See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293178740

Biomimetic Architecture

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 3,386

1 author:

Shiva Khoshtinat
University of Florence
5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Origami Experience View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shiva Khoshtinat on 07 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Algorithms In Nature & Architecture
(Biomimetic Architecture)

Prof
Giuseppe Redolfi

By
Shiva khoshtinat
“If you want to make a living flower you do not build it physically with tweezers, cell by cell; you
grow it from seed. If you want to design a new flower, you will design the seed and let it grow.
The seeds of the environment are pattern languages.” - Christopher Alexander
Index

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

What dose ‘biomimicry’ mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Biomimicry definitions and concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Design looking to biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Biology influencing design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Application of Biomimecry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Organism Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Behavior Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Ecosystem Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Examples of Biomimicry in Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Improving Building’s resiliency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Material based on Biomimetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Possible concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure & Table Index

Fig 1. The TWA terminal at John F Kennedy Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Fig 2. The columns in the Johnson Wax building to water lilies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fig 3. Some of Eladio Dieste’s architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Dig 1. Life Creates conditions Conductive to Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Fig 4. DaimlerCrysler bionic car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 1. Framework for the Application of Biomimicry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Fig 5. Matthew Parkes’ Hydrological Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fig 6. Waterloo International Terminal and the pangolin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Fig 7. The North American Beaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Fig 8. Eastgate Building, Zimbabwe and CH2 Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fig 9. Lloyd Crossing Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Fig 10. Femur bones in legs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Fig 11. Seismic loads on columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Fig 12. Columns details based on human femur bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Fig 13. COCOON_FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Fig 14. COCOON_FS outdoor and indoor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Fig 15. Thorny Devil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Fig 16. Water Suction System of Thorny Devils Skin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Abstract

Evolutionary processes in nature generated manifold solutions towards elementary architectural

tasks like materialization of form and adaptation to external stimuli. Similarly to the
architectural design and production process, various functional and form generative aspects
have to be integrated into a coherent system. Despite these parallels natural organisms are
working radically different from todays construction and planning practice. While nature
evolved highly energy and material efficient solutions, based on fundamental principles like
functional integration by geometric and material differentiation, todays construction industry
and design processes are mostly based on the standardization of elements and the addition of
mono functional subsystems. Recent developments of computational design and digital
fabrication processes have initiated a fundamental paradigm shift from industrial production
towards integrated design processes. This development opens up the possibilities to create
architectural systems which are characterized by multifunctional geometrically differentiated
structures, which can match the capacity of natures per formative morphologies, and thereby
enables us to transfer functional principles of natural organisms into architectural applications.

1
Introduction

Throughout history, architects have looked to nature for inspiration for building forms and
approaches to decoration. Aiming to study one particular aspect of ‘nature as sourcebook’ that is
distinct from the majority of architectural references to the natural world. The intention is to
study ways of translating adaptations in biology into solutions in architecture. We are entering
the Ecological Age, and it is the contention of this book that many of the lessons that we will
need for this new era are to be found in nature itself. What has been commonly called ‘The
Industrial Revolution’ (but could also be referred to as ‘The Fossil Fuel Age’) could now be seen
as a diversion from the kind of ingenuity that we once had in common with nature’s evolved
solutions. The ubiquity and convenience of fossil fuels has allowed extreme inefficiency to
develop, and has effectively undermined resourcefulness. [1]
The lessons from nature which informed many vernacular approaches to design and
manufacturing were therefore abandoned and largely lost from our collective memory. Now that
the folly of releasing many millennia of stored carbon is becoming increasingly apparent, there
is an opportunity to explore the incredible effectiveness of the responses that natural organisms
have evolved. For virtually every problem that we currently face – whether it is producing
energy, finding fresh water or manufacturing benign materials – there will be numerous
examples in nature that we could benefit from studying. While fascination with nature
undoubtedly goes back as long as human existence itself, now we have an opportunity to revisit
the idea of learning from biology with massive advantages of scientific knowledge, better tools
and aesthetic sensibilities unconstrained by historical dogma. There are few times when
designers have been presented with such an opportunity. [1]
Many current approaches to environmentally sustainable architecture are based on mitigation.
The suggestion from the examples collected in this book is that it is possible to go further than
this, and for buildings and cities to be regenerative. In some cases, buildings will cease to be
static consumers and can become net producers of useful resources. The intention is therefore to
transcend the mimicking of natural forms and attempt to understand the principles that lie
behind those forms and systems. Then we can look for opportunities to create works of
architecture that are celebratory as well as being radically more resource efficient. [1]

