1

Abstract
Mankind has long had the idea that we should learn from nature. There are innumerable biological materials in nature that exhibit
distinguishing performance. All biological materials are, without exception, composites. With therapid development of engineering
composite materials in recent years, various problems were encountered in both the design and fabrication process. To solve these newly
emerging problems, many measures were attempted. Among them, one interesting method became increasingly attractive; this new
interdisciplinary subject is called biomimetics, the purpose of which is to advance man-made composite materials through guidance from
nature. In the former biomimetic study, wood as the most common natural: composite, was noticed as early as 1980. Gordon and
Jeronimidis extensively studied the tracheid of timber, and successfully applied the energy absorption mechanism of wood cells under
tension in engineering composite materials to increase the work of fracture. The thorough understanding of the interplay between the
morphology and structural performance of different types of wood led to a remarkable (development of a patented new material.

Resiliency is not the same as sustainability, nor its substitute, but definitely the two concepts complement each other’s. Sustainability is the
avoidance of depletion of natural resources to maintain ecologicalbalance whereas resiliency is to recover, adapt and keep going in the
face of setbacks. While designingwith green approach is important but what will happen to leed points if the building becomes
uninhabitabledue to disasters, that’s where resiliency comes into play. The 2019 statistics showed that natural disasters accounted for 133
billion dollars losses and manmade ones accounted for other 7 billion in addition of 11,755 people worldwide were passed way or
disappeared, all as results of failures experienced in cities structures and infrastructures when facing such contingencies, these numbers
draw a concern on the current buildings industry resiliency on the global level.

Bamboo is another kind of common natural structural composite. It is a widespread plant family found in all continents. Apart from being a
basic material in the construction and paper industries, bamboo is a more typical long-fiber reinforced composite than wood. Thus, some
biomimetic studies on bamboo have been carried out in recent years. Earlier works were primarily focused on the macro and meso scales.
From the results of the present work, it was found that on a micro scale, bamboo has some unique features which are essentially important
for the high performance of bamboo.

Bamboo, one of the strongest natural structural composite materials, has many distinguishing features. It has been found that its
reinforcement unit, hollow, multilayered and spirally-wound bast fiber, plays an extremely important role in its mechanical behavior. In the
present work, on the basis of the study on bamboo bast fiber and wood tracheid, a biomimetic model of the reinforcing element,
composed of two layers of helically wound fiber, was suggested. To detect the structural characteristics of such a microstructure, four
types of macro fiber specimens made of engineering composites were employed: axially aligned solid and hollow cylinders, and single-
and double-helical hollow cylinders. These specimens were subjected to several possible loadings, and the experimental results reveal that
only the double-helical structural unit possesses the optimum comprehensive mechanical properties. An interlaminar transition zone model
imitating bamboo bast fiber was proposed and was verified by engineering composite materials. In our work, the transition zone can
increase the interlaminar shear strength of the composite materials by about 15%. These biomimetic structural models can be applied in
the design and manufacture of engineering composite materials.

2
Keywords

Bamboo bast fiber, biomimetics engineering composites, Biomimicry, Sustainability, Computation, Morphogenesis, Resiliency.

Introduction

Creative methods and innovative techniques in architectural education are continuously developing. Widening the scope of vision of the
students in architectural design studios gives them the chance to think critically, evaluate and develop. Designers are usually inspired from
different sources to address challenging design problems. One of the methods is to study Nature and comprehend the ways it has
developed to address environmental challenges [1]. Looking at Nature and finding solutions are valuable for designers. By choosing the
most appropriate material for design, providing recycling and solutions according to local conditions, Nature is an immense factory which
is durable and aesthetic [2]. Nature denotes the world or Universe as created by God. The glory of wisdom is witnessed by looking carefully
to living organisms. Nature optimizes rather than maximizes, using the least materials and energy needed for perfect performance. Nature
uses little material and places it in the right place. “Lo! We have created everything by measures” [3]. Searching for solutions to the design
problems by taking inspiration from nature is one of the innovative approaches that should be supported in design education. Biomimetic
is the process of applying biological principles that underlie morphology, structures and functionality of biological entities to man-made
design. It is “An engineering discipline that emulates nature’s design and processes to create a healthier, more sustainable planet” [4]. The
sustainable development strategy of Egypt’s vision 2030 includes several goals, among which: increasing substantially the share of
renewable energy in the global energy mix and doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030 [5]. Aiming for ‘zero’
environmental impact buildings in terms of energy, carbon, waste or water is a worthwhile but difficult target. Built environments will need
to go beyond having little negative environmental impact in the future to having net positive environmental benefits [6]. Such architecture
is termed as regenerative design [7]. The key to regenerative design is a transfer of knowledge from biology and ecology into architectural
design. By looking at the living world, there may be organisms or systems that can be mimicked to create and maintain a resilient and
adaptable built environment, and improve its capacity for regeneration of the health of ecosystems [8].

