Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Biomimetic adaptive building skins: Energy and environmental

regulation in buildings
Aysu Kuru a,∗, Philip Oldfield a, Stephen Bonser b, Francesco Fiorito a,c
a
Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
b
School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
c
Department of Civil, Environmental, Land, Building Engineering and Chemistry, Polytechnic University of Bari, Bari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Both organisms and adaptive building skins (ABS) respond to changing environmental conditions. There
Received 3 July 2019 have been several systems developed through the synthesis of biomimetics and ABS to reduce energy
Revised 20 September 2019
demand or improve comfort in buildings. This paper presents the definition, characterisation and a com-
Accepted 20 October 2019
parative analysis of existing applications in the field of biomimetic adaptive building skins (Bio-ABS). We
Available online 21 October 2019
evaluate current uptake in the field, present an overview of the state-of-the-art and undertake a meta-
Keywords: analysis of fifty-two Bio-ABS applications to determine performance trends, opportunities and challenges.
Biomimetic adaptive building skins We found that current development in the field of Bio-ABS is limited. 53.8% of all published Bio-ABS
Environmental regulation remain at a conceptual stage of development, resulting in a gap between theoretical and real-world up-
Energy regulation take. In addition, there is little quantitative analysis in terms of environmental or energy performance
Climate adaptation measurements, with only 44.2% of the projects considering these performance metrics. Of those that do,
Multifunctional façades
78.2% demonstrate either thermal or visual comfort analysis while only five, 21.7%, include energy anal-
ysis. A further conclusion drawn is that the majority of Bio-ABS are monofunctional, only controlling
a single environmental parameter. Very little attention is paid to multifunctionality, with only 13.4% of
the published projects controlling more than one parameter. Multifunctionality in Bio-ABS needs further
study to address multiple contradictory functional requirements of buildings regarding energetic and en-
vironmental performance.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction There is an increasing number of biomimetic adaptive building

Living systems optimise survival strategies through evolution-
ary processes. Using organisms‘ morphological or physiological
properties or behaviours in non-biological sciences is known as
biomimetics and is widely used in engineering [1–4]. There is
a growing interest in how organisms adapt to environmental
changes, believing that these properties can offer novel approaches
to building technologies, and especially building skins, to improve
overall performance [5]. The focus on building skins is due to their
functionalities, which have evolved from load-bearing structures to
thermal, acoustic and visual barriers [6]. New technologies includ-
ing adaptive building skins meet changing environmental condi-
tions, host multiple functions and offer de-centralised controls for
occupants. They serve as strategies for improved comfort and re-
duced building energy needs [7].
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aysuek@gmail.com (A. Kuru).
skin (Bio-ABS) examples developed across industry and academia
[5–9]. However, a comprehensive analysis of current research, de-
velopment and existing examples, including a definition of Bio-
ABS remains limited. This paper aims at defining Bio-ABS and
providing a meta-analysis of applications developed in industry
and academia over the last decade. The paper has three parts; (i)
defining Bio-ABS, (ii) describing their characteristics and current
trends in the field and (iii) comparatively analysing examples as
part of a meta-analysis of fifty-two projects published in the last
decade.
2. Defining biomimetic adaptive building skins (Bio-ABS)
The concept of biomimetic adaptive building skins (Bio-ABS) is
the integration of two topics: biomimetics and adaptive building
skins (ABS). It refers to ABS that have taken inspiration from na-
ture; therefore, adopting biomimetics as a design generator and
ABS as the design product [13] (Fig. 1).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109544
0378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544
Fig. 1. Bio-ABS concept break-down.
Fig. 2. Hierarchical order of bio-driven concepts.
2.1. Biomimetic architecture
Biomimetics derives from concepts seeking inspiration from
nature including bionics, the origin of biomimetics; biomorphism,
using biological forms; biophilia, adopting nature as part of a
design; bioinspiration, encompassing all bio-driven concepts; and
biomimicry, imitation of life (Fig. 2)[14–16]. Pohl and Nachti-
gall described biomimetic architecture as building biomimetics and
classified it as structural and process biomimetics [1]. Struc-
tural biomimetics explores how organisms achieve resource and
material-efficient morphologies as hierarchical multi-level struc-
tures with independent functional features. Process biomimetics
focusses on biological functions that control physical and chemical
environments. This involves regulating external climatic and inter-
nal homeostatic changes.
The requirements of modern buildings are often complex,
sometimes contradictory, and during their life cycle, need to be
adapted. Holistic approaches for new functional and sustainable
systems may be expected from a more interdisciplinary field like
biomimetic architecture. The overlaps between nature and archi-
tecture have inspired many practitioners to adopt biological prin-
ciples in order to control environmental conditions effectively
[11,17–23]. The introduction of computer-aided design supported
with digital fabrication and composite materials have allowed de-
signs derived from nature to be practically realised [24–27].
2.2. Adaptive building skins (ABS)
Historically, the façade had the goal of being the primary load-
bearing structural element, limited in its functionality and materi-
ality [30]. In the modern era, the facade is often liberated from its
load-bearing role providing more flexible spaces to fit in diverse
contexts. This has led to describing the enclosure as a building skin
with diverse functions. These functions include saving/generating
energy, providing thermal properties for comfort, and adaptability
to changing conditions, among others [31–33].
An evolution of building skins is adaptive building skins (ABS).
The primary characteristic of ABS is to respond to environmental
conditions and users‘ needs. This is achieved by changing func-
tions, properties or behaviour over time in response to transient
functional requirements and boundary conditions to improve the
overall building performance, be it comfort, energetic or otherwise
[31,34,35].
2.3. Biomimetic adaptive building skins (Bio-ABS)
Biomimetic strategies are often derived from biological adapta-
tions stimulated by environmental factors. The expression of these
adaptations in organisms is often dynamic and can produce a
change in their physical or physiological states. Buildings, on the
other hand, mostly remain static. This is not the case for ABS as
their main purpose is to promote change. Therefore, organisms and
ABS have a significant property in common, adaptability.
Biomimetic adaptive building skins have been described with a
multitude of different terms, including an ABS typology designed
with biological principles [20–37]. The biological phenomenon can
be defined as biomimetic, bio-inspired or bionic; and building skin
as façade, skin or shell [38–42]. The term adaptive defines envi-
ronmental responsiveness. As an emerging field, a unified defini-
tion and characterisation of Bio-ABS has not yet evolved. However,
a unified description of Bio-ABS could be made as follows:
A biomimetic adaptive building skin (Bio-ABS) is a typology of an
adaptive building skin that responds to environmental conditions by
changing its morphological or physiological properties or behaviour
over time to meet variant functional requirements of a building to
improve its overall performance. In this instance, the changing prop-
erties and behaviours are translated from biological models that offer
environmentally, mechanically, structurally or material-wise efficient
strategies.
3. Methodology
Fifty-two applications of Bio-ABS have been selected according
to selection criteria in order to outline the current trends and de-
velopments in the field. We first analysed qualitatively these appli-
cations in relation to the four main characteristics defined in the
scope of this research as scale, adaptability, biomimetics and per-
formance. Then we analysed the applications quantitively through
a meta-analysis towards levels of development, environmental reg-
ulation and performance evaluation. In the results of the analyses,
we draw attention to the progress and limitations in the field, cen-
tering around the characteristics and environmental performance
of Bio-ABS.
3.1. Selection criteria for analysed applications
Fifty-two examples of Bio-ABS are chosen according to the fol-
lowing criteria. The projects (i) are published and publically avail-
able, (ii) are completed in the last ten years (2009–2019), (iii) have
accessible data on biomimetic processes, (iv) meet the least de-
veloped stage defined in the scope of this research (preliminary
model) with digital representations of how the mechanism works
rather than just conceptual schematic illustrations, and (v) have
developed towards meeting certain performance targets as aligned
with the targets of ABS defined in the literature [6,32–34].
3.2. List of analysed applications of Bio-ABS
The characteristics of the 52 published Bio-ABS are outlined in
Table 1. The following sections present the comparative analyses of
these examples both qualitatively and quantitively.
 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544 3