Biomimetic architecture is a contemporary philosophy of architecture that seeks solutions for

sustainability in nature, not by replicating the natural forms, but by understanding the rules

2
governing those forms. It is a multi-disciplinary approach to sustainable design that follows a set
of principles rather than stylistic codes. It is part of a larger movement known as biomimicry,
which is the examination of nature, its models, systems, and processes for the purpose of
gaining inspiration in order to solve man-made problems. [2]
Architect Daniel Liebermann’s commentary on organic architecture as a movement highlights
the role of nature in building: “…a truer understanding of how we see, with our mind and eye, is
the foundation of everything organic. Man’s eye and brain evolved over aeon of time, most of
which were within the vast untrammeled and unpaved landscape of our endemic biosphere! We
must go to Nature for our models now, that is clear!”[3] Organic architects use man-made
solutions with nature-inspired aesthetics to bring about an awareness of the natural
environment rather than relying on nature’s solutions to answer man’s problems.
Biomimetic architecture goes beyond using nature as inspiration for the aesthetic components
of built form, but instead seeks to use nature to solve problems of the building’s functioning.
Biomimicry means to imitate life and originates from the Greek words bios (life) and mimesis
(imitate). The movement is a branch off of the new science defined and popularized by Janine
Benyus in her 1997 book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature as one which studies
nature and then imitates or takes inspiration from its designs and processes to solve human
problems.[2] Rather than thinking of the building as a machine for living in, biomimicry asks
architects to think of a building as a living thing for a living being.

3
What dose ‘biomimicry’ mean?

The term ‘biomimicry’ first appeared in scientific literature in 1962, and grew in usage
particularly amongst materials scientists in the 1980s. Some scientists preferred the term
‘biomimetics’ or, less frequently, ‘bionics’. There has been an enormous surge of interest during
the last ten years, brought about to a large extent by individuals like biological-sciences writer
Janine Benyus, Professor of Biology Steven Vogel and Professor of Biomimetics Julian Vincent,
who have all written extensively in this subject area. Julian Vincent defines it as ‘the abstraction
of good design from nature’, while for Janine Benyus it is ‘The conscious emulation of nature’s
genius’. The only significant difference between ‘biomimetics’ and ‘biomimicry’ is that many
users of the latter intend it to be specifically focused on developing sustainable solutions,
whereas the former can be, and on occasions has been, applied to fields of endeavor such as
military technology. [1]
There are two other terms that are worth clarifying: firstly ‘bio-utilisation’ and secondly
‘biophilia’. Bio-utlisation refers to the direct use of nature for beneficial purposes, such as
incorporating planting in and around buildings to produce evaporative cooling. Biophilia was a
term popularized by the biologist E. O. Wilson, and refers to a hypothesis that there is an
instinctive bond between human beings and other living organisms. [1] From an architectural
perspective there is an important distinction to be made between ‘biomimicry’ and
‘biomorphism’.
Modern architects have frequently used nature as a source for unconventional forms and for
symbolic association. There are some examples of how this has produced majestic works of
architecture, such as Eero Saarinen’s TWA terminal (fig. 1) and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Johnson
Wax building (fig. 2). [1]

1. The TWA terminal at John F Kennedy Airport, New York, in which Eero Saarinen used biomorphic forms to capture the poetry of flight

4
2. Frank Lloyd Wright likened the columns in the Johnson Wax building to water lilies and, while they create a spectacular space, they have nothing
functionally in common with lily leaves

There are certainly projects that have been based on a very detailed understanding of natural
forms and have used this to great effect. The key, I believe, is whether the design engages with
the function delivered by a particular natural adaptation. If it does, then it is fair to label it as
biomimetic; if it does not, then I think it is correct to say it is biomorphic. Just as with any
design discipline, it will not automatically produce good architecture, and we should be wary of
trying to become purely scientific about design. Architecture should always have an emotional
dimension – it should touch the spirit, it should be uplifting and it should celebrate the age in
which it was created. There are some cases in which a biological example may already have some
of these inspiring qualities – one could cite the Amazon water lilies that were translated into
concrete beauty by Pier Luigi Nervi. [1]
In other cases, such as the principles of structural efficiency revealed in abalone shells, it is no
more (or less) than a promising starting point from which to imagine all manner of spaces with,
for instance, the magical qualities of Eladio Dieste’s architecture (fig. 3).

