Environmentally Sustainable Bioinspired Design

Copyright

by

Julia Marie O’Rourke

2013

The Thesis Committee for Julia Marie O’Rourke

Certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis:

Environmentally Sustainable Bioinspired Design: Critical Analysis and

Trends

APPROVED BY

SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Carolyn C. Seepersad

Michael E. Webber

Supervisor:


Trends

by

Julia Marie O’Rourke, B.A.; B.S.E.

Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degrees of

Master of Science in Engineering

and

Master of Public Affairs

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2013

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge support from a National Science Foundation Graduate

Research Fellowship and a Powers Fellowship from the University of Texas at Austin. I am

also grateful for the efforts of Katherine Adams, who contributed to the GDG analysis and

keyword trends analysis. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Seepersad and the other members

of the Product, Process, and Materials Design Lab for their feedback and encouragement

along the way.

v

Abstract


Trends

Julia Marie O’Rourke, M.S.E., M.P.Aff.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2013

Supervisor: Carolyn C. Seepersad

Within the bodies of living organisms are multitudes of sustainable design

solutions that engineers have yet to master. Through the use of tailored sustainable

bioinspired design (BID) tools and methodologies, engineers could access and apply this

body of biological knowledge to reduce the environmental impact of engineering designs.

However, the underlying theory of BID must be more thoroughly fleshed out – and a

clearer understanding of the types of sustainability solutions present in biology must be

achieved – before such tools and methodologies can be developed. The goal of this thesis

is to tackle both issues and, consequently, lay the foundation for environmentally

sustainable BID.

The first section of this work critically examines thirteen of the most frequently-

cited benefits of BID, using academic literature from both biology and engineering

design. This analysis presents a nuanced explanation of the ways BID could improve

designs and the conditions in which these improvements are expected. Hence, it provides

vi

the theoretical foundation necessary to develop tools and methodologies that capitalize on

the design opportunities found in biological organisms.

The second section focuses on identifying sustainability-related trends in a pool of

existing, sustainable BIDs. The type of environmental impact reduction conferred by the

bioinspired feature is delineated using a set of 65 green design guidelines (GDGs) to

compare the impact of the BID and a functionally-equivalent comparison product.

Additionally, the general design features that impart an environmental impact reduction

to the sustainable BIDs are identified, analyzed, and discussed. These results provide

insight into the types of sustainability solutions that can be found using biological

analogies.

vii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... xiv

List of Figures ..................................................................................................... xvii

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................1

1.1 Background ...............................................................................................1

1.1.1 Sustainable Design ........................................................................1

1.1.2 Bioinspired Design (BID) .............................................................2

1.1.3 Sustainable BID ............................................................................2

1.1.4 Literature Connecting BID and Sustainability ..............................3

1.1.5 Examples of Sustainable BIDs......................................................4

1.2 Thesis Motivation .....................................................................................7

1.3 Thesis Organization ..................................................................................8

Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................11

2.1 Understanding and Measuring Environmental Impact ...........................11

2.1.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ....................................................11

2.1.1.1 LCA Challenge #1 - Subjectivity. ...................................12

2.1.1.2 Environmental Ethics ......................................................12

2.1.1.3 Environmental Impact Categories...................................14

2.1.1.4 LCA Challenge #2 - Detailed data are needed. ...............15

2.1.2 Green Design Guidelines (GDGs) ..............................................16

2.2 Previous Work ........................................................................................18

2.2.1 BID Design Principles and Guidelines .......................................18

2.2.2 Design Principles in Biology ......................................................20

2.3 Conclusion ..............................................................................................24

Chapter 3: Theoretical Study Overview ................................................................25

3.1 Introduction to BID Benefits Study ........................................................25

3.2 Methodology for BID Benefits Study .....................................................26

3.3 Results Overview ....................................................................................27

viii

3.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................30

Chapter 4: Ideation-Related Archetypal Claims ....................................................31

4.1 BID helps designers generate novel ideas. .............................................31

4.2 Quantity: Biology contains many potential analogies. ...........................36

4.3 Variety: Biology is diverse. ....................................................................37

4.4 Relevance: Biology solves problems engineers would like to solve. .....39

4.5 Biology solves problems differently than engineering. ..........................40

4.6 Conclusion ..............................................................................................43

Chapter 5: Optimization in Biology .......................................................................45

5.1 Biology is optimal. ..................................................................................46

5.2 Biology is optimized by evolution via natural selection. ........................49

5.2.1 Metaphors for ‘Evolution’ in BID Literature..............................50

5.2.2 Evolution via natural selection optimizes populations. ..............52

5.2.3 Factors that Impede Optimization via Natural Selection ............54

5.2.4 Macroevolution: Speciation and Extinction................................58

5.3 Biology is optimized for efficiency. .......................................................62

5.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................64

Chapter 6: Sustainability-Related Benefits ............................................................66

6.1 Biology has withstood the test of time. ...................................................67

6.2 Biological organisms are environmentally sustainable...........................69

6.2.1 Human-Related Environmental Impact ......................................70

6.2.2 Environmental Impact of Biology Unrelated to Humans ...........72

6.3 Biology has specific environmental advantages. ....................................74

6.3.1 Biological organisms use renewable and abundant inputs. ........74

6.3.2 Biological materials are nontoxic. ..............................................75

6.3.3 Biological organisms employ sustainable manufacturing processes.

.....................................................................................................76

6.3.4 Biological organisms do not pollute. ..........................................78

6.3.5 Materials in biology are recycled. ...............................................81

6.3.6 Biology is resistant to damage. ...................................................82

ix

6.3.7 Biology is efficient. .....................................................................83

6.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................86

Chapter 7: BID Benefits.........................................................................................88

7.1 BIDs are optimized. ................................................................................88

7.2 BIDs are sustainable. ..............................................................................89

7.2.1 BIDs are efficient. .......................................................................89

7.3 Support for All BID Benefits Claims......................................................89

7.4 Caveats Common to All BID Benefits Claims .......................................90

7.4.1 The designer should intentionally try to produce a design with the

desired characteristic. ..................................................................90

7.4.2 The pool of potential biological analogies should be scoped to those

containing the trait of interest. ....................................................92

7.4.3 One must focus on the relevant features of the selected analogy.93

7.4.4 How closely does the BID imitate the biological system? .........93

7.4.5 Will the desirable trait in biology transfer to engineering? ........94

7.4.6 A desirable biological trait may not continue to be desirable in a

BID. .............................................................................................94

7.4.7 Even beneficial features can have unintended detrimental effects.96

7.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................................97

Chapter 8: Theoretical Section Conclusion ...........................................................98

8.1 Summary of Findings from BID Benefits Study ....................................98

8.2 Other Claims Identified But Not Analyzed ..........................................101

8.3 What counts as a biological analogy in BID? .......................................101

8.3.1 Genetically Modified Organisms and Human Selection ..........102

8.3.2 Extinct Species ..........................................................................102

8.3.3 Tools and Artifacts of Animals .................................................103

8.4 Future Work ..........................................................................................104

8.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................106

Chapter 9: Research Methods to Find Trends in BIDs ........................................107

9.1 Step 1: Compile a List of BIDs .............................................................108

x

9.1.1 Breadth Search ..........................................................................108

9.1.2 Depth Search .............................................................................109

9.2 Step 2: Information Collection..............................................................111

9.3 Step 3: Selecting Designs to Analyze ...................................................112

9.3.1 Criterion 1: The design is bioinspired. ......................................113

9.3.2 Criterion 2: The design is feasible. ...........................................114

9.3.3 Criterion 3: Proof of a reduced environmental impact. ............115

9.4 Analyzing Individual Designs Using Green Design Guidelines (GDGs)115

9.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................118

Chapter 10: Data and Analysis of GDG Trends Study ........................................119

10.1 Breadth and Depth Search Results ......................................................119

10.2 How BIDs Researched In Depth Fared Against Selection Criteria ....120

10.3 Design Library ....................................................................................120

10.4 Aggregate Data from GDG Analysis ..................................................122

10.5 Validation of GDG Results .................................................................127

10.5.1 Independent Raters..................................................................127

10.5.2 Comparison of Results with Other Work................................128

10.6 Conclusion ..........................................................................................129

Chapter 11: Additional Keyword Trends .............................................................130

11.1 Methodology of Keyword Trends Study ............................................130

11.2 Identifying Keywords .........................................................................131

11.3 Passive Mechanisms ...........................................................................131

11.3.1 Examples of Passive Mechanisms ..........................................133

11.3.2 Potential Environmental Benefits of Passive Mechanisms .....134

11.3.3 Passive Mechanisms Conclusion ............................................135

11.4 Multifunctional Designs......................................................................135

11.4.1 Examples of Multifunctional Designs ....................................136

11.4.2 Potential Environmental Benefits of Multifunctional Designs137

11.4.3 Potential Environmental Benefits of Modular Designs ..........138

11.4.4 Multifunctional Design Conclusion ........................................139

xi

11.5 Optimized Geometries ........................................................................139

11.5.1 Examples of Optimized Geometries .......................................140

11.5.2 Potential Environmental Benefits of Optimized Geometries..141

11.5.3 Optimized Geometries Conclusion .........................................142

11.6 Validation of Keyword Trends by Analyzing 9 Sustainable BIDs .....142

11.6.1 How This Analysis Validates the Three Keyword Trends .....143

11.7 Validation of Trends Using BID Literature ........................................144

11.7.1 Passive Mechanisms ...............................................................144

11.7.2 Multifunctional Designs..........................................................145

11.7.3 Optimized Geometries ............................................................146

11.8 Conclusion ..........................................................................................147

Chapter 12: Section 2 Conclusion........................................................................148

12.1 Summary of Section 2 .........................................................................148

12.2 Challenges Encountered......................................................................150

12.3 Future Work ........................................................................................150

12.3.1 Analyzing More Sustainable BIDs .........................................150

12.3.2 Developing Tools and Methodologies for Sustainable BID ...152

12.3.3 Identifying Potential Benefits of BID over Other Design-by-

Analogy Techniques .................................................................153

12.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................................153

Chapter 13: Thesis Conclusion ............................................................................155

13.1 Summary of Thesis .............................................................................155

13.2 Discussion of Thesis ...........................................................................156

13.3 Future Work ........................................................................................158

Appendix A: Design Library Entries for 9 BIDs That Met All Selection Criteria and

Were Analyzed Using GDGs ......................................................................162

A.1 Biolytix Filter .......................................................................................163

A.2 Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car – Shape .................................................168

A.3 Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car – Structure ............................................171

A.4 Eastgate Centre Cooling System ..........................................................174

xii

A.5 Interface FLOR i2 Entropy Carpet.......................................................177

A.6 Self-Cleaning Transparent Thin Film ..................................................180

A.7 Sharklet Antimicrobial Surface ............................................................183

A.8 Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone .......................................................187

A.9 Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph ......................................................193

Appendix B: Design Library Designs with Insufficient Information ..................197

B.1 Airbus 320 ............................................................................................198

B.2 Baleen Water Filters .............................................................................200

B.3 Passive Walking Bipedal Robot ...........................................................203

B.4 Calera Cement ......................................................................................206

B.5 Geckel...................................................................................................211

B.6 HotZone Radiant Heater.......................................................................214

Appendix C: Design Library Designs Eliminated Using 3 Criteria ....................217

C.1 Crystal Palace in London .....................................................................218

C.2 Eiffel Tower .........................................................................................220

C.3 Velcro ...................................................................................................222

Appendix D: Green Design Guidelines Adapted From Telenko [61] .................225

Appendix E: 128 Sources Analyzed in BID Benefits Study................................227

Appendix F: BIDs Found from Breadth and Depth Searches..............................235

Appendix G: Comparison of the Environmental Impact of BIDs and Competitors

Using GDGs with Justification ...................................................................241

G.1 Biolytix.................................................................................................241

G.2 Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car – Shape .................................................242

G.3 Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car – Structure ............................................243

G.4 Eastgate Centre Cooling System ..........................................................244

G.5 Interface FLOR i2 Entropy Carpet.......................................................245

G.6 Self-Cleaning Transparent Thin Film ..................................................246

G.7 Sharklet Antimicrobial Surface ............................................................248

G.8 Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone .......................................................249

xiii

G.9 Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph ......................................................249

Appendix H: Analysis of 9 Sustainable BIDs for Passive Mechanisms,

Multifunctional Designs, and Optimized Geometries ................................250

H.1 Biolytix.................................................................................................250

H.2 Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car – Shape .................................................250

H.4 Eastgate Centre Cooling System ..........................................................251

H.5 Interface FLOR i2 Entropy Carpet.......................................................252

H.6 Self-Cleaning Transparent Thin Film ..................................................252

H.7 Sharklet Antimicrobial Surface ............................................................253

H.8 Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone .......................................................253

H.9 Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph ......................................................254

References ............................................................................................................255

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1: LCA midpoint categories and damages to environment [51] ..................15

Table 2: “Biomimetic design guidelines with examples of corresponding bio-inspired

characteristics and the percentage of reviewed products that display

them” from Wadia and McAdams [62]. ...........................................19

Table 3: Biomimetic design principles from Wadia [63] ......................................20

Table 4: Efficiencies of Common Anthropogenic and Natural Energy Conversion

Efficiencies from Tester [221] and adapted from Smil [223]. ..........85

Table 5: Summary of Findings from Theoretical BID Benefits Study. .................98

Table 6: Design Selection Criteria .......................................................................113

Table 7: The first six BIDs considered for analysis.. ...........................................119

Table 9: Summary of GDG Analysis, Organized by both GDG and BID. ..........123

Table 10: GDGs met better by the BIDs. .............................................................124

Table 11: Examples of passive mechanisms in non-BID engineered systems, BIDs,

and biological systems. ...................................................................133

Table 12: Examples of multifunctional designs in non-BID engineered systems, BIDs,


Table 13: Examples of optimized geometries in non-BID engineered systems, BIDs,


Table 14: Keyword trends found in sustainable BIDS. .......................................142

Table 15: Summary of the GDGs most frequently met better by the 9 sustainable

BIDs. ...............................................................................................149

Table 16: Summary of the keyword trends found in the 9 sustainable BIDs. .....149

Table 17: Claims analyzed in Chapter 6 with related GDGs. ..............................160

xv

Table 18: 128 Sources Analyzed in BID Benefits Study.. ...................................227

Table 19: BIDs Found from Breadth and Depth Searches. .................................235

Table 20: The GDGs met better by Biolytix than by its competitor. ...................241

Table 21: The GDGs met better by the shape of the bionic car than by its competitor.

.........................................................................................................242

Table 22: The GDGs met better by the structure of the bionic car than by its

competitor. ......................................................................................243

Table 23: The GDGs met better by the Eastgate Centre’s cooling system than by its

competitor. ......................................................................................244

Table 24: The GDGs met better by Entropy carpet than by its competitor. ........245

Table 25: The GDGs Entropy tiles might meet better than standard carpet tiles in

some scenarios. ...............................................................................246

Table 26: The GDGs met better by the self-cleaning surface than by its competitor.

.........................................................................................................246

Table 27: The GDGs met worse by the self-cleaning surface than by its competitor.

.........................................................................................................247

Table 28: The GDGs that might be met better by the self-cleaning surface than by its

competitor, but ambiguity exists. ....................................................247

Table 29: The GDGs met better by Sharklet than by its competitor. ..................248

Table 30: The GDGs where it is unclear whether Sharklet or its competitor is

environmentally superior. ...............................................................248

Table 31: The GDGs met better by the Shinkansen nose cone than by its competitor.

.........................................................................................................249

Table 32: The GDGs met better by the Shinkansen pantograph than by its competitor.

.........................................................................................................249

xvi

Table 33: Keyword Trends Analysis for Biolytix. ...............................................250

Table 34: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Shape of the Bionic Car. ...............250

Table 35: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Structure of the Bionic Car. ..........251

Table 36: Keyword Trends Analysis for Eastgate Centre’s Cooling System. .....251

Table 37: Keyword Trends Analysis for Entropy Carpet. ...................................252

Table 38: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Self-Cleaning Surface. ..................252

Table 39: Keyword Trends Analysis for Sharklet Antimicrobial. .......................253

Table 40: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone.253

Table 41: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph.254

xvii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sustainable BID lies at the intersection of sustainable design and BID.. 3

Figure 2: The energy efficient cooling system in Eastgate Centre [35] is a sustainable

BID inspired by cooling in termite mounds that replaces a standard

industrial air conditioner. ....................................................................5

Figure 3: Shape evolution from boxfish to car [40]. ................................................6

Figure 4: Self-cleaning surface inspired by the surface chemistry of the lotus leaf.7

Figure 5: The relation of midpoint categories and damage indicators [51]. ..........14

Figure 7: Life’s Principles, the 2009 version from the Biomimicry Guild [64] ....22

Figure 6: Life’s Principles, the 2011 version from the Biomimicry Group [65] ...23

Figure 8: Schematic depicting the 13 archetypal claims found and analyzed in this

study. .................................................................................................28

Figure 9: Spectrum depicting the varying extent to which authors affirm the

archetypal claims found in BID literature study. ..............................29

Figure 10: Mindmap of ideation-related archetypal claims concerning benefits of

BID. ...................................................................................................31

Figure 11: “How problems are solved in (a) technology and in (b) biology” [71].42

Figure 12: Mindmap of optimization-related archetypal claims. ...........................45

Figure 13: All archetypal claims and sub-claims related to sustainability. ...........67

Figure 14: Comparison of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions from Clark [183],

including those from camels and cows. ............................................79

Figure 15: Comparison of methane emissions from Wilkinson et al. [186], including

those from sauropods and cows. .......................................................80

Figure 16: Archetypal claims related directly to characteristics of BIDs. .............88

xviii

Figure 17: Overall research methodology for identifying sustainable design solutions

in existing BIDs. .............................................................................107

Figure 18: A snowball sampling search starting with the term “dolphin skin boat

hulls” is more likely to return results related to dolphins or boat hulls

than a randomly-selected and unrelated BID, like “gecko-inspired

adhesives.”. .....................................................................................111

Figure 19: Example GDG comparison. ...............................................................117

Figure 20: Trends related to the GDGs most frequently met better by the BIDs than

their competitors. ............................................................................126

Figure 21: Depiction of a potential design tool that could be used to find examples of

sustainable BIDs that meet a particular GDG. ................................152

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Within the bodies of living organisms are multitudes of sustainable design

solutions that engineers have yet to master. Through the use of tailored sustainable

bioinspired design (BID) tools and methodologies, engineers could access and apply this

body of biological knowledge to reduce the environmental impact of engineering designs.

However, the underlying theory of BID must be more thoroughly fleshed out – and a

clearer understanding of the types of sustainability solutions present in biology must be

achieved – before such tools and methodologies can be developed. The goal of this thesis

is to tackle both issues and, consequently, lay the foundation for sustainable BID.

Chapter 1 provides the necessary background information and introduces this

effort. First, an overview of sustainable design, BID, and sustainable BID is provided,

with a discussion of the connection between biology and sustainable design and examples

of existing sustainable BIDs. Next, the motivation for both the theoretical and empirical

studies is presented. Finally, the organization of the thesis is detailed.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In this section, background information on sustainable design, BID, and

sustainable BID is provided. This includes a discussion of the literature connecting BID

and sustainability and a presentation of three examples of sustainable BIDs.

1.1.1 Sustainable Design

Human activity is dramatically changing the global environment [1].

Anthropogenic environmental changes harm other organisms [2,3], lower biology’s

ability to adapt to future evolutionary stresses [4], and reduce the quality of life for future

generations [5]. These changes are caused by a number of factors, including: (1) human

overproduction and overconsumption [6] and (2) poor design [7], or “the unintended

2

consequences of [human] activities as engineers” [8]. Environmentally sustainable

design, hereafter referred to as ‘sustainable design,’ is aimed at the second of these two

causes of anthropogenic environmental change and is focused on helping engineers lower

the environmental impact of their designs.

1.1.2 Bioinspired Design (BID)

BID is a design methodology that uses biological organisms as analogies for

engineered designs. Some authors have distinguished between different design

methodologies that incorporate biological analogies, using terms such as ‘bioinspired

design,’ ‘biomimicry,’ ‘bionics,’ and ‘biognosis’ to make these distinctions. Although the

differences between these terms may be important in some contexts, here they are

combined as they are in numerous popular [9,10] and academic sources [11-14], and all

are referred to as BID.

1.1.3 Sustainable BID

Many sustainable design solutions in biology are worth imitating. For instance,

spiders manufacture silk with desirable engineering properties at “close to ambient

temperatures and pressures using water as the solvent” [15]; vortices created when water

is ejected through the velum of jellyfish minimize energy consumption during swimming

[16]; the water-repellent surfaces of lotus leaves clean effectively without the use of

hazardous chemicals [17]; and the texture of shark skin reduces frictional drag [18]. The

imitation of solutions, such as these, in engineering design could contribute to the

development of products with reduced environmental impacts.

The process by which biological analogies are used to produce engineering

designs with lower environmental impacts is referred to here as sustainable BID.

3

Sustainable BID lies at the intersection of sustainable design and BID, drawing theories

and methodologies from both fields.

Figure 1: Sustainable BID lies at the intersection of sustainable design and BID. Photo

credits: [19,20].

1.1.4 Literature Connecting BID and Sustainability

A wide range of sources indicate that biological systems could be, and are being,

used as analogies in design to reduce the environmental impact of products. Both science-

related works for the general public and academic literature indicate this is the case.

