Adaptive Façades for High-Rise Residential Buildings: A Qualitative Analysis of the Design Parameters and Methods

Abstract

The design and construction of adaptive façades have garnered increasing attention as a means to enhance the energy performance and sustainability of high-rise residential buildings. Adaptive façades can dynamically respond to environmental conditions, reducing reliance on energy-intensive systems and improving occupant comfort. Despite their potential, research on adaptive façade systems in the context of high-rise residential buildings, particularly in Australia, remains limited. This study aims to bridge this gap by identifying the key design parameters, challenges, and optimisation methods for adaptive façades. Through a combination of a comprehensive literature review and 15 semi-structured interviews with industry experts, this research provides insights into the design and performance of adaptive façades. The key findings reveal that the successful implementation of adaptive façades depends on a range of factors, including material choices, shading system typologies, and advanced simulation tools for energy performance analysis. A significant outcome of the study is the development of a conceptual framework that incorporates these design elements with environmental factors and building energy simulation, offering a structured approach to optimise adaptive façade performance. The framework assists architects and engineers in creating energy-efficient, sustainable high-rise residential buildings tailored to the Australian context. Additionally, the study highlights critical challenges, such as financial barriers, regulatory gaps, and the need for improved maintenance strategies, which must be addressed to facilitate the broader adoption of adaptive façades in the residential sector.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Meeting global carbon emission reduction targets and advancing sustainability relies significantly on the adoption of low-carbon and energy-efficient building technologies. One promising approach is adaptive building envelopes—structures that adjust to weather, seasons, and changing occupancy needs [1]. Adaptive building envelopes are building enclosures that can change their behaviour according to weather fluctuations, seasonal patterns and the diurnal cycle to improve the performance of buildings [2]. Most importantly, they could respond to changes in dynamic occupancy requirements. Technically, an adaptive façade system is a prefabricated or site-assembled building envelope that integrates architectural and technological features to boost performance.

According to Loonen [3], adaptive façades are employed for several reasons, such as improving energy performance [4], managing solar gains [5], enhancing indoor air quality [6], improving acoustic performance, [7] and enhancing structural features [8]. This can be achieved, for instance, by integrating sensors, actuators, and control units to regulate the amount of solar radiation or airflow passing through the adaptive façade. On the other hand, not only does it reduce the building’s energy consumption, but it also reduces the demand for HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) services to ensure indoor comfort [9].

1.2. High-Rise Residential Building

The focus on high-rise residential buildings in Australia stems from their rapidly growing presence in urban centres such as Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, driven by increasing urban density and housing demand. Despite this architectural trend, adaptive façade technologies remain largely underexplored in the residential sector, particularly in the Australian context where regulatory frameworks and design practices have yet to evolve in line with emerging façade innovations. Unlike commercial buildings, residential high-rises face unique operational and behavioural challenges, including occupant-driven energy use patterns, acoustic comfort, and stricter privacy expectations. Furthermore, Australia’s diverse climate zones—from tropical to temperate—provide a compelling natural laboratory for evaluating adaptive façade performance under varying environmental stressors. This geographical and typological specificity is critical, as the climatic and regulatory differences necessitate tailored façade solutions that go beyond generic international case studies [10]. Additionally, the lack of Australian-based empirical research and performance evaluation frameworks for adaptive façades in residential buildings reinforces the urgency and relevance of this study. By addressing these gaps, the research contributes to the development of climate-responsive, energy-efficient façade systems suited to the distinct needs of Australia’s residential high-rise sector.

1.3. Research Objectives

Practical approaches for architects and designers include designing adaptive façades that balance the harvesting of natural light with maximising outdoor views, while also reducing energy consumption in buildings and ensuring visual comfort. However, despite the potential benefits of adaptive façades, significant gaps remain in our understanding of the challenges and factors influencing their design and implementation, particularly within the context of Australian residential high-rise buildings. To address these gaps, this study aims to enhance the understanding and knowledge of the design framework determinants of adaptive façades, particularly in relation to energy efficiency and optimisation practices. Firstly, it identifies the solutions, challenges, and factors affecting the energy performance of adaptive façades in Australian residential high-rise buildings. Through a combination of literature review and semi-structured interviews with industry experts, the study has gathered insights into the current state-of-the-art practices and potential barriers to implementing adaptive façades. Based on the analysed data and findings, a design optimisation framework has been developed. This framework will guide architects, engineers, and building professionals in optimising the design and implementation of adaptive façades, thereby maximising energy efficiency and sustainability in high-rise residential buildings. By achieving these aims, the study contributes to the advancement of energy-efficient building design practices and supports the shift towards more sustainable built environments.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Overview of Adaptive Façade Research

A holistic analysis of the current state of knowledge concerning adaptive façades indicates that various studies have examined the simulation of non-conventional adaptive façades, considering different parameters to maximise energy performance across diverse climate and weather profiles. However, the literature reveals significant gaps, particularly in the context of non-conventional adaptive façades. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on a comprehensive design framework for adaptive façades that encompasses all input and output parameters.

The literature review synthesises essential insights from a variety of studies and highlights critical knowledge gaps that require further exploration. It does so by synthesising insights from previous studies, focusing on simulation methodologies, shading system typologies, energy performance metrics, environmental input signals, and material considerations. Table 1 plays a crucial role in identifying these gaps and proposing innovative solutions through a multidisciplinary methodological approach. Specifically, an optimal adaptive façade is analysed, considering factors such as shading system motion, axis, energy and lighting performance metrics, input signals, shading systems, evaluation methods, and transmittance, as elaborated in the following sections.

As illustrated in Table 1, two out of the four studies proposed a framework for evaluating the energy performance of adaptive façades using parametric and dynamic simulation tools. In contrast, one study assessed energy performance through dynamic parametric simulation engines. These articles significantly impacted the design process for architects and designers, aiming to enhance the overall energy consumption of buildings by applying suitable adaptive façade designs. However, limited research has been conducted on adaptive façades aimed at optimising energy efficiency. The literature analysis briefly highlights the lack of attention to issues, methodologies, and essential procedures that are more relevant to this research.

Building upon this analysis, the following section critically examines the methods and software tools employed in the existing body of research, establishing a foundation for the methodological framework adopted in this study.

2.2. Methods and Software

Most studies primarily focused on analysing thermal and energy performance [11,12], as well as daylight. Many of these investigations employed dynamic simulation tools, such as EnergyPlus, to evaluate both daylight and visualisation aspects [13]. Additionally, specific investigations employed parametric tools, such as Rhino, in conjunction with environmental analysis software (e.g., the plug-ins in Grasshopper, part of Rhinoceros) [14]. Notably, plug-ins like Honeybee and Ladybug served as a link to Radiance [15], providing a more comprehensive approach to studying building performance.

This strong reliance on parametric and dynamic simulation tools underscores the need for flexible modelling in adaptive façade design—an aspect this study aims to address for high-rise residential buildings in Australia.

2.3. Shading System Motion and Axis

Researchers explored diverse types of shading devices with different axes and motions to reduce cooling energy. An extensive review revealed that translational shading systems have been chiefly analysed and applied in case study research. Among the fourteen review papers, only three studies examined folding, and two of these studies also examined folding and rotation techniques. Additionally, across all the studies, non-conventional shading devices were also discussed along three different axes using simulation.

As indicated in Table 1, the most common types of axes are horizontal and vertical shading. Ref. [16] investigated the energy demand for cooling, heating, and lighting potential of kinetic façades in two configurations—vertical-folding and horizontal-rotating. The study, conducted across three Asian cities with varying climates, employed simulation tools to evaluate performance, offering empirical data on energy and lighting efficiency. The effectiveness of each kinetic system was compared with fixed shading devices and a no-shading scenario, with a focus on annual energy savings. The key variables analysed included slat number, angle, shading type, and material properties. This paper specifically examines the influence of climate, operation type, shading type, and orientation on reducing energy consumption and enhancing daylight performance through optimised shading systems. Furthermore, origami folding shading devices were commonly utilised.