The aim of the present work is to clarify the potentials of biomimicry as design generators in an elective course entitled ‘Biomimicry in
Architecture’ for the 5th year architectural thesis on Disaster Resilient Housing at Sundarban. The paper clarifies how the course instructors
incorporated biomimicry in the design and responded to this challenge. This study is an action research as it practically assesses the
impact of introducing biomimicry concepts on the students’ design. “Action research is inquiry conducted by a practitioner to improve the
quality of that practice in a social setting through the researching of action by the practitioner in a reflective manner” [9]. The overall
experience of the study can be evaluated through user’ perception.

3
Literature review

The term biomimetic was introduced by Otto Schmitt in 1982 [10], and it was rediscovered by Janine Benyus in 1997, who is an innovation
consultant and co-founder of the Biomimicry Institute [4]. The concept of biomimicry is sometimes misrepresented as creating buildings that
look like natural organisms, i.e., buildings shaped like shells, which is another different approach in design called Biomorphology. Mimicking
natural systems or processes would affect the form, but that is not the fundamental point in biomimicry [11]. Therefore, biomimetic is not
the simple imitation of Nature, neither in material and function nor in creative regard, rather than the grasping of natural principles to aid in
the comprehension of analogous, technological questions, which would then be solved by the applications of optimized technologies.
Biomimetic is practiced through learning from nature for the improvement of technology. It is interesting and fascinating for the architect
to explore the wealth of living nature, but one must be cautious of a too direct interpretation. Inspiration from Nature for architecture will
not function if architects do not follow the in between step of abstraction. Application of biomimetic is then a 3-step process: Research –
Abstraction – Implementation [12]. There are two main approaches to the design process in biomimicry: the problem-based approach
and the solution-based approach. The problem-based approach is a ‘Design to Biology’. It relies on identification of goals and design
limitation. The designer in this approach starts by the identification of the problem, then search for solutions from natural organisms. The
biologists and designers match the problem to an organism that has solved a similar problem. This approach can also be called
‘Challenge to Biology’ which is seeking answers in biology for human problem. The designer enhances a specific design or solves a design
problem by exploring and looking to nature. The solution-based approach is a ‘Biology to Design’ which is used when the biological
principle is the source for design ideas [13]. The design process originally depends on the scientific knowledge of biologists and scientists
instead of human design problems. The designer identifies a useful characteristic from nature, that is abstracted and translated to a
technological context before the goal of the design is defined [14]. There are three main levels of biomimicry: organism, behaviour, and
ecosystem. On the organism level buildings may imitate the characteristics of an individual organism. On the behavioural level the design
may be inspired by how the organism behaves or relates to its larger context. On the ecosystem level, design may draw from the entire
ecosystem of an organism and its surrounding. It emphasizes natural process and cycle of the greater environment [2]. There are further
five dimensions of biomimicry within each of these levels. The design could be biomimetic in terms of its form and what it looks like, its
material and what it is made out of, its construction and how it is made, its process and how it works and its function and what it is able to
do [15]. The most apparent dimension of biomimicry is the emulation of nature’s function. Emulating Nature on the process level involves
learning from the way Nature evolves or produces things. Biomimicry looks at Nature’s system and examines how it deals with waste and
regeneration inside closed-looped lifecycles [11].