3. Some of Eladio Dieste’s architecture

5
The word ‘natural’ is used in many contexts to imply some kind of inherent virtue or ‘rightness’,
and it would be easy to misconstrue biomimicry as being about the pursuit of solutions that are
‘more natural’. This is not the aim. There are certain aspects of nature that we definitely do not
want to emulate – voracious parasitism to name just one. There is also a danger in
romanticizing nature. What I believe nature does hold that is of enormous value is a vast array
of products (for want of a better word) that have benefited from an extremely long and ruthless
process of selection and refinement. Evolution could be summarized as a process based on
genetic variability, from which the fittest are selected over time. The pressures of survival have
driven organisms into some almost unbelievably specific ecological niches and into developing
astonishing adaptations to resource-constrained environments. The relevance of this to the
constraints that humans will face in the decades ahead is obvious. [1]

6
Biomimicry definitions and concept

Biomimicry also familiar known as biomimetic, bionic, bio-inspirations and biognosis is several
scientific terms that related to adapting natural systems and design to create a new form of
industrial products. Benyus (1998) defines that biomimicry is based on nature that can be
learned and extract from it as technical term in their quest for properties in living organisms
that can explored from observations and scientific analysis. The concept of biomimicry was
scientifically formulated in early 1950s to increase human capacities by enhancing their daily life
tools. [4]

While many terms can be used to explain biomimicry, researchers and professionals will define
and differentiate the term as biomimetics and bionics. In between biomimetics and biomimicry,
the only significance is the specific focus on developing sustainable solutions, while it can also
be applied to fields such as high technology systems. The other terms to clarify biomimicry are
bio-utilisation and biophilia. Bio-utilisation defines the direct use of nature for beneficial
purpose like building to produce evaporative cooling systems. The other term is biophilia,
defined by E.O. Wilson as the instinctive bond between human and living organisms.

7
In architectural perspective, the term of biomimicry and biomorphism were created to define
the modern architectural style that frequently used nature as its main source of unconventional
form and somehow for symbolic association or metaphoric concept. For example, the architect
Le Corbusier used allusions by adapting natural forms extensively for associated symbolism in
this esoteric realm. That is to make distinctions that require functional revolution to bring about
the transformation to biomimicry, rather than biomorphism, which would deliver the preferred
solutions.Pawlyn (2006) believes that there is an engagement between biomimicry and
biomorphism that works to create the particular natural adaption to great effect. He also added
the hypothesis that if the creation functions to adapt as its natural adaptation, it is fair to label it
as biomimetic, if not it should be labeled biomorphic. [4]By studying the biomimicry concept, we
come across many things in nature that acts as a model to be measured and shaped to formulate
the forms, systems, strategies and processes in creating sustainable solutions.
Nature can be inspired most as the experience of it is more than 3.8 billion years in evolution
process, so the idea can be taken and used to change the whole idea. In biomimicry itself, it is to
develop an evolutionary process to enhance life, by creating new technology for mankind. The
basic idea is to make a combination between technology and engineering by helping humanity to
treat nature in better harmony, so that the entire world user can create better products by
developing greener and more sustainable technologies, without harming nature. [4]
Approaches to biomimicry as a design process typically fall into two categories: Defining a
human need or design problem and looking to the ways other organisms or ecosystems solve
this, termed here design looking to biology, or identifying a particular characteristic, behavior or
function in an organism or ecosystem and translating that into human designs, referred to as
biology influencing design (Biomimicry Guild, 2007).

Design looking to biology [5]

The approach where designers look to the living world for solutions, requires designers to
identify problems and biologists to then match these to organisms that have solved similar
issues. This approach is effectively led by designers identifying initial goals and parameters for
the design. An example of such an approach is DaimlerChrysler’s prototype Bionic Car (fig. 4).
In looking to create a large volume, small wheel base car, the design for the car was based on the
boxfish (ostracion meleagris), a surprisingly aerodynamic fish given its box like shape. The
chassis and structure of the car are also biomimetic, having been designed using a computer
modelling method based upon how trees are able to grow in a way that minimizes stress

8
concentrations. The resulting structure looks almost skeletal, as material is allocated only to the
places where it is most needed (Vincent et al., 2006). [5]