Benyus states in Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature:

[L]ife has learned to fly, circumnavigate the globe, live in the depths of the ocean

and atop the highest peaks, craft miracle materials, light up the night, lasso the

sun’s energy, and build a self-reflective brain. Collectively, organisms have

managed to turn rock and sea into a life-friendly home.... In short, living things

have done everything we want to do, without guzzling fossil fuel, polluting the

planet, or mortgaging their future. What better models could there be? [21]

This message – that the biological world has something to offer to the sustainable design

community – is widely accepted by the non-academic community. The acceptance of the

message can be observed through its frequent repetition on science-related websites and

blogs, and in newspaper and magazine articles. Titles such as “Biomimicry Offers

4

Sustainable Solutions Inspired by Nature” [22] and “How Biomimicry Drives

Sustainability: From Fish-Inspired Wind Turbines to the Future of 3-D Printing” [23]

drive home this connection for the general public.

The connection between bioinspiration and sustainable design is also echoed in

scientific literature. For instance, Nagel states:

Biological organisms, phenomena and strategies… are exemplary systems that

provide insight into sustainable and adaptable design… engineers can not only

mimic what is found in the natural world, but also learn from those natural

systems to create reliable, smart and sustainable designs [14].

Additionally, journal articles such as “Bio-inspired Constructs for Sustainable Energy

Production and Use” [24] and “Sustainable and Bio-inspired Chemistry for Robust

Antibacterial Activity of Stainless Steel” [25] link BID to sustainability in their titles.

In a number of cases, sources define BID as being inherently linked to

sustainability. For instance, sources state that BID is “a design discipline that seeks

sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies” [26], and

that BID “tak[es] inspiration from nature to create a product that’s friendly to the

environment” [22].

However, it is not safe to assume that all BIDs are sustainable by virtue of the fact

that they are bioinspired. Life cycle assessments of BIDs from Raibeck et al. [27] and

Reap et al. [28] have shown that BIDs are not sustainable by default, and that the entire

product life cycle must be considered to determine whether a particular bioinspired

feature will confer a sustainability advantage to a design.

1.1.5 Examples of Sustainable BIDs

A number of compelling examples are commonly cited when discussing the

environmental benefits of using biological analogies in the design process, such as the

5

cooling system in Eastgate Centre, the shape of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept car,

and the chemistry of self-cleaning thin films. These three examples will now be used to

illustrate the potential for sustainable BID.

Eastgate Centre is a shopping center and office building in Zimbabwe that has a

passive cooling system [29-32] inspired by cooling in termite mounds [30,33]. The

building and its biological analogy are depicted in the figure below. Instead of a

traditional industrial air conditioning system, which involves substantial equipment and

electricity consumption, Eastgate Centre achieves the same amount of cooling using only

fans [29-31], representing substantial energy savings [32]. This energy and equipment

reduction is possible because the geometry of the building promotes the flow of hot air

out of chimneys on the roof, drawing in cooler air at ground level [29-31], similar to the

way termite mounds remain cool throughout the day [34]. This passive cooling allows for

a substantial reduction in the amount of energy consumed by the building [32].

Figure 2: The energy efficient cooling system in Eastgate Centre (right) [35] is a

sustainable BID inspired by cooling in termite mounds (center) that replaces

a standard industrial air conditioner (left). Photo credits: [36-38].

Similarly, the bioinspired shape of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept car

confers an environmental advantage. The evolution of the car from the shape of the

6

boxfish is shown in the figure below. Surprisingly, the boxy shape of the appropriately-

named boxfish is aerodynamic, promoting the formation of favorable vortices that

stabilize the boxfish and result in energy savings during swimming [39,40]. Because the

Daimler-Chrysler concept car is shaped similarly, it experiences less drag [41] – and

consequently consumes less fuel – than a car with a standard profile.

Figure 3: Shape evolution from boxfish to car [40].

Finally, self-cleaning surfaces are another example of BIDs that have an

environmental advantage as a consequence of their bioinspired features. These surfaces,

and the lotus leaves that inspired them [42], are shown in the figure below. The self-

cleaning process in the lotus leaf occurs as result of its hydrophobic (water-repelling)

surface chemistry that causes water to bead on the leaf. When water beads, and

subsequently rolls off the surface of the leaf, debris on the surface is pulled into the bead

of water and rolls off as well [17]. When this surface chemistry is imitated on manmade

products, objects that would otherwise need to be cleaned using large volumes of

pressurized water and toxic chemicals can instead be cleaned using a small volume of

water spayed as a mist onto the part [27]. Consequently, less energy and water are

consumed [27,43], and the use of toxic and non-biodegradable materials is avoided.

7

Figure 4: Self-cleaning surface (left) inspired by the surface chemistry of the lotus leaf

(right). Photo credits: [44,45].

More detailed information from peer-reviewed sources and analysis of the

environmental impact of these three designs, and many others, can be found in

Appendices A-C.

1.2 THESIS MOTIVATION

While many sources proclaim the environmental benefits of BID, and while the

examples of sustainable BIDs are compelling, much analysis is lacking in existing

literature regarding the relationship between BID and sustainable design.

First, empirical evidence that the use of biological analogies produces

environmental benefits in general is lacking; there is no evidence to suggest that using a

biological analogy would always – or would even likely – result in more sustainable

aspects of a final design. Instead, there is evidence that the use of biological analogies in

design does not, as a rule, result in the reduced environmental impact of products [28].

Rather than necessarily having a smaller environmental impact than competitors by virtue

of the fact that they have a bioinspired feature, the examples of sustainable BIDs cited

above may be more sustainable than competitors by chance, just as designs developed

8

using analogies from other engineered products are sometimes more sustainable than

alternatives.

Second, sources touting the environmental benefits of BIDs rarely acknowledge

that these benefits are frequently one side of an environmental tradeoff, and are many

times necessarily paired with negative environmental impacts in other phases, or even the

same phase, of the product’s life cycle. For instance, self-cleaning surfaces reduce the

environmental impact during cleaning but are likely to increase the impact in

manufacturing [27].

Finally, the logic explaining why the use of biological analogies in the design

process would lead to more sustainable products, or to any other claimed benefit of BID,

is almost entirely absent from the literature, with the exception of vague references to the

evolutionary process, mention of nature’s ‘3.8 billion years of R&D’, or platitudes about

‘how magnificently efficient’, etc., nature is – without any insight into the details of what,

why, and how something is efficient, for example.

These three issues indicate a need, first, to develop the underlying theory of BID

and understand BID’s benefits, and second, to study why and how some biological

analogies have aided in the reduction of the environmental impact of products. Having

this knowledge would enable engineers to more effectively use biological analogies to

generate sustainable designs.

1.3 THESIS ORGANIZATION

This work is organized into two main sections: (1) a theoretical section analyzing

the claimed benefits of BID, and (2) an empirical section examining the ways in which

BID can be used to generate environmentally sustainable designs. Chapter 2 presents

necessary background information for both. It discusses two tools to understand and

9

measure the environmental impact of products - life cycle assessment (LCA) and green

design guidelines (GDGs). It also provides a discussion of previous research focused on

the analysis of many biological systems or BIDs together.

Section 1 seeks to answer the questions: In what sense is BID ‘beneficial’

compared to other ideation techniques? What desirable traits can be found in biological

organisms, and which of these traits transfer to BIDs? To what extent are BIDs and the

biological systems that inspire them ‘novel’, ‘optimized’, ‘efficient’, or ‘sustainable’?

The answers to these questions provide insight into the potential role of BID in improving

engineering designs. By qualifying and clarifying these claims in the context of

biological evidence, Chapters 3 through 8 contribute to the theoretical foundation for BID

and provide guidance to researchers developing design tools and methodologies to

enhance engineered products and systems using BID.

Chapter 3 presents the methodology of the theoretical study, along with an

overview of the claims identified and analyzed. Chapter 4 examines ideation-related

claims. Chapter 5 looks at optimization-related claims. Chapter 6 focuses on efficiency-

related claims. Chapter 7 considers sustainability-related claims, and Chapter 8

summaries the conclusions of the theoretical study.

The central question posed in Section 2 is: ‘What trends are present in existing,

sustainable BIDs?’ or, in other words, ‘When the use of a biological analogy has been

confirmed to have provided a true environmental advantage to a design, what types of

design features have been transferred?’ As will be discussed in Chapter 7, not all

desirable biological features can be transferred to engineering designs and retain their

desirable characteristics. Section 2 seeks to better understand the types of traits that do

indeed successfully transfer and result in an environmental impact reduction in the final

design.

10

Chapter 9 presents the research methods used in an empirical study aimed at

uncovering these sustainability-related trends. Chapter 10 contains the data collected in

the study and an analysis of the aspects of environmental impact that were reduced in the

sustainable BIDs. Chapter 11 discusses the overarching principles uncovered and the

types of characteristics that were observed to successfully transfer from biology to

engineering, along with an analysis of the prevalence of these characteristics in biology.

Chapter 12 concludes the section, presenting a summary of the findings and significance

of the study.

Chapter 13 presents a discussion of the thesis as a whole, particularly the ways in

which biology can provide insight into environmentally sustainable product design. It

presents potential avenues for future work that draw from both the theoretical findings of

Section 1 and the empirical results from Section 2, and concludes with a summary of the

contributions of the thesis.

11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 2 delves into the tools and findings from both the sustainable design and

BID research communities. First, it presents an overview of two tools to measure the

environmental impact of products – life cycle assessment (LCA) and green design

guidelines (GDGs) – and provides an ethical framework for understanding environmental

impact. Second, it presents a discussion of previous work from the BID research

community, focused on the results of other authors’ analyses of many biological systems

or BIDs together and the abstraction of design principles from these analyses.

2.1 UNDERSTANDING AND MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

A number of tools and findings from the sustainable design community related to

understanding and measuring environmental impact are brought to bear in this work,

especially those related to life cycle assessment (LCA) and green design guidelines

(GDGs).

2.1.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Effective LCA tools and techniques quantify the environmental impact of a

product throughout its life cycle “from raw material acquisition through production, use,

end-of-life treatment, recycling and final disposal” [46]. ISO standards 14040:2006 and

14044:2006 address, respectively, the principles and framework of LCA, and the

requirements and guidelines for LCA [47]. These standards are intended to help

quantitatively assess and compare the environmental impacts of functionally-equivalent

competing products [46].

12

2.1.1.1 LCA Challenge #1 - Ethics and values introduce subjectivity.

One of the main challenges associated with LCA is that the outcome is influenced

by personal values during goal and scope definition [48,49], and in the weighting of

different types of environmental damages [3,46,50,51]. These value differences generate

a lack of consensus on how to properly conduct LCAs [50], which can lead to conflicting

results. Consequently, it is important to provide a basic explanation of the environmental

value system and ethical perspective adopted when conducting an LCA [48]. Other types

of tools that provide insight into the environmental impact of designs, such as GDGs,

likewise involve personal value judgments. Hence, although an LCA will not be

presented in this work, it is important to identify the ethical perspective and

environmental value system adopted here so that the analysis of environmental impact

using GDGs will be as transparent and objective as possible.

2.1.1.2 Environmental Ethics

The field of environmental ethics examines the moral and ethical role of the

environment [5,52,53]. One of the central points of contention among experts in this field

concerns whether the environment and non-human biological organisms are valued as

ends in themselves or only as a means for human benefit. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy sets up this distinction as follows:

It is often said to be morally wrong for human beings to pollute and destroy parts

of the natural environment and to consume a huge portion of the planet’s natural

resources. If that is wrong, is it simply because a sustainable environment is

essential to (present and future) human well-being? Or is such behavior also

wrong because the natural environment and/or its various contents have certain

values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected

in any case? [53]

13

The way one answers these questions can have a profound implication on how one

assesses the environmental impact of products through LCA and other environmental

assessment techniques.

Some widely-accepted documents indicate that the environment and biological

organisms should be valued as ends in themselves. For instance, The Earth Charter

states: “all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its

worth to human beings” [6], and the preamble to the United Nation’s Convention on

Biological Diversity acknowledges “the intrinsic value of ecological diversity” [54].

However, most people in the Western world have adopted an anthropocentric

ethical perspective and do not accept that the environment has intrinsic value [5,53].

Consequently, many sources aimed at achieving scientific or political consensus present

an ethical perspective that focuses on the instrumental value of the environment for

human beings, i.e. the “ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational,

cultural, recreation, and aesthetic” value that the environment provides [54]. This

approach has been taken by a number of authors in science [5], government [4], and

international organizations such as the United Nations [54-56].

Because it is widely accepted that the environment possesses instrumental value

for humans, and because this stance on environmental ethics appears to be taken by many

authors aimed at impartiality, that perspective has been adopted here. This document

adopts an anthropocentric view of environmental ethics, and accepts that human beings

have moral obligations to avoid harming other human beings through negative

environmental impacts, while also accepting moral environmental responsibilities

towards future generations. The negative effects environmental change has on human

beings will be emphasized, and environmental changes that negatively affect other

14

organisms will be addressed in terms of how these changes negatively affect the benefits

humans glean from these organisms.

2.1.1.3 Environmental Impact Categories

Because different people have different opinions on how environmental

assessments should be scoped, it is also important to define what is meant by an

‘environmental impact.’ Here, the framework used to define environmental impact is

borrowed from a document [51] written by an international task force nominated by the

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the Society of Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). It is intended to provide a common framework for

life cycle impact assessment that is universally accepted [51]. The paper relates

‘environmental impact pathways’ to ‘damage indicators’; this relation is shown in the

diagram below.

Figure 5: The relation of midpoint categories and damage indicators [51].

15

The ethical perspective adopted here focuses on the instrumental value of the

environment (including the biotic and abiotic natural environment, natural resources, and

the man made environment) and both the intrinsic and instrumental values of human life.

Hence, the understanding of environmental impact adopted here is the same as that

discussed in Jolliet et al. [51], with the exception that damages related to the intrinsic

value of the biotic natural environment and the abiotic natural environment (the fourth

and seventh column in the chart below, respectively) are not considered.

Table 1: LCA midpoint categories and damages to environment [51]

2.1.1.4 LCA Challenge #2 - Detailed data are needed.

A second main challenge associated with LCA is that a substantial amount of

detailed data concerning the product’s components, materials, and manufacturing

processes is needed for the analysis to be accurate [57]. As a consequence, it is difficult

to conduct LCA during conceptual design, when little detailed information about a design

16

is known. This requirement poses a major challenge for the field of sustainable product

design because most of a product’s environmental impact is determined during

conceptual design, when decisions are made regarding product performance and

materials [58], meaning that sustainable design techniques are most effective in the early

stages of new product design [59]. For example, a study of thirty companies showed that

those that implemented sustainable design practices before product specification were

able to see larger environmental impact reductions in their products than companies that

used sustainable design methods at a later stage in the design process [60].

2.1.2 Green Design Guidelines (GDGs)

It is critical to have tools to assess the environmental impacts of concepts during

the early phases of product design, so that more sustainable concepts can be selected.

Telenko [61] has compiled a list of 65 green design guidelines (GDGs) to help address

this problem. The GDGs are organized into six categories: (1) sustainability of resources,

(2) healthy inputs and outputs, (3) minimum use of resources in production and

transportation, (4) energy efficiency of resources during use, (5) the appropriate

durability of the product and components, and (6) disassembly, separation, and

purification [61]. The guidelines help designers think about all aspects of the life cycle

that could potentially generate an environmental impact, allowing them to make better-

informed design decisions concerning sustainability during conceptual design. A list of

these guidelines is provided in Appendix D.

The GDGs are similar to the midpoint categories presented in Jolliet et al. [51] in

that they look at a wide range of environmental impacts over the life cycle. However, the

GDGs are specifically focused on assessing the environmental impact of products, with

guidelines such as “GDG#6: specifying mutually compatible materials and fasteners for

17

recycling,” whereas the midpoint categories are more general, e.g. ‘Ozone depletion’.

Hence, the midpoint categories are more widely applicable, but they provide significantly

less guidance to designers working on specific problems.

Additionally, the GDGs do not define ‘environmental impact’ or explain how one

ought to measure environmental impact. For example, GDG #12: “Including labels and

instructions for safe handling of toxic materials” recommends that a designer consider

how toxic materials will be handled and how to communicate to the handlers what should

be done; it does not imply that the process of label-making and label-using is good for the

environment. Having labels (and instructions) in this instance is presumed to be better for

the environment because it is associated with ‘safer’ handling of toxic materials,

presumably equivalent to fewer harmful releases of toxic materials to the environment.

As in LCA, the GDGs must be interpreted using a definition of environmental

impact derived from personal value systems. For instance, GDG #12 does not define

‘safe’ handling of toxic materials. The dumping of materials toxic to humans in an area

where humans are likely to encounter the substance is presumably not ‘safe,’ but is it

‘safe’ to release materials that are toxic to ecosystems but nontoxic to humans? Is the

release of materials damaging to man-made devices but nontoxic to humans ‘safe’?

In the analysis in Chapter 10 of this thesis, the environmental impact of design

concepts are compared to one another using the GDGs and the modified interpretation of

‘environmental impact’ provided in the Jolliet et al. [51] paper. The use of this definition

coupled with the GDGs has a significant influence on the results of the empirical portion

of the study. For instance, noise is not explicitly accounted for in the GDGs, but it is

listed as a ‘midpoint category,’ thereby supporting the decision to account for noise from

the Shinkansen train as ‘noise pollution’ under GDG #8: “Installing protection against the

release of pollutants and hazardous substances,” even though the intent of the guideline

18

may have actually been directed at more traditional types of pollutants. This also comes

into play for products like Sharklet, whose prime environmental advantage is that it does

not contribute to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This type of environmental

impact falls under the midpoint category ‘Species and organism dispersal,’ but is not

directly addressed in the GDGs.

2.2 PREVIOUS WORK

In addition to the work discussed above focused on understanding and measuring

environmental impact, a number of studies from the BID research community are closely

related to the findings discussed throughout this thesis. Below, results from Wadia and

McAdams [62], Wadia [63], Vincent et al. [11], and Biomimicry 3.8 and its affiliated

organizations and founders [21,64,65], related to the discovery of trends in BIDs and

biological organisms, are presented. These findings will be referenced throughout this

thesis, particularly in Chapters 10 and 11, focused on the identification of sustainability-

related trends in existing, sustainable BIDs, where these findings serve to validate the

results of the empirical studies.

2.2.1 BID Design Principles and Guidelines

A 2010 paper from Wadia and McAdams [62] and Wadia’s 2011 thesis [63] both

present studies where 20 and 23 BIDs were analyzed, respectively, to “identify the

inherent characteristics that make the designs robust to their environment” and generate

biomimetic design guidelines [62]. The biomimetic design principles uncovered by

Wadia and McAdams [62] are presented in the table below.

19

Table 2: “Biomimetic design guidelines with examples of corresponding bio-inspired

characteristics and the percentage of reviewed products that display them”

from Wadia and McAdams [62].

Wadia [63] generated slightly different results, which are in the table below,

organized into what he refers to as ‘super groups’:

20

Table 3: Biomimetic design principles categorized into super groups from Wadia [63]

Some of the biomimetic design guidelines extracted in both studies provide

verification for the results of the studies presented in Chapters 10 and 11. Additionally,

Wadia’s thesis [63] analyzes 5 of the same BIDs analyzed in Section 2 of this work –

Eastgate Centre, the shape of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept car, the nose cone of

the Shinkansen train, the lotus-inspired self-cleaning surface, and the Shinkansen’s

pantograph. Hence, the notes and analysis from those works can be used as validation for

the analysis of specific designs, the results of which are presented in Chapters 10 and 11.

2.2.2 Design Principles in Biology

Additionally, a number of authors have either formally or informally studied

samples of biological organisms to extract trends or ‘design principles.’ Work from

21

Vincent et al. [11] and Biomimicry 3.8 and its affiliated organizations and founders

[21,64,65] is discussed below.

Vincent et al. [11] conducted a study comparing the principles illustrated by

problem solutions in 500 biological phenomena with those from TRIZ, and found that

there is only a 12% overlap between these principles in biology and engineering. They

also found that biological systems solve problems using information- and structure-based

solutions, whereas problems encountered in technology are typically solved though

energy manipulation [11]. This implies that mechanisms in biology may be less likely to

solve problems with the use of energy than typical engineering designs.

Additionally, organizations and people connected to what is currently called

Biomimicry 3.8 have released a number of non-academic publications with varying

accounts of biological design principles. Three such accounts are presented below and are

of particular interest because Biomimicry 3.8 is also focused on the development of

sustainable design solutions through the use of biological analogies [66].

Benyus, co-founder of Biomimicry 3.8, details “a canon of nature's laws,

strategies, and principles” in her influential 1997 book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired

by Nature [21], encompassing the following nine items: (1) “Nature runs on sunlight”; (2)

“Nature uses only the energy it needs”; (3) “Nature fits form to function”; (4) “Nature

recycles everything”; (5) “Nature rewards cooperation”; (6) “Nature banks on diversity”;

(7) “Nature demands local expertise”; (8) “Nature curbs excesses from within”; and (9)

“Nature taps the power of limits” [21]. It is not clear how she arrived at this list; she

states only that it was “divine[d]” from the notebooks of ecologists [21].

Additionally, two more recent versions of a list of traits found in biology, known

as “Life’s Principles” – a 2009 version from the Biomimicry Guild [64] and a 2011

version from the Biomimicry Group [65] – are provided below.

22

Figure 7: Life’s Principles, the 2009 version from the Biomimicry Guild [64]

23

Figure 6: Life’s Principles, the 2011 version from the Biomimicry Group [65]

Some of the principles put forth in Biomimicry 3.8-affiated documents agree with

the results presented in Chapters 10 and 11 of this work and will be discussed further

there.