On the other hand, biomimetic approach has been introduced into architectural programs in some universities all around the world in the
last few years. Alawad, A. and Mahgoub, Y., 2014, studied the impact of teaching biomimicry as a tool for enhancing thinking skills for
students in art education. They studied a sample of 30 students in the third level at University of Khartoum in 2012/2013. Their research
findings showed that biomimicry has a number of major benefits. It offers spiritual development as it gives them the opportunity to mediate
and appreciate God’s creation. It awakens students’ perception of nature realizing that everything in nature has a purpose and function.
Moreover, biomimicry can positively impact early years’ education. The results also showed that biomimicry has long-lasting effect skills.
They develop their self-reflection, critical and creative thinking, and problem-solving techniques. Their recommendation included the need
4
to consider this topic as a main component of the design education system [16]. Tavsan, S. and Tavsan, F., 2015, considered design and
nature in relation to architectural design education. They delivered architectural design course for second grade students at Karandeniz
Technical University in Turkey within the scope of the concept of biomimicry. They indicated that analogies aroused interest and wonder
and increased motivation. Students developed their analytical ability and learned that many problems have a solution in nature [2].
Mansour, H., 2010, in University of Dammam in Saudi Arabia taught interior architects how to open their eyes to the genius of natural world
in an attempt to inspire new paths for living sustainably on Earth. She stated that teaching students how to use biomimicry as a tool for
innovation will increase the integration of the built environment with nature in a sustainable way [17]. Pankina, M. and Zakharova, S, 2015,
Russian State Vocational-Pedagogical University, mentioned that the principles of biomimicry will help in providing design smarter, and
connect the work with the natural environment. They stated that in the future biomimetic design is becoming more and more popular in
the field of architecture. They also stated that the application of biomimetic principles and adaptive strategies of natural organisms would
improve the adaptive behaviour of building skins [18].

According to the author knowledge integration of biomimetic approach in the design studios are not applied in the architectural program
in the Egyptian universities. However, similar educational concepts of integrating other disciplines in the Egyptian architectural systems are
found. Elshater, A., 2018, showed how to benefit from other disciplines to foster the teaching techniques. For example, integrating
photography in urban design programs raises the visual skills and boosts the way that students see their external environment. The results of
her research stem from the reports of the excellent students’ feedback, comments on the course and experts interviews. “Urban design, as
visual-aesthetic management, can benefit from a method for module revisited that provide themes for photography to boost the skills that
students should gain” [19].

5
Research Aim & Objectives

Life has had millions of years to finely-tune mechanisms and structures that work better than current technologies, require less energy and
produce no life-unfriendly waste. The emulation of this technology is the goal of ‗biomimicry‘, the art of innovation & design inspired by
nature. Digital technologies on the other hand, are frequently applied to engineering fields resulting in improved solutions. Very few
architects actually benefit from such technical advances in the field of sustainable architecture.

Research Aim:
The main objective of this thesis is to research the possibility of linking and applying
biological principles in morphogenetic computational design, in an attempt to explore the
potential of both emerging sciences in developing a more sustainable and regenerative
architecture.
Objectives:
1. Explore the potential of biomimicry in architecture.
2. Study morphogenetic computational design, by establishing a theoretical and methodological framework for case-studies.
3. Explore the possibility of implementing and correlating selected biological principles with morphogenetic design.
4. Analyse and evaluate case studies representing such a possibility.

Background

Philip Steadman in his book: ‗The Evolution of Designs‘ has presented a comprehensive overview regarding biomimicry and computational
design; their origins and current research.

Historical Origins

Origins of Biomimicry:
The term biomimicry appeared as early as 1982 and was popularized by scientist and author Janine Benyus in her 1997 book Biomimicry:
Innovation Inspired by Nature. Biomimicry is defined in her book as a "new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes
inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems". Benyus suggests looking to Nature as a "Model, Measure, and
Mentor" and emphasizes sustainability as an objective of biomimicry. But critics and philosophers since ancient Greece have looked to
natural organisms as offering perfect models of that harmonious balance and proportion between the parts of a design which is
synonymous with the classical ideal of beauty. The qualities of wholeness, of integrity, of a unity in structure such that the parts allcontribute
to the effect or purpose of the whole, and no part may be removed without some damage to the whole – these are central concepts in

6
the aesthetics and in the natural history of Aristotle, and are characteristics in the Aristotelian view both of living beings and of the best
works of art.

