This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle, Australia]

On: 02 January 2015, At: 22:38

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Science Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

A methodology for the generation of biomimetic design

concepts
a b
Lidia Badarnah & Usama Kadri
a
Department of Architectural Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA 02139, USA
Published online: 04 Jun 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Lidia Badarnah & Usama Kadri (2014): A methodology for the generation of biomimetic design concepts,
Architectural Science Review, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2014.922458

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.922458

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Architectural Science Review, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.922458

A methodology for the generation of biomimetic design concepts

Lidia Badarnaha∗ and Usama Kadrib
a Department of Architectural Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the
Netherlands; b Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
(Received 11 September 2013; final version received 5 May 2014 )

Systems found in nature provide a large database of strategies and mechanisms that can be implemented in biomimetic designs.
Although several biomimetic design strategies are currently available, the generation of a successful design concept is still
challenging. A major challenge is the absence of a systematic selective design methodology that is capable of identifying the
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

relevant systems and then abstracting their strategies and mechanisms.

In this paper, some existing biomimetic design strategies applied for nature emulation are analysed. As an outcome,
a methodology for the generation of biomimetic design concepts is developed. The design methodology selects dominant
strategies that function simultaneously in nature and provides selective user-friendly tools, which facilitate the generation of
preliminary design concepts. An example for the generation process of a design concept is presented.
Keywords: biomimetics; architecture; adaptation; building envelope; design concept generation; methodology

Introduction scaling difficulties – strategies that work at one scale (e.g.

Biomimetics is a rapidly growing design discipline in
engineering, and an emerging field in architecture. In
biomimetics, solutions are obtained by emulating strategies,
mechanisms, and principles found in nature. Besides the
creative and innovative potentials of biomimetics (Benyus
2002), it has been identified as a promising discipline
for environmentally responsive developments of the future
(Badarnah Kadri 2012; Gamage and Hyde 2012;
Mazzoleni 2013; Pawlyn 2011; Pedersen Zari 2010). Sev-
eral biomimetic design strategies have been developed in
the last decade (Baumeister 2012; Bogatyreva, Pahl, and
Vincent 2002; Vattam et al. 2010), though the application
of biomimetics in architecture is still a challenge.
The adaptation strategies that can be found in nature
provide an enormous database, which can be implemented
in design, in general, and in architecture, in particular. Mor-
phology and form are most common traits to be transferred
from natural systems into architecture. However, such traits
seldom retain any function of the imitated natural systems,
and therefore hardly represent a successful biomimetic
design. Additionally, successful design concepts are lim-
ited, likely due to a number of factors beyond the ability
to emulate strategies found in nature to meet corresponding
functional needs. Challenges in implementing biomimetics
often include: (1) the search for, and the selection of, appro-
priate strategies from the large database found in nature; (2)
nano) might not work at another (e.g. micro); and (3) con-
flicts between solutions of integrated parts of the design
concept.
In architecture, several explorations have been carried
out in the last decade to examine ways in which biomimetic
developments are enhanced. These include investigation of
terminologies from life sciences that could have similar
use in our built environments (Gruber 2011); understanding
of ecosystems interactions for higher sustainability devel-
opments (Gamage and Hyde 2012; Pedersen Zari 2010);
exploring ideas from nature for inspiration (Pawlyn 2011);
and identifying strategies of animal skins for performative
constructions (Mazzoleni 2013). Although these explo-
rations reveal some unique aspects from nature to inform
our built environment, research on biomimetics as an effec-
tive design tool is still challenging. A major challenge is
the absence of a systematic selective design methodology
that is capable of identifying “successful” natural systems
(including organisms, animals, plants, nests, and ecosys-
tems) by filtering these from the numerous systems found
in nature and then abstracting their strategies and mecha-
nisms, especially if the designer has a limited biophysical
background.
To this end, this paper consists of three main parts. The
first part provides a comparative analysis of some strate-
gies for biomimetic applications and identifies potentials on

∗ Corresponding author. Email: badarnah.l@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri

how to enhance a design process. The second part proposes
a novel structured methodology for biomimetic design con-
cept generation. In the third part, a qualitative example of
the generation process of a building envelope is examined.
Biomimetic design strategies
Two main approaches with various terminologies exist
in biomimetics: (1) Challenge to biology (Baumeister
2012); top-down (Speck et al. 2006); biomimetics by anal-
ogy (Gebeshuber and Drack 2008); and problem-based
(Vattam, Helms, and Goel 2009) seek a solution from nature
for a particular engineering problem. This approach is ref-
erenced, in this work, as problem-based. (2) Biology to
design (Baumeister 2012); bottom-up (Speck et al. 2006);
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015
solution development; G3 provides the biological analo-
gies; G4 applies the principles for solution development;
and G5 proceeds to prototype and carries physical tests as
solution proof.
In the solution-based approach (Table 3), the various
steps are categorized under the biological and technological
domains, where some steps are identified as a transfer phase
between the two domains. The presented strategies have
similar steps in the technological domain (solution-based)
and solution development phase (problem-based).
Despite the difference in the initial phase between the
two approaches (problem-based and solution-based), the
strategies show a similar trend in the transfer from biolog-
ical to technological domain. However, a major difference
lies in the way the different strategies approach the vari-

