RESEARCH PAPER ON

BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURE

By
VIDUSHI MEHRA
(11609825/A1602/A10)

Under the guidance of AR. MUSTAFIZUR REHMAN.

LOVELY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN,

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY,
PHAGWARA

2018-19
 BIOMIMETIC ARCHITECTURE
Vidushi Mehra
Lovely School of Architecture and Design,
Phagwara, Jalandhar, India.
vidushi1998.arch@gmail.com

1. Abstract

In the search of sustainable building design and technology Biomimicry is an alternative

solution. The inspiration from nature is driving force in architecture, resulting in
majestic works of architecture. Biomimicry is about solution refined and developed by
nature. For any sustainable building design, need to consider structural efficiency, water
efficiency, zero-waste systems, thermal environment, and energy supply. Biological
organisms refined and developed by natural selection over a billion-year research and
development period can be seen as embodying technologies, functions, and systems that
are solutions to the problem of surviving in nature. These problems are often equivalent
to those encountered by humans as we seek new ways to design and live sustainably,
and in many cases have solved the same problems with a far greater economy of means.
This paper aims at revealing how radical increase in resource efficiency can be achieved
by looking to the nature for inspiration. Exploring the application of Biomimicry in
current architectural design, resulting in a set of design approaches, levels and
principles.
1.1 Keywords: Building envelope; sustainability; bio-inspired design.

1.2. Research question

How biomimetic architecture impact the environment and the community development?

1.3. Objectives

The objective is to investigate the architectural characteristics of buildings

conceptualized on biomimetic architecture comparing with those of ordinary buildings,
and to suggest the reference ideas for the new building projects.
1.4. Hypothesis

This article examines biomimicry, where organisms or ecosystems are mimicked in

human design, as a means to either mitigate the causes of climate change that the built
environment is responsible for, or adapt to the impacts of climate change. This research
explores Biomimicry as a potential approach that help integrate ecological sustainability
to design by understanding the natural processes to comprehend its form and the
environment within an ecosystem. The aim and outcome of the framework will
ultimately be a design process that enhances ecological sustainability by increasing the
applicability of Biomimicry theory into architectural practice. It is posited that the
incorporation of a thorough understanding of biology and ecology into architectural
design will be significant in the creation of a built environment that contributes to the
health of human communities, while increasing positive integration with natural carbon
cycles.

2. Introduction

‘From my designer’s perspective, I ask: Why can’t I design a building like a tree? A
building that makes oxygen, fixes nitrogen, sequesters carbon, distils water, builds
soil, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food, creates
microclimates, changes colours with the seasons and self - replicates. This is using
nature as a model and a mentor, not as an inconvenience. It’s a delightful prospect…’
(McDonough and Braungart, 1998)

2.1 Background of topic

APPROACHES TO BIOMIMICRY 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, behaviour or function in an organism
or ecosystem and translating that into human designs, referred to as biology influencing
design.
Design looking to biology

The approach where designers look to the living world for solutions and then identify
problems and biologists match those problems 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. 1). In

looking to create a large volume, small wheel base car, the design for the car was based
on the boxfish (ostracion meleagris), an extraordinary aerodynamic fish whose shape is
like a box. The chassis and structure of the car are also biomimetic, which is designed
using a computer modelling method based upon how trees are able to grow in a way that
minimises stress concentrations. The material is assigned only to the places where it is
most needed so that’s why the resulting structure looks almost skeletal.

Figure 1 Daimler Crysler bionic car inspired by the box fish and tree growth patterns.
The Bionic Car (fig. 1) illustrates the 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. 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 alter the built
environment from an unsustainable to efficient to effective model. Leading thinkers on
regenerative design such as William Reed and Ray Cole argue however that a shift from
a built environment that ultimately is deteriorating ecosystems to one which improves
capacity for ecosystems to develop well and rehabilitate local environments will not be
a gradual process of advancements but will in fact require a basic rethinking of how
architectural design is approached.

Biology influencing design

When biological knowledge impact human design, the collaborative design process is
initially dependant 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 transformation which enables buildings to be self-cleaning (fig. 2).