24

2.3 CONCLUSION

Chapter 2 has provided a wide range of background information concerning the

understanding of ‘environmental impact’ adopted here, and the measurement of

environmental impact using LCA and GDGs. Additionally, an overview of related work

that identified design principles in BIDs and biological organisms was provided. Now

that this background information is in place, it is possible to shift the focus towards

Section 1, which presents a theoretical study of the potential benefits of BID.

25

Chapter 3: Theoretical Study Overview

Chapter 3 introduces Section 1 and the theoretical study of BID benefits. It

presents an introduction to the BID benefits study, the methodology of the study, and an

overview of the claims identified and analyzed.

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO BID BENEFITS STUDY

Many academic and non-academic sources include accounts of the benefits of

BID. These accounts invoke a small set of claims that recur throughout the literature,

concerning the characteristics of BIDs and the biological systems that inspire them.

Below are four such accounts found from academic sources, provided to show the

diversity of benefits cited. These and 25 other accounts that provide an extended

explanation of the benefits of BID are listed in and are identified with an asterisk

Appendix E.

1. Nagel et al. [67] in the Journal of Mechanical Design state:

The designs of the biological world allow organisms to survive in nearly all of

earth’s challenging environments filling niches from under-sea volcanic vents,

tundras both frozen and desolate, poisonous salt flats, and deserts rarely seeing

rain. Nature’s designs are the most elegant, innovative, and robust solution

principles and strategies allowing for life to survive many of the earth’s

challenges. Biomimetic design aims to leverage the insight of the biological world

into the engineered world.

2. Wilson and Rosen [12] in IDETC/CIE 2007 claim:

With design, engineers strive to produce more economical and efficient solutions

to problems. The duality between engineering and biological systems exists in the

pursuit of this efficiency. Nature has been on this search for many, many years. In

order to survive, natural systems must be efficient, using minimal amounts of

energy as a source for efficiency. In nature, where the fittest survive, all

organisms compete with each other for available energy.

26

3. Ball [68] in Nature explains:

[N]ature does not employ exotic materials, nor extreme energies or high

pressures. The living world comes almost with a guarantee of economy, for that is

evolution’s exigency. Maximum return for minimal (metabolic) outlay: this is the

stipulation that keeps nature lean and, in some sense, optimal.

4. Finally, Bar-Cohen [69] in Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies

maintains:

After billions of years of evolution, nature developed inventions that work, which

are appropriate for the intended tasks and that last. The evolution of nature led to

the introduction of highly effective and power efficient biological mechanisms.

Failed solutions often led to the extinction of the specific species that became a

fossil. In its evolution, nature archived its solutions in the genes of creatures that

make up the terrestrial life around us. Imitating nature’s mechanisms offers

enormous potentials for the improvement of our life and the tools we use…

Benefits from the study of biomimetics can be seen in many applications,

including stronger fiber, multifunctional materials, improved drugs, superior

robots, and many others.

In Section 1, a study examining such accounts is presented. As can be seen from

the examples above, there is a wide range of claimed benefits authors make on behalf of

the BID process – everything from leveraging the innovative and lasting solutions found

in biology to assisting in developing efficient and multifunctional engineering designs. It

will be shown that upon a deeper inspection of the literature, some of these claims only

hold true in some instances and are disputed within the BID research community. The

results of this study provide insight into the potential of BID and, hence, guidance to

researchers working to develop tools and methodologies for BID.

3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR BID BENEFITS STUDY

Accounts of the benefits of BID from 128 different sources – 114 academic and

14 non-academic – were identified in BID literature and grouped. The accounts represent

the work of 257 different authors, published in 17 journals, 4 conferences, 14 academic

27

books, and 14 non-academic sources. A list of all sources analyzed in this study is

provided in Appendix E. Numerous other sources were also consulted, but were not

directly included in the study. Sources were selected for use in the study when a claim or

explanation of the benefits of BID was found, by chance, in the literature. Many sources

come from the same special issue journals, conferences, and compilation books focused

on BID.

Different sources written by the same author were analyzed separately. Hence,

large numbers of sources containing a particular claim likely indicate that the claim is

widely held and/or is considered important by a small minority of prolific authors. Either

case was deemed sufficient to justify examining the claim in further detail.

Effort was made to ensure a broad search scope by including a wide range of

academic publications and authors. However, no effort was made to select sources

randomly or methodically. Consequently, claims that recur frequently in the study by a

wide range of authors are likely to be pervasive in the field in general, but the ratio of the

number of sources that make a particular claim to the total number of sources analyzed is

unlikely to be numerically representative of the field.

3.3 RESULTS OVERVIEW

Quotations from the accounts were grouped according to meaning into 13

archetypal claims, organized into four groups, as shown in the figure below. These

archetypal claims are the most generalized, confident versions of the claims authors make

when referencing a particular benefit to BID. All of the other claims studied were either

variations of these archetypal claims or particular instances of them.

28

Figure 8: Schematic depicting the 13 archetypal claims found and analyzed in this study.

There is substantial variation in the degree to which authors support the

archetypal claim from which their claim is patterned; this variation is expressed through

differences in the confidence and specificity levels of the claim-related quotations. The

spectrum of affirmation of the archetypal claims is depicted in the figure below with

examples seen in this study. On one end of the spectrum are highly-confident

generalizations about biological systems or BIDs that indicate a high level of agreement

with the archetypal claim in question; at the other are tentative examples of one possible

29

instance of the archetypal claim, indicating a low level of confidence in the archetypal

claim. [70]. [71]. [72]. [73].

Figure 9: Spectrum depicting the varying extent to which authors affirm the archetypal

claims found in BID literature study.

This variation indicates a rather large degree of disagreement or uncertainty in the

BID field. What level of specificity is needed to accurately describe beneficial

characteristics of biology and BID? How should generalizations regarding beneficial

traits in biology and BID be qualified?

The answers to these questions play a role in the development of tools and

methodologies to improve engineered designs through BID. For instance, if it is true that

‘BIDs are always efficient’, new tools and methodologies are unnecessary, and standard

BID tools are sufficient to guarantee efficient designs. On the other hand, if (1) BIDs are

only more likely to be energy efficient than a non-BID if they very closely imitate energy

efficient mechanisms in biology, and (2) energy efficient mechanisms in biology are

more likely to arise in situations where there is strong selection pressure on organisms for

internal metabolic efficiency, then (3) tools and methodologies should be developed to

hone in on biological analogies found in organisms with strong selection pressure for

30

internal metabolic efficiency and to assist in the direct transfer of the efficiency-related

characteristics to engineering.

3.4 CONCLUSION

Chapter 3 presented an introduction to the BID benefits study, the methodology of

the study, and an overview of the claims identified and analyzed. The 13 archetypal

claims identified were grouped into four categories: those related to ideation,

optimization in biology, sustainability in biology, and characteristics of BIDs themselves.

Each of these categories will be analyzed separately in the four following chapters, where

the archetypal claims will be unpacked, interpreted, and discussed using the support of

textbooks and peer-reviewed research from biology and BID. As a result of this analysis,

many of the claims are qualified and explained, providing insight into the development of

future BID tools and methodologies.

31

Chapter 4: Ideation-Related Archetypal Claims

Five ideation-related archetypal claims are commonly referenced in the literature.

These claims are shown in the mindmap in the figure below. One of the claims directly

relates to the results of the BID ideation process; the other four concern characteristics of

biology. Two of the biology-related traits – quantity and variety – are metrics commonly

used to measure the results of ideation techniques; concept generation methods that result

in a greater variety and number of ideas are considered superior to methods that produce

similar or fewer ideas. It is not immediately clear, however, what advantage is conferred

to the design process when the field of potential analogies is varied and numerous,

instead of the pool of concepts generated. The other two biology-related traits concern the

characteristics of biological systems that make them relevant to engineering design

problems and may cause the results of BID to be different than the results of other

design-by-analogy techniques. Each archetypal claim will be discussed in detail in this

chapter.

Figure 10: Mindmap of ideation-related archetypal claims concerning benefits of BID.

4.1 BID HELPS DESIGNERS GENERATE NOVEL IDEAS.

26 sources out of 128 claim that novel, creative, innovative and/or new ideas

result from bioinspired ideation. 14 sources refer directly to the ‘novelty’ of ideas, 5 to

‘new’ ideas, 4 to ‘creative’ ideas, and 10 to ‘innovative’ ideas, through statements such

as: “[B]iology has created and continues to create effective solutions that offer great

32

models… as inspiration for novel engineering methods, processes, materials, algorithms,

etc.” [69]; “[B]iology, bionics, and related fields offer rewarding new insights to

designers” [74]; “[U]nique creative engineered solutions can be generated through

functional analogy with nature” [67]; and “It is evident that nature can inspire innovative

engineering designs” [75].

These claims are grouped and discussed together as the archetypal claim

‘Biological analogies help designers generate novel ideas,’ because each of the claims

has related meanings to that effect and because the supporting evidence for these claims

is the same. Many of these terms are considered synonymous in a broader, non-technical

context, and an examination of the technical definitions of ‘new,’ ‘creative,’ and

‘innovative’ indicates that most sources consider these terms to be either equivalent to, or

subsets of, ‘novel’ concepts. Although frequently the terms ‘novelty,’ ‘newness,’

‘creativity,’ and ‘innovation’ are distinguished from each other within engineering design

literature, generally-accepted technical definitions of a number of these terms remain

“elusive” [76].

Novelty is defined as “a measure of how unusual or unexpected an idea is as

compared to other ideas” [77]. Innovative ideas are either regarded as a subset of creative

ideas that are useful and feasible [78], or they are regarded as a subset of novel ideas

[76]. Similarly, creative ideas are either considered a subset of novel ideas that are

valuable [79], or they are considered synonymous with novel ideas, because creative

ideas are the ideas that are outcomes of creativity and creativity is “a process to evaluate

a problem in an unexpected or unusual fashion in order to generate ideas that are novel”

[78]. Finally, new ideas are either considered synonymous with novel ideas, or they form

a broader category that is not necessarily associated with characteristics desirable for

ideation: “Not every new idea is novel since it may be considered usual or expected to

33

some degree and this is only known after the idea is obtained and analysed” [77]. For the

sake of simplicity, here it is assumed that claims related to new ideas are using the term

‘new’ as a synonym for ‘novel.’ If this were not the case, the only implication would be

that claims related to new ideas would not represent an actual benefit to designers.

Because of their similarities, novel, new, creative, and innovative ideas are all discussed

under the more general umbrella term ‘novel.’

Upon inspection of the literature, it appears that the use of biological analogies in

ideation does indeed help designers generate novel ideas. Wilson et al. [80] found that

designers who used biological analogies in ideation had an increase in the novelty of their

ideas compared to a control group. Additionally, design-by-analogy in general has been

shown to increase the novelty of ideas. Design-by-analogy is a concept generation

technique where designers are primed with visuals and/or text prior to ideation. BID is

one example of a design-by-analogy approach. The primes used in design-by-analogy

encourage designers to think differently and can help solve design problems. The benefits

of design-by-analogy in ideation are well-studied and include the ability to generate “new

relevant structures” [81], enhance creativity during concept generation [82], help

designers develop concepts that are “high quality and novel” [83], and enhance

“innovation” [84].

However, BID is just one of many types of design-by-analogy, meaning these

novelty-related benefits are not unique to BID. In the conclusion of their 2010 paper,

Vattam et al. [85] state that it is an “open question” how analogies from BID differ from

other types of analogies. Virtually anything could be used as analogy by a designer, such

as frequently-used patents and biological systems, but also many less-frequently

discussed potential analogies from anthropology, geology, astronomy, art, and literature,

meaning there is a broad range of potential design-by-analogy processes. While many of

34

these processes are discussed less frequently in design literature than BID, theory related

to design-by-analogy approaches suggests that they would share some of the same

ideation benefits as BID.

Many of these less-commonly discussed design-by-analogy techniques are being

used. For instance, a study from Casakin et al. [81] involved three architectural design

problems where participants were shown “images from the architectural design domain…

as well as images from remote domains… like art, engineering, nature and science.”

Additionally, there is a fair amount of discussion on design inspired by science fiction.

For instance, Vincent and Mann [86] describe science fiction as “a fertile source of ideas

for both technology and TRIZ,” and a news article from NASA explains how the space

elevator concept was “inspired partly by science fiction,” from sources such as Arthur C.

Clark’s book Fountains of Paradise [87].

However, some design researchers argue that the use of biological analogies has

two benefits in ideation above those of typical design-by-analogy approaches. First, some

authors maintain that BID is less prone to design fixation than other design-by-analogy

methods. “Design fixation refers to design conformity that results from exposing

designers to example solutions” [80], resulting in a reduced variety of ideas. Design-by-

analogy has been shown to have negative effects in ideation related to design fixation

[80,83]. Design fixation has also been shown to be a problem in BID: “[N]ovice

designers tend to fixate on irrelevant aspects of biological information” [88]. Mak and

Shu [89,90] have observed issues with fixation on elements of the biological analogy

description and fixation on applying the biological strategies to develop a specific type of

solution during BID. However, design fixation may be less of a problem in BID than in

other design-by-analogy approaches. A study examining the effect of biological analogies

on ideation conducted by Wilson et al. [80] found that participants who used biological

35

analogies and human-engineered analogies both had increases in the novelty of their

ideas, but also that the decrease in variety of design ideas that occurs as a result of using

an analogy from engineering did not occur with biological analogies. Hence, it appears

that BID has the novelty benefits associated with design by analogy without some of the

common drawbacks, such as reduced variety of ideas. However, further research is

needed to confirm these results.

Second, some authors argue that BID is more likely to produce novel ideas

because biological analogies are more likely to be far-field analogies than alternatives.

Some authors, such as Wilson et al. [80], claim that biological analogies are likely to be

far-field because biological organisms share few surface-level attributes with engineering

designs. Numerous previous studies have indicated that far-field analogies – analogies

that come from a domain substantially different from the target domain [91] – promote

novelty [83] and creativity [92] in concepts generated. A number of authors have agreed

[84,89-91,93,94]. However, this novelty comes with a price; new research from Fu et al.

[95] indicates that far-field analogies may be problematic because they are more difficult

to transfer to engineering design, and that mid-field analogies actually result in the best

concepts generated.

Ultimately, using biological analogies during ideation improves the novelty of

concepts generated compared to a control group. This represents a true advantage over

standard ideation techniques, but not over other design-by-analogy approaches, for which

these improvements in novelty are also expected. However, BID may be less prone to

cause design fixation than patent-based design-by-analogy techniques, although more

evidence is needed. Additionally, BID may be more likely to produce novel concepts

than alternative methods of design-by-analogy because biological organisms share few

surface-level attributes with engineering design problems, and consequently a reduced

36

incidence of design fixation. However, the lack of surface-level similarities also means it

is more difficult for engineers to transfer the information from the biological analogy to

the engineering domain.

4.2 QUANTITY: BIOLOGY CONTAINS MANY POTENTIAL ANALOGIES.

20 out of 128 sources claim there are many potential analogies in biology. Sixteen

sources make general statements, such as: “The natural world offers a wealth of potential

design solutions that can be applied to engineering problems” [96]; and “The natural

world provides numerous cases for analogy and inspiration in engineering design” [97].

Additionally, four sources reference specific types of functions that are performed in

many different ways by nature, such as the great number of “specialized sensing tasks”

performed by biological sensors [98]. Having a large number of biological species may

appear advantageous to BID researchers because larger numbers of potential analogies

may make it more likely to find an analogy that is relevant to a particular engineering

problem.

When examined using biological literature, it is clear that there are numerous

potential analogies in biology; however, many of these designs are currently inaccessible

to engineers. “As many as 30 million species of organisms may exist on Earth today”

[99], but in 1988 only 1.5 million species had been discovered and studied by biologists

[100]. This issue has been discussed by authors in BID. For instance, Gorb et al. [101]

mention that only a few adhesive systems have been studied and modeled from the pool

of one million insect species recently known to science. However, there are many

elements of any particular species that could be used as potential analogies – surface

textures, shape of body parts, behaviors, etc. Hence, while there are many species in

37

biology, few can actually be used by engineers. However, the ones that are accessible can

be used in a wide range of ways by engineers.

On the basis of sheer numbers of potential analogies alone, it is unclear what

advantage BID has over other design-by-analogy techniques, patent searches in

particular. According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organization [102], an

agency of the United Nations, approximately 36 million patents applications were filed

worldwide between 1985 and 2011, with 2.14 million filed in 2011 alone. A book

published in 1988 states: “In the United States alone more than 4.7 million patents have

been issued since 1790. If each of these patents is counted as an equivalent of an organic

species, then the technological can be said to have a diversity three times greater than the

organic” [100].

Ultimately, biology does indeed have a very large number of accessible potential

analogies to be used in engineering, despite the fact that only a small percentage of

existing species have been discovered and studied. However, more potential analogies

can be found in engineering. Hence, the great number of potential analogies is a benefit

of BID, but it is not an advantage over existing design-by-analogy techniques that use

patents.

4.3 VARIETY: BIOLOGY IS DIVERSE.

18 of 128 sources appeal to the archetypal claim that ‘biology is diverse’, though

statements such as: “Organisms have evolved an immense variety of shapes and

structures” [103]; “Biological systems which share common structural or functional

principles may come in a large number of variations that almost always exceeds what is

seen in man-made devices by a large margin” [104]; “There is a great diversity in

properties and structures across hard biological materials, from which engineers can ‘tap’

38

for inspiration” [105]; and “With… seemingly simple molecules, natural processes are

capable of fashioning an enormously diverse range of fabrication units” [106].

Diversity in biology is a potential benefit to practitioners of BID if it means that

designers will be more likely to find an analogy relevant to their design problem.

Additionally, if it appears that solutions in biology are more diverse than those in

engineering, there may be an advantage to using biological analogies in those cases

instead of engineered designs because the likelihood of finding a relevant analogy is

higher.

Upon inspection of biological and BID literature, it indeed appears that biology is

diverse. Biological organisms have an enormously broad range of traits and are able to

live in nearly every environment on earth. For instance, a wide range of bacteria and

microscopic plants and animals live in Antarctic sea ice [107], in environments as hot as

113°C [108], and in extreme chemical environments, such as those “contaminated with

toxic metal ions” [109]. Biological diversity arose, in part, as a result of species adapting

to a wide range of different environments. For instance, the evolution of vascular plants

over the past 430 million years “in dramatically different environments over that time

resulted in the formation of an impressive variety of forms and attributes, in a global

diversity that today consists of approximately 260,000 species” [110].

It is unclear, however, whether biology or engineering is more diverse. Vincent

and Mann [86] have observed qualitatively that biological solutions for the problem of

joining two elements are “much more varied” than engineering solutions. However,

Basalla [100] claims that the same level of diversity is also present in engineering

solutions: “The variety of made things is every bit as astonishing as that of living things.

Consider the range that extends from stone tools to microchips, from water wheels to

spacecraft, from thumbtacks to skyscrapers” [100].

39

Ultimately, it appears that there is indeed a great deal of diversity in biology,

meaning many different types of analogies may be found to improve engineering designs,

and the likelihood of finding a relevant biological analogy for a particular problem is

high. However, it is unclear whether there is greater diversity in biology or engineering

and, hence, whether one is more likely to find a relevant analogy to a particular problem

in the population of accessible biological analogies or in the population of patents.

4.4 RELEVANCE: BIOLOGY SOLVES PROBLEMS ENGINEERS WOULD LIKE TO SOLVE.

At least 44 of 128 sources appeal to the archetypal claim that ‘biological systems

solve problems engineers would like to solve’ through statements such as: “[T]hrough

biological and biochemical systems, many of the same problems mankind faces have

been met and solved” in nature [74]; and “Natural systems often solve problems in

adequate, not optimal or maximal ways. However, even ‘adequate’ designs can be an

important and revolutionary source of inspiration for problems we are trying to solve”

[111]. Authors likewise admire a wide range of biological phenomena engineers have yet

to imitate, including “the low friction coefficients in many natural systems” [112]; “how

basilisk lizards walk on water … how penguins minimize drag… and how insects

manage to remain airborne” [113]; the adaptability, multifunctionality, and scalability of

biological materials, as well as “their unique combinations of stiffness and strength”

[105]; and “hydrophobicity, wind resistance, self-assembly, and harnessing solar energy”

[9], among many other features.

This archetypal claim may be one of the most oft-cited reasons for conducting

BID. At the beginning of this study, this claim was not recognized as being of interest

and instances of this claim were not always recorded. Hence, there are likely more than

44 quotes to this effect in the 128 sources studied.

40

The claim ‘Biology solves problems engineers would like to solve’ indeed

appears to hold true. The first part of this claim ‘Biology solves problems’ is essentially

the same as the claims ‘Biology works’ or ‘Biology performs functions’. It is clear that

biology does indeed successfully perform a vast array of functions. The overall

archetypal claim – that the solutions found in biology are of interest to engineers – is also

likely true, since the authors making this statement are frequently also practitioners of

BID. Through their existence, biological systems prove to engineers that it is possible to

perform a particular function and provide an example of a mechanism or problem-solving

approach that works.

Of course, the process by which one learns from biological examples to create a

design in engineering is not without difficulty; authors discuss challenges faced by

engineers because of their limited knowledge of biology [94,114], the need for a more

systematic method of BID [115], and difficulties arising from “copying nature” as

opposed to “using nature as inspiration” by using “its principles to invent far more

effective solutions” [69].

Ultimately it appears that biology does indeed solve a vast array of design

problems and that the design solutions found in biology are of interest to engineers,

despite the challenges engineers may face in trying to implement similar solutions in

engineering designs.