4. DaimlerCrysler bionic car inspired by the box fish and tree growth patterns

The possible implications of architectural design where biological analogues are matched with
human identified design problems are that the fundamental approach to solving a given
problem and the issue of how buildings relate to each other and the ecosystems they are part of
is not examined. The underlying causes of a non-sustainable, or even degenerative built
environment, are not therefore necessarily addressed with such an approach. The Bionic Car
(fig. 4) illustrates that point. It is more efficient in terms of fuel use because the body is more
aerodynamic due to the mimicking of the box fish. It is also more materials efficient due to the
mimicking of tree growth patterns to identify the minimum amount of material need in the
structure of the car. The car itself is however not a new approach to transport. Instead, small
improvements have been made to existing technology without a re-examination of the idea of
the car itself as an answer to personal transport. [5]
Designers are able to research potential biomimetic solutions without an in depth scientific
understanding or even collaboration with a biologist or ecologist if they are able to observe
organisms or ecosystems or are able to access available biological research. With a limited
scientific understanding however, translation of such biological knowledge to a human design
setting has the potential to remain at a shallow level. It is for example easy to mimic forms and
certain mechanical aspects of organisms but difficult to mimic other aspects such as chemical
processes without scientific collaboration. Despite these disadvantages, such an approach might
be a way to begin transitioning the built environment from an unsustainable to efficient to
effective paradigm (McDonough, 2002). Leading thinkers on regenerative design such as
William Reed and Ray Cole argue however that a shift from a built environment that ultimately
is degenerating ecosystems to one which regenerates capacity for ecosystems to thrive and
restore local environments will not be a gradual process of improvements but will in fact require
a fundamental rethinking of how architectural design is approached (Reed, 2006, Cole et al.,
2007). [5]

9
Biology influencing design
When biological knowledge influences human design, the collaborative design process is initially
dependent on people having knowledge of relevant biological or ecological research rather than
on determined human design problems. An example is the scientific analysis of the lotus flower
emerging clean from swampy waters, which led to many design innovations as detailed by
Baumeister (2007a), including Sto’s Lotusan paint which enables buildings to be self-cleaning.
Although Hawken (2007) points out that humans as a species have been around for longer than
the oldest living forest and are undoubtedly a learning and adaptable species, similarities
between human design solutions and tactics used by other species, have a surprisingly small
overlap considering they exist in the same context and with the same available resources
(Vincent et al., 2006, Vogel, 1998). An advantage of this approach therefore is that biology may
influence humans in ways that might be outside a predetermined design problem, resulting in
previously unthought-of technologies or systems or even approaches to design solutions. The
potential for true shifts in the way humans design and what is focused on as a solution to a
problem, exists with such an approach to biomimetic design. (Vincent et al., 2005). A
disadvantage from a design point of view with this approach is that biological research must be
conducted and then identified as relevant to a design context. Biologists and ecologists must
therefore be able to recognize the potential of their research in the creation of novel
applications. [5]

10
Application of Biomimecry

Within the two approaches discussed, three levels of biomimicry that may be applied to a design
problem are typically given as form, process and ecosystem (Biomimicry Guild, 2007) in
studying an organism or ecosystem, form and process are aspects of an organism or ecosystem
that could be mimicked. Ecosystem however is what could be studied to look for specific aspects
to mimic. A framework for understanding the application of biomimicry is proposed in this
paper that redefines these different levels and also attempts to clarify the potential of
biomimicry as a tool to increase regenerative capacity of the built environment. By defining the
kinds of biomimicry that have evolved, this framework may allow designers who wish to employ
biomimicry as a methodology for improving the sustainability of the built environment to
identify an effective approach to take. The framework that will be described here is applicable to
both approaches (design looking to biology, and biology influencing design). The first part of the
framework determines which aspect of ‘bio’ has been ‘mimicked’. This is referred to here as a
level. [5]
Through an examination of existing biomimetic technologies it is apparent that there are three
levels of mimicry; the organism, behavior and ecosystem. The organism level refers to a specific
organism like a plant or animal and may involve mimicking part of or the whole organism. The
second level refers to mimicking behavior, and may include translating an aspect of how an
organism behaves, or relates to a larger context. The third level is the mimicking of whole
ecosystems and the common principles that allow them to successfully function. Within each of
these levels, a further five possible dimensions to the mimicry exist.
The design may be biomimetic for example in terms of what it looks like (form), what it is made
out of (material), how it is made (construction), how it works (process) or what it is able to do
(function). The differences between each kind of biomimicry are described in Table 1 and are
exemplified by looking at how different aspects of a termite, or ecosystem a termite is part of
could be mimicked. It is expected that some overlap between different kinds of biomimicry
exists and that each kind of biomimicry is not mutually exclusive. For example, a series of
systems that is able to interact like an ecosystem would be functioning at the ecosystem level of
biomimicry. The individual details of such a system may be based upon a single organism or
behavior mimicry however, much like a biological ecosystem is made up of the complex
relationships between multitudes of single organisms. [5]