Architects and designers have looked to biology for

inspiration since the beginnings of the science in the early
nineteenth century. They have sought not just to imitate
the forms of plants and animals, but to find methods in
design analogous to the processes of growth and
evolution in nature. Biological ideas are prominent in the
writings of many modern architects, of whom Le Corbusier
and Frank Lloyd Wright are just the most famous. Le
Corbusier declared biology to be the great new word in
architecture and planning‘.The trouble with biological
analogy in architecture in the past is that much of it has
been of a superficial picture-book sort: ‗artistic‘ photos of
the wonders of nature through a microscope, juxtaposed
with buildings or the products of industrial design. But
analogy at a deeper level can be a most fundamental
source of understanding and of scientific insight, as many
writers on that subject have pointed out. Although there is
much that is completely new in recent
‗biological‘ developments in the practice and theory of
design, this work does nevertheless often tend to echo or
reinterpret ideas in the earlier history of biological analogy.
Modern research in ‗biomimetics‘ (engineering analysis of organisms and their behaviour with a view to applying the same principles in
design) gives a new name and new rigour to what went under the banner of ‗biotechnique‘ or ‗biotechnics‘ in the 1920s and 1930s.

Selected Biological Design Principles

From the previously stated principles of ecosystems, a set of specific principles were selected from some of them. These selected principles
provide a basis for further study in the following chapters. Particular selection of these principles was due to a number of reasons such as
their current applicability in computational design within the limitations of available technology and knowledge. Another reason is the
availability of research and suitable examples to serve as case studies for further analysis. This selection however does not imply the
significance of these principles over others. Adaptation As mentioned in the principle “Ecosystems adapt and evolve at different levels
and rates” they respond to changing environments both by behavioural adjustments of individuals and by Darwinian genetic changes in

7
the attributes of populations. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat. This
process takes place over many and is one of the basic generations phenomena of biology. The term
adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival. Such adaptations are produced in a
variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.

Material as Systems
From the ecosystem principle ―Ecosystems optimise the system rather than its components” it was concluded that ecosystems use energy
and materials in a way that optimises the whole system rather than individual components (Kelly, 1994). All living forms are hierarchical
structures, made of materials with subtle properties that are capable of change in response to changes in local stresses. Biological material
systems are self assembled, using mainly quite weak materials to make strong structures, and their dynamic
response and properties are very different from the classical engineering of traditional man-made structures. (Hensel M., Menges A. and
Weinstock M. 2010)
Organisms and natural systems are often composed of a number of
interrelated components and materials that act on a continuous scale
from the micro to macro structure. At each level of structural
organization the cells within the organism perform a function that
corresponds to a necessary requirement at that level. (Panchuk N. 2006)
The cells within a tree for example perform this hierarchy of functions at
different scales. At the micro level the cells are responsible for the
movement of water from the roots to the leaves. Based on weight, the
tubular structures of the cells are also stronger than a solid structure that
would not be able to act as a transport mechanism. When these cells
are grouped together they provide the tree with a high strength
lightweight structural system that resists both tensile and compressive
forces as well as allowing for flexibility. (Panchuk N. 2006)

Evolution
The principle: “Ecosystems adapt and evolve at different levels and
rates” explains that adaptation and evolution allow organisms and
whole ecosystems to persist through the locally unique and constantly
dynamic, cyclic environment they exist in. Every living form emerges
from 2 strongly coupled processes, operating over maximally
differentiated time spans: the rapid process of embryological
development from a single cell to adult form, and the long slow process
of evolution of diverse species of forms over multiple generations.
(Hensel M., Menges A. and Weinstock M. 2010)