This analysis highlights the diverse impact of shading system motion and axis, which directly influences adaptive façade performance—an essential consideration for this study, particularly in Australia’s varying climate conditions.

2.4. Energy Performance Metrics

Considering the current energy performance metrics within a broader design context is imperative. However, variations in methods have led to discrepancies in these metrics, which delve into factors and analyse energy performance, particularly concerning diagonal folding typologies in tropical weather conditions. In this research, the folding motion adaptive façade was employed to enhance energy performance and lighting by considering different transparency and materials through parametric and dynamic simulation. Nevertheless, some key metrics influencing building energy performance were overlooked, not only in study [17] but also in the papers by [18,19]. This gap underscores the need for a comprehensive study to simultaneously apply folding and rotational motions using simulation methods while considering the required energy performance to achieve optimised building energy efficiency.

2.5. Input Signals for Adaptive Façade Systems

The initial phase of non-conventional adaptive façades relies on incoming information from sensors that provide data on both outdoor and indoor environmental conditions. The outdoor and indoor environmental conditions serve as the two main input signals in the experimental and simulation methodologies of adaptive façade systems. In studies considering the simulation methods, weather file information was a key source among other outdoor environmental conditions, such as solar radiation, temperature, global irradiance, and sky illuminance, used to adjust shading devices [17]. Conversely, experimental studies encompass external inputs such as global irradiance, comprising both direct and diffuse irradiance, and the prevailing sky condition [20].

Nevertheless, there is a notable lack of research that has explicitly investigated the real-time integration of these input signals within the context of high-rise residential buildings, particularly under the diverse climate conditions present in Australia.

2.6. Transmittance and Material Considerations

The analysis of the literature highlights the importance of material transparency in evaluating dynamic façade systems, as it directly affects energy performance [21]. The findings indicate a notable lack of studies addressing non-conventional adaptive façades that incorporate folding and rotation motion with varying transmittance values through simultaneous parametric and dynamic simulations. Only [17] a few studies have explored these factors concerning energy performance and daylighting, explicitly focusing on diagonal folding typologies in tropical weather conditions. This research utilised a folding motion adaptive façade to enhance energy performance and lighting by considering different transparency levels and materials through parametric and dynamic simulations.

2.7. Identified Gaps and Research Needs

The literature underscores several gaps that this study aims to address. There is limited research on comprehensive frameworks for non-conventional adaptive façades that consider dynamic motion, material transmittance, and real-time control inputs—especially in the context of Australia’s diverse climate conditions. Moreover, the existing standards and guidelines for implementing adaptive façades in high-rise residential buildings are sparse, highlighting the need for a robust design framework to guide future practice.

Table 1. Summary of studies including an optimal adaptive façade design to approach maximum energy performance.

Ref.	Shading System Motion	Axis	Energy Performance Metrics	Input Signals	Shading System	Evaluation Method			Transmittance
						Experimental	Simulation	Numerical
[22]	Translational	Horizontal	Thermal conductivity, density, specific heat, external surface absorptance, window-to-wall ratio (WWR), glazing ID, heating, and no cooling load	NA	Exterior Venetian blind				NA
[23]	Translational	Horizontal	Heat transfer through infiltration heat gain, thermal transmittance (U value), window-to-wall ratio, annual heat gain, and cooling and heating load	Solar radiation and ambient temperature illuminance	Exterior louvre				NA
[17]	Rotation and folding	Vertical Horizontal Diagonal	Thermal transmittance (U value) and cooling and heating load	Solar radiation Sky illuminance	Dynamic shading device				Yes
[24]	Translational	Vertical Horizontal	Cooling and heating load	Sun position and angle Intensity Daylight level Solar insulation	Dynamic shading device				NA
[25]	Translational	Horizontal	NA	NA	Internal shutter External Venation blind				NA
[20]	Folding	Vertical	Indoor and outdoor humidity, indoor air temperature, indoor air velocity, and cooling and heating load	Sky condition	Kinetic façade				NA
[26]	Three-dimensional sliding motion Origami folding motion	Origami	Cooling and heating load	Illuminance	Kinetic façade Origami				NA
[27]	Translational	Horizontal	Thermal transmittance (U value), infiltration ratio, and cooling and heating load	IR	Automated venation blind				Yes
[28]	Translational	Horizontal	Solar heat gain coefficient, solar energy flux, and cooling and heating lead	Solar radiation	Movable shading device
[18]	NA	NA	Natural ventilation, cooling and heating load, infiltration ratio, and thermal transmittance (U value)	Solar irradiance	Shutter Blinds				NA
	Translational Rotation and Folding	Vertical-folding Horizontal-rotating	Cooling and heating load	Solar radiation	Kinetic façade				NA
[19]	Rotation and Folding	Vertical	Cooling load, infiltration ratio, and internal load equipment	Illuminance	Kinetic device (Origami)				NA
	Folding	Folding	Thermal transmittance (U value) and cooling and heating load	Clear sky with direct sunlight Illuminance Outdoor temperature	Kinetic device				NA
[29]	Folding	Folding	Internal load equipment, infiltration rate, ventilation rate, and cooling and heating load		Origami shading device				NA

Table 1. Summary of studies including an optimal adaptive façade design to approach maximum energy performance.

Ref.	Shading System Motion	Axis	Energy Performance Metrics	Input Signals	Shading System	Evaluation Method			Transmittance
						Experimental	Simulation	Numerical
[22]	Translational	Horizontal	Thermal conductivity, density, specific heat, external surface absorptance, window-to-wall ratio (WWR), glazing ID, heating, and no cooling load	NA	Exterior Venetian blind				NA
[23]	Translational	Horizontal	Heat transfer through infiltration heat gain, thermal transmittance (U value), window-to-wall ratio, annual heat gain, and cooling and heating load	Solar radiation and ambient temperature illuminance	Exterior louvre				NA
[17]	Rotation and folding	Vertical Horizontal Diagonal	Thermal transmittance (U value) and cooling and heating load	Solar radiation Sky illuminance	Dynamic shading device				Yes
[24]	Translational	Vertical Horizontal	Cooling and heating load	Sun position and angle Intensity Daylight level Solar insulation	Dynamic shading device				NA
[25]	Translational	Horizontal	NA	NA	Internal shutter External Venation blind				NA
[20]	Folding	Vertical	Indoor and outdoor humidity, indoor air temperature, indoor air velocity, and cooling and heating load	Sky condition	Kinetic façade				NA
[26]	Three-dimensional sliding motion Origami folding motion	Origami	Cooling and heating load	Illuminance	Kinetic façade Origami				NA
[27]	Translational	Horizontal	Thermal transmittance (U value), infiltration ratio, and cooling and heating load	IR	Automated venation blind				Yes
[28]	Translational	Horizontal	Solar heat gain coefficient, solar energy flux, and cooling and heating lead	Solar radiation	Movable shading device
[18]	NA	NA	Natural ventilation, cooling and heating load, infiltration ratio, and thermal transmittance (U value)	Solar irradiance	Shutter Blinds				NA
	Translational Rotation and Folding	Vertical-folding Horizontal-rotating	Cooling and heating load	Solar radiation	Kinetic façade				NA
[19]	Rotation and Folding	Vertical	Cooling load, infiltration ratio, and internal load equipment	Illuminance	Kinetic device (Origami)				NA
	Folding	Folding	Thermal transmittance (U value) and cooling and heating load	Clear sky with direct sunlight Illuminance Outdoor temperature	Kinetic device				NA
[29]	Folding	Folding	Internal load equipment, infiltration rate, ventilation rate, and cooling and heating load		Origami shading device				NA

Out of the reviewed papers, seven papers included a theoretical or conceptual framework for optimising energy performance. These frameworks assist designers and architects in achieving optimal designs for adaptive building envelopes. As shown in Table 2, three papers proposed frameworks that utilise parametric and dynamic simulation tools like Rhino and EnergyPlus [12,30,31]. These studies significantly aid architects in enhancing building energy efficiency through the design of effective adaptive façades. However, the analysis here focuses on studies that utilised simulation tools to design non-conventional adaptive façades, aiming to maximise building energy performance.