biomimetics by induction (Gebeshuber and Drack 2008);
and solution-based (Vattam, Helms, and Goel 2007) are
inspired by an observation of nature, which leads to a tech-
nological design. This approach is referenced, in this work,
as solution-based.
Several active groups have developed strategies for
design concept generation inspired by nature. Selected
groups are presented in this part for comparison and
evaluation (Table 1).
Comparison of strategies
The selected biomimetic design strategies have differences,
in particular, in phase details, as summarized in Table 2 for
the problem-based approach and in Table 3 for the solution-
based approach.
In the problem-based approach (Table 2), all strategies
have a similar initial phase – “problem definition”, where
a minor difference is noticed at G1 by including Life’s
principles as aspirational goal at the scoping phase. At the
“exploration and investigation” phase, all strategies aim to
discover a biological model or analogy, though some pro-
ceed with abstracting design principles (e.g. G1, G3, and
G5). However, the methodologies have different involve-
ment in the “solution development” phase: G1 incorporates
Life’s principles in the validation of the design concept for
sustainability; G2 provides a set of principles from bio-
logical and technical domains but it is not involved in
ous phases of the biomimetic process. Further elaboration
is presented in the next section.
Analysis of problem-based strategies
Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the biomimetic pro-
cess, the design concept generation (in the problem-based
approach) involves three different domains in general:
“Problem”, “Nature”, and “Solution” domains (Table 4, left
column). In order to proceed from one domain to the next,
two general transitions (Transitions 1 and 2) and four sub-
transitions (Transitions 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2) are identified,
as presented in Table 4. The identified general phases are
considered to promote the transitions between the general
domains by means of sub-transitions. The sub-phases are
the specific steps carried out by some strategies throughout
the biomimetic process.
The main differences between the presented strategies
are relatively minor, but include the means by which they
accomplish each sub-phase. The initial phase, “challenge”,
is common among the analysed strategies in order to extract
functions, which are considered essential to search for the
biological analogy. In order to step from the “challenge”
phase to the “function” phase, a sub-transition (1.1) is iden-
tified, which is performed by means of “abstraction”. Three
suggestions exist for abstraction: identify verbs (functions
are represented by verbs) (G3), reframe or biologize the

Table 1. Selected groups applying biomimetic strategy.

Groups Strategies by Problem-based Solution-based

G1 Biomimicry 3.8 (AskNature 2008; Benyus 2002; Biomimicry 3.8 2010) • •

G2 BioTriz (Bogatyreva, Pahl, and Vincent 2002; Bogatyreva et al. 2003; Craig et al. •
2008; Lerner 1991; TRIZ 2011; Vincent 2009; Vincent et al. 2006)
G3 Biomimetics for Innovation and Design Laboratory led by L.H. Shu (Chiu and Shu •
2007; Mak and Shu 2004; Shu 2010, 2011; Vakili and Shu 2001)
G4 Design & Intelligence Laboratory led by Goel (DANE 2011; Goel 2011; Goel, • •
Rugaber, and Vattam 2009; Helms, Vattam, and Goel 2009; Vattam et al. 2010)
G5 Plants Biomechanics Group led by Thomas Speck (Masselter et al. 2010; Milwich • •
et al. 2006; PBG 2011)
 Architectural Science Review 3

Table 2. Problem-based (challenge to biology). The steps adapted by the investigated biomimetic strategies. Categorized based
on the three general phases of the design process: problem definition, exploration & investigation, and solution development.
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

Table 3. Solution-based (biology to design). The steps adapted by the investigated biomimetic strategies. Categorized by biological
and technological domains, and the transfer phase between the domains.

question, e.g. “How would nature …” (G1), or formulate a
conflict (G2).
Another sub-transition (1.2) is identified between the
phases “function” and “analogy”. The sub-transition 1.2 is
carried out mainly by means of “exploration and discov-
ery”. G3 suggests biological textbooks index-based search,
where G1, G2, and G4 rely on database search engines (they
have built their own platforms): AskNature.org, BioTriz,
and DANE, respectively. G1 also recommends an array
of “biological lenses” for searching existing literature as
well as collaborating with biologists. The Biomimicry
Theoretical Framework developed by Gamage and Hyde
(2012) recommends identifying strategies and functions for
environmental adaptation.
As the analogy is obtained, further transition is required
to assess the abstraction by means of “principles iden-
tification”. This transition (2.1) is the assessment of the
biological information that represents the obtained anal-
ogy. G4 analyses the information under the structure–
behaviour–function schema (Goel, Rugaber, and Vattam
2009), G1 classifies the information under the biomimicry
taxonomy and the function-oriented database (Baumeister
 4 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri

Table 4. The general layout of a biomimetic process and the applied strategies by the different groups of
the problem-based approach: G1 (Biomimicry 3.8 2010), G2 (Vincent et al. 2006), G3 (Vakili and Shu 2001),
G4 (Goel, Rugaber, and Vattam 2009), and G5 (PBG 2011).
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