8
The perfection and variety of natural forms is the result of relentless experimentation of evolution. By means of profligate prototyping and
ruthless rejection of flawed experiments, nature has evolved a rich biodiversity of interdependent species of plants and animals that are in
metabolic balance with their environment. Analogy of evolutionary architecture should not be taken just to imply a form
of development through natural selection. Other aspects of evolution such as the tendency to self organization are equally or even more
significant. (Frazer J. 1995)Nature's complex forms and systems arise from evolutionary processes. In addition, living forms grow, and growth
is a complex process intertwining contributions of the genotype with the variable contributions of environment and phenotypic
dependencies. In nature, the genotype comprises the genetic constitution of an individual, while the phenotype is the product of the
interactions between the genotype and the environment. The emergent properties and capacities of natural forms stem from the
generative processes that work upon successive versions of the genome. This genome is compact data that is transformed into biomass of
complex structural complexity. A compelling goal is to instrumentalise the natural process of evolution and growth, to model essential
features of emergence and then to combine these within a computational framework. (O‘Reilly U., Hemberg M., and Menges A. 2004)

Emergence
As discussed in the principle : “ecosystems are diverse in components, relationships and information” relationships are complex and
operate in various hierarchies, and emergent effects tend to occur. The dynamical systems of nature, the systems of living beings and the
systems of the physical world including climate and geological forms, display a variety of organisational and behavioural characteristics
that are central to the study of emergence. There are many definitions of evolutionary and developmental processes that unfold over time.
One that is widely quoted is that put forward by Tom de Wolf and Tom Holvoet, who proposed the following working definition of
emergence: A system exhibits emergence when there are coherent emergents (property, behaviour, structure...) at the macro-level that
dynamically arise from the interaction between parts at the micro-level. Such emergents are novel with regards to the individual parts of
the system. (De Wolf and Holvoet 2005)
The evolution of all the multiple variations of biological form should not be thought of as separate from their structure and materials. It is
the complex hierarchies of materials within natural structures from which their performance emerges. Form, structure and material act
upon one another, and the behaviour of all three acting on each other cannot be predicted by analysis of any one of them alone.
(Hensel M., Menges A. and Weinstock M. 2010)

Form & Behaviour

From the ecosystem principle : ―Ecosystems optimise the system rather than its components” the relationship between form and function is
emphasized, and as a result, form and behaviour are equally important. Biological forms and their behaviour emerge from process. It is
process that produces, elaborates and maintains the form and structure of biological organisms (and non biological things), and that
process consists of a complex series of exchanges between the organism and its environment. Furthermore, the organism has a capacity
for maintaining its continuity and integrity by changing aspects of its behaviour. Form and behaviour are intricately linked. (Hensel M.,
Menges A. and Weinstock M. 2010) The form of an organism affects its behaviour in the environment, and a particular behaviour will

9
produce different result in different environments. Behaviour is non linear and context specific. (Hensel M., Menges A. and Weinstock M.
2010)

Material-Based Case Studies

Fibres
The high integration of form, structure and function inherent to living nature very often results from the astonishing versatility of fibrous
systems. This is even more remarkable if one considers that most of these biological systems consist of a small range of materials only, as it
suggests that nature organises material in a highly effective manner. The basic materials of biology are so successful not so much because
for what they are, but because of the way in which they are put together. The geometrical and hierarchical organisation of the fibre
architecture is significant. The same collagen fibres are used in low modulus, highly extensible structures such as blood vessels, intermediate
modulus tissues such as tendons and high modulus, rigid materials such as bone. (Hensel M., Menges A. and Weinstock M. 2010)

10
11
Left Image : SEM micrographs of the raw bamboo culm with different constituents.

zoom-in views of bamboo's vascular bundles along with the parenchyma ground and bamboo fibers along the transversal ((a), (c), (e)
and (g)) and longitudinal ((b), (d), (f) and (h)) directions. As displayed, fibers and parenchyma cells, comparably, possess the majority of
bamboo culm whereas vessels possess less contribution.

Right image :Microstructure of bamboo culm and flattened bamboo (a cross section of bamboo culm, b cross section of flattened
bamboo, c cross section of fiber and parenchyma cell in bamboo, d cross section of fiber and parenchyma cell in flattened bamboo, e
radial section of bamboo, f radial section of flattened bamboo)

Internal structure of bamboo stems

12
Cellulose thus, is also present in wood, but its arrangement in bamboo is unique. This complex
hierarchical structure gives bamboo stems their lightness combined with flexibility, high strength,
and resistance to failure. A crack initiated perpendicularly to the length of a stem will slowly
propagate, changing direction at each interface between the fibers, looping around each pore
and meandering inside the structure. This tortuous path increases the propability for the crack to
meet a softer interface, typically in the inner shell, that will absorb and dissipate its energy slowing
down or stopping its propagation. So –called Ashby plots are commonly used among
mechanical engineers to represent several of the mechanical properties of all classes of
materials [2]. It is striking to notice how bamboo compares with bones, how it has similar strength
as low metals, but 10 times lighter.