Al-Masrani and Al-Obaidi [32] proposed a systematic framework to optimise motion control, geometry, and electrical design variables based on system performance. This research mainly suggests recommendations and findings for optimising the performance of dynamic shading systems through a literature review [33]; Kasinalis and Loonen [22,33] studied the inverse relationship between design and building performance from a different perspective to understand the feasibility of adaptive façade due to the gap to address the method to quantify seasonally adaptable façade performance potential. They presented a framework for calculating the value of the impacts of seasonal adaptive building envelopes on building performance based on daylight simulations coupled with building energy analysis. Additionally, they proposed that the six façade design parameters—density, specific heat, thermal conductivity, external surface absorptance, window-to-wall ratio, and glazing ID—can improve thermal comfort conditions and save energy compared to a non-adoptive building envelope. The proposed framework would positively impact the improvement in building performance through case studies and numerical analysis and guide designers towards a practical and systematic evaluation of climate-adaptive building shells.

Powell and Hischier [30] proposed a reflective, adaptive solar façade to manage energy and comfort. Furthermore, they provided a simulation framework through an experimental setup and simulation methodology to evaluate the performance of adaptive reflective panels. For their simulation framework, the authors utilised some parameters in adaptive solar façade design and building geometry, such as height, depth and width. Favoino and Goia [34] created a framework that outlines a solar and active building skin in view of the lack of a usable and validated framework. A framework was then proposed for assessing the climate suitability and performance of dynamic shading devices. Thus, as concluded by the authors, the proposed framework has a significant impact on the selection and design process of indoor comfort and high performance, particularly in improving dynamic shading devices for high-performance building envelopes. Furthermore, the proposed framework classified dynamic shading systems based on their typologies and compared them in terms of climate zone suitability, glare, daylighting, thermal, and energy-saving fields [24].

Kim and Clayton [31] provided a multi-objective optimisation framework in combination with a parametric behaviour map towards designing an optimal climate-adaptive building envelope (CABE) to help architects create a better dynamic operation scenario. The main objective was to enhance the daylighting conditions and minimise the cooling load through a climate-adaptive building envelope within the summer period in Houston. By comparing two CABE models (two- and three-dimensional transformation patterns) based on hourly behaviour of openness, the researchers approached the main objective by simultaneously implementing parametric and dynamic tools, including Rhino and EnergyPlus. Tabadkani and Roetzel [12] proposed a simulation-based framework consisting of an in-depth review of the current adaptive façade models, an assessment of simulation methods, and an examination of the control system’s performance in different office settings. The author investigates the efficiency of adaptive façade in improving environmental conditions within shared office environments in Melbourne, Australia. Ref. [35] investigates the development and progress of adaptive façade technologies by providing a comprehensive framework to understand the key concepts and developments in the field.

Table 2. Review of the identified frameworks.

Reference	The Developed Frameworks
[24]	A conceptual framework for classifying the dynamic shading system performance typologies according and climate suitability.
[30]	A new approach in assessing the adaptive reflective panels by implication of building energy model and tracing simulation.
[31]	A framework for architects and designers to facilitate their operation design towards an optimal climate adaptive building envelope via a parametric behaviour map.
[22]	A framework to address the potential of seasonal climate adaptive building shells.
[34]	A framework addressed the improvement of active and solar building envelopes.
[12]	A simulation-based framework is developed for personalised façade control.
[35]	Provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the main concepts and emerging trends in adaptive façades.

Table 2. Review of the identified frameworks.

Reference	The Developed Frameworks
[24]	A conceptual framework for classifying the dynamic shading system performance typologies according and climate suitability.
[30]	A new approach in assessing the adaptive reflective panels by implication of building energy model and tracing simulation.
[31]	A framework for architects and designers to facilitate their operation design towards an optimal climate adaptive building envelope via a parametric behaviour map.
[22]	A framework to address the potential of seasonal climate adaptive building shells.
[34]	A framework addressed the improvement of active and solar building envelopes.
[12]	A simulation-based framework is developed for personalised façade control.
[35]	Provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the main concepts and emerging trends in adaptive façades.

An examination of the current literature indicates that several studies have been conducted on the methods and approaches of designing adaptive façades in various climatic conditions, for instance [26,36].

In addition, in terms of energy analysis variables of adaptive façades, such as window openings for natural ventilation control, lighting control, and thermal control, most studies have focused on visual comfort performance on commercial buildings’ façades.

There are still significant gaps in the body of knowledge regarding applying a non-conventional adaptive façade system through a sustainably optimised design framework in high-rise residential building case studies in highly radiated areas such as Australia (See Figure 1). Moreover, there are limited codes, principles, or frameworks in the Australian context for implementing an adaptive façade to improve the performance of a high-rise building.

3. Research Methodology

As Figure 2 shows, the research methodology employed in this paper is qualitative. It revolves around identifying the variables essential for designing a suitable non-conventional façade in an Australian residential high-rise building. A total of 146 studies were retrieved from Scopus and Google Scholar, of which 15 articles were found to be relevant. While a substantial portion of these studies primarily focused on the analysis of adaptive façades for the optimisation of visual comfort and energy performance, a discernible gap was identified in the exploration of parameters aimed at enhancing energy performance in adaptive façades through the development of a comprehensive design framework. To address this gap, the primary purpose of the semi-structured interviews was twofold: first, to investigate the energy performance principles and criteria for designing a suitable adaptive façade for a residential high-rise building in Australia, and secondly, to gather information regarding the simulation method for analysing adaptive façades’ thermal and energy performance. This research employs an exploratory approach, utilising a qualitative methodology. The literature review supports the conceptual understanding, while the semi-structured interviews were conducted to develop the framework.

This research is based on an exploratory approach, with the methodology including a qualitative analysis. The literature review supports the conceptual understanding, while a semi-structured interview is conducted to develop the framework. To conduct the semi-structured interview, 15 experts were approached in designing and engineering façade envelopes, including adaptive façades. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the collected data, and the NVivo software (version 12.6) was utilised to analyse the data (Figure 2).

3.1. Conducting Interviews

The target number of interviews was set at fifteen, a quantity deemed adequate to yield comprehensive insights into the design of adaptive façades and the parameters influencing the optimisation of energy performance. Voigt et al. [38] and Voigt and Roth [39] conducted similar research on adaptive façades using a combination of literature review and interview methodologies. In their work, they conducted fifteen and twelve interviews, respectively, which yielded a solid and reliable outcome. Voigt et al. [38] presented practical decision support for the initial design phase and ascertaining appropriate design objectives. Insights were gained through interviews with ten experts from different disciplines who were involved in the adaptive façade project. Additionally, to identify the challenges associated with adaptive façades, Voigt and Roth [39] interviewed experts from practical research and industry. In this study, the initial step in the interview process involved sending invitations to experts in Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne via LinkedIn and email. Participants were requested to engage in the survey by providing their consent through an informed consent form. The interviews were conducted using Zoom and Microsoft Teams, with durations ranging from 20 to 40 min. The majority of the experts interviewed were façade engineers, architects, sustainability consultants, and researchers. The interview questions (Appendix A) guided the expert’s discussion on the energy performance parameters and the suitable parametric tools for designing and analysing the energy of the non-conventional adaptive façade (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 presents a structured thematic map developed from the coded interview data, providing a concise visual summary of the key themes and subthemes discussed by participants regarding adaptive façade design. The initial segment of the diagram represents the main codes derived from thematic analysis. These themes are then expanded into more detailed technical elements or categories, such as specific tools (e.g., Rhino and EnergyPlus), components (e.g., louvre, kinetic, and automated blinds), and broader regulatory or implementation challenges (e.g., building codes and financial concerns). These categories systematically address the challenges associated with implementing and managing adaptive façades.