4.5 BIOLOGY SOLVES PROBLEMS DIFFERENTLY THAN ENGINEERING.

Seven out of 128 sources claim that biological systems solve problems differently

than engineering. Five sources make general statements, such as: “nature copes and

invents in a way fundamentally different from what we do” [116]; “evolution produced

sophisticated properties and structures which rarely overlap with methods and products made by

41

man” [117]; “when performing the same task as an organism, humans can often use very

different strategies, for example, aerofoil wings versus flapping wings to achieve flying”

[118]. Additionally, five sources give specific examples of differences between

engineering and biological solutions, such as: “We build dry and stiff structures; nature

mostly makes hers wet and flexible… Our engines expand or spin; hers contract or slide.

We fabricate large devices directly; nature’s large things are cunning proliferations of

tiny components” [116].

A limited amount of BID literature supports the claim that solutions in biology

and engineering are fundamentally different. For example, a study from Vincent et al.

[11] comparing the principles illustrated by problem solutions in biology and

engineering, found, using analysis from TRIZ, that there is only a 12% overlap in these

principles and that biological systems are more likely to solve problems using

information- and structure-based solutions, whereas problems encountered in technology

are typically solved though energy manipulation. Additionally, Vincent [71] generated a

plot showing the differences in the solutions found in biology and engineering at different

length scales, reproduced below. As can be seen from the visual differences in the two

charts in Figure 11, there appears to be a significant difference in the manner in which

problems are solved in biology and engineering.

42

Figure 11: “How problems are solved in (a) technology and in (b) biology, showing all

possible problems (vertical axis) and size range (horizontal axis). While

70% of the technical solutions involve manipulation of energy (amount,

source, type, etc.), the use and manipulation of information, from DNA to

pheromones is most important in biology” [71].

Of course, some sources appear to disagree with the claim that biology and

engineering have fundamentally different types of solutions, emphasizing instead the

similarities between biology and engineering. For instance, Nagel et al. state: “Biological

organisms operate in much the same way that engineered systems operate; each part or

piece in the overall system has an intended function. Function thus provides a common

ground” [119]. However, there is little, if any, evidence in biological and BID literature

43

refuting the empirical differences uncovered in the studies by Vincent and Vincent et al.,

discussed above.

If biological mechanisms truly differ fundamentally from those in engineering,

using biological analogies in ideation would give different results than ideation using

results from a patent search, potentially offering an advantage over just using analogies

found from patent search, or possibly even an advantage over patent-based analogies.

Currently, there is some authoritative literature from the BID community supporting the

claim that biology and engineering are fundamentally different, as discussed above, but

further work is needed to confirm these results and to see if this does indeed result in

further advantages for the BID process.

4.6 CONCLUSION

BID does indeed help designers generate novel ideas. There is significant

evidence indicating that using biological analogies in concept generation produces more

novel concepts than standard concept generation techniques. However, the same is true

for other design-by-analogy techniques, such as those that use patents as analogies. Some

evidence suggests that biological analogies may be less likely to prompt design fixation

than patents, but they may also be more difficult to understand and translate to a new

engineering design than information in patents.

It is also the case that biology contains many potential analogies. Ultimately,

biology does indeed have a very large number of accessible potential analogies to be used

in engineering, despite the fact that only a small percentage of existing species have been

discovered and studied. However, more potential analogies can be found in engineering

patents. Hence, the great number of potential analogies is a benefit of BID, but it is not an

advantage over existing design-by-analogy techniques using patents.

44

Additionally, according to the engineers who make this claim, biology contains

solutions relevant to the problems engineers want to solve.

Ultimately, it appears that there is indeed a great deal of diversity in biology,

meaning many different types of analogies may be found to improve engineering designs,

and the likelihood of finding a relevant biological analogy for a particular problem is

high. However, it is unclear whether there is greater diversity in biology or engineering

and, hence, whether one is more likely to find a relevant analogy to a particular problem

in the population of accessible biological analogies or in the population of patents.

Some preliminary evidence exists suggesting biological mechanisms differ

fundamentally from those in engineering. If true, this may represent an advantage of BID

over only using analogies found from patent search, or possibly even an advantage over

patent-based analogies. However, further work is needed to confirm these results and to

see if this does indeed result in advantages for BID.

45

Chapter 5: Optimization in Biology

38 sources reference the claim ‘Biology is optimized’ through statements such as:

“Nature solves complex real-world problems by maximizing fitness via natural selection.

We see the end product of this optimization in biological structure and function” [120];

“Evolution and natural selection has led to optimized and highly robust biological

systems” [62]; and “Generation of design in natural systems (geometry, pattern, form,

and texture) is a holistic phenomenon that synchronizes all design constituents toward an

overall optimized performance envelope” [121]. These sources also provide specific

examples of optimized biological systems, such as the magnetic properties in

magnetotactic bacteria [122], the nozzle diameter in the ‘combustion chamber’ for the

bombardier beetle [123], and the morphology of flying animals [124].

Quotations from accounts that referenced ‘optimization in biology’ were grouped

into three archetypal claims: (1) Biology is optimal; (2) Biology is optimized by

evolution via natural selection; and (3) Biology is optimized for efficiency – 21 sources.

Claims 1 and 2 are two different possible interpretations of statements related to

‘optimization in biology’ in general and are not associated with a corresponding

quotation count because it is often ambiguous which interpretation is best aligned with

the authors’ intent. These claims are depicted in the figure below.

Figure 12: Mindmap of optimization-related archetypal claims.

46

Additionally, a set of concepts related to optimization in biology were frequently

referenced: (1) Evolution – 37 sources, (2) Natural selection – 9 sources, (3) Evolution as

research and development – 3 sources, (4) Evolution as experimentation – 6 sources, (5)

Evolution as trial and error – 5 sources, (6) Evolution has been occurring longer than

engineers have been developing products – 4 sources, (7) Niches – 6 sources, (8)

Evolution over millions of years – 15 sources, (9) Evolution over billions of years – 25

sources, (10) ‘Fossils are failures’ – 8 sources, and (11) Biology is adaptable – 8 sources.

5.1 BIOLOGY IS OPTIMAL.

References to optimization in biology may mean ‘biology is optimal’ or

‘organisms are perfectly suited to their environment.’ The following quotations seem to

refer to optimization in biology in this sense: Biological “structures have evolved in

nature over eons to the level of seamless integration and perfection with which they serve

their functions” [125]; “The highly specific control of morphology, location, orientation

and crystallographic phase all indicate the existence of an optimized or ‘engineered’

substrate surface” [126]; and “The numerical simulations show that the nozzle diameter

in bombardier beetles appears to be at an optimum value” [123].

However, a number of sources in BID literature disagree. Bar-Cohen [69,127]

claims organisms do not necessarily exhibit optimal performance because they only need

to survive long enough to reproduce. Likewise, Ball [68] describes nature as “lean and, in

some sense, optimal” but makes it clear that biological organisms are not optimized from

an engineering perspective: “The complex of compromises that shape the fitness

landscape of evolution is likely to bear only incidental correspondences to that which

determines the contours of technological and economic viability.”

47

Upon inspection, it is evident that biological organisms are not perfect or

‘optimal’ for four reasons.

First, biological organisms are not ‘optimal’ because many organisms have

vestigial structures that have lost all or most of their historical function. “Vestigialization

begins when a trait is rendered nonfunctional, or becomes a selective liability outright,

due to shifts in the environment. The feature then atrophies over time” [128]. Examples

of vestigial structures include “simplified morphology of parasitic animals, reduced

number of digits in horses, loss of limbs in snakes, the vermiform appendix and coccyx

of humans, vestigial wings of flightless birds, eye and pigment loss of cave-dwelling

organisms” [128] and the hindlimbs in the ancient whale Basilosaurus [129]. Optimal

organisms would not possess functionless features.

Second, biology is not ‘optimal’ because mutations have not arisen to produce all

possible phenotypes, including those that would be extraordinarily beneficial. It is

apparent from studies of species morphology “that forms generated during evolution fall

into distinct, not continuous, classes” [130]. Consequently, traits that would increase

fitness may not be present, and it is not always possible for the evolutionary process to

arrive at the optimal solution. For example, “In the seedcracker, bills of a particular size

have a genetic basis. In experimental crosses between two birds with the two optimal bill

sizes, all offspring had a bill of one size or the other, nothing in between” [131]. If a mid-

size bill were optimal in some environment, the seedcracker as it currently is would not

be able to evolve to be optimal because the genes to produce the optimal phenotype are

not possible. An optimal organism would have the best of all possible features, which

existing organisms do not have.

Third, biology is not ‘optimal’ because not all combinations of traits are possible,

including desirable ones. In some cases, this is because some traits share development

48

pathways that cause them to be inherited together [132]. For instance, “[i]n several

species of poeciliid fish… the process of maturation is governed by an endocrine

pathway that reduces growth rate as it accelerates sexual development,” meaning “the

genetic variation for the combination of large size and rapid maturation is not

immediately available” [132]. In other cases, not all combinations of traits are possible

because of the physical realities of the existing organism. For instance, in a section titled

“Why Natural Selection Cannot Fashion Perfect Organisms” Campbell and Reece state:

“[N]ature abounds with organisms that seem to be less than ideally ‘engineered’ for their

lifestyles”; they provide the example of bird species that might benefit from having four

legs instead of just two, which is not possible because the two limbs evolved to be wings,

leaving only two limbs to remain as legs [133]. An optimal organism would have the best

of all possible combinations of features, which existing organisms do not have.

Finally, biology is not ‘optimal’ because the environment is constantly changing,

making it impossible for biological organisms to be perfectly suited for their environment

at all times. Unlike an engineering optimization problem with a fixed set of constraints

and a fixed global optimum, the environment in the biological world is constantly

changing. Consequently, what qualifies as ‘the optimum’ in biology is a “moving target”

[134], and ‘the fittest’ individuals are “those best adapted to existing conditions at a

particular historical moment in a specific environmental context” [135]. Hence, while

natural selection processes may ‘optimize’ biology, as discussed in the following section,

and favor a particular trait at one point in time, it can later ‘optimize’ and disfavor that

same trait in the same population, solely in response to changing environmental

conditions. Accordingly, if the evolutionary process is one of optimization, there is no

fixed goal to the process, and hence there is no single global optimum to approach. If the

environment were unchanging over many generations, perhaps organisms would begin to

49

approach the ‘optimum’ associated with that environment, but this type of optimization is

not possible in a changing environment. An ‘optimal’ organism should be optimal for all

time, not just ‘optimal’ today and ‘non-optimal’ tomorrow; this is not possible in a

changing environment.

Despite some examples of well-adapted organisms cited in the literature,

biological organisms are not optimal, or perfectly adapted to their environments, because

many have features that evolved historically but no longer serve a purpose, while others

lack traits or combinations of traits that would be beneficial. Additionally, the

environment is constantly changing, making it impossible for biological organisms to be

perfectly suited for their environment at all times.

5.2 BIOLOGY IS OPTIMIZED BY EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION.

Alternatively, references to ‘biology is optimized’ can also mean ‘biology is

subject to an optimization process.’ This appears to be the meaning in the following

quotations: “Nature solves complex real-world problems by maximizing fitness via

natural selection. We see the end product of this optimization in biological structure and

function” [120]; biological “approaches have been tested and improved upon for millions

of years; they are continuously being optimized with respect to their function and

environment” [112]; and “flyers in nature have been subjected to strong selection for

optimum morphology” [124].

Authors in the BID community generally agree that the only optimization process

in biology is evolution or, more specifically, evolution via natural selection. 37 out of 128

sources directly reference ‘evolution,’ and 9 reference ‘natural selection’ in their account

of BID; no sources consulted suggest that biology is optimized by another process. While

‘evolution’ does not imply optimization – “evolution simply means heritable change in a

50

line of descent” [131] – natural selection is associated with optimization and adaptation

[133].

5.2.1 Metaphors for ‘Evolution’ in BID Literature

BID authors commonly use three metaphors for evolution via natural selection:

‘research and development’ (R&D) – 3 sources; ‘experimentation’ – 6 sources; and ‘trial

and error’ – 5 sources. They liken these three concepts to evolution through statements

such as: “After 3.8 billion years of research and development, failures are fossils, and

what surrounds us is the secret to survival.” [21]; “After billions of years of trial and error

experiments, which turn failures to fossils, nature has created an enormous pool of

effective solutions” [69]; and “Through the course of 3.8 billion years, nature has gone

through a process of trial and error to refine the living organisms, process, and materials

on planet Earth” [9].

Upon inspection, it does not appear that R&D and experimentation are apt

metaphors for evolution. Ball [68] appropriately remarks:

It would be foolish to assume that natural selection stands proxy for the testing

laboratory or the market, refining a design in just those ways that a new product

demands. The complex of compromises that shape the fitness landscape of

evolution is likely to bear only incidental correspondences with that which

determines the contours of technological and economic viability.

When examined more closely, it is evident that there are substantial and fundamental

differences between the conscious, intentional, goal-oriented processes of R&D and

experimentation and the mechanistic, agent-less, goal-less process of evolution.

These inaccurate metaphors for the evolutionary process prove problematic and

cause authors to draw false conclusions. For instance, four sources claim that biological

analogies are useful because ‘biology has been evolving much longer than humans have

been researching solutions to similar problems.’ Richter and Grunwald [136] claim:

51

“Nature has been developing adhesives for millions of years, mankind for just a few

thousand years. For this reason it is worth having a closer look at what nature does and

how we can develop bio-inspired adhesives for technical and medical applications.” Ball

[68] also states: “[S]everal thousand good engineering heads cannot compete with the

billions of years that evolution has had to experiment, select and refine.” If evolution

were comparable to R&D or experimentation in an engineering context, this argument

makes sense: certainly 3.8 billion years of R&D should have resulted in fabulous designs,

compared to the few hundred thousand years of R&D that could have been undertaken

since the dawn of humanity. Unfortunately, of course, the process by which organisms

evolve in nature and the process by which products are developed are in no way

equivalent and, in fact, are totally and fundamentally different, so the argument does not

hold. Evolution via natural selection does not optimize biological organisms the same

way (or at the same speed) engineers optimize products through R&D or

experimentation.

To distance themselves from the notion that evolution is an intentional process,

five authors instead use the metaphor of ‘trial and error’ for evolution. Yen et al. [137]

pointedly choose this metaphor “to make plain that differences between intentional

design to produce a desired function and the unintentional, trial-and-error process of

evolution.” The notion that evolution is trial and error could be appropriate if one sees

‘errors’ as mutations or traits that prove disadvantageous to a particular organism in a

specific time period and environment.

In all cases, however, these metaphors for evolution lack the scientific detail

necessary to clearly define the ways in which the evolutionary process does and does not

optimize biology. Hence, a detailed discussion of evolution via natural selection is

necessary.

52

5.2.2 Evolution via natural selection optimizes populations.

Evolution via natural selection ‘optimizes’ or ‘adapts’ populations to their

environments. Through natural selection, the fittest individuals in a population, those best

suited for their environment, are most likely to survive and reproduce, causing traits that

confer higher fitness to become more common.

Natural selection adapts populations to particular ecological niches. “The general

idea of ‘niche’ refers to the ecological conditions that a species requires to maintain

populations in a given region, together with the impacts that the species has on its

resources, other interacting species, habitat, and environment” [138]. Ecological niches

are characterized by the dynamic effects between resources and consumers – by both the

“environmental factors” that “allow a species to exist in a given geographic region or in a

given biotic community” and the “effects… the species” has “on those environmental

factors” [138]. Different ecological niches place different demands on the same species,

meaning that the fittest set of traits for a particular species likely differ between

populations in different niches that face different environmental challenges. Six sources

reference ‘niches’ in their accounts of BID.

Additionally, populations become ‘optimized for’ or ‘adapted to’ their ecological

niches via natural selection operating on the relative fitness of different organisms within

the population. This means that the fitness of an organism as a whole – with the effects of

all traits and combinations of traits – is optimized, not the engineering-related

performance characteristics of traits of interest to engineers.

A wide range of authors agree that the fitness of an organism as a whole is

selected for, not the beneficial features of a particular trait. Gunderson and Schiavone

[139] state that it is the way an organism as a whole operates – not any one particular

system within the organism – that makes it successful. Ball [68] suggests it may not be

53

possible or practical to try to isolate a desirable biological feature from the organism that

possesses it. Campbell and Reece [133] discuss adaptations as compromises between

conflicting needs and show that biological organisms face multiple conflicting objectives;

for instance, humans’ prehensile hands and flexible limbs allow us to be more agile and

athletic, but also open us to the threat of ligament injury.

These compromises between conflicting needs can be observed through the many

types of natural selection that operate in biology – including gene selection, kin selection,

frequency-dependent selection, and sexual selection – which proceed via different

mechanisms and affect populations in different ways. In some cases, features favored by

one selection process prove disadvantageous in another process. For instance, the bright

plumage found in male peacocks is selected for through intersexual selection, but it is

costly [140] because it may increase the risk of being eaten by predators and consumes a

significant amount of energy to produce and carry [141]. Additionally, Schluter et al.

[142] discuss opposing selection, where fitness is both enhanced and reduced by the same

trait at different life history stages. One example of opposing selection occurs in the

medium ground finch where “survival selection favors small size in young birds but large

size in adults” [143].

Since evolution via natural selection is a multi-objective optimization process,

where many conflicting needs of an organism are optimized together, an ‘optimized’

kingfisher, for instance, would not have an optimized beak shape, but would instead have

all its features – its organ function, reproduction, behavior, and its beak shape, among

millions of other traits – optimized collectively. Some of these traits have little relevance

to engineering parameters. For instance, features that arise via intersexual selection to

make an individual more appealing to members of the opposite sex are unlikely to be

relevant to engineering.

54

Engineers frequently fail to recognize that optimization in biology has multiple

objectives, and they are unlikely to think about the factors being optimized besides the

engineering parameter of interest to them. For instance, Helms et al. [144] observed that a

common error undergraduates make when conducting BID is to oversimplify

optimization problems: “For example, designers viewed the structure of moss as a surface

area optimization problem for gathering sunlight, while ignoring protection and water

preservation requirements of the plant.”

Hence, evolution via natural selection optimizes populations in the sense that it

causes populations to become better adapted to their unique environmental conditions.

This process optimizes the fitness of organisms as a whole, including many different

objectives related to survival and reproduction, which are reflected in the many types of

selection pressures populations experience. Consequently, individual traits are unlikely to

be optimized for engineering parameters.

5.2.3 Factors that Impede Optimization via Natural Selection

However, evolution involves a number of factors that steer populations away from

‘optimized’ fitness by natural selection. Lynch [145] draws attention to the existence of

these non-adaptive forces in biology:

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually

every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has

become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and

population-genetic theory.

Many of the same factors make it challenging to positively identify optimization of a

population via natural selection when and if it is occurring because they cause non-

beneficial alleles to rise in prevalence. Hence, one cannot claim that a trait is becoming

‘optimized’ in a population simply because the alleles are becoming increasingly

55

prevalent. Below, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutations – particularly the mechanisms

of biased mutation, gene conversion, genetic hitchhiking, and large mutations – will be

discussed in this context of countering optimization by natural selection and/or making it

more difficult to identify true adaptations when they occur.

Genetic drift both counters natural selection and makes it more difficult to

identify true adaptive evolution. Genetic drift is a process whereby the frequencies of

genetic variants fluctuate randomly over generations, “sometimes causing an initially rare

variant to become established (fixed) in a species” [146]. Genetic drift can ultimately

counter optimization via natural selection: “[B]y magnifying the role of chance, genetic

drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly

deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations” [145]. It

can also “overwhelm selection” under conditions where the effective population size is

low and selection is sufficiently weak [147]. Because of genetic drift, the observation that

a particular trait has become prevalent in a population does not necessarily mean that the

population is becoming optimized for this trait; it may just be a result of random factors.

This is especially true in small populations, where genetic drift has the largest effect.

Gene flow describes the flow of genes between otherwise separated populations

through mating. Consequently, gene flow “helps keep separated populations genetically

similar” [131], meaning it counteracts any sort of ‘optimization’ arising via natural

selection to make either population better suited for its unique environmental conditions.

While mutations introduce the genetic diversity that enables natural selection to

optimize traits, they also typically lead populations away from the ‘optimum’ introduced

via natural selection. Mutations typically have a negative effect on organisms; “a single

mutational change is about as likely to improve the genome as blindly firing a gunshot

through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance” [133]. If a population

56

were, at some point, composed of only individuals possessing the global optimum of a

particular trait, mutations in the offspring of this optimized population would appear, de-

optimizing the population.

“[G]enome composition is governed by biases in mutation and gene conversion”

[145], meaning biases in mutation and gene conversion can have a significant effect on

the traits arising within a population. Biased mutations can change the direction of

evolution, not because that direction of change is better than any other, but because there

are more likely to be mutations – and hence, more likely to be favorable mutations – in

that direction. Stoltzfus and Yampolsky [148] explain how mutation bias is a source of

nonrandomness in evolution, imposing “predictable biases on evolution.” Biased gene

conversion can have a similar effect; “[b]iased gene conversion is a process by which a

heterozygote is converted into a homozygote during recombination; this is often biased in

favour of one of the two alleles, resulting in one allele being driven through the

population” [149]. In both biased mutation and gene conversion, alleles are become more

prevalent in a population as a result of chemical or molecular properties of the genome

itself.

Genetic hitchhiking can cause unfavorable traits to become fixed in a population

because these traits are associated with other, more favorable, mutations. Genetic

hitchhiking occurs when a “favourable mutation arises, and increases to fixation,” giving

“a fortuitous advantage to all the genes with which it was originally associated” [150]. In

some cases, the associated genes can also become fixated in the population. Larger

populations are more likely to experience beneficial mutations and are consequently also

more likely to experience the effects of genetic hitchhiking [151]. “[T]he level of

recombination… influences the sensitivity of a locus to spurious hitch-hiking effects”

[145].