13
Left image : Simulation results from ANSYS17 conducted on control solid rods, hollow rods, and biomimetic rods.
Mass vs (A) normalized buckling capacity, (B) compression stress, and (C) axial displacement, respectively

Right Image : Comparison of predictions vs. true responses. From lef to right, they are Ensemble tree, Support
vector machines, and Gaussian process regression for buckling capacities of the training dataset.

14
Solution-Based Case Studies

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
References
1. Solga, A., Cerman, Z., Strifer, B. F., Spaeth, M. & Barthlott, W. Te dream of staying clean: lotus and biomimetics surfaces. Bioin spir. Biomim.
2, 126–134 (2007).
2. Koch, K., Bhusan, B. & Barthlott, W. Multifunctional surface structures of plants: an inspiration for biomimetics. Progr. Mater. Sci.
54, 137–178 (2009).
3. Sze, T.-K.J. Design and modeling of a light powered biomimicry micropump. J. Micromech. Microeng. 25, 065009 (2015).
4. Al-Aribe, K. & Knopf, G. K. Photo responsive hydrogel microvalve activated by bacteriorhodopsin proton pumps. Proc. SPIE 7646,
764611 (2010).
5. Manas, S., Jintu, F., Szeto, Y. C. & Tao, X. Biomimectics of plants structures in textile fabrics for the improvement of water trans portation
properties. Text. Res. J. 79, 657–668 (2009).
6. Mazzolai, B., Beccai, L. & Mattoli, V. Plants as model in biomimetics and bio robotics: new perspectives. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2, 2
(2014).
7. Sebastian, F. et al. Pummelos as concept generators for biomimetically inspired low weight structures with excellent damping
properties. Adv. Eng. Mater. 12, B658–B663 (2010).
8. Tavsan, F. & Sonmez, E. Biomimicry in furniture design. Soc. Behav. Sci. 197, 2285–2292 (2015).
9. Li, S. H., Zeng, Q. Y., Xiao, Y. L., Fu, S. Y. & Zhou, B. L. Biomimicry of bamboo bast fbers with engineering composite materials.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 3, 125–130 (1995).
10. Yang, Q., Fan, J. & Li, G. Artifcial muscles made of chiral two-way shape memory polymer fbers. Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 183701
(2016).
11. Fan, J. & Li, G. High performance and tunable artifcial muscle based on two-way shape memory polymer. RSC Adv. 7, 1127–1136
(2017).
12. Li, A., Challapalli, A. & Li, G. 4D printing of recyclable lightweight architectures using high recovery stress shape memory polymer.
Sci. Rep. 9, 7621 (2019).
13. Brush, D. O. & Almroth, B. Buckling of Bars, Plates, and Shells (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Blacksburg, 1975).
14. Singh, K. & Li, G. Buckling of functionally graded and elastically restrained non-uniform columns. Compos. B Eng. 40, 393–403
(2009).
15. Overvelde, J. T. B., Shan, S. & Bertoldi, K. Compaction through buckling in 2D periodic, sof and porous structures: efect of pore
shape. Adv. Mater. 24, 2337–2342 (2012).
16. Liu, Y. & Young, B. Buckling of stainless-steel square hollow section compression members. J. Constr. Steel Res. 59, 165–177 (2003).
17. Ansys Academic Research Mechanical, Release 18.1.
18. Kovan, V., Altan, G. & Topal, E. S. Efect of layer thickness and print orientation on strength of 3D printed and adhesively bonded
single lap joints. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 31, 2197–2201 (2017).
19. MATLAB, version 9.3 (2017). Natick, Massachusetts: Te MathWorks Inc.
20. Aru, M., Ghanshyam, P., Tran, D. H., Turab, L. & Rami, R. Machine learning strategy for accelerated design of polymer dielectrics.
Sci. Rep. 10, 20952 (2016

29
30