Figure 2: Lotus Inspired Lotusan Paint

Although it is pointed out that humans as a species have been around for longer than the
oldest living forest and are unquestionably a learning and adaptable species,
resemblance between human design solutions and strategies used by other species, have
unpredictably small overlap considering they exist in the same context and with the same
available resources. 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.
A disadvantage from a design point of view with this approach is that biological research
must be conducted and then identified as applicable to a design context. Biologists and
ecologists must therefore be able to recognize the potential of their research in the setting
up of novel applications.

FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE APPLICATION OF BIOMIMICRY

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. 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.

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.

Through an examination of existing biomimetic technologies, it is apparent that there

are three levels of mimicry; the organism, behaviour 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 behaviour, 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.

Table 1. A Framework for the Application of Biomimicry).

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.

Organism Level
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. 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.

An example is the mimicking of the Namibian desert beetle, stenocara. 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. 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. 3).
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

Figure 3 Matthew Parkes’ Hydrological Centre for Figure 4 Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners' Waterloo
the University of Namibia and the stenocara beetle. International Terminal and the pangolin.
used for other potential applications such as to clear fog from airport runways and
improve dehumidification equipment for example.

Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners' design for the Waterloo International Terminal
demonstrates an example of form and process biomimicry at the organism level (fig. 4).
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.

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. 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 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.

Behavior Level

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.

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 (non-living) materials or systems
and therefore habitats are called ecosystem engineers. 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 relationships between species. The building behavior of other species is often
termed ‘animal architecture’ and may provide further examples of such ecosystem
engineers.

The example of the North American beaver (castor canadensis) (fig. 5) demonstrates
how through its altering of the landscape, wetlands are created and nutrient retention

Figure 5 The North American Beaver Figure 6: Eastgate Building in Harare, Zimbabwe
and CH2 Building in Melbourne, Australia.
and plant and animal diversity is
increased, helping in part to make the ecosystem more resilient to disturbance.

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 Eastgate Building in Harare,
Zimbabwe and the CH2 Building in Melbourne, Australia (fig. 6). 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 compatibility of
what is being mimicked for the human context. Not all organisms show behaviors that
are compatible for humans to mimic and the danger exists that models of consumption
or exploitation could be proved to be reasonable on the basis of how another species
behaves. For example, mimicking the building behavior (and outcome of that) of
termites might be suitable for the creation of passively regulated thermally comfortable
buildings. Mimicking the social structure of termite colonies would not be appropriate
however if universal human rights are valued. It may be more suitable to mimic specific
building and survival behaviors that will increase the sustainability and rejuvenation
capacity of human built environments rather than mimicking that could relate to social
or economic spheres without careful consideration. It may be more suitable to mimic
whole systems rather than single organisms in this regard.

Ecosystem Level

The term Eco mimicry has also been used to describe the mimicking of ecosystems in
design, 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 and the importance of architectural design based on an
understanding of ecology is also discussed by researchers advocating a shift to
regenerative design.

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. 7).

An advantage of designing at this level of biomimicry is that it can be used in

synchronicity with other levels of biomimicry (organism and behavior). It is also
possible to incorporate existing established sustainable building methods that are not
specifically biomimetic such as interfaced 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. The Australian developed
Biolytic® system mimics soil-based decomposition to treat grey and black water and
again integrates actual worms and soil microbes into the process.

A further advantage of an ecosystem based biomimetic design approach is that it is

applicable to a range of temporal and spatial scales and can serve as an initial benchmark

Figure 7. Lloyd Crossing Project, Portland, USA

or goal for what constitutes truly sustainable or even regenerative design for a specific
place as demonstrated by the Lloyd Crossing Project (fig. 7)

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.
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. That a greater understanding of ecology and
systems design is required on the part of the design team is implicit. Also required would
be 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.

2.2. Methodology

1. Understanding that how architecture follow nature.

2. Understanding relation of biology and ecology into architectural design.
3. Identifying the dominant strategies that function simultaneously in nature and
provides selective user-friendly tools.
4. Identifying Biomimicry's potential role in addressing climate change in the built
environment.
5. Determining how Biomimicry enhance ecologically sustainable design.