57

In addition, large and otherwise beneficial mutations leading to ‘optimization’ of

a population from an engineering perspective frequently cannot remain in the population

due to biological constraints. Organisms with mutations that result in a drastic change in

the organism often prove lethal or prevent the organism from reproducing [131]. BID

authors, Knippers et al. [152] make reference to this point when they note that the

structures organisms have inherited “and the fact that living beings have to ‘function’

successfully during all phases of evolution confine the potential of natural selection as an

optimizing agent.” Additionally, Vincent [86] states that biological organisms are

unlikely to be able to find global optima via the evolutionary process, except in cases

where environmental factors force temporary de-optimization of organisms away from a

local optimum. This is because mutations that cause major phenotypic differences from

the local optimum are unlikely to survive and reproduce, and small mutations that cause

slight phenotypic differences from the local optima are likely to prove inferior to the local

optima, making them less likely to remain in the population.

Accordingly, evolution via natural selection is an optimization process in the

sense that when selection pressures dominate the other factors that affect evolution – the

rate of gene flow and mutation – a population should be becoming increasingly better

suited to its environment with each successive generation. However, if there is not strong

selection pressure for a particular trait, or if the rates of the other factors are high, this

will not be the case. Likewise, biological realities dictate that large mutations, which

might otherwise be beneficial from an engineering perspective, are rarely viable,

impeding biology’s optimization from an engineering perspective.

58

5.2.4 Macroevolution: Speciation and Extinction in the Context of Optimization

To this point in the chapter, evolution via natural selection has been discussed

only in the context of “adaptive modifications within populations over time,” or

microevolution [153]. Microevolution is presumably what most BID authors have in

mind when discussing optimization in biology when they mention features that evolved

in biology with enviable performance characteristics or ‘evolution over millions of

years.’ 15 sources mention ‘evolution over millions of years’ in their accounts of BID.

However, a subset of BID authors appear to refer to macroevolution, which

involves “speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the

species level” [153] and occurs on geologic time scales. Presumably, the 25 BID

accounts discussing the “3.8 billion years of evolution” [21] and “evolution by natural

selection over the past few billion years” [116] refer to macroevolution. Authors also

likely discuss macroevolution when they make statements such as “failures are fossils”

[21] and “the experiment in the evolution of mega-scale terrestrial biology failed… [it]

ended with the extinction the prehistoric mega-creatures (e.g. dinosaurs and mammoths)”

[69]. Eight sources contain quotations to this effect that state or imply that extinct

species are “failures” [21,69], “unsustainable” [28,154], unsuccessful [24,155], poorly

adapted [156], and not adaptable to other environments [154].

The types of characteristics that would evolve via natural selection acting over

billions of years are likely related to the ability of organisms to survive environmental

change and adapt quickly to new environments. 8 BID sources reference ‘adaptability in

biology,’ possibly referring to the evolution of an enhanced ability to adapt to different

environments. An organism’s ability to adapt involves how robust it is to different

environments, how phenotypically plastic it is, and the rates of mutation experienced by

59

the organism. Each of these characteristics and the likelihood that it could arise via

natural selection will be discussed in detail below.

First, it is possible that natural selection over 3.8 billion years would select for

hearty organisms, capable of living as-is in a wide range of environments. Indeed, work

from Payne and Finnegan [157] shows that “geographic range is likely the most

consistently significant predictor of extinction risk in the marine fossil record” for the

Phanerozoic era, with a wide geographic range “significantly and positively associated

with survivorship.” If organisms live over a broad geographic range they are likely to

have the ability to survive in many different environmental conditions, meaning that

many types of small environmental changes are unlikely to devastate their populations, as

they are already environmentally flexible. Additionally, a wide geographic range makes it

more likely that localized environmental changes that might prompt the death of all

affected members of the species are less likely to cause the extinction of the species,

because it reduces the chance that all members of a species will be affected.

Second, evolution over billions of years could have selected for phenotypically

plastic organisms, those that have genotypes that are able to change phenotype as a result

of environmental conditions. In some sense, selection for phenotypic plasticity could be

considered the optimization of “the way in which an individual responds to

environmental influences” [158]. Agrawal [159] maintains that “[t]he evolution of

adaptive phenotypic plasticity has led to the success of organisms in novel habitats,

and… phenotypic responses in species interactions represent modifications that can lead

to… expanded evolutionary potential of species.” However, there is disagreement in the

field regarding the overall effect of phenotypic plasticity and “its role in adaptive

evolution” [158].

60

Third, evolution via natural selection over billions of years may select for blood

lines capable of mutating rapidly to meet changing environmental conditions. For

instance, “Galápagos finches can evolve a 10% change in average body size or bill size in

a population in a single year in response to either droughts or heavy rainfall” [132]. The

evolvability of a biological organism is related to how easily “natural selection directly

advanc[es] features of genomic architecture, genetic networks, and developmental

pathways to promote the future ability of a species to adaptively evolve” [145]. One

component of evolvability could be selection for mutation rate, with populations with

high rates of viable mutations more likely to survive environmental change. Hodgkinson

and Eyre-Walker [149] explain the factors that contribute to whether there will be

selection for the mutation rate – effective population size, current mutation rate, the

degree to which the mutation rate changes, “the number of affected sites and the average

effect of a mutation.” They show that there does not appear to be selection on the

mutation rate in humans and that “[T]he evidence that some genomic regions have been

selected for high or low mutation rates is weak” [149]. Additionally, the existence of

evolvability is controversial, and some authors, including Lynch [145], argue that it is a

myth.

Regardless of the doubts regarding the existence of optimization via

macroevolution, even if this type of optimization does exist, it is unlikely to be applicable

directly to engineering design. Engineers might be able to learn from biology how to

develop mechanisms that can operate in many different types of terrain or different

temperature ranges, as the ‘robust’ or ‘hearty’ organisms do. However, while it would be

wonderful if engineers could also learn how to make functionally plastic designs or more

evolvable designs from biology, the reality is that biology’s mechanism for doing this –

genetic mechanisms operating over many generations – is not relevant to mechanical

61

engineering design. As the human-engineered designs of interest here are not made of

DNA and do not reproduce, the mechanisms of genetics to generate adaptable designs are

not relevant.

‘Fossils are failures’ may hold true in the sense that extinct organisms may not

have been sufficiently robust, sufficiently phenotypically plastic, or had sufficiently-high

mutation rates for any of their descendents to survive in a changed environment.

However, upon inspection it does not seem appropriate to think of all, or any, extinct

species as ‘errors’ or ‘failures’ from an engineering perspective. First, many reasons

unrelated to biological fitness may cause a species to go extinct. For instance, Bar-Cohen

[69] notes:

[T]he extinction of a species is not necessarily the result of a failed solution; it can

be the result of outside influences, such as significant changes in climate, the

impact of asteroids, volcanic activity, and other conditions that seriously affect

the ability of specific creatures to survive.

Reznick and Ricklefs [153] provide similar reasons as the cause of mass extinctions:

“Mass extinctions have external causes, including bolide (large crater-forming projectile)

impacts, major tectonic events, and climate change.” One can hardly call a species that

goes extinct as a result of an unlucky proximity to an asteroid impact or volcanic activity

an ‘error’ on the part of biology. From an engineering perspective, it seems that any

physical system that was once viable in biology has potential to be of interest to

engineers. There is no reason to think that the beak profile of the kingfisher has anything

more to give engineering than the beak profile of a pterosaur, for instance, simply by

virtue of the fact that kingfishers are alive today. Hence, it does not appear that

optimization through macroevolution via natural selection has direct applications in

engineering design the way the microevolution via natural selection does.

62

On the scale of billions of years, macroevolution via natural selection may occur,

optimizing populations to produce hearty organisms capable of surviving in many

different environments, phenotypically plastic organisms, or organisms that are highly

evolvable and have high rates of positive mutations. However, these types of

optimization frequently prove controversial in biological literature. Additionally, it is

unclear how optimization for these favorable genetic processes could be applied to

engineering design.

5.3 BIOLOGY IS OPTIMIZED FOR EFFICIENCY.

21 sources refer to the archetypal claim ‘Biology is optimized for efficiency’,

through statements such as: “Biomimicry refers to the process of using nature’s efficient

design solutions to inspire engineering innovations” [62]; “The evolution of nature led to

the introduction of highly effective and power efficient biological mechanisms” [69];

“Biological materials are produced by self-assembly… in a way that costs minimal

energy” [155]; and “during ~ 3.4 billion years of fierce evolutionary competition nature

has refined energy conversion efficiency” [24].

Because biological organisms have many characteristics that are optimized

together, as discussed above, it is unlikely any specific energy- or materials-related

characteristic is optimized for efficiency from an engineering standpoint. Hambourger

[70] makes a similar point: “[T]hroughout evolutionary history, nature has always

selected the most reproductively fit individuals, not necessarily those with the attributes

most readily adapted to fulfilling human energy needs.”

Efficiency is, however, one of many factors potentially being selected for in

natural selection: “As fitness-related traits are often energetically costly, selection should

also act directly on the energetics of individuals” [160]. A number of authors claim that

63

selection pressure related to energy consumption is present, along with other important

factors, for specific biological systems. For instance, Sengupta et al. [161] “argue that

natural selection for energy-efficiency could help explain both the shape of the action

potential and the underlying biophysics of ionic currents” in mammalian brains. Fong et

al. [128] discuss eye and pigment reduction in cave animals as being the result of “energy

economy in resource-poor environments” and the “flightlessness in some island-dwelling

birds” as occurring as a result of a drive toward metabolic efficiency. Niven and Laughlin

[162] discuss the tradeoffs between the fitness benefits associated with sensory

information and the energetic costs associated with sensory-related muscle- and neural-

energy consumption. Ruxton and Wilkinson [163] maintain that sauropod dinosaurs

would have benefitted energetically from the elongation of their necks, allowing them to

access higher and lower foliage without needing to move their large bodies, but that these

energetic benefits would have been countered by other factors, such as “mechanical

aspects of the support and control of a long structure – or breathing considerations” that

would have countered the energetic benefits at some optimum neck length.

However, efficiency is not always an important factor in selection, and sometimes

organisms actually have a higher fitness because they are inefficient. For example, Barber

[164] maintains that on a global scale, there is low selection pressure promoting energy

efficiency in photosynthesis because the raw materials needed for photosynthesis,

including sunlight, “are available in almost unlimited amounts,” and as a result,

photosynthetic efficiencies are low, rarely exceeding 1 or 2%. Additionally, Boratynski et

al. [160] found that for female bank voles, internal energy efficiency – or a low metabolic

rate – actually reduces fitness levels and increases the likelihood that the voles will die

during the long Finnish winter.

64

Consequently, when analyzed on a case-by-case basis, it quickly becomes

apparent that no generalization can easily be made regarding the selection pressure that

energy consumption applies to organisms. Many organisms are optimized by natural

selection to be efficient, while others are selected to be inefficient.

5.4 CONCLUSION

Although many examples of well-adapted biological organisms exist, organisms

are not perfectly adapted or ‘optimal’ for their environments. Organisms frequently have

features that serve no purpose, and they lack features and combinations of features that

would be highly beneficial to them. Also, since the environment is constantly changing, it

is not possible for organisms to be perfectly adapted to their environments at all times.

All biological organisms are subject to evolution via natural selection, an

optimization process that helps organisms become better suited to their environment. In

some cases, this can be of engineering significance, when the traits being selected for are

aimed at reducing energy consumption or performing a function engineers find

interesting. However, evolution via natural selection maximizes the fitness of the

organism as a whole; it does not optimize solely the specific performance characteristics

of interest to engineers. Additionally, optimization via natural selection is countered by

other evolutionary processes, such as mutation and genetic drift, that introduce diversity

into populations. These processes also make it difficult to identify instances where the

increasing prevalence of a trait in a population occurs as a result of natural selection.

Finally, on a geologic time scale, macroevolution via natural selection occurs, possibly

selecting for highly evolvable and adaptable blood lines capable of rapidly adapting to

and surviving in changing environmental conditions. However, selection for these

65

characteristics is controversial, and these types of traits are much less likely to have

applications in the design of improved engineering systems.

Additionally, there is evidence that there is selection pressure, and hence

optimization, for efficiency in a number of organisms and conditions, although this is not

always the case.

66

Chapter 6: Sustainability-Related Benefits

53 out of 128 sources reference ‘sustainability in biology’ through statements

such as: “Taking a biologically inspired approach, one abstracts ideas from nature, a

sustainable system” [43]; “Emulation of the inherently sustainable living world through

biomimetic design potentially offers one approach to creating sustainable or, at least, less

unsustainable products” [28]; “Biological organisms, phenomena, and strategies…

provide insight into sustainable and adaptable design” [119]. Some authors acknowledge

that their beliefs that biology is sustainable are not proven. For instance, Vincent [71]

states: “I make a single assumption: the biological system that we inherited on this planet

is the paradigm for sustainability.”

Quotations from accounts that referenced ‘sustainability in biology’ were grouped

into three archetypal claims: (1) Biology has withstood the test of time – 9 sources; (2)

Biology is environmentally sustainable (in general) – 9 sources; and (3) Biology has

specific environmental advantages – 51 sources. The third archetypal claim is broken into

7 subsections, for each life cycle stage referenced: (3a) Biological organisms use

renewable and abundant inputs – 9 sources; (3b) Biological materials are nontoxic – 2

sources; (3c) Biological organisms employ sustainable manufacturing processes – 15

sources; (3d) Biological organisms do not pollute – 5 sources; (3e) Materials in biology

are recycled – 9 sources; (3f) Biological organisms are resistant to damage – 9 sources;

and (3g) Biology is efficient – 42 sources. These claims and sub-claims are all depicted in

the figure below.

67

Figure 13: All archetypal claims and sub-claims related to sustainability. The lower-level

claims related to ‘Biology has a small environmental impact’ are not

included in the diagram shown in the methodology section.

6.1 BIOLOGY HAS WITHSTOOD THE TEST OF TIME.

A number of authors define sustainability in the biological world as being related

to life’s ability to endure [28] and persist [43] over billions of years. Nine sources state

that biology is sustainable in this sense, and either reference the ‘lasting’ solutions in

biology or the fact that biology has ‘withstood the test of time.’

The archetypal claim ‘Biology has withstood the test of time’ holds true when

examined more closely; life has indeed persisted for billions of years. Biological

organisms’ ability to collectively survive and remain on earth for such an extended period

of time indicates that biology has the ability to sustain itself. Given the great diversity of

life forms on the planet adapted to a wide range of environments, life is likely to continue

to do so.

However, many biological characteristics have changed significantly since the

first organisms. Over the last 3.8 billion years, the environment has changed dramatically,

68

and the types of biological systems that inhabit the earth have likewise changed. Life as a

whole has endured over this time period, but individual species for the most part have

not. While it appears that there have been long periods of stasis in biology [145] where

species remain relatively unchanged for millions of years [165], few of the organisms that

currently exist – or the characteristics of these organisms – have truly withstood the test

of the last billion years and have remained unchanged over this time period. The

macroscopic traits of plants and animals frequently used as analogies in BID are far from

the traits possessed by single-celled organisms billions of years ago.

Hence, if using biological analogies that have ‘withstood the test of time’ is truly

critical for sustainable design (or BID in general), then perhaps only those characteristics

shared by the first organisms that have truly persisted over these 3.8 billion years should

be the focus of biological analogies. For instance, the molecular components of

organisms – the genetic code and some metabolic pathways – are shared by a diverse

range of organisms [166]. However, even the DNA recombination processes have

changed, for instance, through sexual reproduction and the possible evolution of

evolvability, discussed in Chapter 5.

Additionally, it is incorrect to connect ‘withstanding the test of time’ to ‘having a

small environmental impact.’ Doing so would be committing the logical fallacy of

equivocation. Equivocation is a “verbal sleight of hand” where the argument shifts

“between two senses of a word or expression” [167] and “the force of an argument

depends on such shifts of meaning” [168]. The use of fallacious arguments using

different definitions of the word ‘sustainability’ can lead authors to mistakenly conclude

that BIDs are better for the environment than alternatives. For example, a very simple

fallacious argument along these lines could be constructed as follows:

69

1. Biological systems are sustainable; life has survived over 3.8 billion years and

has withstood the test of time.

2. Systems that are sustainable have a low environmental impact.

ergo, 3. Biological systems have a low environmental impact.

Because environmental sustainability in this context means having a small environmental

impact, and this is not directly related to ‘withstanding the test of time,’ there is no reason

to surmise that biology has a low environmental impact from the fact that it has withstood

the test of time.

In conclusion, some biological organisms and features have ‘withstood the test of

time’ and have remained essentially unchanged for billions of years. However, this is

likely to represent only a small fraction of all potential analogies that could be used from

biology. Additionally, thinking of sustainability in terms of ‘withstanding the test of time’

in this way is wholly unrelated to environmental impact; there is no reason to think that

imitating a biological system that has remained unchanged for billions of years is any

more likely to produce a concept with a smaller environmental impact than a biological

feature that just evolved.

6.2 BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE.

Nine sources refer to the archetypal claim ‘biology is environmentally

sustainable,’ which is taken to mean: ‘biological organisms have a positive environmental

impact,’ ‘biological organisms are unlikely to have a negative environmental impact,’ or

‘biological organisms have no environmental impact’. The analysis of this archetypal

claim is divided into two sections, the first looking at human-related environmental

impacts and the second dealing with non-human related environmental impacts.

70

6.2.1 Human-Related Environmental Impact

The introduction, preservation, or flourishing of biological organisms is

frequently seen as having a positive environmental impact. For instance, the preservation

of endangered species, such as the manatee, is typically regarded as ‘good for the

environment.’ Tree planting and forest preservation is seen as part of many carbon

control strategies in the face of climate change [169] and can even earn carbon credits

under the Kyoto Protocol [170]. These examples may lead one to believe that the

flourishing of biological systems, in general, is good for the environment.

However, organisms used as natural resources by humans are commonly seen as

having a negative environmental impact. Many biological systems that serve as resources

for humans have had their life cycle environmental impacts studied, including intensive,

extensified and organic grassland farming [171]; fish farms for rainbow trout, sea-bass,

and turbot [172]; and production systems for dairy [173]; red meat [174]; corn grain and

corn stover [175]; ethanol from corn, switchgrass, and wood; and biodiesel from

soybeans, sunflowers [176], and microalgae [177]. These analyses make it clear that

biological organisms used as natural resources can have a negative environmental impact.

As was discussed in the section on environmental ethics in Chapter 2, biological

systems include ‘non-desirable’ organisms that are threatening to humans and,

consequently, their destruction can be seen as ‘good for the environment.’ For instance,

the proliferation of parasites, bacteria, and viruses harmful to humans is typically viewed

negatively and could certainly be considered ‘bad for the human environment.’ Jolliet et

al. [51] likewise observe: “Growth of populations is generally seen as a benefit in the

case of species with a historical trend towards extinction, whilst growth of invasive,

ubiquitous species can be seen as a damage.”

71

Invasive species are another type of ‘non-desirable’ organism that is frequently

considered to have a negative environmental impact. Although invasive species are not

necessarily harmful [178,179], they frequently are regarded as having “negative impacts

on the environment, human activities or human health” [179], “[n]egative interactions”

with native species [180], as causing “economic or environmental damage” [3], and as

being “aggressive” [178], particularly when the invasion is caused by human activity. For

instance, Pimentel et al. [181] estimate that “[i]nvading alien species in the United States

cause major environmental damages and losses adding up to almost $120 billion per

year.” Additionally, because invasive species frequently have traits that make them better

suited to an environment than native species, they can prevent native species from

accessing resources, changing the established ecosystem dynamics with potentially

disastrous consequences. Consequently, invasive species “pose major threats to

biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, agriculture, fisheries, and public health” [179] and have

caused “a massive biotic homogenization of the Earth’s surface” with “consequent

devastation of the endemic biota of specific regions” [178]. In fact, estimates indicate

that “42% of the species on the Threatened or Endangered species lists are at risk

primarily because of alien-invasive species” [181].

Hence, the removal or destruction of invasive species is seen as being ‘good’ for

the environment, the presence of invasive species is considered ‘bad’, and both are

accounted for in LCAs. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity states

that contracting parties should “[p]revent the introduction of, control or eradicate those

alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species” [54] to prevent further

environmental damage. For example, the Australian government may award carbon

credits to those who kill feral camels, because camels are responsible for significant

damage to native animal and plant species and are responsible for carbon emissions

72

[182,183]. Additionally, Jolliet et al. [51] discuss how invasive species can be considered

a damage indicator in LCA if the invasion is caused by humans.

Consequently, it is clear that the proliferation of biological organisms in the

context of human activity is not inherently or necessarily good for the environment. The

preservation of ecological diversity is typically viewed as inherently good, as is the

proliferation and protection of carbon-capturing species in the face of climate change.

However, there are a number of organisms typically considered inherently bad – such as

organisms that cause disease in humans – and their destruction is viewed as having a

positive environmental impact. Many other organisms are considered bad in particular

contexts; invasive species, for instance, can wreak environmental havoc on the

ecosystems they invade.