Table 1
Characteristics of fifty- two Bio-ABS (In spatial scale E: Envelope, F: Façade, FC: Façade component, FSC: Façade sub-component; in developmental stage PM: Preliminary
model, SM: Simulated model, PSP: Pilot-scale prototype, FSA: Full scale application; in Environmental regulation L: Light, H: Heat, W: Water, A: Air, E: Energy; in number of
functions: 1: Monofunctional, 1+: Multifunctional; in stimulus E: Extrinsic, I: Intrinsic; in adaptation type M: Morphological, P: Physiological, B: Behavioural; in performance
target VC: Visual Comfort, TC: Thermal Comfort, ED: Energy Demand, S∗ : Structural; in analysis E: Experimental analysis, D: Digital analysis; N/A: Not Applicable).

ID Name of Bio-ABS Reference Layer 1: Scale Layer 2: Adaptability Layer 3: Layer 4: Performance
application Biomimetics

Spatial Developmental Environmental Number of Stimulus Adaptation Environmental Analysis

scale stage regulation functions type performance
target

1 Homeostatic Facade [43] FC PSP L 1 E B VC E

System
∗
2 Flectofin [26,44] FC PSP L 1 E M VC, other E
3 eSkin [45] FC PSP L, H, W, A 1 E M TC, VC –
4 Thermonastic [46] FC PM L 1 E M – –
Tropism
5 Air Flow(er) [47] FC PSP L, H 1 I M TC, VC E
6 Gymnasium Facade [48] FC SM L 1 I M VC D
7 BioSkin [18] FC SM L, H, W, A 1+ I, E M ED D
8 Desert Snail [49] E SM H, A 1+ N/A M, B TC D
Envelope
9 HygroSkin - [50] FSC FSA W 1 I P TC, other∗ E
Meteorosensitive
Pavilion
10 HygroScope - [27,51] FSC FSA W 1 I P TC, other∗ E
Meteorosensitive
Morphology
11 Thematic Pavilion [52] F FSA L 1 E M TC, other∗ E
EXPO - Ocean
Pavilion
12 The Minister of [53] E PM L 1 N/A M – –
Municipal Affairs
and Agriculture of
Qatar (MMAA)
13 Davies Alpine [54] E FSA H 1 N/A B ED –
House
14 Habitat 2020 [55] E PM L, W, A 1 N/A M – –
15 Living Glass [56] FC PM L, A 1+ I P – –
16 Amphibious [57] FC PM L, A 1+ I P, B – –
Envelope
17 Lily Mechanism [58] E SM L 1 E M VC D
18 Batwing [59] F PM H 1 N/A M, P – –
19 Tracery Glass [59] E PM L 1 N/A P – –
20 Grey Water Panel [59] E PM W 1 N/A P – –
21 Thermo-strut [59] FC PM H 1 N/A P – –
22 Dynamic Design [10] E PM W 1 N/A M – –
Case for Smart
Opening-Closing
Envelope
23 Static Design Case [10] F PM L 1 N/A M – –
for Reflective
Envelope
24 S.C.A.L.E.S. [20] FSC PM H 1 E M – –
(smart-continuous-
active-layered-
environmental-
system)
25 Museum Envelope [20] FC PM W 1 I M – –
26 Fog Basking [20] F PM W 1 I M – –
Envelope
27 Termite Mounds [60] FC PM A 1 I B – –
Inspired Structure
28 Prairie Dog‘s [60] E SM A 1 I B TC D
Burrows Inspired
Structure
29 Ants‘ Nests Inspired [60] E PM A 1 I B – –
Structure
30 Adaptive Envelope [61] E PM L, H, W, A 1+ I M – –
for Temperature,
Humidity, CO2 and
Light Control
31 Breathing Skins [62] FC PM L, A 1 E M – –
32 Cactus Facade [63] E PM L 1 N/A M – –
33 Rolling Habitat [63] E PM L 1 N/A M – –
34 Pine Cone [63] E PM A 1 N/A P – –
Mechanism
35 Pillbug Shell [40] F PM L 1 N/A M – –
(continued on next page)
4 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544

Table 1 (continued)
36 Aero Dimm [41][64] F PM L 1 E P – –
37 Lithops Facade [63] F PM L, W 1 N/A M – –
38 Tree Facade [39][65] F PM H, W, E 1 N/A M – –
39 Capacitor [66] E PSP A, L 1 E M TC E
40 Water-Reacting [67] FSC PSP W 1 E P other∗ E
Architectural
Surface
41 Curved-Line Folding [12] E SM L 1 E M VC, other∗ D
Facade
42 Shingle Facade [12] E SM L 1 E M VC, other∗ D
43 SolaRoof [68] E FSA H 1 E M ED D
44 Esplanade Theatres [69] E FSA L 1 E M ED D
on the Bay
Singapore
45 Pomegenerate [70] E PM H 1 E M – –
46 The World Water [71] F PM H 1 E M – –
Headquarters (Las
Palmas Water
Theatre)
47 Island of Light [72] F PM L, W 1 E M – –
48 Porous Skin [20] E PM L, H 1 I M – –
49 Stoma Brick [73] FC PSP W, H, A 1+ I M, B TC –
50 Bio-Inspired [74] FC SM A 1 I B TC –
Ventilating
Envelope
51 Shading and Energy [75] FC SM L, E 1 I M VC, ED D
Generating Skin
52 A multifunctional [76] FC SM L, H 1+ I M, B TC D
Bio-ABS
∗
Other: Refers to the type of performance evaluation that is not directly related to climate-adaptability but others i.e. mechanical or structural.