2012), Gamage and Hyde (2012) identify the inter-relations
of ecosystem, process, and form, and Mazzoleni (2013)
explores the behavioural and physiological adaptations of
animals, where graphical translations are sought to assist
architectural applications.
The identified principles are applied for concept genera-
tion (emulation phase), and further validation is carried out
at different involvement. G1 evaluates against Life’s prin-
ciples to result in a sustainable solution, while G5 builds
prototypes and carries out simulations and physical tests.
Despite the detailed descriptions about some sub-phases
and sub-transitions, limited description is available for the
sub-transition 2.2 (design concept). Two methods were
observed to generate a design concept: (1) by brainstorm-
ing several ideas, which might result in several ideas and
further filtering is essential (e.g. G1) and (2) by modelling
a particular structural principle, which is relevant for a spe-
cific organism (e.g. G5). G3 describes an approach that
facilitates the search process while seeking a wide range
of possible analogies (Vakili and Shu 2001). However, this
may result in several irrelevant analogies for the design
challenge, which will require more efforts to eliminate
them.
In order to find design solutions from nature, the require-
ments of the artificial system should be defined, and then
analogical systems in nature that perform similar func-
tions should be identified. The design tools should support
the transitions between the domains, especially the iden-
tification of biological analogies and their abstraction for
design concept generation. The classification and catego-
rization of aspects from nature based on analogue/similar
aspects in architecture (e.g. surface, material, and struc-
ture) could assist the design generation (Gruber et al. 2011).
A new biomimetic design methodology is proposed in the
following section to facilitate the transitions between the
various phases of the design process, with special attention
on biological information representation, principles identi-
fication and abstraction, and their systematic selection.
 Architectural Science Review
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015
Figure 1. Flowchart of the BioGen methodology presenting the various phases to be addressed in order to generate a biomimetic design
solution, and proposed design tools.
A methodology for biomimetic design concept
generation (BioGen)
In order to develop a biomimetic design solution, a number
of phases need to be carried out (see flow chart in Figure 1):
identify the required challenges; explore organisms and nat-
ural systems; extract the ones that perform the required
functions – those are referred to as pinnacles;1 elaborate
on and analyse the pinnacles for strategies and principles;
analyse, classify, and abstract these strategies; combine a
number of chosen strategies and seek convergence to gen-
erate a preliminary design concept; evaluate and validate
the solution; and start all over and explore more pinnacles if
further improvement is needed. The proposed methodology
follows the “problem based” approach, where solutions are
sought to solve particular problems. The preliminary design
phase (Figure 1) is divided into three sub-phases, which are
facilitated by the design tools: a general biophysical inves-
tigation phase (exploration model), pinnacles investigation
phase (pinnacle analysis), and abstraction phase (pinnacle
analysing matrix and design path matrix).
The transformation of strategies available in nature into
technical solutions for biomimetic designs could become a
5
complicated multidisciplinary process. Its complexity fur-
ther increases, and often conflicts arise, when integrating
a number of strategies from different pinnacles to achieve
improved solutions (Badarnah and Knaack 2008; Badarnah,
Nachman Farchi, and Knaack 2010). Thus, a detailed
methodology is developed for the preliminary design phase.
This phase focuses on the exploration and investigation of
pinnacles and supports the development of design concepts.
The emulation phase is out of the scope of this work; archi-
tects are more familiar with this phase, since it is based on
a conventional strategy and standard codes.
The proposed methodology is taken to address the
myriad challenges associated with biomimetic designs,
and an example for a water-harvesting building envelope
that demonstrates the application of the methodology is
presented in the next section.
Example for BioGen application: a water-harvesting
building envelope
In this example, we select water regulation as the main chal-
lenge for a building envelope. The increasing awareness
 6 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

Figure 2. The exploration model for water regulation maps and organizes head keywords in data units. The model is used to explore
different paths of function–process–factor–pinnacle combinations (the dashed units, see elaboration in Step 2).

