## 1 Introduction  
The importance of preserving building functionality in the aftermath of seismic events first gained widespread recognition following the 1994 Northridge earthquake [1, 2, 3, 4] and the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake [5, 6, 7, 8]. While these events resulted in relatively limited structural collapse among code-compliant buildings, they caused severe disruptions to nonstructural components and utility services, leading to a widespread loss of building functionality. These experiences highlighted the inadequacy of life-safety-based seismic design and served as key turning points in the development of performance-based seismic design. Building upon these lessons, large-scale earthquakes in the past, such as the 2008 Sichuan and 2011 Christchurch events, have further demonstrated that even buildings designed to meet life safety requirements may still suffer significant functional disruptions [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. The resulting long-term downtime and economic losses have led to growing demands for performance objectives that extend beyond mere collapse prevention [15]. Inresponse, the concept of functional recovery has emerged as a critical design goal in the field of earthquake engineering. This new paradigm emphasizes not only the physical safety of occupants but also the rapid restoration of building operations after seismic events [16; 17]. The concept of functional recovery refers to a building's ability to regain essential functionality within an acceptable time frame after a disaster [18; 19; 20]. Frameworks such as FEMA P-58 [21] and the REDi resilience guidelines [22] have been widely adopted to estimate post-earthquake performance, including repair costs and the expected downtime. However, these methodologies rely on generalized assumptions about construction type and repair sequence that overlook differences between traditional and modular construction. For example, the REDi guideline assumes a strictly sequential (floor-by-floor) repair sequence and does not fully consider the faster, parallel repair strategies made possible by prefabricated structural systems [23; 24; 25]. Similarly, the FEMA P-58 methodology provides generic downtime estimates without distinguishing cast-in situ and prefabricated construction, implicitly assuming conventional construction practices in its repair logic. Consequently, existing resilience assessment frameworks do not incorporate the effects of prefabrication strategies, such as varying prefabrication ratios or prefabricated component types, on the post-earthquake recovery path. This gap may lead to the mischaracterization of downtime for modern modular buildings. To address these limitations, several advanced recovery models have been proposed. Newer frameworks such as F-Rec, ATC-138, and TREADS have introduced more realistic features such as resource constraints, component interdependencies, and probabilistic repair scheduling [26; 27; 28]. While these approaches improve overall downtime estimation, none explicitly account for prefabrication-specific recovery patterns. A generalized, construction-aware resilience evaluation framework that accommodates both cast-in situ and prefabricated buildings is still lacking. In recent years, PCaPC frame systems have gained attention due to their superior constructability, quality control, and reduced on-site labor requirements [29; 30; 31; 32]. To further enhance performance and simplify assembly, a cost-efficient mortise-tenon (MT) connection has been developed for PCaPC frames [33]. This dry connection allows beams and columns to be joined without cast-in situ work, enabling self-centering behavior under seismic loads through unbonded prestressed tendons. The MT joint also localizes damage and expedites post-earthquake repairs by allowing for the rapid replacement of damaged components. Despite the advantages of PCaPC frame systems with MT connections, few studies have quantified the post-earthquake functional recovery of such systems.