4. Characterisation of biomimetic adaptive building skins
The 52 Bio-ABS have been analysed against four layers: (1)
scale, (2) adaptability, (3) biomimetics and (4) performance (Table 2).
4.1. Layer 1: scale
The scale of Bio-ABS refers to spatial scales and developmen-
tal stages. The spatial scale determines the size of a system and
is defined as envelope, façade, façade component and façade sub-
component. ‘Envelope’ consists of the whole building skin, while
‘façade’ is the external walls. ‘Façade component’ is a part of
a façade or is put together forming the façade. Façade sub-
component is part of a façade component, embodied at a smaller
scale. For instance, the project ‘Water-Reacting Architectural Sur-
face’ is made of wooden panels that curve when exposed to water.
It is considered to be at the façade sub-component scale due to its
material properties [67]. On the other hand, Thermonastic Tropism
is a flower-like petal shaped façade component inspired by the Yel-
low Crocus flower (Crocus flavus) [46].
The developmental stage determines how developed a system is
digitally or physically. It includes any analysis conducted to mea-
sure its performance. The developmental stages defined are prelim-
inary model (PM), simulated model (SM), pilot scale prototype (PSP)
and full-scale application (FSA). PM refers to Bio-ABS developed as
a digital computer model without analysis such that the system
remains theoretical. SM identifies examples modelled and tested
digitally. PSP identifies examples that are modelled physically and
tested digitally or physically. FSA refers to a system implemented
on a building or pavilion that is permanently built or at least tem-
porarily exhibited. For example, the Stoma Brick is an evaporative
cooling system developed as PSP with a prototype built using 3D
printing [73].
4.2. Layer 2: adaptability
Adaptability determines the responsiveness of Bio-ABS to envi-
ronmental factors it is adaped to, the number of functions it has
and its stimuli. Environmental factors refer to the climatic factors
that Bio-ABS controls by producing a change in heat, light, air, wa-
ter and energy. For example, a shading system regulates heat and
light by limiting solar gains and providing daylighting. AeroDimm
is a shading device inspired by the colour changing Cephalopoda,
with elastic membranes changing volume and passing solar radia-
tion and daylight [64].
Defining Bio-ABS as mono or multifunctional systems relates to
the number of environmental factors they regulate when triggered
by stimuli interdependently. For example, the Adaptive Envelope
for Temperature, Humidity, CO2 and Light Control is inspired by
plants‘ stomata and detects changes via sensors responding to hu-
midity, temperature, indoor air quality and light intensity, thus be-
ing a multifunctional system [61]. The Air Flow(er) shades and
ventilates by moving its flower petal-inspired parts, triggered by
temperature only, and as the regulation occurs dependently, it is a
monofunctional system [47].
Only functions that relate to controlling the above-identified
environmental factors are taken into consideration. These functions
are shading, ventilating, heating/cooling, improving air quality, regu-
lating humidity levels, changing colour and regulating energy demand.
The stimulus defines the operative characteristics of Bio-ABS as in-
trinsic and extrinsic [34]. Intrinsic control implies self-adjusting sys-
tems, where behaviour is automatically stimulated by environmen-
tal factors such as temperature and relative humidity, etc. Extrinsic
control implies artificial systems consisting of sensors, processors
and actuators [34,77].
4.3. Layer 3: biomimetics
Biomimetic features of Bio-ABS are what makes them distinct
from other types of ABS. Biomimetic processes can be initiated ei-
ther through the definition of a technical problem to be solved by a
biological solution or with the investigation of a biological solution
to solve a technical problem. These are termed top-down (TD) and
bottom-up (BU), respectively [78]. The BU approach is an indirect
approach to biomimetics, without directly relating to a problem in
the first instance [11,79].
 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544 5

Table 2.
Classification parameters of Bio-ABS grouped under four main categories.

Layer Scope Parameters

Layer 1: Scale Spatial scale Façade sub-component

Façade component
Façade
Envelope
Developmental stage Preliminary model
Simulated model
Pilot-scale prototype
Full-scale application
Layer 2: Adaptability Environmental Heat
regulation
Light
Air
Water
Energy
Number of functions Monofunctional
Multifunctional
Function Shading
Ventilation
Heating/cooling
Improving air quality
Humidity
Colour change
Energy demand
Stimulus Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Layer 3: Biomimetics Biomimetic approach Top-down (TD)
Bottom-up (BU)
Biomimetic/adaptation Morphological
level
Physiological
Behavioural
Adaptation type Form
Structure
Texture
Trait
Chemical response
Kinetic response
Nastic movement
Tropism
Layer 4: Performance Performance target Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
Thermal Comfort
Visual Comfort
Energy demand
Analysis Digital
Experimental
Measure and metric Displacement
Daylight intake
Humidification/dehumidification
Heat dissipation
Airflow
Permeability
Cooling

Adaptation levels are classified into three categories: morpho-
logical, physiological and behavioural. Morphological adaptations are
form, structure and texture, relating to a form or size; structure;
and segmentation trends of surfaces respectively. Examples include
the shape of plants’ leaves (form), biomechanics of flower petals
(structure) and hydrophobic external epidermal layers of leaves
(texture). Physiological adaptations are trait and physiological re-
sponse. Trait relates to biological characteristics. Physiological re-
sponse results from internal chemical processes. Behavioural adap-
tations are kinetic responses, tropisms and nastic movements. Kinetic
response relates to movement in organisms other than plants. Nas-
tic movement is plants‘ response to external stimuli independent
from its direction such as the photonasty of Oxalis triangularis, re-
sponding to light. Tropism is plants‘ response to external stimuli
depending on its direction such as heliotropism of Arctic poppy
(Papaver radicatum), turning toward the sun to seek sunlight. The
difference between photonasty and heliotropism is that Oxalis
Triangularis performs the same movement in the presence of sun-
light, while Papaver radicatum moves toward the sunlight.
4.4. Layer 4: performance
The performance of Bio-ABS quantifies the effectiveness of func-
tional strategies. It involves identifying a performance target, analy-
sis of the system and the measured improvement. The performance
target of Bio-ABS determines the functionalities the system meets
to improve the overall building performance, identified as indoor
air quality, thermal comfort, visual comfort or energy demand. The
analysis of Bio-ABS determines the effectiveness of a system in
achieving performance targets. Analysis involves digital (computer
simulations) or experimental analysis (laboratory or on-site tests).
Bio-ABS may be also analysed mechanically or structurally as most
designs are biomechanic systems. For instance, the Curved-Line
Folding Façade inspired by Aldrovanda and the Shingle Façade
6 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544
Fig. 3. Spatial scales and developmental stagesof Bio-ABS.
inspired by Lilium are shading systems and both are published in-
cluding structural analysis of their modules [12].
The measure and it’s metric give a quantitative result for perfor-
mance evaluation. Common parameters measured include displace-
ment, daylight intake, (de)humidification, heat dissipation, air flow,
permeability or cooling. The Gymnasium Façade is a dynamic façade
adjusting to the sun path to reduce the need for active systems
[48]. The system is designed for stadiums and meets the daylight-
ing requirements, with an illumination target set as 30 0–10 0 0 lx.
On the other hand, some experiments are performed to evaluate
movement and structural properties. For example, the Homeostatic
Façade System, FlectofinTM , HygroScope and HygroSkin all are mea-
sured through laboratory experiments of displacement.
5. Results: meta-analysis of applications
The results of the meta-analysis show that Bio-ABS have limita-
tions in: (i) level of development, given that only 46.2% (n = 24) of
published projects go beyond the preliminary development (PM)
level, (ii) regulating diverse environmental factors, as only 13.4%
(n = 7) of projects are multifunctional (iii) performance evaluation,
given that only 34.6% (n = 18) of projects measure thermal or vi-
sual comfort, and only 9.6% (n = 5) measure energy use.
5.1. Scale: advances in research and development
From our classification of Bio-ABS, we found that most applica-
tions are designed as an envelope or façade component and they
are mostly developed at the preliminary design stages. In fact,
53.8% of all projects (n = 28) were at the preliminary design stage
and included no analysis to evaluate their efficiency (Fig. 3). The
majority of Bio-ABS are conceptual, likely due to the challenges
of bringing the multiple disciplines of architecture, biomimetics
and engineering together to develop, analyse and measure perfor-
mance. In addition, methodologies to identify and transfer biolog-
ical solutions into architectural systems are limited. Available soft-
ware has limitations in terms of dedicated tools and methods that
can simulate the performance of Bio-ABS. The translation from a
digital model to a physical application needs the input of different
experts. Knowledge in material acquisition and selection, prototyp-
ing tools and machines, the availability of workshop and labora-
tory facilities and the knowledge to perform controlled environ-
ment and field experiments must be addressed. Overall, facilities,
methods and expertise in multiple disciplines for the design, mod-
elling, evaluation and validation of Bio-ABS requires further devel-
opment.
Performance analysis undertaken includes environmental, me-
chanical or structural response, with comfort analysis being the
most common (Fig. 4). Twenty-three systems (44.2%) have perfor-
mance analysis and seventeen of them demonstrate thermal or vi-
sual comfort analysis, while only five have energy analysis. Some
examples such as the Homeostatic Façade System, FlectofinTM and
the Air Flow(er) are at the PSP stage, meaning they have been
developed to a physical prototype level. At this stage, prototypes
do not necessarily have a quantitative performance analysis. In the
case of having analysis, there are two main groups defined: envi-
ronmental performance, and other, which includes the likes of me-
chanical or structural analysis. We found that two systems at the
PSP stage do not have any type of performance analysis, and four
systems at PSP and FSA stages have analysis other than environ-
mental.
5.2. Adaptability: environmental regulation
The technology of Bio-ABS rarely addresses multifunctionality
with most published projects focusing on the control of single pa-
rameters such as daylighting. Results show that multifunctional
systems represent only 15.3% of published projects (n = 8) with the
remaining 84.7% being monofunctional (n = 44) (Fig. 5). We found
that light management in monofunctional systems is comprehen-
sively developed, comprising of 57.6% (n = 30) typically manag-
ing solar gains designed as shading systems adapting to sun path
[12,26,43,52,80–83]. Energy regulation is the least studied environ-
mental factor, comprising of only 3.8% (n = 2), despite it being vital
 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544 7