6.2.2 Environmental Impact of Biology Unrelated to Humans

While it is uncommon to conduct an LCA on organisms in the wild, some wild

organisms, particularly those referred to as ‘ecosystem engineers’ are frequently regarded

by biologists as having significant environmental impacts. Ecosystem engineers

physically change the environment “through their behavior or by virtue of their large

collective biomass” [133]. They affect “the availability of resources to other species”

[184] and “modify, maintain and create habitats” [8]. For instance, corals and trees

change the environment through the presence of their physical structures, whereas

woodpeckers and beavers affect the environment though the changes they make to

materials [8].

Jones et al. [8] define the scale of the environmental impact of ecosystem

engineers in terms of six factors:

(i) Life time per capita activity of individual organisms.

(ii) Population density.

(iii) The spatial distribution, both locally and regionally, of the population.

73

(iv) The length of time the population has been present at a site.

(v) The durability of constructs, artifacts and impacts in the absence of the

original engineer.

(vi) The number and types of resource flows that are modulated by the constructs

and artifacts, and the number of other species dependent upon these flows. [8]

The environmental impact of ecosystem engineers can be both positive and negative,

where positive impacts enhance “species richness and abundance” and negative impacts

reduce these traits [185]. “For example, by modifying soils, the black rush Juncus gerardi

increases species richness in some zones of New England salt marshes” [133], meaning

its impact would be considered to be positive.

Beavers, for instance, create habitats for some species while initiating

environmental changes that destroy habitats of others [185]. However, Jones et al. argue

that on a larger scale, the addition of a beaver-engineered habitat results “in a net increase

in the number of habitat types, space, and resources for other species,” allowing a greater

diversity of species to be supported in the same area [185] and that a similar

environmental benefit will be seen in most other cases of ecosystem engineering.

Some organisms besides humans have had a significant and lasting impact on the

global environment [8,131]. For instance, “early photosynthetic prokaryotes… introduced

oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere”, allowing for the formation of the ozone layer and

totally changing the global environment [99]. Additionally, “the production of the

‘greenhouse’ gas methane” by sauropod megaherbivores during digestion “could have

been significant in sustaining warm climates” during the Mesozoic Era [186].

Hence, biological organisms in the wild can also have significant environmental

impacts. These impacts can be both positive and negative, where positive impacts

enhance, and negative impacts reduce, the richness and abundance of species.

74

6.3 BIOLOGY HAS SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES.

51 sources claim that biology has a specific environmental advantage. This

archetypal claim is broken down into 7 subsections, one for each type of environmental

advantage referenced. These claims are: (a) Biological organisms use renewable and

abundant inputs; (b) Biological materials are nontoxic; (c) Biological organisms employ

sustainable manufacturing processes; (d) Biological organisms do not pollute; (e)

Materials in biology are recycled; (f) Biological organisms are resistant to damage; and

(g) Biology is efficient. Each of these claims will be discusses separately below.

6.3.1 Biological organisms use renewable and abundant inputs.

Nine sources reference the claim ‘biological organisms use renewable and

abundant inputs’. A number of sources mention that biology runs on sunlight

[21,70,135,187,188], does not consume nonrenewable resources, such as fossil fuels

[21,135,187], and only uses materials abundant in its environment [68]. Many sources

marvel at the photosynthetic process and its ability to harness solar energy [21,189,190].

When researched further, it indeed appears that biological organisms are generally

fueled by renewable and abundant inputs. In the commonly-accepted concept of a food

chain, sunlight is the only initial energy input typically considered; in Golley’s [191]

analysis of the energy dynamics of a food chain in old-field community, for instance, the

only energy input included is solar insolation during the growing season. From a global

perspective, the raw materials needed for photosynthesis – “sunlight, water and carbon

dioxide” – “are available in almost unlimited amounts” [164], although this is of course

not the case in all local environments, such as in deserts. Additionally, prosperous

organisms are likely to rely on food found in abundance that is grown or produced

through other biological processes, such as photosynthesis, and is, hence, renewable as

well.

75

However, one could argue that there are exceptions to this rule, although these

exceptions appear to be relatively rare. Some biological organisms use fossil fuels as

energy inputs; for instance, hundreds of species of bacteria, cyanobacteria, and fungi are

capable of using hydrocarbons as a source of carbon and energy [192]. Additionally, a

number of species require the presence of other species in their environments, and these

other species may not be abundant. For instance, a study examining seed bank dynamics

of Oenothera deltoids ssp. Howellii, a highly endangered plant, found that the lack of

hawkmoths or other effective pollinators in the environment hampered its reproductive

success [193].

Hence, it appears that, in general, biology runs on renewable and abundant inputs,

although there are a few rare exceptions to this rule.

6.3.2 Biological materials are nontoxic.

Two sources mention ‘non-toxicity in biology’ in their accounts of the benefits of

BID, claiming that “organic materials…are self-assembled… with no toxic aftertaste”

[21] and, more specifically, that “natural materials for biological optical systems… are

nontoxic” [194].

When examined using biological literature, it becomes apparent that this does not

generally hold true. While there are numerous examples of non-toxic biological

organisms and substances, there are also many examples of biological organisms that

produce chemicals toxic to other organisms. For instance, some algal blooms release

toxins poisonous to marine organisms and people [195]; “[m]any cyanobacteria are toxic

to zooplankton” [196]; the seeds of the tree Aesculus californica are toxic to vertebrates

[197]; plants used to make botanical insecticides contain compounds toxic to insects

[198]; Sistrurus rattlesnakes have venom toxic to their prey [199]; the wasp Eulophus

76

pennicornis has venom toxic to tomato moth larvae [200]; and bombardier beetles squirt

noxious chemical on their predators as a defense mechanism [123].

Hence, it does not appear that biological materials are generally nontoxic.

6.3.3 Biological organisms employ sustainable manufacturing processes.

Fifteen sources refer to the claim that manufacturing processes in biology are

sustainable. Some refer to biology’s “Life-friendly manufacturing processes” [21], while

others marvel at the production of biological materials at room temperature and pressure

[68,69,73,127,154,201]. In addition, other authors focus on the low level energy inputs

necessary to make materials in biology, such as ceramics [202], biocomposites [126],

bone, collagen, and silk [69,154].

It is true that many manufacturing processes in biology occur at ambient

temperatures and pressures. For instance, spiders produce silk at “close to ambient

temperatures and pressures using water as the solvent,” unlike competing engineered

materials such as Kevlar [15]. Additionally, coral create material with properties similar

to cement at low temperatures and pressures; they extract calcium and magnesium from

seawater and use it to produce their shells and reefs [203]. In this sense, many of the

biological manufacturing processes could serve as examples for engineers to develop

manufacturing processes at ambient temperatures and pressures, potentially making these

processes more energy efficient.

However, when examined more closely, it becomes apparent that some biological

organisms produce materials at high temperatures and pressures. For instance,

bombardier beetles, mentioned above, heat a mixture of noxious chemicals and water to

100 °C which they spray on predators [123]. Additionally, hydrothermal synthesis – “the

synthesis by chemical reaction of substances in a sealed heated solution above ambient

77

temperature and pressure” – is believed to have played a significant role in the origin of

life [204]. Finally, many thermophiles and piezophiles live, grow, and reproduce – i.e.

they self assemble their bodies and produce offspring – in high temperature and high

pressure environments, respectively. Piezophilic bacteria, such as deep-sea Shewanella

violacea, [205] “possess optimal growth rates at pressures above atmospheric pressure”

[206]. Bacillus stearothermophilus is a thermophilic bacterium that is found in the deep

sea and has been shown in laboratory experiments to form colonies “between 39 and 70

C at atmospheric pressure and between 54 and 67 C at 45 MPa” [207].

Additionally, forming materials at low temperatures and pressures is not

necessarily a requirement for sustainable manufacturing processes, nor is it a guarantee of

sustainable manufacturing processes where present. The material synthesis occurring in

organisms living inside volcanoes or at the bottom of the sea is unlikely to have a larger

environmental impact than any other biological process; they just happen to make use of

the physical realities of their environments in their materials synthesis process. Similarly,

the fact that a manufacturing process in biology occurs at low temperatures and pressures

does not guarantee that it has a low environmental impact; organisms may still be highly

energy- or materials- inefficient in manufacturing, or they could produce toxins as a

result of the biological ‘manufacturing’ processes, for instance.

A complete analysis of whether manufacturing in biology is sustainable,

addressing the topics mentioned above, is outside the scope of this work. Such an

analysis would likely involve in-depth research on a broad range of topics: (1) A formal

definition of what ‘manufacturing in biology’ does, and does not, include; (2) An analysis

of the movement of energy and materials through different types of food chains to gain

an understanding of the macro-scale efficiency associated with ‘building’ different types

of organisms, similar to Golley’s [191] study of the energy dynamics of an old-field

78

community food chain; (3) A micro-scale analysis of the energy and materials

efficiencies of ‘self assembly’ in biology, e.g. a study of the metabolic cost of producing

a skeleton, including “the actual calorific value of the skeleton, the work that has to be

done to concentrate the raw materials in one place against a concentration gradient, and

the work that has to be done in organizing the material once it is there” [208]; (4) An

analysis of the outputs (wastes) associated with these processes; and (5) An analysis of

many different types of ‘manufacturing’ processes performed by biological organisms in

the context of tool use and animal artifacts – beaver dam construction, etc. – if deemed

applicable.

Hence, many manufacturing processes in biology could be considered

‘sustainable’ because they typically occur at low temperatures and pressures. However,

there are a number of notable exceptions to this rule in biology. Additionally, having a

low temperature and pressure does not guarantee that a biological process has a low

environmental impact and would be considered ‘sustainable’. Finally, exploring the

environmental impact of all biological manufacturing processes is an extraordinarily

broad and complicated endeavor that is out of the scope of this text.

6.3.4 Biological organisms do not pollute.

Five sources claim that biology is a model for sustainability because non-human

organisms do not pollute. Benyus marvels at biological organisms’ ability to perform

functions that are desirable in engineering without polluting [21,187]. More specifically,

Bar-Cohen discusses the biology’s ability to produce materials without emitting

pollutants [69,127], and Paturi notes that plants are able to perform functions without

generating air or noise pollution [209].

79

However, when a broader swath of literature is examined, it becomes clear that

some biological organisms emit pollutants.

One of the primary examples of pollutants produced by biological organisms is

methane, a greenhouse gas produced by both “the anaerobic decay of organic matter in

rice fields and natural wetlands” and “the anaerobic fermentation of organic matter in the

rumen and lower gut of domestic and wild animals” [210]. Methane emissions from

animals are recognized as having an environmental impact on par with those of human

pollutants. Clark [183], for instance, compares the annual carbon dioxide equivalent

emissions of camels, cows, and cars to a long-haul flight, as is show in the figure below.

Figure 14: Comparison of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions from Clark [183],

including those from camels and cows.

Similarly, Wilkinson et al. [186] compare methane production in sauropod

megaherbivores in the Mesozoic Era to global methane emissions from cows, pre-

industrial emissions, and current global emissions. They ultimately find that “sauropod

megaherbivores could have been significant in sustaining warm climates” during the

Mesozoic Era [186].

80

Figure 15: Comparison of methane emissions from Wilkinson et al. [186], including

those from sauropods and cows.

Additionally, a 1986 estimate from Crutzen et al. [210] found that methane production by

animals was “one of the most important individual sources within the tropospheric CH4

cycle,” making up “15-25% of the total tropospheric CH4 input,” with only emissions

from rice fields and natural wetlands making up a potentially greater share.

Furthermore, feces from animals are commonly considered pollution. Parveen et

al. [211] state: “Estuarine waters receive fecal pollution from a variety of sources,

including humans and wildlife,” and Geldreich and Kenner [212] discuss species of

bacteria commonly found in animal feces that “may be considered a specific indicator of

non-human animal pollution.” Fecal pollution is most frequently discussed in the context

of its impact on human activities, such as the fact that it “can degrade water quality and

restrict its use for harvesting sea foods, as well as recreational activities” [211].

Numerous other materials emitted by biological organisms could be considered

pollutants, such as toxic releases from some algal blooms into the ocean [195] and the

emission of CO2 by biological organisms during respiration.

81

Hence, some biological organisms do emit pollutants, and these emissions can

have a large-scale effect on the atmosphere and environment globally.

6.3.5 Materials in biology are recycled.

Six sources mention the recycling of materials in nature, through statements such

as: “Nature recycles everything” [21] and “all nature’s engineering products are fully

recyclable” [213]. An additional three sources name examples of materials that are

recycled in biology. For instance, Bar-Cohen discusses the food chain in which plants are

eaten by herbivores, carnivores eat herbivores, and the bodies of carnivores decompose

fertilizing plants [189].

Materials in biology could be said to be recycled when they are eaten by other

organisms through predation or decomposition. When this occurs, the biological material

is broken down and reused in another organism over a short time frame, the same way the

material in a recycled aluminum can is broken down and used again. Along a similar

vein, birds using fallen twigs for building nests could be considered an example of

repurposing in biology, and the use of abandoned shells by hermit crabs [214] could be

considered an example of reuse.

However, there are numerous cases in which biological materials are not recycled,

repurposed, or reused by other organisms on non-geologic time scales, as the engineering

definitions of these terms imply.

For instance, the accumulation of the bodies of dead organisms over geologic

time periods appears to be more aptly likened to landfill disposal of waste than to

recycling. For instance, fossil fuels are made from organisms that lived hundreds of

millions of years ago; coal from the remains of trees and ferns, oil and natural gas from

the remains of ancient marine organisms [215]. Similarly, the “shells, body parts and

82

dead tissues” of organisms “help form sedimentary rocks” [8]. Millions of years from

now, landfills may serve an important geologic role as well, but that does not mean that

human disposal of waste in landfills or the biological disposal of waste in geologic

formations should be considered ‘recycling’.

Additionally, the destruction of organic material by fire does not seem to be

accurately likened to recycling; it more closely resembles the wasting of a potential

energy source, such as the flaring of unwanted natural gas from an oil well, for instance.

While fires play an important ecological and evolutionary role, they do this in a

somewhat more destructive way than the term ‘recycling’ suggests. Fires destroy most of

the living vegetation and organic litter in their path. They “profoundly [alter] the supply

of resources for many other species” [8], volatizing “some elements (notably carbon and

nitrogen) while converting others into biologically more available, mobile forms” [216].

Fires do not breakdown the material in their path in order to maximize its usefulness to

other biological organisms, the way recycling breaks down material for the purposes of

maximizing its usefulness in other applications. They also cause a significant portion of

biological material to become unusable by other organisms; hence, disposal of biological

material in fires cannot be accurately likened to recycling.

In conclusion, it appears that predation and decomposition can be likened to

recycling. However, the accumulation of biological materials and their formation into

fossil fuels or sedimentary rock, along with the burning of biological materials in

wildfires, cannot be accurately described as recycling.

6.3.6 Biology is resistant to damage.

Eight sources appeal to the claim that biology is resistant to damage, through

general statements referring to solutions in biology that “minimize damage profiles”

83

[121] or to specific biological organisms that are resistant to damage, such as drought-

tolerant grasses [110] and the branched design of trees with reconfigurable crowns in

high winds [217].

Upon inspection, it is clear that there is significant variation amongst species

regarding how resistant they are to different types of damage. In coral reefs, for example,

some species already show “far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching

than others” [218]. Hence, it seems likely that the findings from Chapter 5 on

optimization in biology are relevant here. For each organism in question, one must

analyze the traits and selective pressures that have been historically applied to the

population to see if the population is resistant to a particular form of damage, or has

likely been optimized to become resistant to this form of damage.

6.3.7 Biology is efficient.

42 sources appeal to the claim ‘biology is efficient’, through reference to

“nature’s efficient design solutions” [62] and “highly effective and power efficient

biological mechanisms” [69]. Also, BID literature describes many biological organisms

and systems as energy or materials efficient, such as muscles [72,219,220], the legs of

horses [111], and the sensory systems of plants and animals [98].

Literature from biology, discusses a number of examples of efficiency in

biological organisms. For instance, shark skin is shape optimized to reduce energy loss

while swimming; placoid scales, also known as dermal dentricles, with certain

geometries and arrangements on the skin of sharks reduce frictional drag [18]. Jellyfish

interact with their environment efficiently; they are able to attain high swimming speeds,

while minimizing energy consumption, by releasing optimized vortices when water is

ejected through their velum during swimming [16].

84

In addition, work from Vincent et al. [11] found that biological systems solve

problems using information- and structure-based solutions, whereas problems

encountered in technology are typically solved though energy manipulation. This implies

that mechanisms in biology may be less likely to solve problems with the use of energy

than typical engineering designs.

However, biological organisms and systems are not all exceptionally efficient. As

discussed in Chapter 5, many organisms waste materials and energy on body parts that

are ‘useless’ and are present only as a result of the history of the evolutionary process; for

instance, the ancient whale Basilosaurus had unnecessary ankle bones although it did not

walk, and humans have tailbones although we do not have tails [131]. Additionally, some

significant biological energy conversion processes have seemingly very poor energy

conversion efficiencies; for example, the average conversion efficiency of photosynthesis

globally is only 0.3% [221].

Furthermore, when energy conversion efficiencies of biological and engineered

processes are compared directly, it does not appear that biological processes are more

efficient than engineered ones. For instance, French [222] states: “Flapping wings appear

to have poor propulsion efficiency compared with propellers or jets, and muscles are less

efficient than piston engines or gas turbines.” Also, a table published in Tester [221] and

adapted from Smil [223], reproduced below, makes a similar point, listing a wide range

of anthropogenic and biological energy conversion efficiencies, the most efficient of

which are anthropogenic.

85

Table 4: Efficiencies of Common Anthropogenic and Natural Energy Conversion

Efficiencies from Tester [221] and adapted from Smil [223].

However, one cannot directly compare conversion efficiencies in biology to those

in engineering because the processes serve very different functions. For instance,

comparing the energy conversion of lactation in humans to the conversion efficiency of

dry cell batteries is nonsensical.

In addition, there is reason to believe that models of biological systems used by

engineers in BID may frequently be more efficient than the biological organism they are

86

modeling. Weber et al. [224] observe that models of biological systems are frequently

idealized, and when they compared the performance of real and idealized versions of

cetacean flippers in water tunnel testing, they found that “[d]rag performance was

significantly improved by idealization.” Hence, if a final design is more likely to be

efficient when it has been inspired by an efficient analogy, a topic that will be covered in

Chapter 7, engineers conducting BID may see this efficiency advantage either by

carefully selecting an efficient biological analogy, or simply by modeling and idealizing

the biological system.

Therefore, while there are many examples of efficient biological systems and

evidence that biology is less likely to solve problems through energy manipulation than

engineered designs, it is clear that biological organisms are not all exceptionally efficient

and that biological energy conversion efficiencies are universally higher than conversion

efficiencies in engineering. However, there is evidence that the idealized versions of

biological systems used by engineers in BID are likely more efficient than the biological

system they are modeling.

6.4 CONCLUSION

Some biological organisms and traits are sustainable in the sense that they have

withstood the test of time; they have survived millions or billions of years, thereby

proving their staying power. However, most biological systems have changed

substantially over time, meaning their specific mechanisms have not been proven

sustainable in this sense, at least not on the time scales of billions of years. Additionally,

this form of sustainability is unrelated to environmental sustainability; just because

biological organisms have ‘withstood the test of time’ does not mean they are more likely

to have a low environmental impact.

87

The introduction, preservation, and flourishing of biological organisms is

typically seen as having a positive environmental impact. In the field of LCA, common

exceptions include biological organisms that are used as natural resources for humans and

are considered to have a negative environmental impact. However, many organisms in

the wild are regarded by biologists as frequently having a negative environmental impact,

including invasive species and ecosystem engineers that reduce diversity in ecosystems.

Additionally, the environmental impact of biological organisms – both positive and

negative – can be on a global scale.

Finally, some claims made in the literature regarding specific environmental-

impact related characteristics hold true while others do not. In general, biology runs on

renewable and abundant inputs, although there are a few rare exceptions to this rule. It is

not the case that biological organisms are generally nontoxic. Understanding the extent to

which biological manufacturing processes are sustainable is an extraordinarily

complicated issue, but it is clear that not all manufacturing processes in biology occur at

low temperatures and pressures. Some biological organisms do emit pollutants, and these

emissions can have a large-scale effect on the atmosphere and environment globally. It

appears that predation and decomposition can be likened to recycling, but that the

accumulation of biological materials and their formation into fossil fuels or sedimentary

rock, along with the burning of biological materials in wildfires, cannot. Biological

organisms are not universally resistant to the same types of potential damage. Finally, not

all biological organisms are exceptionally efficient, and biological energy conversion

efficiencies are not generally higher than conversion efficiencies in engineering.

88

Chapter 7: BID Benefits

46 of the 128 sources examined make claims directly about beneficial features

found in BIDs. Quotations from these accounts were grouped into two archetypal claims

and one sub-claim: (1) BIDs are optimized – 5 sources; (2) BIDs are sustainable – 43

sources, and (2a) BIDs are efficient – 12 sources. The tally for claim 2 includes the

quotations related to sub-claim 2a. A diagram depicting the relationship between the

claims is shown in the figure below.

Figure 16: Archetypal claims related directly to characteristics of BIDs.

This chapter is structured differently than previous chapters. First, each of the

claims will be introduced briefly with example quotations. The remainder of the chapter

will present caveats common to all claims.

7.1 BIDS ARE OPTIMIZED.

5 sources make statements related to the archetypal claim ‘BIDs are optimized.’

The only general statement to this effect is from Papanek [74] who asserts: “Through

analogues to nature, man’s problems can be solved optimally.” The remaining quotations

discuss examples of BIDs that perform well and exhibit desirable characteristics, such as

dragonfly-inspired airfoils [225] and robotic swarms inspired by the division of labor in

ants [68].