11
Table 1. A Framework for the Application of Biomimicry (adapted from Pedersen Zari, 2007 )

Organism Level [5]

Species of living organisms have typically been evolving for millions of years. Those organisms
that remain on Earth now have the survival mechanisms that have withstood and adapted to
constant changes over time. As Baumeister (2007a) points out ‘the research and development
has been done’. Humans therefore have an extensive pool of examples to draw on to solve
problems experienced by society that organisms may have already addressed, usually in energy
and materials effective ways. This is helpful for humans, particularly as access to resources
changes, the climate changes and more is understood about the consequences of the negative
environmental impact that current human activities have on many of the world’s ecosystems
(Alberti et al., 2003).

12
An example is the mimicking of the Namibian desert beetle, stenocara (Garrod et al., 2007). The
beetle lives in a desert with negligible rainfall. It is able to capture moisture however from the
swift moving fog that moves over the desert by tilting its body into the wind. Droplets form on
the alternating hydrophilic – hydrophobic rough surface of the beetle’s back and wings and roll
down into its mouth (Parker and Lawrence, 2001). Matthew Parkes of KSS Architects
demonstrates process biomimicry at the organism level inspired by the beetle, with his proposed
fog-catcher design for the Hydrological Center for the University of Namibia (fig. 5) (Killeen,
2002). Ravilious (2007) and Knight (2001) discuss a more specific material biomimicry at the
organism level, where the surface of the beetle has been studied and mimicked to be used for
other potential applications such as to clear fog from airport runways and improve
dehumidification equipment for example.

5. Matthew Parkes’ Hydrological Center for the University of Namibia and the stenocara beetle.

Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners' design for the Waterloo International Terminal demonstrates an
example of form and process biomimicry at the organism level (fig. 6). The terminal needed to
be able to respond to changes in air pressure as trains enter and depart the terminal. The glass
panel fixings that make up the structure mimic the flexible scale arrangement of the Pangolin so
they are able to move in response to the imposed air pressure forces (Aldersey-Williams, 2003).
Mimicking an organism alone however without also mimicking how it is able to participate in
and contribute to the larger context of the ecosystem it is in, has the potential to produce
designs that remain conventional or even below average in terms of environmental impact
(Reap et al., 2005). Because mimicking of organisms tends to be of a specific feature, rather
than a whole system, the potential also remains that biomimicry becomes technology that is
added onto buildings rather than being integral to them, particularly if designers have little

13
biological knowledge and no not collaborate with biologists or ecologists during the early design
stages. While this method may result in new and innovative building technologies or materials,
methods to increase sustainability are not necessarily explored.

6. Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners' Waterloo International Terminal and the pangolin.

Behavior Level [5]

A great number of organisms encounter the same environmental conditions that humans do and
need to solve similar issues that humans face. As discussed, these organisms tend to operate
within environmental carrying capacity of a specific place and within limits of energy and
material availability. These limits as well as pressures that create ecological niche adaptations in
ecosystems mean not only well-adapted organisms continue to evolve, but also well-adapted
organism behaviors and relationship patterns between organisms or species (Reap et al., 2005).
Organisms that are able to directly or indirectly control the flow of resources to other species
and who may cause changes in biotic or abiotic (nonliving) materials or systems and therefore
habitats are called ecosystem engineers (Jones and Lawton, 1995, Rosemond and Anderson,
2003). Ecosystem engineers alter habitat either through their own structure (such as coral) or
by mechanical or other means (such as beavers and woodpeckers). Humans are undoubtedly
effective ecosystem engineers, but may gain valuable insights by looking at how other species are
able to change their environments while creating more capacity for life in that system. Several
authors provide examples and details of organisms altering their own habitats while facilitating
the presence of other species, increasing nutrient cycling and creating mutually beneficial

14
relationships between species. The building behavior of other species is often termed ‘animal
architecture’ (von Frisch and von Frisch, 1974, Hansell, 2005) and may provide further
examples of such ecosystem engineers. The example of the North American beaver (castor
Canadensis) (fig. 7) demonstrates how through its altering of the landscape, wetlands are
created and nutrient retention and plant and animal diversity is increased, helping in part to
make the ecosystem more resilient to disturbance (Rosemond and Anderson, 2003).