Fig. 4. Number of existing examples∗ designed at various developmental stages

with analysis targets and types, if any. Inner circle: Performance target (TC: Ther-
mal Comfort, VC: Visual Comfort, ED: Energy Demand, Other: refers to other analy-
sis types than environmental performance i.e. structural or mechanical) End circle: Fig. 6. Categorisation of Bio-ABS according to their stimuli as per operation and
Analysis type (E: Experimental, D: Digital). environmental regulation. Inner circle: Stimulus (I: Intrinsic, E: Extrinsic, N/A: Not
∗ applicable) End circle: Environmental regulation (L: Light, H: Heat, W: Water, A: Air,
Ecludes 55.8% projects of those with no performance analysis.
E: Energy).

for most organisms to conserve/produce energy. There is a need

then to broaden the reach of Bio-ABS beyond mere shading de-
vices, to explore management and control of energy, water or heat.
We categorised the reviewed Bio-ABS systems in terms of their
stimuli and divided them into three groups: intrinsic controls; ex-
trinsic controls; or not having any specified stimulus (Fig. 6). One
outcome found is the lack of extrinsic operation in multifunctional
systems, meaning there is no multifunctional system in the scope
of this research that hosts an artificial system operated via ac-
tuators. We also found that light management in monofunctional
systems with extrinsic stimuli is the most studied aspect with a
portion of 25% (n = 13). This is followed again by light regulating
monofunctional examples that do not have their operation speci-
fied, being 15.3% (n = 8). Therefore, most examples surveyed regu-
late only light controlled via artificial systems.
We also evaluated the Bio-ABS to determine how the devel-
opment stage corresponds with number of functions (Fig. 7). The
examples are first to split into academic and industrial projects,
then in terms of being mono-or-multifunctional, and lastly accord-
ing to their developmental stages. Under this categorisation, we
show that the highest number of Bio-ABS are developed at a con-
ceptual phase (PM) in academia and are monofunctional (63.4%).
Academic projects are the most frequent with 73.1% (n = 38) of the

Fig. 5. Regulated environmental factor according to the number of functions of applications.

8 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544

Fig. 7. The status and number of multi and monofunctional Bio-ABS developed in academia and industry and their developmental scale. Inner circle: Number of functions
(1: Monofunctional, 1+: Multifunctional) End circle: Developmental stage (SM: Simulated Model, PSP: Pilot Scale Prototype and FSA: Full Scale Application.

total, suggesting that the real-world industrial uptake of Bio-ABS

remains limited. Multifunctional systems only comprise 13.4% of
total (n = 7) and are only developed as digital models, being at the
PM and SM stages [18,45,47,49,73,75,76]. Therefore, we can state
that multifunctional control and performance of Bio-ABS is a sig-
nificant research gap in the field, especially in terms of prototyping
and real-world uptake.

5.3. Biomimetics: efficiency in function and movement

We categorised biomimetic strategies in Bio-ABS as mono-

functional and multifunctional mechanisms followed by their
biomimetic/adaptation types and environmental factors (Fig. 8).
We found that most common adaptation type is morphological,
with a portion of 69.2% (n = 36). The high proportion of mor-
pological adaptations suggests that abstracting forms, shapes and
structures from nature is relatively common due to both buildings
and organisms having geometrical and structural properties. Also,
the transfer of chemical or kinetic processes such as physiological
and behavioural adaptations requires greater expertise in biochem-
istry and biomechanics. The main reason behind this is the lack of
methods or frameworks providing pathways for the translation of
such properties from organisims into buildings. Among the systems
that are monofunctional and derived from morphological adapta-
tions, light management is the most studied environmental factor,
followed by heat regulation, highlighting again that shading sys- Fig. 8. Number of biomimetic strategies according to their regulating environmen-
tems are the most common Bio-ABS in the field. tal factor derived from various adaptation typesgrouped as multi or monofunctional
We also grouped the fifty-two examples according to their mechanisms. Inner circle: Adaptation type (M: Morphological, P: Physiological, B:
Behavioural) End circle: Environmental regulation (L: Light, H: Heat, W: Water, A:
stimuli in comparison with biological models‘ adaptation types as
Air, E: Energy).
morphological, physiological and behavioural (Fig. 9). Extrinsic re-
sponse in morphological adaptations is studied most frequently
(44.4% of examples, n = 16), meaning that most Bio-ABS are driven For instance, the Homeostatic Façade System is designed with
from morphologies into designs with controls through equipment dielectric elastomers, inspired by the compression and contrac-
such as actuators. This results in the design of additional me- tion of human muscles. Dielectric elastomers are smart materi-
chanical systems triggered by processors and sensors. We suggest als, transforming electric energy into mechanical work [46,80]. On
that through abstracting behavioural adaptations in nature, that the contrary, FlectofinTM is inspired by the behaviour of a plant
presents mechanisms creating a change via movement, it is possi- stimulated by an extrinsic response, through force [26]. The plant
ble to develop systems with intrinsic movement, without the need Strelitzia reginae shows a bending motion when a bird lands on
for artificial systems. the flower causing two petals to be pulled down. The hingeless
 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544 9

Fig. 9. Number of Bio-ABS examples according to their biomimetic/adaptation types and operational stimuli (Combination∗ : Ccombination of morphological or physiological
or behavioural adaptations; Both∗ ∗ : Intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli together).