3. Results and Discussion

BIOMIMICRY TO INCREASE SUSTAINABILITY Biomimicry is often described as

a tool to increase the sustainability of human designed products, materials and the built
environment. It should be noted however that a lot of biomimetic technologies or
materials are not basically more sustainable than conventional equivalents and may not
have been designed in the beginning with such goals in mind.

As discussed, most examples of biomimicry are organism biomimetic. While

biomimicry at the organism level may be encouraging which is likely to produce novel
architectural designs, the possibility exists that a building as part of a larger system, that
is able to mimic natural processes and can function like an ecosystem in its formation,
use and eventual end of life, has the potential to accord to a built environment that goes
beyond sustainability and starts to rejuvenate.

The examples provided in table 1 demonstrate the deepening of the levels of biomimicry
in terms of regenerative potential from form biomimicry at the organism level to
functional biomimicry at the ecosystem level. A building that is showing form

Figure 8. Dog Building, Tirau, New Zealand

biomimicry, which is based on an organism aesthetically, but is made and functions in
an otherwise conventional way, is unlikely to be more sustainable than a non-biomimetic
building.

An example is New Zealand town Tirau’s iconic dog building (form biomimicry at the
organism level) (fig. 8). A building that is able to mimic natural processes and can
function like an ecosystem in its creation, use and eventual end of life has greater
potential to be part of a regenerative built environment. Both buildings could be termed
biomimetic, but the potential for increased sustainability would obviously be quite
different. It is suggested that if biomimicry is to be conceived as a way to increase
sustainability of an architectural project, mimicking of general ecosystem principles
should be incorporated into the design at the earliest stage and used as an evaluative tool
throughout the design process.

4. Conclusion

This Paper analyzed various case examples on biomimicry based on site-visits and the
related articles online in order to review architectural characteristics in Biomimetic
Architecture. Main interest was to find the architectural characteristics like sustainable
factors, eco-friendly approaches and so on.

The built environment is increasing held responsible for global environmental and social
problems with vast proportions of waste, material and energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions associated to the habitat’s humans have created for themselves. It is becoming
gradually clear that a shift must be made in how the built environment is created and
maintained. Mimicking life, including the complex interactions between living
organisms that make up ecosystems is both a readily available example for humans to
learn from and an exciting chance for future human habitats that may be able to be
embraced with the habitats of other species in a mutually beneficial way.

By using a framework as suggested by this paper it is expected that significance between

the different kinds of biomimicry and their artistic/developmental potential can be more
easily made. Although this discussion tends to be theoretical at present with many ideas
related to ecosystem-based biomimicry and architectural biomimicry in general yet to
be proved in built form, design that mimics how most ecosystems are able to function
in a sustainable and even regenerative way, has the potential to positively transform the
environmental performance of the built environment.

These kind of nature inspired projects are allowing architects and designers to develop
eco performance principles that can be used by industry professionals worldwide to
build Biomimicry solutions into their own designs. In fact, under this new order of
sustainability, buildings, outdoor art and other manmade structures would function like
trees, flora and fauna, meadows, capturing, cleaning and storing rainwater; converting
carbon dioxide to oxygen and sunlight to energy; protecting soil from erosion;
disseminating seedlings; and eliminating waste.

This paper could be concluded by saying that any innovative, successful and functional
design is the result of studying human activity for the space or product for which it is
being designed and the play of spaces and materials to capture the natural elements like
light and air inside a space and looking at the smallest of things with a different
perspective instead of following what the world follows.

This is the only way to make a difference and to get back to innovation and see your
own reflection in your work.

8.

References
(n.d.).
Arditi, M. P. (2017). Patterns of Growth—Biomimetics and Architectural Design.
Buildings 2017, 7, 32.
Kadrib, L. B. (2014, june). A methodology for the generation of biomimetic design
concepts. Architectural Science Review, 15.
Mydin, M. A. (2014, january). Biomimetic Architecture in Building Envelope
Maintenance (A Literature). 8.
Selay Yurtkurana, G. K. (2013). Learning from Nature: Biomimetic Design in
Architectural Education . ScienceDirect, 7.
Zari, M. P. (n.d.). Biomimetic Approaches to architectural Design for increased
sustainability.