This figure illustrates the multifaceted nature of adaptive façade design by visually synthesising the diverse technical elements and practical challenges highlighted through thematic analysis. It reflects key patterns, issues, and trends raised by the experts, showcasing the complex interplay between design tools, classification systems, performance considerations, and regulatory guidelines. Notably, it draws attention to the significant research gap surrounding implementation challenges, particularly issues and legislation, which, although repeatedly emphasised by interviewees, remain underexplored in the existing literature. Through a structured diagram, the figure contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the interconnected factors influencing the development and adoption of adaptive façades.

Based on expert input, the figure outlines an overview of the key themes related to parameters, tools, and regulatory concerns in adaptive façade implementation. It provides a holistic overview and highlights areas requiring further research and policy attention—particularly in relation to legislative gaps and practical implementation issues.

3.2. Interview Recording

The participants were asked to provide consent for the recording of their voices and the use of their data in this study. The expert interviews were conducted between August and October 2021. Whenever feasible, the interviews were recorded and transcribed using the Otter.ai software (Otter.ai 2021); in cases where this was not possible, transcriptions were completed manually. The interview data were subsequently coded, analysed, and categorised, with themes being generated using the NVivo qualitative data analysis software (see Figure 3).

3.3. Interview Coding

New interpretations and insights were recorded in this study which emerged from a rigorous qualitative analysis process facilitated by the NVivo software. NVivo is a widely recognised tool for qualitative and mixed-methods research, allowing researchers to organise, analyse, and derive meaning from large datasets.

To ensure the reliability and validity of the emerging insights, multiple rounds of coding were conducted. During the initial coding phase, demographic information, such as the discipline of the experts, company size and type, project type, and years of experience, was identified and categorised into five sub-codes, as outlined in

Table 3. Respondent’s profile.

Discipline	Size	Type of Co	Type of Projects	Years of Experience
Façade engineer	>50	Manufacturing industry	Commercial	10
Sustainability consultant and researcher	>50	Design and consulting	Residential and commercial/all sectors	9
Innovation manager	>50	Façade supplier	Commercial	9
Structural and façade engineer	>50	Manufacturing industry	Commercial	13
Architect	>50	Architecture firm	Commercial	8
Principle engineer	>50		Commercial	52
Architect	>50	Architecture firm	Educational and commercial	10
Façade engineer	>50	Engineering consultant	Commercial	3
Façade engineer	<50	Consulting engineers	Commercial	34
Façade Engineer	>50	Architecture firm	Educational and commercial	37
Sustainability consultant and researcher	<10	Sustainability consultant firm	Residential	12
Façade engineer	10–50	Consulting engineers	Residential, commercial, and hospital and hotel	6
Researcher and project management	10–50	Manufacturing industry	Residential and commercial	2
Director	10–50	Industrial CO	Residential and commercial	8
Façade designer	>10	Consulting engineers	Commercial	15

.

Furthermore, the accuracy of the emerging codes was validated through cross-checking with the original data, enhancing the credibility of the findings. Through this careful process, we synthesised a wealth of insights and interpretations, which helped enhance our understanding of the research phenomenon.

• Discipline of the experts;
• Size of the companies;
• Type of companies;
• Type of projects;
• Years of experience.

The distribution of the different disciplines of the experts is shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 corroborates several word sets of adaptive façades as identified by the interviewed experts.

4. Results

4.1. Adaptive Façade Terminology

In some interviews, some experts modified terminology and definitions around adaptive. The interviewees addressed the adaptive façade terminology modification and its definition. Most identified ‘intelligent and movable façades’ as the primary terminology, believing these façades have the ability to control various façade elements along with building services. A few interviewees used the term ‘active façade’ to describe its performance in predetermining certain conditions in some form. Additionally, a minority highlighted the concept of closed cavity façades as an example of adaptive façades. These closed cavity façades, featuring blinds in a cavity that move up and down and rotate on a timer to provide varying levels of shading, function similarly to a Venetian blind and are considered a type of active façade Venetian blind that is either out of the way, entirely dat own 45 degrees, or closed. It is a closed cavity façade with skinny glass on other sides of the million, usually 180 mm across, and within that cavity, there is a Venetian blind. So, a venation blind is just a slight shade that can be tilted. Many terminologies were introduced and used interchangeably by interviewees for adaptive façades, indicating a lack of knowledge in distinguishing the correct definition of adaptive façades, their performance, and their differences.

4.2. Adaptive Façade Issues

Based on Figure 6, which is derived from the interviewees’ responses, the adaptive façade issues were grouped into six major categories, with each category further divided into subcategories.

4.2.1. Financial Challenges

As shown in Figure 6, the initial issue regarding financial limitations in maintenance involves the high cost of sensors and actuators, their operational expenses, and the service models associated with adaptive façades. The experts believe that developers are not inclined to implement an adaptive façade strategy because of cost, and it is challenging to sell residential properties to users, particularly in Australia. However, it would be similar if an architect wanted to design a building for a client directly, as client satisfaction has priority over the energy performance of a building. Shady Attia’s insights into the future delivery procedures and structural trends of adaptive façades underscore the evolving landscape of building technologies and the challenges ahead [40]. While the study draws upon interviews with adaptive façade professionals, focusing on the financial aspects of maintenance [3,41], it is imperative to delve deeper into the implications of these findings. The high cost associated with adaptive façade control hardware components, sensors, and actuators poses a significant barrier to widespread adoption. This financial burden not only affects developers but also architects striving to balance client satisfaction with energy performance considerations. Therefore, some financial implications, including the potential return on investment [42] and warranty guarantees, need to be thoroughly assessed by stakeholders to substantiate the investment in adaptive façade technologies. The parallels drawn between designing adaptive façades for clients by developers or architects shed light on the multifaceted challenges inherent in integrating innovative building technologies within budget constraints.

4.2.2. Warranty and Trust Issues

Another aspect emphasised by the experts was that occupiers do not trust adaptive façade vendors due to warranty issues. Moreover, warranty issues emerged as a critical concern identified by one of the designers, which was the mechanical and software warranty of the adaptive façade. As the expert highlighted, the complexities surrounding mechanical and software warranties and subcontractor responsibilities underscore the need for clearer contractual arrangements and standards within the industry. Subcontractors can warranty motorised blinds, but this does not include the adaptive façade application, all the aspects of the kinetic-based intervention, and the connections with the application. In the interview, the expert mentioned two reasons for this, which were the difficulty of constructing the invented design and the time constraints. Following Scherz and Deutsch’s [43] suggestion, the divergent lifespan expectations between conventional and adaptive façades underscore the importance of proactive maintenance strategies to maximise longevity. The maintenance and service of adaptive façades are two key factors that must be considered throughout the entire period to ensure the longest possible lifecycle; in contrast, these aspects in conventional façades are less significant.