Fig. 10. FlectofinTM a) movement, b) closed, c) open and the One Ocean Pavilion d) movement, e) closed, f) open configurations.

louvre system FlectofinTM shifts its fins 90° when an external force
is applied by inducing bending stresses in the spine. The activation
of system‘s displacement is achieved through controlling tempera-
ture, demonstrating an extrinsic operation [28,46]. This device was
later implemented on the façade of One Ocean Thematic Pavilion,
adopting the mechanism of reversible material deformation when
an external mechanical force [83,84] (Fig. 10).
We categorised the biological mechanisms adopted in the sur-
veyed Bio-ABS systems into the species they are derived from
such as Plantae, Animalia, Microbe, Arthropoda and Homo Sapi-
ens (Fig. 11). We found that in general, morphological adapta-
tions present the most studied biological models being 69.2% of
all (n = 36). We also found that most biological mechanisms trans-
ferred are morphological adaptations in plants specifically, with a
portion of 40% (n = 22). Interestingly, no physiological adaptations
from Arthropoda, i.e. insects or Homo Sapiens, and no behavioural
adaptations from Microbe, i.e. microbes, are transferred into façade
systems.
5.4. Performance: evaluation and validation
Performance evaluation and validation of Bio-ABS are important
aspects for demonstrating the potential improvements that they
offer in overall building performance. Since Bio-ABS initially focus
on the achievement of a performance target, such as improving in-
door thermal and visual comfort or reducing the energy demand,
10 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544
Fig. 11. The common kingdom and species stating how many biological mechanisms are generated from.
conducting performance evaluation is critical to quantify the im-
pact these systems may make. The use of innovative and climate-
adaptable systems such as Bio-ABS are encouraged by many re-
searchers and practitioners [33,85–89]. To demonstrate the appli-
cability of Bio-ABS, their quantitative performance must be deter-
mined and compared against other technologies and approaches.
When developed only at theoretical stages without quantitative as-
sessment, biomimetic concepts remain aesthetical, limiting their
applicability in transferring functions from nature.
One of the main constraints in assessing the performance of
Bio-ABS is the limited methods to evaluate these systems. Simula-
tion software is often limited in modelling and analysing dynamic
systems linked to climatic data. Through some parametric mod-
elling software, it is possible to link climatic aspects (i.e. solar irra-
diance) with adaptive systems. However, only a few softwares offer
built-in tools to model climate-adaptive systems. For example, the
simulation software EnergyPlus has built-in objects to model and
simulate thermochromic glazing. EnergyPlus integrates the Energy
Management System (EMS) where modelling and simulating sys-
tems with actuators, sensors and control logic is possible. But the
use of this built-in tool is referred to as complex and does not of-
fer a direct approach to model a variety of Bio-ABS [88,90]. The use
of these tools must be supported by frameworks and case studies
to make them more accessible. While this is the case for digital
analysis of Bio-ABS, experimental analysis also presents challenges.
It requires a specific setup of a laboratory with controlled mea-
sures and is usually financially expensive and spatially inaccessi-
ble. Therefore, to further address performance assessment and val-
idation of Bio-ABS, auxiliary facilities, equipment and knowledge
needs to be enhanced.
The fifty-two available applications of Bio-ABS are evaluated ac-
cording to their performance analysis types and results (Fig. 12).
Performance evaluation and validation of systems in the field of
Bio-ABS is perhaps the most limited feature of the field, given that
55.7% (n = 29) of the applications do not have any performative as-
sessment. The rest of the applications are divided into either hav-
ing a digital or physical assessment. According to the survey, 15.3%
(n = 8) of all applications have a physical analysis that is comprised
of experiments, and similarly, 21.4% (n = 11) have digital analysis.
Considering this, we also evaluated how many built systems have
digital or experimental analysis. Twelve Bio-ABS fall under these
categories. We found that three systems developed as PSP and FSA
stages are designed to improve thermal comfort and reduce energy
demand without any numerical analysis accessible demonstrating
the result [23].
We also categorised the Bio-ABS applications according to how
many are designed to meet a performance target and the envi-
ronmental factors they regulate. We found that the majority of
the systems have no defined performance target, despite being de-
signed to regulate certain environmental factors (Fig. 13). Lacking
performance analysis in Bio-ABS limits the argument that suggests
Bio-ABS offer the potential for improved performance compared to
conventional approaches.
To outline the improvements that Bio-ABS can offer, we have
selected the only four of Bio-ABS with environmental perfor-
mance analysis data for further study. These examples are the
Prairie Dog‘s Burrows Inspired Structure, the Desert Snail En-
velope, the Gymnasium Facade and the Multifunctional Bio-ABS
[48,49,60,76] (Table 3). All these systems are developed at PM
development stage, demonstrating a digital model with perfor-
mance analysis. Prairie Dog‘s Burrows Inspired Structure is eval-
uated through CFD (computational fluid dynamics) testing air-flow
rates for ventilation [60]. Hence its name, the system is inspired by
Cynomys gunnisoni burrows and their unique form, optimising air-
flow. The system creates negative and positive air pressures at the
façade. The system removes the warmer air, while the wind flow-
ing across the outer surface is captured through the openings in
the system. The system‘s performance is evaluated against a base-
case building, showing an enhancement of flow rate of between 1.5
to 5 times, dependent on domain wind speed.
The Desert Snail Envelope is an example inspired by the mor-
phological and behavioural adaptations of the desert snail (Sphinc-
terochila boissieri). This snail has evolved unique adaptations to sur-
vive in deserts, through a combination of a reflective outer shell
surface, shading through its shell form, positioning its body on
top of the shell and creating an air barrier protecting itself from
the high ground surface temperature. All these adaptations keep
the snail much cooler, by reflecting 90% of visible, and 95% of in-
frared solar radiation. In addition, a layer of air provides insulation
keeping the snail up to 5° C cooler. These biological mechanisms
of the snail are translated into an envelope design, which is com-
pared with a base-case building. Firstly, the reflecting outer surface
 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544 11

Fig. 12. Quantitative assessment of Bio-ABS showing performance targets and analyses focusing on developmental stages (in column graph Other∗ : Mechanical or struc-
tural analysis; in sunburst diagram inner circle: Analysis type E: Experimental, D: Digital, N/A: Not applicable/no analysis; End circle: Developmental stage PSP: Pilot Scale
Prototype, FSA: Full-Scale Application).

Fig. 13. The relation between the environmental regulation and performance target of Bio-ABS applications (Other∗ : Performance targets than environmental performance
targets, i.e. structural or mechanical).

Table 3.
Performance descriptors and analyses of the only four projects with performance evaluation in the scope of this study (In environmental regulation, L: Light, H: Heat, A: Air;
in number of functions, 1: Monofunctional, 1+: Multifunctional; in performance target, VC: Visual Comfort, TC: Thermal Comfort).