of limited water resources requires innovative designs that
utilize the environmental potentials for water gain, conser-
vation, transportation, and loss. For example, some arid
regions have numerous fog events that occur at dawn
and last for three hours (Lancaster, Lancaster, and Seely
1984), which provide a major water source for some local
organisms (Seely and Hamilton 1976). There have been
several attempts to collect water from fog events (Olivier
and de Rautenbach 2002; Wong et al. 2011). However,
current solutions are not an integrated part of the build-
ing and do not utilize the potential of the large surface
area of the building envelope. The following steps demon-
strate the application of BioGen for the generation of a
water-harvesting building envelope.
Step 0: creating an exploration model for water
regulation
Initially, the BioGen methodology defines an explo-
ration model for a specific theme (e.g. water regulation).
The exploration model consists of numerous data units,
organized at four hierarchical levels (Figure 2). Each data
unit contains a head keyword, which is positioned at one of
the four levels and linked to other data units (e.g. “porous
skin” positioned at the “factors” level and linked to “Tree
frog” and “diffusion”), different data units are linked to each
other based on their association. Instead of categorizing first
by organisms, the exploration model maps function data
units (e.g. gain) at the first level, relevant processes (e.g.
condensation) at the second level, and influencing factors
(e.g. morphology of skin structure) at the third level. The
pinnacles are presented at the fourth level (e.g. Thorny
devil), and represent a specific function, process, and factor.
The classification of the biophysical information based on
the functional aspects is a favourable approach for transfor-
mation in biomimetics, as constructions and structures (built
by animals) in nature have a functional reason, which is the
main aspect to establish a suitable analogy (Gruber 2011).
The search for the biophysical information involves
several resources: (1) biologists/scientists – collaborating
 Architectural Science Review
with scientists in general and biologists in particular is
favourable, since it assists in understanding the complexity
of organisms and physical processes involved. (2) Scientific
articles – provide further elaboration on specific princi-
ples and their functional presence in particular organisms
or systems. (3) Books – animal physiology, with focus
on adaptation and environment to provide the basic back-
ground (Hill, Wyse, and Anderson 2008; Schmidt-Nielsen
2007), and physical principles, with focus on moving fluids
(Vogel 1989). (4) Online databases – relevant keywords
narrow search results (e.g. AskNature.org).
Besides the hierarchical representation of the explo-
ration model for water regulation, it provides a specific
classification at some levels of the functions. The pinnacles
for gain and conserve are relevant for arid climates, whereas
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015
the pinnacles for transport and lose are relevant for variable
climates. This indicates that for water-gain challenges, it
is advised to investigate pinnacles inhabiting arid regions,
and for water-loss challenges, it is advised to give a spe-
cial attention on the environmental aspects presented in the
factors level (e.g. flow rate of air). The content of the explo-
ration model is a representative state for current exploration,
where it can be extended and new data units at the various
levels may be added in future elaborations.
Step 1: Defining the design challenge
The challenge defined for the current example is to col-
lect water in arid regions, store the collected water, and
optionally contribute in humidifying and cooling the inte-
rior space.
Step 2: Exploring possible scenarios and identifying
exemplary pinnacles
Once the design challenge is defined, the exploration
model provides several scenarios that lead to different
relevant pinnacles. On the one hand, the defined challenge
determines specific functions, and the detail level of
definition may as well determine further levels of the
exploration model (i.e. processes). On the other hand,
the architect has the freedom to choose related factors
and pinnacles at the descending levels of the exploration
model.
Now we mention the wording from Step 1 and the
corresponding paths from the exploration model: “Col-
lect water in arid regions” is related to alternative water
gain sources. As indicated previously, for water-gain chal-
lenges, it is advised to investigate pinnacles inhabiting
arid regions. Thus, water gain is the relevant function
to be selected from the exploration model (Figure 2).
The corresponding process is condensation, which might
utilize the fog events occurring in the surrounding envi-
ronments. Furthermore, the pinnacles corresponding to the
selected process (i.e. condensation) are relevant for arid
regions.
7
“Store the collected water” is relevant for transport and
conserve functions from the exploration model; water has
to be transported from the collecting points to the storing
points. The corresponding processes for transport are: (1)
gravity, which is influenced by morphology and (2) capil-
lary action, which is influenced by material properties and
morphology. Both processes require no energy. The corre-
sponding process to be selected for conserve is to reduce
evaporation, as the other process to reduce exposure might
have a conflict with the other process of condensation that
requires special morphology of skin structure (e.g. in order
to enlarge surface area).
“Contribute in humidifying… via evaporation” is
related to the function lose from the exploration model. The
corresponding process is evaporation, where several factors
might affect it. Changes in vapour pressure and temperature
influence air humidity of the occupied spaces, thus the cor-
responding pinnacles stoma and human skin are selected.
Figure 2 presents the chosen paths (dashed data units), and
the selected pinnacles are analysed and summarized in the
next step.
Step 3: Analysing selected pinnacles
Each selected pinnacle is analysed as follows (Table 5):
first, the strategy of performance is analysed; second, the
relevant mechanism is emphasized; third, the main principle
is extracted; and last, the main feature of the performance
is indicated. The summary of the analysis of the six pin-
nacles extracted from water regulation exploration model
is presented in Table 5, which provides a capsulized refer-
ence and a functional guideline for the design process. The
Thorny devil (Comanns et al. 2011; Sherbrooke et al. 2007)
and Namib beetle (Hamilton and Seely 1976; Nørgaard and
Dacke 2010; Parker and Lawrence 2001) represent mecha-
nisms for water gain and transportation, venation (Katifori,
Szollosi, and Magnasco 2010) represents mechanisms for
transportation, human skin (Randall 1946, 1947) and stoma
(Atwell, Kriedemann, and Turnbull 1999) represent mech-
anisms for loss, and plants that utilize crassulacean acid
metabolism (Bjorn and Govindjee 2008), known as CAM
plants, represent mechanisms for conservation.
Step 4: Deriving imaginary pinnacles
The exploration model (Figure 2) may identify numerous
pinnacles. Consequently, various strategies, mechanisms,
principles, and features are distinguished. The complexity
of solutions rises with the number of pinnacles and their
various features. In order to reduce this complexity, further
analysis is carried out to determine classification categories.
The challenging transformation, from the biological domain
to the engineering domain, can be investigated under several
classification categories, e.g. anatomy, behaviour, and ecol-
ogy (Eroglu, Erden, and Erden 2011). The choice of the
relevant categories depends on the design discipline and
the challenges involved.
 8 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri

Table 5. Summary of analysis of the selected pinnacles.

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

In order to reduce this complexity, we determine several

categories (e.g. environmental conditions and adaptation
means) to classify each function and selected pinnacles, (a)
and identify the dominant feature2 of each category. The
collection of dominant features, representing a specific
function, is referred to as imaginary pinnacle in this paper.
Imaginary pinnacles are not real pinnacles, but an abstrac-
tion of several pinnacles. In other words, each category
of the imaginary pinnacle consists of a feature dominant
among features of the selected pinnacles at the same cate- (b)
gory. Thus, the imaginary pinnacle is similar to the selected
pinnacles in the sense that it acquires the same function,
though it has the advantage of having features that are all
compatible with the challenge. This process is analogous to
convergent evolution, where independent organisms obtain
the same trait (function or structure). Convergent evolution
of organisms, in general, and of selected pinnacles and a
derived imaginary pinnacle, in particular, are illustrated in
Figure 3.
The dominant features of the various categories rep-
resent the imaginary pinnacle. As a result, each specific Figure 3. Convergent evolution is the acquisition of the same
trait (function or structure) by organisms of independent ances-
function is represented by one pinnacle – imaginary. This tors. (a) Convergent evolution theory of organisms in general. (b)
is significant when addressing multiple functions, where Deriving imaginary pinnacle from selected pinnacles, based on
numerous pinnacles might be identified, and the next step the principle of convergent evolution.
 Architectural Science Review 9

Table 6. Pinnacle analysing matrix. Generating imaginary pinnacles for water gain, transportation, loss, and conserva-
tion. Columns represent different classification categories, each consists of pinnacle features (bullets). For each challenge,
an imaginary pinnacle is defined by the collection of dominant features (cross signs).
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