4.2.3. Lack of Training and Learning Curve

The third issue, primarily derived from the interview, is the lack of a sufficient learning curve and process in the development of adaptive façades. As the experts have highlighted, more information should be provided regarding active façade drawings, detailing, fabrication, and installation. There is a lack of education and training in the designing and functionality of adaptive façades in the higher education sector as well. Few industry experts are familiar with adaptive façade operation and maintenance. Furthermore, the inadequacy of education and training among occupants when using adaptive façades is another major issue. This issue was also recognised in Shady Attia’s study that occupants’ education is insufficient in adaptive façade acceptance and interaction [44]. Furthermore, the experts raised other concerns, such as the cost and time involved in the construction and fabrication of adaptive façades. The experts confirmed that maintaining and controlling adaptive façades are other difficulties that façade designers and engineers must consider. [44]. From a lifecycle perspective, the respondents believe that lifecycle stages, such as the initial study, research, development, and construction phases, are growing concerns in adaptive façade design practice in Australia.

4.2.4. Regulatory Gaps and Standards

When the interviewees were questioned about legislation and regulatory requirements for designing adaptive façades in Australia, no key standard indicator was cited. However, it was emphasised that Australian standards, as outlined in the Building Code of Australia (Section J, Energy Efficiency), establish the minimum requirements for designing adaptive façades, albeit in a comparative manner with traditional façades. A significant number of the participants expressed the perception that specific legislation or standards governing the design, engineering, and workplace safety of adaptive façades are absent in Australia.

Section J of the Building Code of Australia sets standards for the energy efficiency of façades; however, it lacks the comprehensive scope needed to address the full range of adaptive façade functionalities [45]. Based on insights from a façade engineer expert working in the U.S., it is noted that while the U.S. has regulations concerning the mechanical and structural design of adaptive façades, Australia currently lacks comprehensive regulations in this area. U.S. regulations, grounded in principles such as kinematic forces, rock vibrations, and sound principles, do not fully address aspects like energy performance, movable façades, or shielding and shading elements. This gap underscores the need for further discussion and the development of regulations in Australia to address these crucial aspects. One participant emphasised the importance of a control platform that addresses both energy-saving and user needs based on feedback from occupants. Ref. [14] emphasises a need for control strategies that focus on the occupant’s experience to optimise the energy performance. Ref. [14] emphasises the need for an automatic control strategy that not only optimises daylight use but also enhances occupant well-being and productivity by minimising discomfort and controlling energy use. However, both papers emphasise the need to strike a balance between user comfort and energy efficiency in adaptive façade systems. Neither of these papers explicitly highlights the importance of a control platform that addresses both energy-saving and user needs based on feedback from occupants.

4.2.5. Lifecycle Concerns

These notions align with the other published literature. As mentioned in several publications, there is a need for a standard control for adaptive façade functionality, which requires further development [44,46]. Voigt and Chwalek [46] also analysed the adaptive façade lifecycle mapping through [47] standards, guidelines, and norms, and found similar outcomes. As most experts have mentioned, the existing standards, such as the National Construction Code (NCC), require Section J to meet the energy efficiency of adaptive façades in Australia. The National Construction Code (NCC) is a uniform set of technical provisions for the design, construction, and performance of buildings and plumbing and drainage systems throughout Australia, formally known as the Building Code of Australia (BCA), where Section J highlights the energy efficiency requirements of buildings in Australia.

In terms of energy efficiency, the experts in façade design have explicitly identified a lack of standards for controlling the shading and blocking of the amount of solar radiation entering buildings. According to the experts, the newly proposed energy efficiency provisions for both residential and commercial developments in Section J have problems regarding the operability and ventilation of adaptive façade design. Therefore, operability for natural ventilation in façades or glazing is necessary due to thermal brakes in the façades, which necessitates higher levels of protection.

Another standard issue highlighted by experts in the field is the safety of adaptive façades and the workplace during construction. This includes installing, operating, and maintaining the adaptive façade during construction.

4.2.6. Time, Innovation, and Collaboration

The interviewees also pointed out that time-related challenges, particularly tight project schedules, can hinder not only the design and development of adaptive façades but also the research needed to support innovative solutions. They emphasised that these time constraints limit opportunities to explore new ideas and best practices. The experts highlighted the importance of prioritising research, early-stage innovation, and interdisciplinary collaboration between architects, engineers, contractors, and end users to successfully integrate adaptive façade technologies and bring them to life despite these challenges.

4.3. Future Adaptive Façade Advancements in Optimised Energy Performance

Figure 7 illustrates a design model developed through the analysis of the in-depth interview transcripts. In response to the reviewer’s comments regarding readability and clarity, the figure has been revised to enhance its interpretability and to more effectively communicate its conceptual structure. The design model categorises the key parameters involved in adaptive façade design into three main classifications: material qualities (transparency and reflectivity), axis characteristics (horizontal, vertical, and diagonal), and motion strategies (mechanical principles and architectural types). These three categories intersect at the core objective of achieving optimised energy performance.

To enhance its clarity and functional utility, the revised figure utilises a structured visual layout, which incorporates schematic symbols, labelled sectors, and categorised sub-elements. The material domain includes graded transparency levels (e.g., fully transparent, partially obscured, and patterned) and varying reflectivity properties (e.g., static, selective, and dynamic), which are illustrated through icons. The axis classification is delineated by directional orientation—horizontal, vertical, and diagonal—each indicating the geometric pathway along which façade components are designed to operate. Motion is presented as a bifurcated system, comprising mechanical typologies (including rotation, translation, scaling, and hybrid combinations) and architectural forms (such as flaps, folds, revolving panels, and scissors mechanisms). This visual organisation is intended to facilitate a more precise and accessible interpretation of the multidimensional nature of adaptive façade systems.

Building on this visual framework, previous studies have identified the fundamental motion typologies underpinning non-conventional adaptive façades. According to [41,48], basic transformations of non-conventional Afs are defined by three main key types, which consist of translational motion, rotational motion, and a combination of both. For example, translational motion involves two-dimensional shape changes, and can produce three different typologies, such as sliding; rotational motion entails three-dimensional modifications and can create swivelling, revolving, and swinging movements; and a combination of both motions leads to complex actions such as expansion, contraction, folding, rolling, or twisting [49]. Scaling, which refers to the increase or decrease in the size of shading units, is also recognised as a key motion category [32,50]. These classifications further validate the motion strategies illustrated in the design model and highlight their functional significance within adaptive building systems.

The transparency [29] and reflectivity [15] of the materials used in adaptive façades have a key role in optimising energy performance. However, most of the interviewed experts cited materials that were incorporated based on their knowledge of research and practice in the design of adaptive façades. One of the experts acknowledged perforated aluminium, likened to a sponge, for its ability to absorb external forces through deformation. Another emphasised the use of aluminium profiles with integrated polyamide inserts, which enhance thermal insulation within façade cavities. These materials were considered particularly suitable for the Australian context, especially for Canberra’s specific climatic conditions. Additionally, dynamic titanium façades and metal shade screens were mentioned as effective energy-efficient materials capable of reducing solar absorptance across building envelopes.

Based on the interviews, the objectives of adaptive façade systems were classified into four sub-themes:

• Daylight;
• Protection against wind and rain;
• Lighting and energy and thermal comfort, and;
• View out.

The interviewees consistently emphasised daylight control and shading as the primary design drivers, which were coded under the daylight category. Protection against environmental elements such as wind and rain was also identified as a key function, contributing to the building’s internal thermal regulation. This performance objective was accordingly categorised under the lighting and energy/thermal comfort code. Several experts discussed the broader thermal and energy optimisation benefits of adaptive façades, especially their role in reducing overheating and improving occupant comfort.