ID Name of Bio-ABS Reference Environmental regulation Performance evaluation

application

Environmental Number of Stimulus Performance Performance output variable Performance improvement

regulation functions target over the base-case

6 Gymnasium Facade [48] L 1 I VC Illuminance levels and solar ≈600 illuminance, 95% to
radiation 97% solar radiation
8 Desert Snail [49] H, A 1+ N/A TC Visible and IR solar 90% visible and 95% IR
Envelope radiation, cooling load, reflectance, 19% cooling
average shading factor load, 48% to 77% shading
28 Prairie Dog‘s [60] A 1 I TC Air flow rate 150% to 500%
Burrows Inspired
Structure
52 A multifunctional [76] L, H 1+ I TC Discomfort hours 51.5% in 90% and 67.5% in
Bio-ABS ‘80% A. L.
∗
A. L.: Acceptability Limits for ASHRAE 55–2010.
12 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544
is applied on an envelope and the annual cooling loads dropped
by 4%, from 287,989.7 kWh to 276,131.1 kWh. Then, insulating air is
applied using a high-performing insulator, Aerogel, reducing cool-
ing loads by 19% to 232,800.8 kWh. Lastly, with the implementtion
of the shading strategy, the average shading percentage during the
day is increased from 48% to 77%.
The Gymnasium Façade is another example of a Bio-ABS that
improves daylighting in stadia. It draws inspiration from the optics
of animal eyes [48]. The Gymnasium Façade is designed to achieve
a daylighting requirement of 1,0 0 0 lx in the case of sports matches,
but betters this significantly by reaching 6,369.81 lx at 12 pm and
6,341.9 lx at 3 pm. The highest value of total radiation increased
from 380.82 Wh to 399.19 Wh and the lowest value decreased from
202.17 Wh to 198.03 Wh at 12 pm. Therefore, this system provides
illuminance levels approximately six times higher than the require-
ment and solar radiation values are improved by 95% (for the high-
est value) and 97% (for the lowest value).
Lastly, the Multifunctional Bio-ABS analyses comfort and is
compared against a conventional façade with same functions [76].
The system is inspired by the golden barrel cactus (Echinocactus
grusonii) and functions as a ventilating and shading device to im-
prove thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings in tem-
perate climates. It is multifunctional, providing functions linked to
independent environmental stimuli; solar irradiance and tempera-
ture. With the implementation of this system, there is a 51.5% im-
provement in ‘ASHRAE55-2010 90% Acceptability Limits’, and 67.5%
in ‘80% Acceptability Limits’ when compared to traditional con-
structions [76].
The performance evaluation of Bio-ABS is perhaps the most
critical aspect needing further research and development due to its
scarcity in published examples. One of the most effective ways of
demonstrating the value of Bio-ABS is to quantitively measure the
improvements they offer. In addition, to support the real-world up-
take of Bio-ABS, mechanical, structural and material experiments
to evaluate their durability must be conducted. And to conduct
these different types of analyses, it is important to develop new
frameworks and methodologies and demonstrate case studies as
examples.
6. Conclusion: biomimetics and multifunctionality for better
performance
This paper brings together the topics of biomimetics and adap-
tive building skins and establishes a definition combining the two;
namely biomimetic adaptive building skins (Bio-ABS). Fifty-two ex-
amples of Bio-ABS developed over the last decade have been com-
paratively analysed outlining current trends, characteristics and
performance metrics.
Results from the meta-analysis show that Bio-ABS have limita-
tions in: (i) advanced levels of development, given that only 46.2%
(n = 24) of published projects go beyond a level of preliminary de-
velopment (PM), (ii) regulating diverse environmental factors, as
only 13.4% (n = 7) of projects are multifunctional (iii) performance
evaluation, given that only 34.6% (n = 18) of projects measure ther-
mal or visual comfort, only 9.6% (n = 5) measure energy use and
(iv) 57.6% of projects deal specifically with shading, showing that
shading devices are over-represented in the literature The main
findings of the meta-analysis are:
(a) There is a need for variety in biomimetics: Biological sci-
ences provide a vast knowledge base for diverse mechanisms
to support environmental and energy regulation, with great
potential if translated into buildings. The most translated
adaptation type, whether it is a multifunctional or mono-
functional system, is morphological adaptations, with a por-
tion of 69.2% (n = 36). Most biological of these adaptations
are from plants specifically, with a portion of 40% comprised
of 22 projects. Given this, there is a need for a greater diver-
sity of biomimetic translations into the built environment
across both multiple species and adaptation types (chemi-
cal, etc.), in the form of new case studies and frameworks to
support translation.
(b) There is a need for greater performance analysis in Bio-ABS:
Building performance is dramatically influenced by envelope
design, thus novel approaches show great potential in im-
proving the overall outcomes [32], [99], [100]. Current stud-
ies in Bio-ABS are limited in terms of numerical analysis
quantifying performance. One of the main constraints in as-
sessing the performance of Bio-ABS is the limited simulation
software and methods available to evaluate dynamic façade
systems that respond to real-time climatic data through
changing morphologies and physiologies.
(c) 53.8% (n = 28) of all applications are developed as pre-
liminary models (PM), without any performance analysis.
Twenty-three systems (42.3%) include performance analy-
sis, with eighteen including thermal/visual comfort analy-
sis and only five have energy analysis. 15.3% (n = 8) include
physical tests, and 21.1% (n = 11) use digital analysis. While
there is limited performance analysis, those projects that
do include some level of comparative analysis between Bio-
ABS and conventional approaches demonstrate significant
potential for improvement. These include enhancing venti-
lation flow rate, reducing annual cooling loads, increasing
average shading percentage and reducing indoor discomfort
hours.
(d) There is a need for multifunctionality: Only 13.4% (n = 7)
of projects analysed were multifunctional. Light manage-
ment in monofunctional systems is comprehensively devel-
oped with 48% (n = 25). These are typically shading systems
controlling solar gains. Energy regulation is the least studied
environmental factor, measured in only 3.8% (n = 2) studies.
There is a lack of extrinsic operation in multifunctional sys-
tems, with no system analysed in this research having artifi-
cial actuators. Light management in monofunctional systems
with extrinsic stimuli is the most studied aspect with a por-
tion of 48% (n = 25).
The results suggest that there are a limited number of realized
or prototyped projects with most studies being at a conceptual
stage, lacking quantitative performance analysis. On developmental
scales of existing examples, it is found that the uptake of Bio-ABS
is limited, resulting in a gap between the progression at a theoret-
ical level and real-world application.
We have defined multifunctionality in Bio-ABS as being able
to respond to more than one climatic aspect triggered by diverse
