.G.F. Considerations for Assessing the Benefits of Standardisation and Pre-Assembly in Construction
(the Findings of a Pilot Study). In Report to CIBSE Seminar on Standardisation in the Design and Construction of Building Services
Installations; 1999; Available online: https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/Considerations_for_assessing_
the_benefits_of_standardisation_and_pre-assembly_in_construction/9440282/1 (accessed on 3 August 2022).
62. Viardot, E.; Sherif, M.H.; Chen, J. Managing Innovation with Standardization: An Introduction to Recent Trends and New
Challenges. Technovation 2016, 100, 1–3. [CrossRef]
63. Graham, P. Design for Adaptability—An Introduction to the Principles and Basic Strategies. In Environment Design Guide; Royal
Australian Institute of Architects: Melbourne, Australia, 2005; pp. 1–9.
64. Askar, R.; Bragança, L.; Gervásio, H. Adaptability of Buildings: A Critical Review on the Concept Evolution. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11,
4483. [CrossRef]
65. Liapi, K. Transformable Structures: Design Features and Preliminary Investigation. J. Archit. Eng. 2001, 7, 13–17. [CrossRef]
66. Bullen, P.; Love, P. A New Future for the Past: A Model for Adaptive Reuse Decision-making. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag.
2011, 1, 32–44. [CrossRef]
67. Juan, Y.; Cheng, Y.-C. Improving Building Longevity, Adaptability, and Sustainability: Examination of Multi-Unit Residential
Building Regulations in Taiwan. Civ. Eng. J. 2018, 4, 394–401. [CrossRef]
68. Armstrong, A.; Wright, C.; Ashe, B.; Nielsen, H. Enabling Innovation in Building Sustainability: Australia’s National Construction
Code. Procedia Eng. 2017, 180, 320–330. [CrossRef]
69. Harrison, M. Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Impact Assessments. Agenda A J. Policy Anal. Reform 2009, 16, 41–49. [CrossRef]
70. Board, A.B.C. Regulatory Impact Statement. In Proposal to Formulate Disability Standards for Access to Premises and Amend the Access
Provisions of the Building Code of Australia (RIS2004); Australian Building Codes Board: Canberra, Australia, 2004.
71. Langston, C.; Wong, F.K.; Hui, E.C.; Shen, L.-Y. Strategic Assessment of Building Adaptive Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong.
Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1709–1718. [CrossRef]
72. Ignaccolo, C.; Giuffrida, N.; Torrisi, V. The Queensway of New York City. A Proposal for Sustainable Mobility in Queens. In Town
and Infrastructure Planning for Safety and Urban Quality; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 69–76, ISBN 1-351-17336-7.
73. Kafali, C.; Grigoriu, M. Rehabilitation Decision Analysis. In Proceedings of the ICOSSAR’05: Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005.
74. Chang, S.E.; Shinozuka, M. Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of Communities. Earthq. Spectra 2004, 20, 739–755.
[CrossRef]
75. Almufti, I.; Willford, M. REDiTM Rating System: Resilience-Based Earthquake Design Initiative for the Next Generation of Buildings;
ARUP, Ellen MacArthur Foundation: London, UK, 2013.
76. Cimellaro, G.P.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Bruneau, M. Framework for Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience. Eng. Struct. 2010,
32, 3639–3649. [CrossRef]
77. Cook, D.T.; Liel, A.B.; Haselton, C.B.; Koliou, M. A Framework for Operationalizing the Assessment of Post-Earthquake Functional
Recovery of Buildings. Earthq. Spectra 2022, 38, 1972–2007. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 1520 17 of 17

78. Beadle, K.; Gibb, A.; Austin, S.; Fuster, A.; Madden, P. Adaptable Futures: Sustainable Aspects of Adaptable Buildings. In
Proceedings of the ARCOM (Association of Researchers in Construction Management) Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference,
Cardiff, UK, 1–3 September 2008; pp. 1–3.
79. Sanchez, B.; Haas, C. A Novel Selective Disassembly Sequence Planning Method for Adaptive Reuse of Buildings. J. Clean. Prod.
2018, 183, 998–1010. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.