Therefore, the figure not only visualises the relationship between key technical design parameters but also situates them within the context of real-world architectural practice. It offers a clearer, evidence-based foundation for understanding how adaptive façade systems function as integral components of energy-responsive building envelopes.

Adaptive Façade Intervention and Controlling System

Most interviewees mentioned the motion typology, such as movement, rotation, and pivoting of the adaptive façade elements due to wind and sun exposure. Adaptive façade technology has been coded in two child nodes: the adaptive façade controlling system and the adaptive façade user intervention. Experts commonly mention using sensors as input systems and actuators as output systems, such as in adaptive façade control.

In the University of Technology Sydney’s case study in Sydney, Australia, “Every single shade has an individual address so that the building maintenance system can communicate with each shade individually (see Figure 8). Moreover, “at any point on that project, it would be possible to connect every shade to some form of sensor and make it a truly responsive system if the client wants to do it, so it is embedded within its capability”, one of the experts quoted. Wax and electronic actuators were mentioned as opposed to the passive approach, where the louvres change angles based on the sun’s exposure. As the analysis of the interview revealed, further research is needed to investigate the design of adaptive façades in this context.

Another researcher, who had conducted several studies about adaptive façades, believed smartwatches and smartphone applications could perform as effective controlling systems where adaptive façades would be controlled by occupants based on their comfort requests. Ref. [44] highlighted the critical approaches towards the future high-tech adaptive façade that will use individualised pre-set occupant operation preferences and smartphones.

4.4. Thematic Analysis and Lifecycle Stages

4.4.1. Design Supply Chain

Codifying the interviews classifies the main concept under three themes, namely design lifecycle, project management, and technical and engineering aspects. Through the coding and categorising of the interviews, the design lifecycle of the adaptive façade is one of the key themes highlighted by the experts. This theme refers to the design process of the adaptive façade, which was highlighted explicitly by an expert in the architecture field. The project management aspect covers the full-time facility management of adaptive façades. Technical aspects present the control and complexity of the structure and technical system of adaptive façade elements in the initial stages of the design process. According to the experts’ insights, the adaptive façades are designed in different lifecycle phases of buildings and constructed through collaboration with various companies that possess diverse skill sets.

Figure 9 illustrates the design lifecycle of the kinetic façade system based on a real-world architectural project conducted in Sydney, Australia. This diagram illustrates the project’s specific workflow while also serving as a transferable model for structuring adaptive façade design processes in similar architectural contexts. This lifecycle is organised into eight key design phases, each characterised by specific objectives and deliverables, progressing from initial evaluation through to construction documentation. The diagram synthesises the typical workflow and decision-making process observed in the project, representing the overall methodology and serving as a design progression model for the development of adaptive façade systems. This is further elaborated through the following sequence of design activities.

The conceptual model is prepared by geometric paper folding, serving as the primary stage of adaptive façade design in this instance. Then, the architect designs the geometry using parametric tools such as Rhino. Analytic and parametric plug-ins such as Grasshopper are applied to examine shading module performance, such as solar studies and heat transfer control. A mock-up is created to discuss the façade design with the subcontractor to determine the operating systems and how the louvres can open and close. Then, a tendering process is conducted to select consultants and contractors and to receive prices from the contractors. Additionally, designers model the louvre using Rhino and Grasshopper to create a design development document for tenders. The designers also model the louvre through Rhino and Grasshopper and transmit it as a design development document for tendering. A prototype is developed through software like Diggers.

In the early building design phase, some steps examine the design and planning process of a non-conventional façade [46]. Considering adaptivity from the beginning of the design process is critical, as integrating adaptive elements into a designed building causes enormous iteration efforts during the building lifecycle. Therefore, addressing all the parameters and features in the design phase is essential to avoid significant changes in the overall building design [46].

As to the similarities and differences with the literature, Refs. [44,52,53,54] propose a conceptual framework for designing building façades comprising three main stages: early building design, façade preliminary design, and façade detailed design. Additionally, it mentions that the lifecycle phases of adaptive façades, as categorised by Attia and Battisti, align with these three phases. This suggests a consistency in the structuring of approaches towards designing building façades among these authors despite potential variations in the specifics of their frameworks

4.4.2. Project Management

The interview with experts revealed the importance of the management and coordination of projects involving the design, development, and construction of adaptive façades. Managing an adaptive façade project requires a comprehensive understanding of the project’s objectives, technical requirements, and stakeholder expectations. Project management for adaptive façades encompasses several key factors, with procurement and supplier management being paramount. As one of the experts highlighted, this factor includes identifying suppliers and subcontractors for various components of the adaptive façade system; managing the procurement process, including requests for proposals; evaluations of bids; and contract negotiations. Ref. [46] analysed and assembled information from different sources on the composition of an integrated design team in the lifecycle of an adaptive façade. This finding contrasts with conventional façade projects, in which an architect is typically responsible for managing stakeholders.

4.4.3. Technical and Engineering Aspects

Insights gleaned from the interviews highlight the industry’s current struggle with implementing sophisticated control systems and integrating digital solutions into adaptive façades. This challenge is exacerbated by a shortage of skilled professionals and a dearth of specialised companies focused on this niche field. Notably, the operation of adaptive façade sensors heavily relies on AI-driven control systems, necessitating a high level of expertise to manage and execute algorithmic functions effectively. Furthermore, discussions during the interviews extensively explored the distinctions between traditional manual control methods and the emerging automated approaches, particularly emphasising the pivotal role of AI integration, as elucidated in [55]. Manufacturing, particularly when employed as a prefabrication technique, holds significant technical importance in the production of adaptive façade modules within a controlled factory environment. Therefore, a precise design becomes significantly more crucial when manufacturing is employed as a prefabrication method [46,53]. One example of AI application in adaptive façade engineering is applying embedded sensors within the building envelope. These sensors are employed to transmit the recorded signals from the façade to the control unit to open all units and coordinate glazing [56]. Understanding how an AI can be effectively integrated into the adaptive façade infrastructure is a technical hurdle that the industry is facing.

According to the interviews, a façade designer emphasises the importance of considering mechanical aspects in the design of adaptive façades for optimising performance. This involves factors like choosing suitable materials and implementing ventilation control mechanisms, shading systems, insulation, and other mechanical components essential for enhancing the façade’s efficiency and functionality. That is, sustainability consultants, mechanical engineers, and façade designers collaborate with architects to convert the design into a properly engineered solution for the façade. For example, façade consultants typically provide architects with the U values and solar heat gain coefficients (SHGCs). SHGC was one of the most significant elements that the interviewees repeatedly pointed out and it is the element prescribed by the Building Code of Australia, instead of the G-Value, which is common in European standards. This links to the building context considered as a design input to evaluate the amount of heat gain. The interviewees suggested that floor-to-floor height is another essential factor. These factors provide the basis for mechanical engineers to report heating loads and cooling loads. Therefore, it is crucial to classify the parameters each relevant consultant introduces and to develop a comprehensive and inclusive framework to assist designers and engineers with the design process.

The majority of the experts further pointed out the importance of the inner reflections of solar radiation and shadings, where the window layer variable is part of the SHGC of the windows and needs to be considered as a parameter to achieve an optimised adaptive façade. In terms of the simulation tools and applications, the interviews revealed that the Ladybug simulation tool cannot control non-conventional adaptive façades throughout the year. As an expert highlighted, “New tools like Ladybug are more suitable for personalisation, at least for visual comfort, not thermal comfort. Moreover, concerning energy performance, it is a kind of zonal metric to analyse the cooling and heating consumption, and it is not an occupancy-based simulation. So basically, it can present the output of any indicators we are looking for energy performance, but if about thermal comfort is sought, we have many limitations”. Likewise, there are constraints in the Energy Plus simulation settings where unrealistic or simplistic modelling assumptions can underestimate or overestimate the potential benefits of adaptive shades.