environmental stimuli. Regulating multiple environmental factors
hosting diverse functions in self-sufficient systems that do not rely
on additional equipment is another characteristic that requires ad-
ditional research. The Bio-ABS technology is limited in addressing
multifunctional and the often contradictory requirements of build-
ings, solved by trade-off solutions offering optimum designs to-
wards meeting various targets. The current frontier in the field
focuses on the development of monofunctional systems with a
high rate of applications as shape morphing shading devices. The
integration of multiple functions in one system achieving multi-
regulation of diverse environmental factors of heat, air, light, water
and energy is a challenge to cope with, whereas in nature corre-
sponding models are already in abundance. Therefore, this paper
draws attention to the commonalities between nature and ABS re-
garding environmental adaptability and proposes that biomimetics
is a very promising approach to be taken.
 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Scientia Professor Mattheos
Santamouris‘s valuable comments. The authors would like to ac-
knowledge financial support from the Faculty of Built Environment
at UNSW Sydney.
References
[1] G. Pohl, W. Nachtigall, Biomimetics for Architecture and Design: Nature -
Analogies - Technology, Springer, 2015.
[2] J. Reap, D. Baumeister, B. Bras, Holism, biomimicry and sustainable engineer-
ing, Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo. Proc. (2005) 1–9.
[3] D. Baumeister, Biomimicry resource handbook: a seed bank of knowledge and
best practices, Missoula Biomimicry 3 (2012) 8.
[4] P. Gruber, B. Imhof, Patterns of growth—biomimetics and architectural design,
Buildings 7 (2) (2017) 32.
[5] J. Benyus, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, New York: Publishers,
Harper Collins, 1997.
[6] R.C.G.M. Loonen, M. Trčka, D. Cóstola, J.L.M. Hensen, Climate adaptive building
shells: state-of-the-art and future challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25
(2013) 483–493.
[7] R.C.G.M. Loonen, F. Favoino, J.L.M. Hensen, M. Overend, Review of current sta-
tus, requirements and opportunities for building performance simulation of
adaptive facades, J. Build. Perform. Simul. 1493 (May) (2016) 1–19.
[8] K.M. Al-Obaidi, M. Azzam Ismail, H. Hussein, A.M. Abdul Rahman, Biomimetic
building skins: an adaptive approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (June)
(2017) 1472–1491.
[9] M. Pesenti, G. Masera, F. Fiorito, Shaping an origami shading device through vi-
sual and thermal simulations, Energy Procedia 78 (November) (2015) 346–351.
[10] M. López, R. Rubio, S. Martín, B. Croxford, How plants inspire façades from
plants to architecture: biomimetic principles for the development of adaptive
architectural envelopes, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 692–703.
[11] L. Badarnah Kadri, Towards the LIVING envelope: Biomimetics for Building En-
velope Adaptation, Technical University Delft, 2015.
[12] S. Schleicher, Bio-inspired compliant mechanisms for architectural design:
transferring bending and folding principles of plant leaves to flexible kinetic
structures. 2016.
[13] A. Kuru, F. Fiorito, P. Oldfield, S.P. Bonser, Multi-functional biomimetic adaptive
façades : developing a framework, in: FACADE 2018 Final Conference of COST
TU1403 ‘Adaptive Facades Network’ Lucerne, Switzerland, November 26/27,
2018, pp. 231–240.
[14] Y. Bar-Cohen, Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation. Florida: CRC Press, Taylor
and Francis Group Publishing, 2012.
[15] N. Lepora, P. Verschure, T. Prescott, The state of the art in biomimetics, Bioin-
spir. Biomim. 8 (2013) 1–11.
[16] J.F.V. Vincent, Biomimetics: its practice and theory. 2006.
[17] Y. Bar-Cohen, Biomimetics: biologically inspired technologies. Florida, 2005.
[18] S. Gosztonyi and P. Gruber, BioSkin – Forschungs- potenziale für bionisch in-
spirierte energieeffiziente Fassadentechnologien, 2013.
[19] L. Badarnah, U. Kadri, A methodology for the generation of biomimetic design
concepts, Archit. Sci. Rev. 58 (2) (2015) 120–133.
[20] I. Mazzoleni, Architecture Follows Nature, Biomimetic. California: Taylor &
Francis, 2013.
[21] V. Kapsali, Biomimetics for Designers, London: Thames and Hudson, 2016.
[22] G. Jeronimidis, a G. Atkins, Mechanics of biological materials and structures:
nature’s lessons for the engineer, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci.
209 (4) (1995) 221–235.
[23] M. Pawlyn, Biomimicry in Architecture, London: RIBA Publishing, 2011.
[24] J. Frazer, Parametric computation: history and future, Archit. Des. 86 (2) (2016)
18–23.
[25] J. Frazer, An Evolutionary Architecture, London: Architectural Association,
1995.
[26] J. Lienhard, et al., Flectofin: a hingeless flapping mechanism inspired by nature,
Bioinspir. Biomimet. 6 (4) (2011).
[27] A. Menges, Biomimetic design processes in architecture: morphogenetic and
evolutionary computational design, Bioinspir. Biomimet. 7 (1) (2012).
[28] J. Knippers, A. Menges, H. Dahy, and N. Frueh, The ITECH approach : building
(s) to learn, the ITECH approach : building (s) to learn, vol. 141, no. July, 2018.
[29] Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design (ITKE), University
of Stuttgart. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 07-Feb-2019]. https://www.itke.
uni-stuttgart.de/.
[30] G. Hausladen, M. de Saldanha, P. Liedl, ClimateSkin: Building-skin Concepts
that can do More with Less Energy, BIRKHAUSER, 2006.
[31] A.E. Del Grosso, P. Basso, Adaptive building skin structures, Smart Mater. Struct.
19 (12) (2010).
[32] A. Luible, F. Wellershoff, L. Aelenei, M. Perino, M. Overend, and U. Knaack,
Adaptive facade network – Europe. 2015.
13
[33] D. Aelenei, L. Aelenei, C.P. Vieira, Adaptive façade: concept, applications, re-
search questions, Energy Procedia 91 (2016) 269–275.
[34] R.C.G.M. Loonen, et al., Design for façade adaptability – Towards a unified and
systematic characterization, Proc. 10th Conf. Adv. Build. Ski. (2015) 1284–1294
November.
[35] F. Fiorito, et al., Shape morphing solar shadings: a review, Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 55 (2016) 863–884 March.
[36] B. Karamata, M. Andersen, Concept, design and performance of a shape vari-
able mashrabiya as a shading and daylighting system for arid climates, 30th
PLEA Conf. HABITAT Dev. Soc. 2 (2014) 344–351 EPFL-CONF-206749.
[37] R. Romano, L. Aelenei, D. Aelenei, E.S. Mazzucchelli, What is an adaptive
façade ? Analysis of recent terms and definitions from an international per-
spective, J. Facade Des. Eng. 6 (3) (2018) 65–76.
[38] K. Rajeshwar, Biomimetic of Bioinspired? Electrochem. Soc. Interface (2012).
[39] P. Gruber, S. Gosztonyi, Skin in architecture: towards bioinspired facades, WIT
Trans. Ecol. Environ. 138 (April 2015) (2010) 503–513.
[40] K. Wanieck, P.-E. Fayemi, N. Maranzana, C. Zollfrank, S. Jacobs, Biomimetics and
its tools, Bioinspir. Biomim. Nanobiomater. 6 (2) (2017) 53–66.
[41] I. Burgert, P. Fratzl, Actuation systems in plants as prototypes for bioinspired
devices, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 367 (1893) (2009)
1541–1557.
[42] R. Vanaga, A. Blumberga, First steps to develop biomimicry ideas, Energy Pro-
cedia 72 (2015) 307–309.