would be superposing only the imaginary pinnacles instead
of all pinnacles.
The current example for water regulation identified nine
classification categories for organisms/systems abstraction
that has analogies to building envelopes (the details of
the categories are presented in Table 6). The first column
(Table 6, left) clusters the key functions for water, which
represent possible interactions with the building envelope.
The second column of processes represents the way the
functions are performed, and the third column indicates if
it is performed actively or passively. The fourth column of
adaptation identifies if the process is achieved by physio-
logical, morphological, and/or behavioural means, where
scale matters are crucial (fifth column). The sixth column
distinguishes the environmental conditions of the habitat
of the selected pinnacles. The seventh and eighth columns
give more specific architectural characteristics of the pinna-
cles in terms of morphology and material features. Finally,
the last column covers other features such as some relevant
biophysical laws.
The pinnacle analysing matrix is applied to derive
an imaginary pinnacle for each challenge as part of the
transition process from biology to design. For each individ-
ual challenge, the dominant features of the corresponding
categories are indicated in the shaded line (imaginary
pinnacle) at the bottom of each challenge section (as pre-
sented in Table 6). For example, the two chosen pinnacles
for the water-gain challenge, i.e. the Thorny devil and the
Namib Desert beetle, both share the scale micro. There-
fore, the dominant scale feature for water-gain challenge is
micro as well. In a case of undetermined dominant feature
of a specific category (e.g. environmental context for water
loss), the category lists all its features for possible design
solutions (e.g. arid, tropical, moderate, and continental). If
no features are identified for the category (e.g. morpholog-
ical features for water loss) then the category is irrelevant
for the corresponding challenge of the design concept.
Step 5: Outlining the design concept
As the previous step may derive multiple imaginary pin-
nacles, another level of abstraction is essential. For this
reason, the “Design Path Matrix” tool has been developed
with the objective of indicating the successful aspects to be
implemented in the design concept, which is based on the
predefined categories for pinnacle analysis.
The design path matrix, given in Figure 6, represents
the superposition of the imaginary pinnacles (from previous
step) and determines the dominant features to be addressed
in the integrated design concept (in the next step). The
 10 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

Figure 4. Design path matrix. Each vertical column represents a category and its various features. The different line styles represent the
imaginary pinnacles: dotted lines for water gain, dashed-dotted for water transportation, dashed for water loss, solid for water conservation,
and the dashed nodes denote the dominant features that represent the design path.

dominant features (dashed circles) are the features that have (a) (b)
the larger number of connections from the different imag-
inary pinnacles (different line styles), where the larger the
number of connections (counting line styles) the more domi-
nant the feature becomes. The design path matrix, presented
in Figure 4, indicates several relevant features/properties
from the various categories for the design concept:

• Condensation for gain, capillary action for trans-

portation, evaporation for loss, and control perme-
ability for conservation.
• The flow is passive for all functions.
• The adaptation type is physiological for water gain
and conservation, and morphological for water trans-
portation and loss.
Figure 5. The water-harvesting surface. (a) Exterior view of the
• The micro scale is the relevant scale for all functions. water-harvesting surface applied on the building envelope. (b)
• The imaginary pinnacles share arid environmental Scaled up view, showing the general bumpy texture of the surface.
context.
• The morphological features are independent for each
specific function. concept. In the case, where no dominant feature is distin-
• The structural features are grooves for water trans- guished, i.e. the category of morphological features, each
portation and conservation, and channels for water feature has to be related to the corresponding process in the
gain and loss. design. The illustration of the transformation of the design
• The other related features potentially to be addressed path matrix into a design concept is elaborated in the next
in the context of processes are porosity, overlaps, step, and a potential outcome is presented.
folding, and asymmetric expansion.

Besides the derived dominant features, the design path
matrix indicates potential physical relationships of the
design concept. For example, under the category of adap-
tation, two dominant features are distinguished, which may
indicate for a potential integration of elements in the design
Step 6: Generating a preliminary design concept
In this step, a transformation of the design path matrix
and pinnacles analyses into a design concept for a water-
harvesting system is sought. The most outer surface of the
design proposal (Figure 5), which is responsible for water
 Architectural Science Review 11
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015

Figure 6. The water-harvesting system. Left: front view of the bumpy mounds and the grooves generated between the mounds to exhibit
capillary action to distribute water over the surface. Right, cross-section AA: (a) water droplets are attracted to the bumpy surface, where
they build up and run down towards the grooves. (b) When the grooves are at the open state, then water falls in the storing chambers,
otherwise water is distributed over the surface and falls in the closest storing chamber. (c) Controllable outlet of the storing chamber is
connected to a fibrous material that absorbs water via capillary action through a fractal network (d) and allows evaporation to the interior
spaces.