7. The North American Beaver

In behavior level biomimicry, it is not the organism itself that is mimicked, but its behavior. It
may be possible to mimic the relationships between organisms or species in a similar way. An
architectural example of process and function biomimicry at the behavior level is demonstrated
by Mick Pearce’s East gate Building in Harare, Zimbabwe and the CH2 Building in Melbourne,
Australia (fig. 8). Both buildings are based in part on techniques of passive ventilation and
temperature regulation observed in termite mounds, in order to create a thermally stable
interior environment. Water which is mined (and cleaned) from the sewers beneath the CH2
Building is used in a similar manner to how certain termite species will use the proximity of
aquifer water as an evaporative cooling mechanism.
Behavior level mimicry requires ethical decisions to be made about the suitability of what is
being mimicked for the human context. Not all organisms exhibit behaviors that are suitable for
humans to mimic and the danger exists that models of consumption or exploitation could be
justified on the basis of how another species behaves. For example, mimicking the building
behavior (and outcome of that) of termites might be appropriate for the creation of passively
regulated thermally comfortable buildings. Mimicking the social structure of termite colonies
would not be suitable however if universal human rights are valued. It may be more appropriate
to mimic specific building and survival behaviors that will increase the sustainability and

15
regenerative capacity of human built environments rather than mimicking that could be applied
to social or economic spheres without careful consideration. It may be more appropriate to
mimic whole systems rather than single organisms in this regard. An example is Benyus’ (1997)
assertion that we should ‘do business like a redwood forest’.

8. Eastgate Building in Harare, Zimbabwe and CH2 Building in Melbourne, Australia

Ecosystem Level [5]

The mimicking of ecosystems is an integral part of biomimicry as described by Benyus (1997)
and Vincent (2007). The term ecomimicry has also been used to describe the mimicking of
ecosystems in design (Lourenci et al., 2004, Russell, 2004), while Marshall (2007) uses the term
to mean a sustainable form of biomimicry where the objective is the wellbeing of ecosystems and
people, rather than ‘power, prestige or profit’. Proponents of industrial, construction and
building ecology advocate mimicking of ecosystems (Graham, 2003, Kibert et al., 2002,
Korhonen, 2001) and the importance of architectural design based on an understanding of
ecology is also discussed by researchers advocating a shift to regenerative design (Reed, 2006).
While the author is not aware of any architectural examples that demonstrate comprehensive
ecosystem based biomimicry at either the process or function level, there are proposed projects
that display aspects of such an approach. An example is the Lloyd Crossing Project proposed for
Portland, Oregon by a design team including Mithūn Architects and GreenWorks Landscape
Architecture Consultants. The project uses estimations of how the ecosystem that existed on the
site before development functioned, termed by them Pre–development Metrics™ to set goals for
the ecological performance of the project over a long time period (fig. 9).
An advantage of designing at this level of biomimicry is that it can be used in conjunction with
other levels of biomimicry (organism and behaviour). It is also possible to incorporate existing
established sustainable building methods that are not specifically biomimetic such as interfaced

16
or bio-assisted systems, where human and non-human systems are merged to the mutual
benefit of both. An example is John and Nancy Todd’s Living or Eco Machines where the
process of waste water treatment in ecosystems is mimicked and also integrated with plants
(Todd, 2004, Todd and Josephson, 1996). The Australian developed Biolytix® system mimics
soil based decomposition to treat grey and black water and again integrates actual worms and
soil microbes into the process (Allen, 2005, Baumeister, 2007a).A further advantage of an
ecosystem based biomimetic design approach is that it is applicable to a range of temporal and
spatial scales (Reap et al., 2005) and can serve as an initial benchmark or goal for what
constitutes truly sustainable or even regenerative design for a specific place as demonstrated by
the Lloyd Crossing Project (fig. 9).