The experts familiar with the building simulation tools explicitly highlighted Energy Plus as a valuable tool for analysing the energy performance of the adaptive façade. In addition, according to a study by Tabadkani and Roetzel [12], Python programming can be used to post-process the simulation results and deliver a personalised control for non-conventional adaptive façades. Rhino was also identified as a significant software in designing adaptive façades, and Grasshopper, a visual programming language, is plugged into Rhino. Furthermore, occupant-based controls that can significantly impact energy savings still need to be more detailed and accurate. In the same vein, shading systems can be adaptive to various indoor environmental conditions, specifically in terms of visual comfort indices. Therefore, there is a lack of well-accepted strategies to simulate the adaptive behaviour of a façade, while there is a tendency towards designing non-conventional ffaçades such as origami-based prototypes [27].

There was a conflict between the experts’ ideas regarding the floor height. Some believed that this factor needs to be considered to improve energy performance, but another interviewee argued that the thermal transportation between the inside and outside of a building, through the perimeter zones, is the primary factor impacting the building’s energy performance, and it is more significant than the floor height. The expert said the following: “If there is a building surrounding that has a shadow impact on its adjacency, or if there is a big parking lot or an ocean, or a prominent surface in front of the building that can reflect the sunlight differently to the level two or level 20, hence considering the floor height is essential”. However, the majority believe that floor height significantly impacts the building ventilation rate and needs to be considered to gain optimised energy performance in the adaptive façade design.

According to one of the researchers’ comments, Energy Plus has a programming limitation for controlling an adaptive façade in a shared space in an open-plan office based on thermal comfort. As the experts mentioned, in order to design a suitable adaptive façade for buildings in Australia, high wind pressure is a significant factor that must be addressed. In the majority of Australian climate zones, there is a significant temperature difference between the inside and outside of buildings, which poses a challenge for the adaptive façade industry in Australia. The western façade in the southern hemisphere is exposed to the sun. It gets hot, so having the proper shading façade with a suitable position is necessary for this side of the building. Furthermore, horizontal shading for the north side of the façade should be considered. The eastern façade is much harder to shade because of the loss of angles, and vertical shading devices are suggested to block the sun. All in all, the shading device must be designed so that natural daylight can penetrate the building.

Some experts highlighted that to approach a suitable adaptive façade for residential buildings, a designer would need some operable windows to improve ventilation. They believe that it requires an intelligent, adaptive façade to monitor and track weather conditions. They suggest that having a façade that maximises the heat gain as the sun rises into the building is crucial for Australian climates. As the sun rises, the façades can be opened to capture solar energy and preheat the building. And then, as the temperature increases, the façades can be closed off to kill moulds and prevent building units from overheating. The experts have mentioned weatherproofing, fire resistance, and sustainability as the key challenges in adaptive façade design. The colour of the walls, fresh air intake, achieving better solar energy, and proper building modelling were also identified by the experts and researchers as other factors to consider in designing high-performance adaptive façades.

The insights from the interviews underscore the challenges faced by the industry in implementing sophisticated control systems and digital solutions in adaptive façades. A shortage of skilled professionals and specialised companies exacerbates this struggle, particularly in integrating AI-driven control systems vital for sensor operation. Discussions emphasised the pivotal role of AI integration, with a focus on transitioning from manual to automated control methods. Manufacturing, especially in prefabrication, holds technical significance, demanding precise design considerations. The challenges include understanding AI integration and optimising solar radiation reflections. Simulation tools have limitations in analysing non-conventional façades, while software like Energy Plus and Python aid in post-processing and design. The experts emphasised the importance of occupant-based controls and adaptive shading systems for energy savings. Conflicting opinions exist regarding the impact of floor height on energy performance, with considerations varying based on building context. Addressing factors like wind pressure and solar exposure is crucial for Australian climates. The design challenges include weatherproofing, fire resistance, and sustainability, alongside considerations for proper ventilation and solar energy optimisation.

Figure 10 presents a conceptual structure illustrating the dynamic relationship between three critical components in adaptive façade design: technological interventions, financial considerations, and lifecycle stages. This framework was developed through the thematic analysis of the expert insights and the literature. While the connection between lifecycle stages and financial planning is well established, the link between technological interventions and financial feasibility is often more complex and less direct. Advanced façade technologies aim to improve environmental responsiveness and occupant comfort [57], yet they often entail substantial upfront investment and long-term operational costs.

While the integration of advanced adaptive façade technologies aims to enhance environmental performance and occupant comfort, it often entails significant capital and operational expenditures. These financial demands highlight the importance of embedding cost considerations into each stage of the façade’s lifecycle. Effective financial planning—beginning at the conceptual phase and extending through long-term operational assessments—is essential for informed decision-making and resource allocation. The revised framework in Figure 10 illustrates the interplay between technological innovation, financial viability, and lifecycle management. Although emerging technologies typically require higher initial investment, they can deliver substantial long-term benefits, including improved energy efficiency and return on investment. This relationship highlights the importance of considering short-term costs within the broader context of lifecycle value. Additionally, the operational phase provides critical feedback through performance assessments, which inform future design iterations and implementation strategies. As such, the framework advocates for an integrated, systems-oriented approach that aligns technological, financial, and temporal dimensions to support the development of sustainable and high-performing adaptive façade systems.

The thematic insights gained through the expert interviews, combined with the literature-derived parameters, inform the development of a structured adaptive façade design framework. This framework synthesises the technical, environmental, and performance-related dimensions discussed in the preceding sections. It is intended to provide a comprehensive methodology for the design and implementation of adaptive façades in high-rise residential buildings in Australia. The next section presents this framework in detail, illustrating how these diverse factors can be integrated into an actionable design process.

5. Synthesis and Framework Development: Adaptive Façade Design for High-Rise Residential Buildings

Utilising the results presented in the previous sections, the adaptive façades design framework developed in this study (Figure 11) provides a comprehensive methodology to optimise the performance of adaptive façades in high-rise residential buildings. This framework synthesises insights from the expert interviews and the literature review, aiming to address the key design, environmental, and energy performance parameters. The framework is structured into three interconnected categories: design, environmental factors, and building energy simulation.

5.1. Design Phase

The design phase addresses the core architectural and engineering considerations needed to develop adaptive façades. This phase involves the use of parametric tools such as Rhino and Grasshopper to generate non-conventional geometries and optimise shading and motion typologies, ensuring that the façade’s geometry supports thermal performance, energy efficiency, and visual comfort. It also encompasses the integration of advanced control systems, including sensors, actuators, and real-time data processing, to enable dynamic responses to changing environmental conditions, with an emphasis on AI-driven control systems for optimising façade movement and performance. Lastly, this phase involves careful engineering and material selection—such as using perforated aluminium panels with polyamide cores—to ensure structural integrity and adaptive functionality, as well as incorporating mechanical movement mechanisms like rotational, translational, and folding mechanisms, to ensure adaptability and resilience.

5.2. Environmental Factors

The environmental factors category encompasses contextual parameters that impact the performance of adaptive façades, including solar exposure, wind patterns, and seasonal variations in temperature and humidity. Key variables in this framework include solar radiation and shading systems, thermal comfort and natural ventilation, and acoustic and weather resistance. Shading systems optimise solar gain to regulate internal temperatures and reduce energy consumption, particularly in Australia, where they open in the morning and close during peak sun hours. Adaptive façades also enhance thermal comfort through natural ventilation, using operable windows and real-time monitoring of conditions to maintain indoor comfort without excessive mechanical cooling. Additionally, these façades protect against wind, rain, and noise, using materials and motion systems that ensure weatherproofing and acoustic insulation while maintaining adaptability.