89

7.2 BIDS ARE SUSTAINABLE.

43 out of 128 sources appeal to the archetypal claim: ‘BIDs are sustainable’. 27

sources make general statements such as: “[B]iologically inspired materials and

structured surfaces are eco-friendly or green with minimum human impact on the

environment” [226]; “Emulation of the inherently sustainable living world through


unsustainable products” [28]; “Biological organisms, phenomena, and strategies…

provide insight into sustainable and adaptable design” [119]; and “Biomimetics…

challenges the current paradigm of technology and suggests more sustainable ways to

manipulate the world” [227]. 16 sources provide examples of sustainable BIDs, claiming

that designs for multifunctional reagents [228], architectural materials [188], and

nanomembranes [229], for instance, offer potential life cycle impact advantages as a

result of their bioinspired features.

7.2.1 BIDs are efficient.

12 sources refer to the sub-claim ‘BIDs are efficient,’ through statements such as:

“It is believed that by utilizing natural systems… current engineering solutions can be

made more efficient” [12]; and “Energy efficiency is one of the most important aspects

linking biomimetic visions with living nature” [230]. Nine sources provide examples of

energy-efficient BIDs, such as ventilation systems inspired by respiration in small birds

and mammals [231] and ceramic processing inspired by energy-efficient materials

synthesis in biology [202].

7.3 SUPPORT FOR ALL BID BENEFITS CLAIMS

Based on the many examples discussed in engineering literature, it indeed appears

that some BIDs are optimized, sustainable, and efficient as a result of their bioinspired

90

features. Many other examples not included in the theoretical study will be discussed in

detail in the upcoming chapters. Thus, these examples will not be discussed further here.

The important takeaway is that there are many such examples.

7.4 CAVEATS COMMON TO ALL BID BENEFITS CLAIMS

However, the claims presented above – that BIDs are optimized, sustainable, and

efficient – do not hold true for all BIDs. For instance, there is no reason to think that

Velcro, inspired by cockleburs [232], would be any more optimized, sustainable, or

efficient than its non-bioinspired counterparts, such as buttons and zippers.

Upon inspection, it is clear that the same set of factors plays a critical role in

determining whether a BID will have a particular desirable characteristic, regardless of

whether the characteristic in question is related to optimization, sustainability, or

efficiency. Hence, the caveats to these three claims will be examined together. Factors

that affect the likelihood of a BID possessing the desirable characteristic of interest

include: (1) whether the designer is intentionally trying to produce a design with the

desired characteristic, (2) whether the biological analogy possesses the characteristic in

question, (3) how closely the biological analogy is being imitated in the engineering

design, (4) whether the desirable feature is actually transferred to the engineering design,

(5) whether the desirable feature retains its desirable properties in the engineering design,

and (6) the nature of the unintended side effects of the desirable features in the

engineering design. Each of these issues will be discussed separately below.

7.4.1 The designer should intentionally try to produce a design with the desired

characteristic.

BID is not a magical methodology that will confer only desirable traits to final

designs without effort on the part of the designer. Gruber et al. [230] echo this sentiment

91

when they warn that the “application of a biomimetic innovation method does not

guarantee an ecological solution” and that “biomimetics… is not a panacea for all global

problems.” Stachelberger et al. [229] do the same when they state: “there is no guarantee

that a technical solution based on biomimetics will be ecofriendly,” as do Reap et al. [28]

when they explain: “Emulation of the inherently sustainable living world through


unsustainable products… however… current approaches to biomimicry do not

necessarily lead to such ends.” Haphazardly using a biological analogy in a design will

not automatically result in improvement in one’s design.

In cases where no optimization, sustainability, or efficiency advantage is intended

by practitioners of BID, there is no reason to think that the bioinspired features will

confer an optimization, sustainability, or efficiency advantage to the final design. Many

BIDs – such as gecko-inspired robots and echolocation-inspired canes – fit this model;

they involve the incorporation of many additional active energy systems inspired by the

interesting functions observed in nature. In these cases, it is clear that the bioinspired

features are causing the final engineering design to be more energy and materials

intensive – albeit with an associated increased functionality – than the design was

previously. This is because designers are using biological analogies as a way to perform

novel functions, not to perform existing functions in a more optimized, sustainable, or

efficient way.

Hence, not all BIDs are optimized, sustainable, or efficient because these

characteristics do not automatically result from using a biological analogy in the design

process and because many designers are not trying to make their designs have these

characteristics.

92

7.4.2 The pool of potential biological analogies should be scoped to those containing

the trait of interest.

Not all biological analogies are created equal. As was established in Chapter 5,

not all biological organisms and systems are optimized, let alone optimized for

engineering parameters. Likewise, Chapter 6 showed that not all biological organisms

and systems are sustainable, or possess specific sustainability-related characteristics, such

as efficiency.

If a designer has decided to conduct BID for the purposes of generating

optimized, sustainable, or efficient designs, (as opposed to more novel designs, for

instance, as was discussed in Chapter 4), he or she hopes to learn from examples of

optimization, sustainability, or efficiency in biology and use that information in the

design process. Hence, the designer needs to scope his or her pool of potential biological

analogies to only those that possess the characteristic of interest. Otherwise, there is no

information related to optimization, sustainability, or efficiency from biology that the

designer can use. For instance, if one is trying to design a more aerodynamic train profile

to handle the change from low pressure to high pressure air for the purposes of enhancing

energy efficiency, one would likely want to look at organisms that handle a similar

pressure difference efficiently, i.e. one would want to compile information on a wide

range of organisms that deal with high pressure to low pressure transitions – diving birds,

jumping fish, dolphins, etc. – determine which of these handle the pressure differences

efficiently, and then choose a profile based on this research.

A wide range of tools are available to help designers find biological analogies

relevant to their design problem. For instance, DANE, a Design by Analogy to Nature

Engine provides a library of “Structure-Behavior-Function (SBF) models of biological

and engineering systems” and has been used to aide designers in understanding biological

93

systems [233], as has a thesaurus for translating engineering functions to biological

search terms [234]. However, there are no known tools that assist designers in scoping

their pool of potential analogies to determine which have ‘optimized’, ‘sustainable’, or

‘efficient’ traits that may be advantageous to apply to their design problem.

7.4.3 One must focus on the relevant features of the selected analogy.

Similarly, designers should focus on the optimized, sustainable, or efficient

features of the selected analogy. Every potential biological analogy has many different

features that could be used in the design process. Different parts of the organism or

biological system could be imitated on a wide range of length scales – from beak profiles,

to chemical properties of a particular biological material, to its behavior while hunting in

packs. When one has selected a particular biological analogy, and has verified that it

contains the traits intended for the final design, it is critical that the entity actually being

imitated contains this trait as well. There is no use in selecting a kingfisher for its

efficient beak profile and then imitating its feathers, for instance.

7.4.4 How closely does the BID imitate the biological system?

If the BID does not closely resemble the optimized, sustainable, or efficient

feature of the biological system, it seems unlikely these desirable characteristics would be

transferred to the engineered design. Take, for instance, the example of a car frame

inspired by bone growth. If the biological analogy were used very loosely, engineers

could do a stress analysis and ensure that material in the car frame is located in areas that

are stressed, as occurs during bone growth [235,236]. On the other hand, the analogy

could be used very closely, and researchers could, for instance, grow the car frame from

some sort of ultra-strong artificial bone. Feasible engineering solutions to this problem

that take full advantage of the biological feature likely lie somewhere in the middle of

94

this continuum. The bioinspired structure of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic car, for

instance, was created using bone growth-inspired stress analysis software. In any case, if

the biological analogy is used in a very indirect way, the characteristics of interest in the

biological analogy may not transfer to the engineering design.

7.4.5 Will the desirable trait in biology transfer to engineering?

The designer must ensure that the optimized, sustainable, or efficient features of

interest can be transferred to engineering. A number of authors discuss the difficulties

transferring desirable traits from biology to engineering. Vincent [71] states: “The

transfer of a concept or mechanism from living to nonliving systems is not trivial. A

simple and direct replica of the biological prototype is rarely successful, even if it is

possible.” Muller [237] agrees, noting the “objective difficulties… in accommodating the

differences in energy… between biological and human-made systems.” In the case of

Sharklet AFTM

, for instance, which is “manufactured using a photolithographic process…

current manufacturing processes mean that… Sharklet AFTM

cannot match the

topographic and dimensional complexity of real dermal denticles” [238]. In some cases,

such issues in manufacturing biological features may prevent beneficial characteristics of

biological analogies from transferring to engineering.

7.4.6 A desirable biological trait may not continue to be desirable in a BID.

Context matters. Even if the desired characteristics of a biological analogy

transfer to engineering, these characteristics may not prove desirable in the design.

Although the laws of physics still apply to biological organisms [103,239], the constraints

facing biological organisms may be very different from the constraints facing engineered

products [120]. Biological systems are optimized “for very specific needs and

circumstances that may not reflect our requirements and unique capabilities” [240],

95

meaning they may be unsuitable for replicating directly in engineering applications.

Muller [237] agrees, observing that biological organisms are “special-purpose designs”

evolved to meet a specific set of constraints present in their environments, and

consequently they “require additional work to arrive at general principles.”

Biological traits are optimized for – or are sustainable/efficient in – a particular

environmental context. For instance, the same traits that make a polar bear ‘optimized’

for the arctic winters prove detrimental in warmer climates [241], and the same

mongoose lives sustainably in its native habitat but proves environmentally detrimental in

regions where it is an invasive species and has caused the local extinction of a number of

birds, reptiles, and amphibians [242].

Just as in biological systems, the environmental impact of a product varies greatly

depending on the particular environmental conditions where it is used. Reap et al. [243]

make a similar point when they state, in the context of LCA: “Each environment affected

by resource extraction or pollution is, to a greater or lesser extent, unique. As a result,

each local environment is uniquely sensitive to the stresses placed upon it by a particular

product system’s life cycle.” For instance, the amount of energy required to brew tea in

an electric kettle changes depending on the climate where the kettle is used, due to the

altered initial temperature of the water [244].

By translating biological features to engineering, designers remove the biological

features from the environments in which these features were beneficial. Bioinspired

products are not used exclusively in the ecological niches of the organism that inspired

them. A designer ought to consider whether the optimized, sustainable, or efficient traits

from biology will continue to prove efficient in the intended engineering context, e.g.

they should question whether reef coral’s method of manufacturing cement at low

temperatures and pressures – which is sustainable in contexts with unlimited seawater

96

[203] – really would prove sustainable in the desert environment where the cement

factory is planned.

7.4.7 Even beneficial features can have unintended detrimental effects.

Bioinspired optimization, sustainability, or efficiency advantages in engineering

designs may be countered by other, unintended effects that make the final design less

desirable as a whole. Just as in non-bioinspired sustainable design, most sustainability-

related features involve an environmental tradeoff. Whether the feature ultimately

reduces the environmental impact of the product depends on how the inclusion of the

feature affects other aspects of the product and other life cycle phases.

A number of authors discuss this issue in the context of sustainability. Benyus

[187] explains how the biomimetic process can result in an environmentally and socially

unsustainable product when, for instance, a bioinspired feature is mimicked, but no

attention is paid to the life cycle impact of other aspects of the product, such as in

materials and transportation. Along a similar line, work from Raibeck et al. [27] and

Reap et al. [28] has shown that the entire product life cycle must be considered to

determine whether a particular bioinspired feature will confer a sustainability advantage

to the product. A life cycle inventory study of a lotus-inspired self cleaning surface found

that the energy and resource efficiency gained by the bioinspired surface during cleaning

was countered by the increased need for resources and energy for the production of the

surface, ultimately resulting in no clear efficiency or environmental impact advantage

over the product’s life cycle [27].

Hence, designers must consider the potential unintended consequences of

including a desirable feature.

97

7.5 CONCLUSION

While some BIDs are optimized, have reduced environmental impacts, or are

energy efficient as a result of their bioinspired features, this is not generally the case;

many bioinspired features are unrelated to these advantages, and those that are related

only confer these advantages in certain contexts. More specifically, the likelihood that

desirable optimization-, sustainability-, or efficiency-related advantages will transfer to

BIDs increases when: (1) the designer intends to produce a design with these

characteristics, (2) the selected biological analogy contains the trait of interest, (3) the

biological features imitated in the BID also contain the trait of interest, (4) the BID

closely imitates the desirable trait from biology, (5) the desirable trait is able to be

transferred to engineering, (6) the desirable trait can continue to be desirable in a BID,

and (7) the desirable trait has few, if any, unintended effects on the engineered design

that counter the beneficial features conferred by the bioinspired trait.

98

Chapter 8: Theoretical Section Conclusion

Chapter 8 concludes Section 1, which examined the claimed benefits of BID

through careful review of biological and engineering literature. Chapter 3 presented the

methodology for the theoretical study and an overview of the claims identified. Chapters

4 though 7 examined these claims related to ideation benefits, optimization in biology,

sustainability in biology, and advantages that translate to BIDs themselves, respectively.

This chapter is broken into four sections. First, a summary of the findings from

the BID benefits study is presented. Second, claims that were identified during the course

of conducting the study, but were not analyzed, are briefly discussed. Third, the

implications of the theoretical study’s findings regarding what constitutes a biological

system in the context of BID are addressed. The section concludes with an overview of

the theoretical study and places it in context.

8.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM BID BENEFITS STUDY

A summary of all claims examined in Section 1 and the related analysis is

provided in the table below.

Table 5: Summary of Findings from Theoretical BID Benefits Study.

Claim Findings 1. BID helps designers generate

novel ideas.

All design-by-analogy (DbA) techniques, including BID, produce

more novel concepts than standard techniques. BID may be less

likely to prompt design fixation than DbA using patents, but

information in biology may be more difficult to translate to

engineering.

2. Quantity: Biology contains

many potential analogies.

Millions of species could serve as analogies in BID. However, many

biological organisms have yet to be discovered and are therefore

inaccessible to engineers. Also, more patents have been filed

worldwide than there are species, meaning this is not an advantage

over DbA using patents.

3. Variety: Biology is diverse. Yes, but it is unclear whether there is greater diversity in biology or

engineering and, hence, whether this is an advantage over DbA using

patents.

99

Table 5, cont.

4. Relevance: Biology solves

problems engineers would

like to solve.

At least according to the engineers who make this claim and those

who use biological analogies, biology contains solutions relevant to

the problems engineers want to solve.

5. Biology solves problems

differently than engineering.

Preliminary evidence using analysis from TRIZ supports this claim.

6. Biology is optimal. Although many examples of well-adapted biological organisms exist,

organisms are not perfectly adapted for their environments. They

frequently have features that serve no purpose, and they lack features

and combinations of features that would be highly beneficial to them.

Also, since the environment is constantly changing, it is not possible

for them to be perfectly adapted to their environments at all times.

7. Biology is optimized by

evolution via natural

selection.

Natural selection helps organisms become better suited to their

environment. In some cases, this can be of engineering significance,

when the traits being selected for are aimed at reducing energy

consumption or performing a function engineers find interesting.

However, evolution via natural selection maximizes the fitness of the

organism as a whole; it does not optimize solely the specific

performance characteristics of interest to engineers. Additionally,

natural selection is countered by other evolutionary processes, such

as mutation and genetic drift, that introduce diversity into

populations. On a geologic time scale, macroevolution via natural

selection occurs, possibly selecting for highly evolvable and

adaptable blood lines capable of rapidly adapting to and surviving in

changing environmental conditions. However, selection for these

characteristics is controversial, and these types of traits are much less

likely to have applications in the design of improved engineering

systems.

8. Biology is optimized for

efficiency.

There is selection pressure, and hence optimization, for efficiency in

a number of organisms and conditions, although this is not generally

the case.

9. Biology has ‘withstood the

test of time’.

Some biological organisms and traits have survived millions or

billions of years, thereby proving their staying power. However,

most biological systems have changed substantially over time.

Additionally, ‘withstanding the test of time’ is unrelated to

environmental sustainability.

10. Biology is environmentally

sustainable.

The introduction, preservation, and flourishing of biological

organisms is typically seen as having a positive environmental

impact. Common exceptions are organisms used as natural resources

for humans. However, many organisms in the wild are regarded by

biologists as having negative environmental impacts, including

invasive species and ecosystem engineers that reduce diversity in

ecosystems.

100

Table 5, cont.

11. Biological organisms meet

specific GDGs:

a. Biological organisms use

renewable and abundant

inputs.

In general, biology runs on renewable and abundant inputs, although

there are a few rare exceptions to this rule.

b. Biological materials are

nontoxic.

It is not the case that biological organisms are generally nontoxic.

c. Biological organisms

employ sustainable

manufacturing processes.

Understanding the extent to which biological manufacturing

processes are sustainable is an extraordinarily complicated issue, but

it clear that not all manufacturing processes in biology occur at low

temperatures and pressures.

d. Biological organisms do

not pollute.

Some biological organisms do emit pollutants, and these emissions

can have a large-scale effect on the atmosphere and environment

globally.

e. Materials in biology are

recycled.

Predation and decomposition can be likened to recycling, but the

accumulation of biological materials and their formation into fossil

fuels or sedimentary rock, along with the burning of biological

materials in wildfires, cannot.

f. Biology is resistant to

damage.

Biological organisms are not universally resistant to the same types

of potential damage.

g. Biology is efficient Not all biological organisms are exceptionally efficient, and

biological energy conversion efficiencies are not generally higher

than conversion efficiencies in engineering.

12. BIDs are optimized.

While some BIDs are optimized, have reduced environmental

impacts, or are energy efficient as a result of their bioinspired

features, this is not generally the case; many bioinspired features are

unrelated to these advantages, and those that are related only confer

these advantages in certain contexts. More specifically, the

likelihood that desirable optimization-, sustainability-, or efficiency-

related advantages will transfer to BIDs increases when: (1) the

designer intends to produce a design with these characteristics, (2)

the selected biological analogy contains the trait of interest, (3) the

biological features imitated in the BID also contain the trait of

interest, (4) the BID closely imitates the desirable trait from biology,

(5) the desirable trait is able to be transferred to engineering, (6) the

desirable trait can continue to be desirable in a BID, and (7) the

desirable trait has few, if any, unintended effects on the engineered

design that counter the beneficial features conferred by the

bioinspired trait.

13. BIDs are sustainable.

a. BIDs are efficient.

101

8.2 OTHER CLAIMS IDENTIFIED BUT NOT ANALYZED

Some other ideas have been proposed in the literature, but are mentioned only

rarely, such as the potential for BID: to aid in the customization of technology [104], to

improve complex products [245], and to help create multifunctional, [137,144],

interdependent [144], more user-friendly [127,154], simpler and more elegant designs

[67,127]. Additionally, authors make a wide range of other claims: that exposing people

to biology through BID will make them more likely to care about sustainability

[137,246], that humans have learned from nature how to survive on earth and “secure a

sustainable future” [69,127], that biological materials are biodegradable [69,127,154],

that symbiosis in biology prevents resource depletion [21], and that biological organisms

themselves are novel [139] and innovative [67]. These claims were not analyzed because

few authors appealed to them.

In contrast, many sources appealed to the idea that BID has been successful in the

past. Authors in BID make statements such as: “Humans have borrowed many ideas from

biology for design” [115]; “Many successful biomimetic designs support the notion that

biology is a good source of analogies” [94]; and “Many elegant solutions to engineering

problems have been inspired by biological phenomena” [247]. Additionally, numerous

sources cite examples of technically and commercially successful BIDs, such as Velcro.

The claim ‘BID has been successful’ was not analyzed formally in the study because its

truth is evident to anyone familiar with the field of BID.

8.3 WHAT COUNTS AS A BIOLOGICAL ANALOGY IN BID?

In the process of conducting the theoretical study, it became apparent that there

are some unresolved issues in the field concerning what constitutes a legitimate

biological analogy in BID. The findings from the BID benefits study have implications

that can be applied to these issues.

102

8.3.1 Genetically Modified Organisms and Human Selection

Should genetically modified organisms (GMO) or organisms subject to human

selection processes, such as dogs, count as a biological system or an engineered one in

the context of BID? If it were true that evolution via natural selection optimizes

organisms for engineering parameters, or that biological organisms automatically possess

certain sustainability-related benefits, then a designer may not wish to use a GMO or a

species that has clearly been subject to human selection processes. However, the analysis

in Chapters 5 and 6 shows that these generalizations do not hold. Hence, the benefits of

using a GMO or an organism subject to human selection are just as likely to produce a

BID with advantageous features. In fact, since GMOs and organisms subject to human

selection have somewhat more conscious intent, it may be clearer to the designer what

these organisms have actually been selected – or ‘optimized’ – for.

8.3.2 Extinct Species

As discussed in Chapter 5, a number of BID authors claim that ‘fossils are

failures’ and organisms currently living have features that make them better suited for life

on earth. Authors who ascribe to such a view would not consider extinct species to be

legitimate biological analogies because they do not believe extinct species possess the

desirable characteristics that make the use of biological analogies in the design process

advantageous. For instance, some argue that the evolution over billions of years has

optimized organisms currently living. Since extinct organisms have not survived

‘optimization’ via evolution, it would not be appropriate to use extinct species when

conducting BID.

However, Chapter 5 showed that organisms can go extinct for a number of

reasons unrelated to their suitableness from an engineering standpoint. It also showed that

the evolution via natural selection over shorter time periods to help a species become

103

better adapted to a particular ecological niche is the type of optimization in biology

related to engineering parameters, not evolution over billions of years. Hence, the use of

extinct species in the design process is just as likely to produce a beneficial engineering

design as the use of a living species.