gain, adapts the morphological features of the bumpy elytra
of the Namib Desert beetle, and features hydrophilic and
hydrophobic alternating properties of bumps and grooves
(respectively); water droplets stick to the hydrophilic peaks
and build up until they reach a specific size and roll down
through the hydrophobic grooves. The mounds of the design
proposal are surrounded by micro channels, which create a
hexagonal network to transport water over the surface via
capillary action (Figure 6, left). These micro channels in
the design are inspired by the Thorny devil’s semi tubular
capillary system, which are the main feature of its special
integument, allowing it to transport water to the mouth.
These micro grooves are responsible for transporting water
over the surface when closed via capillary action or chan-
nelling water to the storing chambers (located in the cavity)
when opened via gravity (Figure 6, right). The opening
and closing of the storing chambers are controlled by pas-
sive elements, possibly made of smart materials, (adapted
from stoma, human skin, and CAM plants), which swell
when fully saturated, and shrink when dry, thus allow-
ing water absorption to the inner evaporative surfaces.
While the water is collected throughout the night, it is
released throughout the dry or hot days to the interior
spaces and contributes in humidifying the air and increased
comfort.
Step 7: Estimating performance
A simplified equation is developed for the estimation of per-
formance. The efficiency of the building envelope can be
estimated by the number of days, N , per year the envelope
provides a comfort level of humidity in the interior of
the building, which can be calculated by the proposed
performance equation:
c · S · nf
N = ,
V · na · AH
where c is the mass of the collected water per surface area
per fog event (two hours), S is the total surface of the enve-
lope, nf is the number of fog events per year, V is the volume
of the interior, na is the frequency of air exchanges (per day),
and AH is the desired absolute humidity.
It is assumed that the exchanged air is absolutely dry,
and the evaporation rate is relatively high and controlled
to prevent over humidification. With these assumptions,
the performance equation provides low limit estimation
(minimum number of days). The performance equation suc-
cessfully predicts that decreasing the surface area of the
envelope or increasing the volume of the interior or the
desired humidity reduces the number of days of which
the envelope can humidify the interior at the required
level.
As an example, take a 3 × 3 × 3 m3 room (V = 27 m3 )
and an envelope of 3 × 3 m2 (S = 9 m2 ). A comfort level
of relative humidity is within a range of 25–60%. In arid
areas, the lower level of the relative humidity range (25%) is
likely the target. A 25% relative humidity can be converted
to absolute humidity units using a standard climate humidity
table, which is AH = 7.6 × 10−3 kg/m3 at 30◦ C. The rate
of air exchange is assumed to be once per hour (na = 24 per
day) for efficient ventilation. The number of fog events in
the Namib Desert is nf = 30 per year. Following Nøgaard
 12 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri
and Dacke (2010), a Namib Desert beetle positioned head
down at an angle of 23◦ in a fog chamber is able to collect,
on average, about 0.1 ml of water per hour. The Namib
Desert beetle has a surface area of about 1 cm2 , which
is equal to the area of each collection unit of the design
concept. Assuming that the fog event lasts for only two
hours yields c = 2kg/m2 . Substituting in the performance
equation yields N = 109 days per year. This implies that
the envelope is able to humidify the interior during about
one-third of the year.
Conclusions
In the context of the built environment and the need to
reduce energy demands, developing more energy efficient
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015
services and technologies is essential. Biomimetics, as a
design approach, provides a huge potential for energy effi-
ciency. The comparative analysis of selected biomimetic
strategies revealed some recommendations, mainly in the
form of general guidelines, on the means by which a
biomimetic design process is carried out. The main concerns
in the selected biomimetic strategies are the broad range
of possibilities, the difficulties in the representation of the
biophysical knowledge, and the challenging abstraction of
relevant principles.
The major benefit of the proposed methodology (Bio-
Gen) is present in its applicability to different disciplines
as a problem solver, and not only to architecture and build-
ing envelopes. This is due to the generality of the design
tools, which elaborate on how to carry out a biomimetic
design process; create platforms of biophysical information;
find analogies; abstract principles; and translate principles
into design concepts, rather than provide specific mecha-
nisms and strategies to mimic. Furthermore, the BioGen
methodology recognizes the importance of designer’s free-
dom to some extent and the need for assistance during
decision-making without dictating the application of a spe-
cific strategy. The categorization and organization of the
obtained biophysical information is a challenging process,
where boundaries are set and a systematic approach is
sought. First, the number of levels was limited to four.
Second, the data units of each level vary, but are fixed to
a minimum for the Functions level. This maximizes the
pinnacle sample size related to each function and hence
increases the chance of a convergent solution. The defined
challenge and degree of freedom in selecting factors and
pinnacles have important consequences on the generated
design concept, which provides a three-step filtering of
pinnacles: (1) the defined challenge “eliminates” the over-
whelming majority of irrelevant pinnacles in the exploration
model and thus increases the efficiency of selecting suitable
pinnacles; (2) the degree of freedom in selecting the factors
is important for optimization of the design in terms of feasi-
bility and preferred technology to be used; and (3) the final
selection of pinnacles influences the architectural aspects
of the generated design.
In the example part, the BioGen methodology was
applied to generate a design concept for a water-harvesting
building envelope. The example involved a general inves-
tigation of water regulation in nature to provide a broad
understanding of water interactions, rather than limiting
to a specific strategy or organism. The biophysical infor-
mation gained throughout the investigation was presented
systematically in an exploration model for water regula-