5.3. Building Energy Simulation

The building energy simulation category utilises advanced computational tools to simulate and optimise the energy performance of adaptive façades. Simulation tools such as EnergyPlus and Ladybug are employed to analyse the thermal interactions between the façade and the building’s interior, taking into account the effects of shading, solar gain, and ventilation. This category consists of three sub-components:

• Thermal Performance Simulation: EnergyPlus is used to simulate long-wave infrared radiation, solar reflections, and heat transfer between shading layers and the building envelope. The framework utilises these simulations to evaluate how various design configurations impact energy consumption and thermal comfort. Energy analysis tools, such as EnergyPlus, utilise multiple variables to calculate the thermal interactions between shading systems and windows. The following factors are used in the framework [27]:
  • Longwave Infrared Radiation (IR);
  • Inner reflections of solar radiation and IR between the shading and the window layer;
  • Absorbs direct and diffuse solar radiation by the shading layer;
  • Natural convection airflow in the gap between the external shading system and the window;
  • Convection heat transition from the air gap between the external shading system and the window.
• Daylight Analysis: Tools like Ladybug are integrated to analyse how adaptive shading systems impact daylight penetration and distribution within the building. The goal is to maximise natural lighting while minimising glare and reducing reliance on artificial lighting.
• Energy Optimisation: Finally, the framework incorporates energy optimisation algorithms that assess the trade-offs between energy savings and occupant comfort. By simulating different façade configurations, designers can identify the optimal balance between shading, ventilation, and daylight to achieve net-zero energy performance.

5.4. Integration and Iteration

The adaptive façades design framework is iterative, meaning that each of the three categories (design, environmental factors, and building energy simulation) must be continuously evaluated and refined throughout the design and construction phases. As the façade design progresses, new data and insights from energy simulations and environmental analyses are used to adjust the façade’s geometry, materials, and control systems. This process ensures that the final design achieves the highest possible performance in terms of energy efficiency, thermal comfort, and sustainability.

6. Gap Analysis and Future Research

This study identified significant gaps in the body of knowledge and practice, and accordingly, suggests a future research agenda on the topic under investigation. Based on the Building Code of Australia, there is a lack of standards and guidelines for the design and construction of adaptive façades. The present study identified different approaches for adaptive façade standards and warranties in Australia. By following standards and considerations in the future, architects can design optimised adaptive façades in Australia that enhance buildings’ performance, comfort and sustainability while contributing to their aesthetic appeal.

The impact of implementing intelligent, renewable energy on adaptive façades on the energy efficiency of high-rise residential buildings in Australia represents a valuable area for future research. Designing a less glazed and more passive environmental system, as well as one that is potentially easier to maintain, is the most determinant factor. Additionally, a crucial aspect of designing an adaptive façade for high-rise residential is to reduce energy consumption. Moreover, integrating adaptive façades with renewable energy technologies, such as panels and wind turbines, presents a promising innovation avenue.

According to the expert’s comments, a designer can achieve thermal performance whilst developing a unique aesthetic by redirecting some of the glass cost or investing in the glazing suite or curtain wall into a kinetic façade system. Furthermore, lowering the cost of electricity can be a significant factor that gives a promising opportunity for high market investment. In terms of the adaptive façade issues, the most common problem recognised by the interviewed experts was the cost factor. In addition, the warranty was the critical issue identified in the Australian context. The façade design experts have highlighted this issue as the primary concern they faced during this phase. As a result, this issue has not been stated and underlined in related studies in the literature review, which had a non-Australian focus. However, it is essential for countries with similar constructs to Australia. The initial stage of studying adaptive façades in Australia is another concern among researchers and designers that warrants consideration. According to Shady Attia, the project delivery and standardisation aspects of adaptive façades were one of the issues experts mentioned in their interviews. The idea of standardisation, off-site prefabricated façade elements, and service-driven façade solutions was highly mentioned by the experts. The experts believe that an integrated design process complements prefabrication and standardisation.

Following the developed outcomes, several recommendations are outlined for further research:

• Further study is needed to consider a range of factors and classification of standards in terms of designing adaptive façades in Australia.
• The adaptive façade design, engineering, construction, and maintenance should be thoroughly analysed and discussed across all the stages of the project lifecycle. Additionally, the contract sums for both the adaptive façades and the entire building, as well as the construction duration and occupant feedback, must also be considered.
• Regarding the adaptive façade warranty, there is no precise classification of the various types of warranties. Thus, it is necessary to identify all kinds of maintenance issues and warranties for adaptive façades.
• The cost, budget, and economic point of view in the design and construction of adaptive façades should be studied in depth.
• Further research is needed to investigate the technical aspects of adaptive façades. Additional knowledge, skills, and expertise should be developed in the technical aspects, including manufacturing, prefabrication, and AI.
• Details regarding the operation, maintenance, and evaluation of the adaptive façades still need to be clarified, requiring additional research and validation. Also, façade design involves various technical aspects, and the responsibilities of both the façade designers and the clients can vary depending on the project and the contract [58].
• The present study could not address the responsibilities of both designers and clients to ensure constructability (about the ease and efficiency of design and construction phases) and inspect the designs’ ability during the pre-construction phase. Therefore, additional research is warranted to elucidate their respective roles and categorise them into distinct classifications. Furthermore, the investigation underscores the necessity for further exploration and examination of issues pertinent to the design and construction phases of a kinetic façade case study in Australia.

7. Conclusions

This study has significantly advanced the knowledge of adaptive façade design for high-rise residential buildings in Australia by addressing the crucial gaps in the current knowledge and practice. Through a detailed qualitative analysis, including expert interviews and an extensive literature review, this research has provided valuable insights into the key parameters influencing the performance of adaptive façades, such as material selection, shading typologies, motion mechanisms, and energy simulation methodologies. The findings underscore the vital role adaptive façades play in optimising energy performance, enhancing thermal comfort, and promoting sustainable building practices.

One of the significant contributions of this study is the development of a conceptual framework that integrates design principles, environmental factors, and advanced energy simulation tools. This framework offers a systematic approach for architects and engineers to design high-performance adaptive façades tailored to the unique challenges of high-rise residential buildings in Australia. By addressing the complex interplay between design elements and energy performance, this framework provides a robust foundation for improving the efficiency and sustainability of future building projects.

However, the research also reveals several notable challenges that must be overcome to facilitate the broader adoption of adaptive façades. Financial barriers, such as the high costs of advanced technologies and maintenance, remain critical issues, as do the lack of standardised regulations and warranties specific to adaptive façade systems in Australia. These challenges highlight the need for continued collaboration between industry stakeholders, policymakers, and researchers to develop viable financial models, regulatory frameworks, and maintenance strategies that can support the implementation of adaptive façades at scale.

Looking ahead, this study lays a strong foundation for future research and practice. It is imperative to expand the exploration of adaptive façade technologies through real-world case studies, develop more detailed financial and lifecycle analyses, and engage in interdisciplinary collaborations that push the boundaries of the current design and engineering practices. Furthermore, integrating renewable energy technologies into adaptive façades represents a promising avenue for innovation, offering the potential to further reduce energy consumption and enhance the sustainability of high-rise residential buildings. In conclusion, this research contributes to the advancement of adaptive façade design in the Australian context and provides a pathway towards more resilient, energy-efficient, and sustainable urban environments. By leveraging the insights and frameworks developed in this study, the building industry can take meaningful strides towards meeting the global challenge of reducing carbon emissions and creating the net-zero buildings of the future.