9. Lloyd Crossing Project, Portland, USA Figure

The most important advantage of such an approach to biomimetic design however may be the
potential positive effects on overall environmental performance. Ecosystem based biomimicry
can operate at both a metaphoric level and at a practical functional level. At a metaphoric level,
general ecosystem principles (based on how most ecosystems work) are able to be applied by
designers with little specific ecological knowledge. Several authors have offered such general
principles (Benyus, 1997, McDonough and Braungart, 2002, de Groot et al., 2002). A set of
ecosystem principles derived from comparing these cross disciplinary understandings of how
ecosystems function is detailed by Pedersen Zari and Storey (2007). If the built environment
was designed to be a system and was expected to behave like an ecosystem even if only at the
level of metaphor, the environmental performance of the built environment may increase
(Korhonen, 2001). On a functional level, ecosystem mimicry could mean that an in-depth
understanding of ecology drives the design of a built environment that is able to participate in
the major biogeochemical material cycles of the planet (hydrological, carbon, nitrogen etc) in a
reinforcing rather than damaging way (Charest, 2007). That a greater understanding of ecology
and systems design is required on the part of the design team is implicit. Also required would be

17
increased collaboration between disciplines that traditionally seldom work together such as
architecture, biology and ecology. Such an approach challenges conventional architectural
design thinking, particularly the typical boundaries of a building site and time scales a design
may operate in.
While Kibert (2006) cites a number of authors advocating similar ideas, he criticises this kind of
approach to design, because of the difficulty in understanding and modelling ecosystems and
asserts that ‘…the mimicking of nature in human designs is one dimensional [and] non-
complex…’ This is true in terms of realized built form, but does not suggest that mimicking what
is known about ecosystems is not a worthy goal in terms of increasing sustainability or indeed
that it is impossible, particularly when one takes into account that biological knowledge may be
doubling every 5 years (Benyus, 1997).

18
Examples of Biomimicry in Architecture

Structuring Biomimicry, improving Building’s resiliency [6]

Recent major earthquakes throughout the world have proven the inefficiency of the current
building paradigm and have warned building professionals to adapt structures in order to
withstand future seismic events. Heavy materials for construction such as concrete and
masonry, some unsustainable approach for structure’s construction and its dangerous
vulnerability due to the existence of great percentage of structures designed and constructed
following poor seismic regulations or even built without professional assistance. For the thesis
proposal, such kind of resiliency standard was achieved focusing on a structural design concept
inspired by the performance and material efficiency of a “state of the art” static model bio-
structure: the human skeleton.

10. Femur bones in legs, human skeleton

The research proposal aims to produce a concrete structure driven by the natural flow of the
force generated by an earthquake within the material. Such kind of desired “force-driven form”
founds great resemblance with organic bones. The human body and its skeleton adapts
according to function and loads that are normally encountered. Because of these loads, for
instance, femur bones in legs becomes thicker and bigger than other bone because it has to carry
out about 63 percent of the body weight. In result, the compact tissue in each particular bone
becomes thicker where it experiments greater loads, and decrease density according to loads
declining. That technological feature translates each bone’s diagram of force into its
morphology.

19
The human femur, the longest and strongest skeleton bone, provides optimum technology
parameters for the design of structures located in seismic zones. The femur’s hollow shaft design
provides maximum strength with minimum weight, ideal design features in order to reduce the
seismic intensity on a structure. Using biomimicry principles, the research achieves the
architecture of an adapted structural system of reinforced concrete capable to withstand, not
only gravity loads, but lateral loads such as earthquake’s loads, in a more efficient way than a
conventional structure.

11. Seismic loads on columns

As a matter of fact, reinforced concrete was conceived emulating a bone structural properties
where the collagen provides tension resistance such as steel bars, and mineral provides
resistance to compression such as concrete. The type of loads which experiments the femur are
very similar to those in typical beams and columns: tension, compression and bending. Then,
the bio-structural parameters selected from the femur includes the mid-diaphysis (middle-cross
section) geometrical properties associated with its maximum stress resistance value (about
4,000 pounds per square inch); and its response to mechanical stress, according to the Wolff’s
law, which implies that a bone’s anatomy reflects the common stresses it encounters. The
proposal undertakes those biological features of the femur bone to extrapolate morphogenetic
parameters to the building structure in order to improve contextual integration and encourage
better use of concrete.

20
12. Columns details based on human femur bones

Based in the bio-tectonic technological features extrapolated from the femur, the product
achieved was a non-prismatic lightweight components deeply related to the bending-moment
diagram of the typical frames which is normally generated by the effect of the lateral loads.
Hence, the earthquake typical effect on the frame becomes a key parameter to its morphology
design. Furthermore, due to the same principles, a lighter frame was obtained which also
represents an achievement because implies the decline of the earthquake general intensity on
the building. The structure proposal achieves a force-driven morphology implying some grade of
mechanical resilience, and ecological adaptation.