tion. Although a specific design concept was derived, the
proposed exploration model could be utilized to gener-
ate other design concepts, and can be extended to include
future investigation inputs (new data units). For the sake of
brevity the example addressed only water collection, while
other challenges (such as thermal radiation, ventilation, etc.)
need to be included, following same methodology steps, in
order to obtain an applied design solution. The presented
design concept reduces energy demands by employing spe-
cial morphological features and other principles that harvest
water from local fog events passively and does not require
consumption of energy from conventional resources. A
rather rough estimation of the design performance indicates
that the envelope is capable of achieving interior comfort
levels of relative humidity at 25% for about three times the
number of fog days for this region.
The main limitation of the BioGen methodology is that
it does not provide a transition from the concept phase
to the emulation phase. However, this is not the objective
of this study, as the emulation phase is based on conven-
tional strategy and standard codes. Another limitation is that
the proposed methodology relies on reliable and accurate
sources of knowledge, as otherwise the generated design
concept might not function properly, and hidden conflicts
between features of different challenges might arise only at
the testing phase. Thus, there is a need for deep understand-
ing that requires collaborations with scientists from diverse
disciplines.
While the initial design concept generation for water
regulation is positive, further empirical research is required
to validate, test, and enhance the application of BioGen.
Extended elaboration is required with emphasis on opti-
mizing the categorization of pinnacles and identifying
environmental interrelations, which facilitate the integra-
tion of multiple functions in one design concept. In practice,
a building envelope is exposed to multiple environmen-
tal aspects and thus required to manage air, heat, water,
and light (and probably other aspects), simultaneously.
Moreover, the environmental aspects are often highly inter-
related, where the regulation of one might be dependent
on the regulation of the others. In this manner, the multi-
ple levels of detail and abstraction of the proposed design
tools facilitate a potential integration of multiple aspects or
functions in one design concept.
In summary, the BioGen methodology and its appli-
cation to building envelopes opens new perspectives for
new possible technical solutions, the potential to realize a
new class of innovation, and lay a functional foundation
 Architectural Science Review
in architecture: a bio-inspired, climatically oriented, and
environmentally conscious one.
Acknowledgments
This work is part of a PhD research carried out at Delft Uni-
versity of Technology. The authors would like to acknowledge
the valuable comments and discussions provided by Dr. Dayna
Baumeister.
Notes
1. Literarily, a pinnacle is the summit. The current paper defines
pinnacle as a representative organism or system in nature
for a particular adaptation strategy. Adaptation strategies
could be abstracted either from an organism, and natural sys-
tem (including animals, plants, nests, and ecosystems); they
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015
are addressed as pinnacles, resembling their importance and
uniqueness.
2. The dominant feature is the feature that has the highest over-
lap among the imaginary pinnacles, i.e. most likely to be
compatible with features from other categories.
References
AskNature. 2008. A project of Biomimicry 3.8. Accessed Decem-
ber 2011. www.asknature.org
Atwell, B. J., P. E. Kriedemann, and C. G. N. Turnbull. 1999.
Plants in Action: Adaptation in Nature, Performance in
Cultivation. South Yarra: Macmillan Publishers.
Badarnah, L., and U. Knaack. 2008. “Organizational Features
in Leaves for Application in Shading Systems for Build-
ing Envelopes.” Proceedings of the fourth design & nature
conference: Comparing design and nature with science and
engineering, edited by C. A. Brebbia, 87–96. Southampton:
WIT Press.
Badarnah, L., Y. Nachman Farchi, and U. Knaack. 2010. “Solu-
tions from Nature for Building Envelope Thermoregulation.”
Proceedings of the fifth design & nature conference: Com-
paring design and nature with science and engineering, edited
by A. Carpi and C. A. Brebbia, 251–262. Southampton: WIT
Press.
Badarnah Kadri, L. 2012. “Towards the LIVING Envelope:
Biomimetics for Building Envelope Adaptation.” PhD diss.,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
ISBN 978-94-6203200-2.
Baumeister, D. 2012. Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A
Seed Bank of Knowledge and Best Practices. Missoula:
Biomimicry 3.8.
Benyus, J. M. 2002. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature.
New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Biomimicry 3.8. 2010. Accessed December 2011. http://biomimic
ry.net/.
Bjorn, L. O., and G. Govindjee. 2008. The Evolution of Photo-
synthesis and Its Environmental Impact Photobiology. New
York: Springer.
Bogatyreva, O., A.-K. Pahl, A. Bowyer, and J. F. V. Vincent. 2003.
“Data Gathering for Putting Biology in TRIZ.” Proceedings
of TRIZcon 2003, Altshuller Institute, USA, 16–18 March.
Bogatyreva, O., A.-K. Pahl, and J. F. V. Vincent. 2002. “Enriching
TRIZ with Biology.” TRIZ future, 2002: Proceedings ETRIA
world conference, 301–308. Strasbourg.
Chiu, I., and L. H. Shu. 2007. “Biomimetic Design Through
Natural Language Analysis to Facilitate Cross-Domain Infor-
mation Retrieval.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering
Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21 (1): 45–59.
13
Comanns, P., C. Effertz, F. Hischen, K. Staudt, W. Bohme, and
W. Baumgartner. 2011. “Moisture Harvesting and Water
Transport Through Specialized Micro-Structures on the
Integument of Lizards.” Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology
2: 204–214.
Craig, S., D. Harrison, A. Cripps, and D. Knott. 2008. “BioTRIZ
Suggest Radiative Cooling of Buildings Can be Done Pas-
sively by Changing the Structure of Roof Insulation to Let
Longwave Infrared Pass.” Journal of Bionic Engineering
5: 55–66.
DANE. 2011. Design by Analogy to Nature Engine. Accessed
December 2011. http://dilab.cc.gatech.edu/dane/#LearningS
BFTab.
Eroglu, A. K., Z. Erden, and A. Erden. 2011. “Biological Sys-
tem Analysis in Biological Conceptual Design (BICD)
for Bioinspired Robots.” Control Engineering and Applied
Informatics 13 (2): 81–86.
Gamage, A., and R. Hyde. 2012. “A Model Based on Biomimicry
to Enhance Ecologically Sustainable Design.” Architectural