[43] M. Decker and P. Yeadon, Projects smart screen: versions I, II and III., 2010.
[44] I. Bionic-award and T.I. Prize, Flectofin ®, 2012.
[45] J.E. Sabin et al., eSkin. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 05-Feb-2019]. http://
www.jennysabin.com/eskin/.
[46] E. Katrani, Thermonastic tropism, 2011. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 05-Feb-
2019]. elenikatrani.com/Thermonastic-Tropsim.
[47] A.O. Payne, J.K. Johnson, Firefly: interactive prototypes for architectural design,
Archit. Des. 83 (2013) 144–147.
[48] J.J. Park and B. Dave, Bio-inspired responsive façades bio-inspired responsive
façades, no. September 2013, 2016.
[49] F. Al Amin, H. Taleb, Biomimicry approach to achieving thermal comfort
in a hot climate, in: Proceedings of SBE16 Dubai-UAE 17-19 January, 2016,
pp. 1–8.
[50] S. Reichert, A. Menges, D. Correa, Meteorosensitive architecture : biomimetic
building skins based on materially embedded and hygroscopically enabled re-
sponsiveness, Comput. Des. 60 (2015) 50–69.
[51] A. Menges, HygroScope: meteorosensitive moprhology, Project Catalogue of the
32nd Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Design I N Ar-
chitecture (ACADIA), 2012.
[52] K. Schinegger, S. Rutzinger, M. Oberascher, G. Weber, One Ocean: Theme Pavil-
ion EXPO 2012 Yeosu, Residenz Verlag, 2012.
[53] Aesthetic Architects http://aesarch.com/main/profile.php.
[54] Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Davies Alpine House. [Online]. Avail-
able: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019]. https://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/
royal-botanic-gardens-kew-masterplan.
[55] HABITAT 2020 L Future smart living architecture. [Online]. Available: [Ac-
cessed: 13-Feb-2019]. https://inhabitat.com/habitat- 2020- off- the- grid-
future-abode/.
[56] The living - Living Glass project. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019].
http://www.thelivingnewyork.com/.
[57] The living - Amphibious Envelope project. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 13-
Feb-2019]. http://www.thelivingnewyork.com/.
[58] S. Schleicher, J. Lienhard, S. Poppinga, T. Speck, J. Knippers, A methodology for
transferring principles of plant movements to elastic systems in architecture,
CAD Comput. Aided Des. 60 (2015) 105–117 January 2014.
[59] T. Wiscombe, Beyond assemblies: system convergence and multi-materiality,
Bioinspir. Biomimet. 7 (2012).
[60] D.R.G. Parr, et al., Biomimetic lessons for natural ventilation of buildings a col-
lection of biomimicry templates including their simulation and application, in:
N.F. LNAI, Lepora, et al. (Eds.), Living Machines, 8064, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 421–423.
[61] M. López, R. Rubio, S. Martín, B. Croxford, R. Jackson, Active materials for adap-
tive architectural envelopes based on plant adaptation principles, J. Facade Des.
Eng. 3 (1) (2015) 27–38.
[62] T. Becker, Breathing skins. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019]. https:
//www.breathingskins.com/.
[63] P. Gruber, Biomimetics in architecture: inspiration from plants, in: 6th Plant
Biomechanics Conference - Cayenne November 16th, 2009, pp. 412–419.
[64] R.C.G.M. Loonen, Overview of 100 climate adaptive building shells, 2010.
[65] C. Prodinger and L. Prusa, Tree facade, surfcornwall design program TU Vienna,
2007.
[66] J. Grade, John grade studio, The Capcitor Project (2013) [Online]. Available: [Ac-
cessed: 13-Feb-2019]. http://www.johngrade.com/#/.
[67] C. Chen, “Water-reacting architectural surface,” 2015. [Online]. Avail-
able: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019]. https://www.designboom.com/design/
chao-chen-biomimetic-water-reaction-material-pine-cones-06-30-2015/.
[68] SolaRoof, SolaRoof Project, 2010 [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019].
http://www.solaroof.org/wiki/SolaRoof/HomePage.
[69] D. A. and U. Planning, Esplanade - Theatres on the Bay, Singapore,
2002. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019]. https://dpa.com.sg/projects/
esplanadetheatresonthebay/.
[70] L. Shaikley and M. Fox, Pomegerenerate, 2010. [Online]. Available: [Accessed:
13-Feb-2019]. http://pomegenerate.blogspot.com/.
14 A. Kuru, P. Oldfield and S. Bonser et al. / Energy & Buildings 205 (2019) 109544
[71] E. Architecture, The Las Palmas water theatre by Grimshaw, 2006. [Online].
Available: [Accessed: 13-Feb-2019]. http://www.exploration-architecture.com/
projects/las-palmas.
[72] T.L. Architects, Island of light project. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 13-Feb-
2019]. http://www.tonkinliu.co.uk/project/island- of- light.
[73] L. Badarnah, Y. Nachman Farchi, U. Knaack, Solutions from nature for building
envelope thermoregulation, WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 138 (2010) 251–262 June
2010.
[74] L. Badarnah, U. Kadri, U. Knaack, A bio-inspired ventilating envelope optimized
by air-flow simulations, World Sustain. Build. Conf. SB08, no. September (2015)
230–237.
[75] L. Badarnah and U. Knaack Eng, Shading/energy generating skin inspired from
natural systems, no. September 2008, pp. 305–312, 2008.
[76] A. Kuru, F. Fiorito, P. Oldfield, S.P. Bonser, Multi-functional biomimetic adap-
tive façades : a case study, in: FACADE 2018 Final Conference of COST TU1403
‘Adaptive Facades Network’ Lucerne, Switzerland, 2018, pp. 241–250. Novem-
ber 26/27.
[77] P. Teuffel, Optimization of adaptive structures, 2004.
[78] J. Knippers, T. Speck, Design and construction principles in nature and archi-
tecture, Bioinspir. Biomimet. 7 (1) (2012).
[79] M. Garcia-Holguera, O.G. Clark, A. Sprecher, S. Gaskin, Ecosystem biomimet-
ics for resource use optimization in buildings, Build. Res. Inf. 44 (3) (2016)
263–278.
[80] M. Decker and M. Decker, Emergent futures : nanotechology and emergent ma-
terials in architecture emergent FUTURES : nanotechology and emergent mate-
rials in architecture, no. January 2013, 2016.
[81] M. Pesenti, G. Masera, F. Fiorito, M. Sauchelli, Kinetic solar skin: a responsive
folding technique, Energy Procedia 70 (2015) 661–672.
[82] R. Suralkar, Solar responsive kinetic facade shading systems inspired by
plant movements in nature, Proc. Conf. People Build., no. September (2011)
1–6.
[83] Y.J. Grobman, Cellular building envelopes, ICoRD’13 (2013) 951–963.
[84] L. Sun, et al., Stimulus-responsive shape memory materials: a review, Mater.
Des. 33 (1) (2012) 577–640.
[85] F. Fiorito, M. Santamouris, High performance technologies and the future of
architectural design, Techne 13 (August, 2017).
[86] M. Santamouris, et al., On the energy impact of urban heat island in syd-
ney: climate and energy potential of mitigation technologies, Energy Build. 166
(2018) 154–164.
[87] R.C.G.M. Loonen, et al., Design for façade adaptability – Towards a unified and
systematic characterization, Proc. 10th Conf. Adv. Build. Ski. (2015) 1284–1294
no. November.
[88] F. Favoino, Building Performance Simulation of Adaptive Facades, University of
Cambridge, 2016.
[89] R.C.G.M. Loonen, F. Favoino, J.L.M. Hensen, M. Overend, Review of current sta-
tus, requirements and opportunities for building performance simulation of
adaptive facades†, J. Build. Perform. Simul. 10 (2) (2017) 205–223.
[90] F. Favoino, L. Giovannini, R. Loonen, Smart glazing in intelligent buildings:
what can we simulate? in GPD Glass Performance Days, 2017 no. November.