According to computational analysis, such proposal becomes highly efficient for seismic
vulnerable zones because the total base shear (earthquake force intensity) was reduced due to
the effect of lateral loads. Furthermore, the proposed architecture implies a reduction of

21
concrete use for structures which also means a reduction of CO2 emissions. This fact becomes
very important considering that concrete is responsible for 7 to 10 percent of global carbon
dioxide emissions, making it the third largest contributor to Global Warming after
transportation and power generation. Current trends indicate that the future of the building
industry would be greatly associated to Nature and the living technologies. Structuring
biomimicry is an effort to provide the building’s structures with the capacity to be responsive to
environment in real time such as the living structures are. Furthermore, it is the definition of a
novel paradigm which adapts current inert materials for construction to its eco-systemic
surroundings in order to improve the built environmental resiliency.

New construction material based on Biomimetic Principles [7]

13. COCOON_FS

22
 Part of a worldwide research network conducted by PlanktonTech Institute, the COCOON_FS
is a structure that integrates architectural sculpture, new technologies and biomimetic
principles. As the Institute’s focus is on basic research of marine plankton organisms such as
diatoms, the intention of the project is to develop as a material efficient construction by
learning from natural lightweight composite structures. Pohl Architekten created a technical
solution by translating natural lightweight constructions into technical prototypes using highly
efficient technical fibers. It is a floating system that embodies the activities of PlanktonTech.

COCOON_FS visualizes both – natural lightweight construction as well as highly efficient

technical design solutions. With its weight of only 750 kg, the pavilion can easily be
transported to any location. In the sense of stability the floating construction is able to
withstand thunderstorms. The self-supporting shell of COCOON_FS is made of FRP (fiber
reinforced polymers) that forms the skin and the supporting structure in one. The FRP
composite design is optimized by all design parameters including broad iterative research of
parametric design, production needs. Compared to biological solutions in nature,
COCOON_FS is to be seen as morphogenetic design.

14. COCOON_FS outdoor and indoor

23
Possible concept

This adaptable form of architecture can be used to overcome construction difficulties in special
environments, such as humid areas or even deserts. By studying an animal such as the Thorny
Devil we can analyze how it adapts to specifically dry weather conditions. The Thorny Devil has
adapted to its environment by developing ways to consume water through its skin. If one could
construct buildings in the desert by utilizing the specific attributes of this animal it could be a
great leap for architecture.

15. Thorny Devil

The spiky scales of the animal work in a way that it collects moisture and funnels it directly to
the corners of its mouth. The water is not propelled by gravity, a pump or suction but simply
through capillary action. The passive molecular attraction between the complex walls of its
channels and the water coursing along them does all the work. This system efficiently draws any
source of water from all over the Thorny Devil’s body and utilizes it. Through its amazing
adaptability it can collect water from nighttime dew, by rubbing its body on wet rocks and even
by kicking wet sand on its back. The Thorny Devil gathers all the water it needs as if it was a
walking sponge in even the most dried up areas of the world.

24
16. Water Suction System of Thorny Devils Skin

25
Many of the functionalities of this animal could possibly be used to design buildings. For
example by using the animal’s ability to pipe water through fog, we could pipe water from the
exterior part of a building through its façade and into some type of refining container.

The example of the Thorny Devil could in theory be applied to any habitat on earth, and even on
other planets. If the day would come when we are to build on other planets it would be a great
benefit to study how living organisms have already adapted in those habitats. By analyzing those
organisms and creatures we could mimic them to build our structures just as we have often done
on this earth.

Of course these are all just theories, which need a huge amount of research and analysis before
drawing any conclusions. However, as we know that mimicking nature has worked in our favor
in the past, there is much indication that it could continue doing so also in the future.

26
 References

1. Michael Pawlyn, biomimicry in architecture

2. Janine Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. (New York: Perennial, 2002).

3. David Pearson, New Organic Architecture: the breaking wave (Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 2001).

4. Mohd Shahril Bin Ab Sahak, Biomimicry in Architectural Sustainable Approach

5. Maibritt Pedersen Zari, Biomimetic Approaches to Architectural Design for Increased

Sustainability

6. www.nextnature.net

7. www.evolo.us

27

View publication stats