Science Review 55 (3): 224–235.
Gebeshuber, I. C., and M. Drack. 2008. “An Attempt to Reveal
Synergies Between Biology and Mechanical Engineering.”
Proceedings of the IMECHE, Part C: Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science 222 (7): 1281–1287.
Goel, A. K. 2011. Design & Intelligence Laboratory. Geor-
gia Institute of Technology. Accessed December 2011.
http://home.cc.gatech.edu/dil/3
Goel, A. K., S. Rugaber, and S. Vattam. 2009. “Structure, Behavior
& Function of Complex Systems: The Structure-Behavior-
Function Modeling Language.” International Journal of AI
in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Spe-
cial Issue on Developing and Using Engineering Ontologies
23 (1): 23–35.
Gruber, P. 2011. Biomimetics in Architecture: Architecture of Life
and Buildings. Vienna: Springer.
Gruber, P., D. Bruckner, C. Hellmich, H.-B. Schmiedmayer, H.
Stachelberger, and I. C. Gebeshuber, eds. 2011. Biomimetics
– Materials, Structures, and Processes: Examples, Ideas and
Case Studies. London: Springer.
Hamilton, W. J., III, and M. K. Seely. 1976. “Fog Basking by the
Namib Desert Beetle, Onymacris unguicularis.” Nature 262
(5566): 284–285.
Helms, M., S. S. Vattam, and A. K. Goel. 2009. “Biologically
Inspired Design: Process and Products.” Design Studies 30
(5): 606–622.
Hill, R. W., G. A. Wyse, and M. Anderson. 2008. Animal
Physiology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Katifori, E., G. J. Szollosi, and M. Magnasco. 2010. “Damage and
Fluctuations Induce Loops in Optimal Transport Networks.”
Physical Review Letters 104 (4): 048704.
Lancaster, J., N. Lancaster, and M. K. Seely. 1984. "Climate of
the Central Namib Desert."Madoqua 14 (1): 5–61.
Lerner, L. 1991. “Genrich Altshuller: Father of TRIZ. Ogonek
(Russian Magazine).” http://www.aitriz.org/articles/altshulle
r.pdf
Mak, T. W., and L. H. Shu. 2004. “Abstraction of Biological
Analogies for Design.” CIRP Annals 53 (1): 117–120.
Masselter, T., T. Haushahn, H. Schwager, M. Milwich, R.
Nathanson, M. Gude, F. Cinchy, W. Hufrnbach, C. Nein-
huis, and T. Speck. 2010. “Biomimetic Fibre-Reinforced
Compistes Inspired by Branched Plant Stems.” Proceed-
ings of the fifth Design & Nature Conference: Comparing
Design and Nature with Science and Engineering, edited by
A. Carpi and C. A. Brebbia, 411–420. Southampton: WIT
Press.
Mazzoleni, I. 2013. Architecture Follows Nature: Biomimetic
Principles for Innovative Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
 14 L. Badarnah and U. Kadri
Milwich, M., T. Speck, O. Speck, T. Stegmaier, and H. Planck.
2006. “Biomimetics and Technical Textiles: Solving Engi-
neering Problems with the Help of Nature’s Wisdom.”
American Journal of Botany 93 (10): 1455–1465.
Nørgaard, T., and M. Dacke. 2010. “Fog-Basking Behaviour
and Water Collection Efficiency in Namib Desert Darkling
Beetles.” Frontiers in Zoology 7: 23.
Olivier, J., and C. J. de Rautenbach. 2002. “The Implementation of
Fog Water Collection Systems in South Africa.” Atmospheric
Research 64 (1): 227–238.
Parker, A. R., and C. R. Lawrence. 2001. “Water Capture by a
Desert Beetle.” Nature 414 (6859): 33–34.
Pawlyn, M. 2011. Biomimicry in Architecture. London: RIBA
Publishing.
PBG. 2011. Plants Biomechanics Group. The Botanic Garden
of the University of Freiburg. Accessed December 2011.
http://www.botanischer-garten.uni freiburg.de/profile_Freib
urg_English.htm.
Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 22:38 02 January 2015
Pedersen Zari, M. 2010. “Biomimetic Design for Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation.” Architectural Science Review
53 (2): 172–183.
Randall, W. C. 1946. “Quantitation and Regional Distribution
of Sweat Glands in Man.” Clinical Investigation 25 (5):
761–767.
Randall, W. C. 1947. “Local Sweat Gland Activity Due to Direct
Effects of Radiant Heat.” American Journal of Physiology
150 (2): 365–371.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 2007. Animal Physiology: Adaptation and
Environment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seely, M. K., and W. J. Hamilton, III. 1976. “Fog Catchment
Sand Trenches Constructed by Tenebrionid Beetles, Lep-
idochora from the Namib Desert.” Science 193 (4252):
484–486.
Sherbrooke, W., A. Scardino, R. de Nys, and L. Schwarzkopf.
2007. “Functional Morphology of Scale Hinges Used to
Transport Water: Convergent Drinking Adaptations in Desert
Lizards.” Zoomorphology 126 (2): 89–102.
Shu, L. H. 2010. “A Natural-Language Approach to Biomimetic
Design.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing 24 (4): 507–519.
Shu, L. H. 2011. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engi-
neering, University of Toronto. Accessed December 2011
http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/lcdlab/shu/
Speck, T., D. L. Harder, M. Milwich, O. Speck, and T. Stegmaier.
2006. Bionik: Die Natur als Innovationsquelle für Technische
Textilien, edited by P. Knecht, 83–101. Technische Textilien,
Frankfurt: Deutscher Fachverlag.
TRIZ. 2011. The Altshuller Institute for TRIZ Studies. Accessed
December 2011. http://www.aitriz.org/
Vakili, V., and L. H. Shu. 2001. “Towards Biomimetic Con-
cept Generation.” Proceedings of 2001 ASME design
technical conferences, design theory and methodology
conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, DETC2001/DTM-
21715.
Vattam, S., M. Helms, and A. K. Goel. 2007. Biologically
Inspired Innovation in Engineering Design: A Cognitive
Study. Technical Report, Graphics, Visualization and Usabil-
ity Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, GIT-GVU-
07-07.
Vattam, S., M. Helms, and A. K. Goel. 2009. “Nature of Creative
Analogies in Biologically Inspired Innovative Design.” Pro-
ceedings of 7th ACM conference, creativity and cognition,
255–264. Berkely, CA, USA.
Vattam, S., B. Wiltgen, M. Helms, A. K. Goel, and J. Yen. 2010.
“DANE: Fostering Creativity in and Through Biologically
Inspired Design.” Proceedings of 1st international conference
on design and creativity, 115–122. Kobe, Japan.
Vincent, J. F. V. 2009. “Biomimetics – A Review.” Proceedings
of the institution of mechanical engineers, part H: Journal of
Engineering in Medicine 223 (8): 919–939.
Vincent, J. F. V., O. A. Bogatyrev, N. R. Bogatyreva, A. Bowyer,
and A. K. Pahl. 2006. “Biomimetics – Its Practice and
Theory.” Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3 (9):
471–482.
Vogel, S. 1989. Life in Moving Fluids: The Physical Biology of
Flow. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wong, T. S., S. H. Kang, S. K. Y. Tang, E. J. Smythe, B.
D. Hatton, A. Grinthal, and J. Aizenberg. 2011. “Bioin-
spired Self-Repairing Slippery Surfaces with Pressure-Stable
Omniphobicity.” Nature 477 (7365): 443–447.