8.3.3 Tools and Artifacts of Animals

“Science has documented a number of bona fide cases of tool use by nonhuman

species, such as apes, sea otters, birds, and insects” [1]. Do the buildings, tools, and

artifacts of animals count as ‘biology,’ in the context of BID? The answer has

implications for some of the frequently-cited examples of BID, such as Eastgate Centre’s

cooling system, inspired by termite mounds, not termites themselves.

On one hand, some biologists view tools and artifacts as part of an organism’s

biological system that plays an important evolutionary role and has an impact on a

creature’s fitness. “[P]roducts of animal engineering [are] extensions of species'

phenotypes and hence subject to natural selection, including caddis-fly cases, termite

mounds and birds' nests” [8]. If the source of the value of BID lies in the evolutionary

process, then the tools and artifacts that evolve with creatures - such as termite mounds,

beaver dams, monkey sticks, the stones Egyptian vultures drop on eggs [248]– would all

be considered. Termites have evolved to build mounds that allow for proper ventilation

and maintain appropriate temperatures; mounds with temperatures too high or too low are

likely to harm the termites’ ability to survive and reproduce. Additionally, like biological

systems, the tools and artifacts used by most non-human biological systems are made of

plentiful, locally-available materials and run on sunlight. Consequently, it would seem as

though these things have a place as analogies in BID and sustainable BID.

104

On the other hand, this framework would also lead one to include the tools and

artifacts of humans, since humans are also animals. “Genetically, anatomically,

behaviorally, and socially, we have been shaped through natural selection into tool

makers and tool users” [1]. Hence, Hummers, data centers that require lots of cooling

located in Nevada, swimming pools, paper processing, batteries, landfills, cell phones,

bottled water, plastic shopping bags, and lawn fertilizers should all be included. This is

an unintuitive result.

8.4 FUTURE WORK

Biology is a complex and fascinating field, and there are many topics that merit

further research by those interested in developing effective BID tools and methodologies.

In particular, a number of topics arose during the writing of this work related to

optimization in biology that could be explored more fully. Despite fear that doing so will

perpetuate more myths about biology that have not been fully researched, these topics are

outlined briefly below.

It could be highly beneficial to restrict one’s pool of potential biological analogies

to those that have proven adaptively significant, i.e. traits that arose via natural selection

and hence confer a fitness advantage to the organisms that possess them. As was

previously discussed in Chapter 5, it is not always easy to identify instances of adaptively

significant features because of other forces, like biased mutation, that cause non-adaptive

traits to increase in frequency in a population. However, developing a better

understanding of mutation rates and how they can be used to identify cases of true

optimization in biology may prove beneficial. Hodgkinson and Eyre-Walker [149] state:

“Characterizing variation in the rate of mutation… is key to many questions in

evolutionary biology, including… the detection of adaptive evolution.”

105

Additionally, ‘key innovation’ is a term in biology that refers to evolutionary

modifications in structure or function that allow a lineage to “exploit the environment in a

new or more efficient manner” [131] or that are “aspects of organismal phenotype that

promote diversification” and ultimately “may enhance competitive ability, relax adaptive

trade-offs or permit exploitation of a new productive resource base” [249]. Upon a brief

analysis, this appears to be very similar to, or the same as, an adaptively significant trait.

Examples include the evolution of wings, which opened “novel adaptation zones… for

ancestors of birds and bats” [131]. Assuming this is indeed the case, by including the

search term ‘key innovation’ in their internet searches for appropriate biological

analogies, for instance, engineers may be more likely to focus on functionally-significant

features that confer a significant benefit to a particular species in a particular

environmental context, either associated with increased functionality or increased

efficiency.

Finally, instances of morphological convergence could potentially point to

biological features that have been optimized, and also might be more likely to be

optimized for engineering parameters. ‘Morphological convergence’ “refers to cases

where dissimilar body parts evolved in similar ways in evolutionarily distant lineages”

[131]. For example:

The differences between bat, bird, and insect wings are evidence that each of

these animal groups adapted independently to the same physical constraints that

govern how a wing can function in the environment. The wings of all three are

analogous structures. They are not modifications of comparable body parts in

different lineages. They are different responses of dissimilar parts to the same

challenge. [131]

When unrelated organisms evolve similar features, it seems much less likely that these

features are arising in response to common physical challenges. The similarities between

these organisms are likely to point toward some sort of optimum, if the same result keeps

106

appearing, the way starting an optimization problem with different initial conditions and

arriving at the same conclusion indicates that one has found the true optimum. It also

means that the design, which is ‘optimal’ in many different environments, is more likely

to be optimal worldwide, the way engineered products strive to be – instead of just in one

particular ecological niche, the way most biological organisms are optimized.

Of course, all of these topics require much further research, but they may provide

promising avenues for researchers wishing to take this work a step further.

8.5 CONCLUSION

By examining and qualifying the claimed benefits of BID, this section has

contributed to the underlying theory of BID, a topic which few other authors have

addressed in depth. It is critical to have such a theory to guide researchers in the BID

community towards fruitful methodologies and procedures that best leverage biology in

engineering design. While this work is undoubtedly imperfect, it hopefully can serve as a

starting point to openly discuss assumptions and controversies in BID and eventually

arrive at a comprehensive theory of how and why biology can be used to improve

engineering designs.

Now we shift our focus away from the claimed benefits of BID, towards an

assessment of the actual sustainability-related benefits of BID, as observed through

implemented designs.

107

Chapter 9: Research Methods to Find Trends in BIDs

Chapter 9 begins Section 2 of this work, which focuses on the identification of

trends in existing sustainable BIDs. Chapter 9 presents the research methodology for the

first empirical study.

The purpose of this study is to analyze existing sustainable BIDs using green

design guidelines (GDGs) to identify sustainability-related trends. To do this, a list of

existing BIDs was compiled using two different search techniques. Information on the

BIDs was collected, and designs that did not meet selection criteria were eliminated. The

remaining designs were then analyzed to identify their bioinspired sustainability solutions

and find trends. This procedure is presented in Figure 17 and is discussed in detail below.

Figure 17: Overall research methodology for identifying sustainable design solutions in

existing BIDs.

108

9.1 STEP 1: COMPILE A LIST OF BIDS

Two search methods were used to compile a list of existing BIDs – a general,

‘breadth’ search technique and a snowballing-type ‘depth’ search technique. These two

methods were used to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, the designs analyzed

were a representative sample of BIDs of interest. For this study, only bioinspired physical

products were considered. Consequently, bioinspired elements of computer science,

artificial limbs, and bioinspired methods of social organization, for instance, were not

considered.

9.1.1 Breadth Search

The breadth search involved searching for and comparing lists and databases of

BIDs from general sources. This method was used to ensure that a wide range of

bioinspired products were identified and to increase the variety in the final sample of

BIDs selected for analysis. The technique used here is a form of nonprobability sampling,

“a sampling technique in which units of the sample are selected on the basis of personal

judgment or convenience” [250]. The disadvantage of nonprobability sampling is that

“the probability of any member of the population being chosen is unknown” and “there

are no appropriate statistical techniques for measuring random sampling error from a

nonprobability sample. Thus, projecting the data beyond the sample is statistically

inappropriate” [250]. These disadvantages apply in this study as well. While this search

technique helps introduce breadth into the study, it does not guarantee that the final list

compiled is truly representative of the population of existing BIDs.

The following general sources were used: Wikipedia’s page for ‘Bionics’ [10],

AskNature.org’s database of biomimetic products [251], Bioinspiration and Biomimetics

(vol. 6, no. 1 [252] and vol. 5, no. 4 [253]), and a Japan Times Online article “Natural by

Design” [254]. Selected sources were read, and any examples of BIDs of interest

109

provided in these documents were recorded along with their biological analogy and

source.

Some of the sources selected for the general search are peer-reviewed, some not.

Although content on sources such as Wikipedia is user-submitted and not peer-reviewed,

it is acceptable for use in this case because the general search is followed by rigorous

verification with peer-reviewed sources. The disadvantage of using untrustworthy sources

at this stage is that there is a greater chance that the designs identified in these sources

cannot be substantiated and will later be eliminated, wasting time. The advantage of

using these sources is that they give a broad overview of the field and the types of

designs available.

9.1.2 Depth Search

Subsequently, another search technique was used to ensure depth of results. This

depth search technique is in some ways similar to the snowballing search technique used

in the social sciences to hone in on relevant data. Snowball sampling is “a sampling

procedure in which initial respondents are selected by probability methods and additional

respondents are obtained from information provided by the initial respondents” [250].

Snowball sampling cannot be used as the only search technique because doing so

could significantly bias the search. For instance, if the first BID found were dolphin-

inspired boat hulls and the snowballing technique was then used, materials-based or

dolphin-inspired designs would likely be substantially overrepresented in the sample.

However, the snowballing technique identifies good potential designs more quickly than

general search techniques.

Snowballing searches were conducted based on keywords found in the promising

results of the general search. For instance, the Wikipedia page for ‘Bionics’ used in the

110

general search, states: “Examples of bionics in engineering include the hulls of boats

imitating the thick skin of dolphins” [255]. A Google search of “bioinspired dolphin boat

hulls” provides two scientific articles related to BIDs. The first: “Analysis and

Classification of Broadband Echoes Using Bio-inspired Dolphin Pulses” is related to

dolphins, boats, and bioinspiration and provides the additional examples of a “biomimetic

dolphin based sonar system” and “bio-inspired pulses developed from observations of

bottlenose dolphins” [256]. The second: “Bioinspired Materials for Self-Cleaning and

Self-Healing” was related to bioinspired materials and provides the additional examples

of “composite materials with nacre-like flaw tolerance,” “gecko-inspired reversible

adhesives,” “advanced photonic structures that mimic butterfly wings,” self-cleaning

materials inspired by the lotus leaf, self-healing materials “inspired by living systems in

which minor damage (e.g., a contusion or bruise) triggers an automatic healing response,”

self-cleaning windows, and self-cleaning boat hulls, among others [257]. Each of these

potential BIDs can then be investigated in peer-reviewed literature. A simplified

depiction of this search is shown in the figure below.

111

Figure 18: A snowball sampling search starting with the term “dolphin skin boat hulls” is

more likely to return results related to dolphins or boat hulls than a

randomly-selected and unrelated BID, like “gecko-inspired adhesives.”

Photo credits:[258-263].

9.2 STEP 2: INFORMATION COLLECTION

A wide range of information was collected on the BIDs considered for analysis.

This information is catalogued in ‘Design Library’ entries found in Appendices A-C.

These entries include statements from designers, messages on product websites, patent

claims, journal papers, and books. These sources tell the story of the bioinspiration

process, explain how the design operates, identify competing products, describe how

competing products operate, provide data on the environmental impact of either the BID

or its competing product, and discuss the physical or biological principles that came into

play during product design.

112

Most products analyzed have many different potential competitors. In general,

only one competing product was chosen for comparative analysis, allowing for a more

simplified comparison process. Without a specific competitor in mind, it would be very

difficult to identify sustainability solutions in the BIDs. When there were multiple

competing products, the following types of products were preferred: those with large

market shares, those identified by the designer or company producing the BID as the

intended competitor, those that were the most similar to the BID, and those with easily

accessible information. For instance, in this analysis, self-cleaning surfaces inspired by

the lotus leaf were compared to standard surfaces cleaned using spray and ultrasonic

cleaning methods. These two competing methods were both selected because life cycle

data was available to compare these three methods in a paper from Raibeck et al. [27].

Additionally, Eastgate Centre’s bioinspired passive cooling system was compared to an

electric air conditioner for a building of a similar size in the same location.

9.3 STEP 3: SELECTING DESIGNS TO ANALYZE

The full set of selection criteria is provided in the table below. A detailed

explanation of each criterion follows. During the information collection stage, if a design

was found not to meet one of the criteria described below, it was set aside and not

researched further.

113

Table 6: Design Selection Criteria

1. There must be documented evidence from reputable sources that the design is truly

bioinspired.

2. The design must be feasible.

3. There must be evidence in peer-reviewed literature that the design has a reduced

environmental impact as a result of its bioinspired feature in at least one stage of its

lifecycle, compared to functionally-equivalent competing products.

9.3.1 Criterion 1: The design is bioinspired.

The first criterion, requiring documented evidence from reputable sources

indicating the design is truly bioinspired, is used to ensure that all the designs analyzed

belong in the population of BIDs. This criterion was deemed necessary because

bioinspired status is not a measureable quality that can be determined by looking at the

design itself. It is instead a quality related to the process undergone by the designer.

Given the trendiness of bioinspiration and the enthusiasm people have for it, there is

reason to believe that within the vast expanse of gray literature on the topic, some designs

are misrepresented as bioinspired when, in fact, they are not.

Additionally, even within the realm of authoritative literature on BID there are

discrepancies between different researchers regarding whether specific designs should be

considered bioinspired. For instance, Philip Ball, in a 2001 article in Nature [68], states

that the Eiffel Tower was inspired by bone structure while Julian Vincent et al., in a 2006

article in Journal of the Royal Society Interface [11], state that there are myths that the

Eiffel Tower was inspired by the human femur or a tulip stem, but that it was actually just

designed to resist wind loading. Neither source provides a citation for their statements.

Logically, Ball and Vincent’s contradictory statements cannot both be right. Being

114

incorrect in this case has very little impact on the validity of the work of the authors; in

both cases, the Eiffel Tower was used only as an example to illustrate what BID is (or is

not). However, if this problem is a common one, it could have a large impact on studies,

such as this one, that analyze many BIDs together.

Firsthand accounts from designers or parent companies stating that a design is

bioinspired constitute sufficient evidence to show that a design is truly bioinspired.

Information of this type is frequently found in newspaper interviews with the product’s

inventor, academic papers written by the inventor, patents and patent applications, and

company websites. For instance, to show that Sharklet antibacterial surfaces are truly

bioinspired, Sharket’s website [264], Sharklet patents [265,266], or peer-reviewed papers

from one of Sharklet’s founders, Anthony Brennan [267], are all widely available and

could be used. It is much more challenging to verify older designs, such as the Eiffel

Tower, are truly bioinspired because the inventor can no longer be asked if these designs

were bioinspired or not, and firsthand accounts of the design process are more difficult to

find.

9.3.2 Criterion 2: The design is feasible.

The second criterion, that the design must be feasible, is included to ensure the

findings of the study are limited to those sustainability characteristics that actually can be

transferred to engineering. Frequently, the designs selected are commercially-available

products or a fully-functional prototype, ensuring that they are indeed feasible.

The additional benefit of designs that have clearly been established as feasible is

the increased accuracy with which a product’s mechanisms and environmental impact

can be ascertained. As will be explained in further detail shortly, GDGs are used in this

study to compare the environmental impacts of two products. Since GDGs are used

115

instead of LCA, it is not necessary to have extremely detailed information on all stages of

the products life cycle, as was discussed in Chapter 2. However, it is still incredibly

beneficial to know what the final parts are, what material they are made of, how they are

manufactured and assembled, whether they can be recycled, how much energy they

consume during use, etc. Before a fully-functional prototype exists, many of these aspects

of the product have not yet been determined. Hence using fully-functional prototypes and

commercially available products likely greatly improves the accuracy of the assessment.

9.3.3 Criterion 3: Proof of a reduced environmental impact.

The third criterion is that there must be evidence in peer-reviewed literature that

the design has a reduced environmental impact as a result of its bioinspired feature in at

least one stage of its lifecycle, compared to functionally-equivalent competing products.

Currently, it is trendy to label products as ‘sustainable’ and ‘bioinspired’ for marketing

purposes; there is also a misconception that all BIDs are more sustainable than

alternatives, as was discussed in Chapter 7. The third criterion is used to avoid products

that, in fact, offer no proven environmental advantage as a result of their bioinspired

features.

For example, Velcro is truly a BID [232]. However, when compared to its

competitors – buttons and zippers – there is no logical or fundamental reason why Velcro

would offer a sustainability advantage. There is no evidence in peer-reviewed literature

that Velcro has a reduced environmental impact compared to its competitors as a result of

its bioinspired features. Consequently, Velcro is not included in the analysis.

9.4 ANALYZING INDIVIDUAL DESIGNS USING GREEN DESIGN GUIDELINES (GDGS)

After verifying that the BIDs met the three criteria stated above, and after all

required information had been collected, the designs and their competing products were

116

analyzed using a compilation of 65 GDGs [61]. This analysis was performed by two

researcher independently, using the ‘Design Library’ entries as a resource to learn about

the features of the BIDs and their competing products. These GDGs are reproduced in

Appendix D. The GDGs provide a way to compare the environmental impact of BIDs

with their non-bioinspired equivalents, from the standpoint of a conceptual designer. It is

advantageous to use GDGs instead of LCA tools for this purpose because GDGs are

intended to be used during conceptual design, as are biological analogies, and GDGs are

much faster to use than LCA tools.

For instance, Eastgate Centre, a shopping center and office building in Harare,

Zimbabwe, constructed by Arup and designed by Pearce Partnership, was analyzed using

the GDGs. Instead of having a standard industrially-sized air conditioner, Eastgate Centre

is designed to have a passive cooling system, assisted by fans [29], that mimics cooling in

termite mounds [33,30]. Heat from the building’s people and machinery rises, causing

thermosiphon flow within the building; chimneys on the roof, above the boundary layer

of the wind, prompt induced flow, drawing hot air out the chimney and cool air in at

ground level [34]. According to Arup, Eastgate consumes approximately 50% of the

energy consumed by a comparable building with an air conditioner in Harare [32]. For

the purposes of this analysis, Eastgate Centre was compared to a theoretical similarly-

sized office building in Harare with an industrial-sized electric air-conditioning system.

Consequently, the reduction in energy consumption seen by Eastgate Centre is associated

with a reduction in electricity consumption by the building.

In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, approximately 53% of

electricity in Zimbabwe came from hydropower, 46% from coal and peat, and the

remainder from petroleum [268]. In general, hydropower is considered a renewable

energy resource because the supply of freshwater in rivers that generate hydropower is

117

naturally replenished. However, these resources are vulnerable to climate change and

extreme weather events, such as drought. Additionally, while the relative environmental

impact of hydropower compared to other electricity resources is small, there are still

significant carbon emissions associated with the construction of dams and flooding of

land for dams, as well as an impact on wildlife in the rivers.

Coal, peat, and petroleum are all nonrenewable fossil fuel resources. Coal and

peat are relatively abundant in Zimbabwe while petroleum is not; over the last 40 years,

Zimbabwe has consistently been able to supply enough coal and peat to meet all of its

own needs, but its oil demand has been wholly supplied by imported sources [268]. Coal,

peat, and oil all have well-know environmentally-damaging effects, particularly with

regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

Figure 19: Example GDG comparison. Photo credits: [36,37].

118

Eastgate performed better than this competing building with regard to five GDGs,

three of which are depicted in the figure above and will be discussed further here. It

performed better with regards to GDG #1:“Specifying renewable and abundant

resources” [61], because air circulation in Eastgate occurs as a result of the buoyancy

properties of the air and the geometric design of the building, allowing for a substantial

reduction in electricity consumption when compared to an industrial air conditioning unit.

The buoyancy of air is both renewable and abundant, compared to the electricity needed

to power an industrial air conditioner. Eastgate meets GDG #11: “Specifying the cleanest

source of energy” [61], better than a building with an air conditioning system for similar

reasons, because it uses geometry and waste heat from buildings along with assisting fans

instead of relying much more heavily on electricity from environmentally-damaging

sources. Eastgate meets GDG #32:“Interconnecting available flows of energy and

materials within the product or between the product and its environment” [61] better than

the competitor because the waste heat from the building is used to drive thermosiphon

flow, and the higher velocity of the air at the top of the chimney drives the induced flow.

In contrast, air conditioners typically are stand-alone units, not designed to take

advantage of the physics of site-specific fluid flows.

9.5 CONCLUSION

Chapter 9 presents the methodology used in the empirical study. This study is

aimed at identifying trends in existing sustainable BIDs. This chapter covers the way in

which a list of potential BIDs was compiled, the type of information that was collected

for the considered designs, the criteria used to select designs for analysis, and the manner

in which the environmental impact of BIDs and their competitors were compared.

119

Chapter 10: Data and Analysis of GDG Trends Study

Chapter 10 presents the data collected from the methodology presented in Chapter

9, along with analysis of the GDG-related trends present in the sustainable BIDs. This

includes a list of BIDs compiled using the depth and breadth searches, the aggregate data

from the GDG study, and a discussion of the results of the study in the context of other

research.

10.1 BREADTH AND DEPTH SEARCH RESULTS

The results of the depth and breadth searches for potential BIDs are shown in

Appendix F. The first six lines of this table are shown in the table below. The BID is

listed, along with the biological system that inspired the design and a list of the sources

that identify this design as ‘bioinspired’.

Table 7: The first six BIDs considered for analysis. The complete version of this list is

provided in Appendix F.

# Design Inspired By Sources

1 Dirt and water-repellent paint/coating Lotus leaf

[11,269-271]

2 Boat hulls Dolphin skin [271,272]

3 Sonar/radar Echolocation of bats [271]

4 Medical ultrasound imaging Echolocation of bats [271]

5 Velcro Burs, burdock plant [11,269,271,273]

6 Horn-shaped, saw-tooth design for

lumberjack blades

Wood-burrowing beetle [271]

Overall, 194 potential BIDs were identified, from 93 different academic and non-

academic sources and 27 different authors. 95 potential BIDs were identified from the

breadth search, with an additional 98 coming from the depth search. When a design was

named in multiple sources during the breath or depth searches, it was counted only once.

The list of designs has breadth; it represents examples from a broad range of

fields – architecture, materials science, mechanical engineering, and electrical

120

engineering, to name a few. Additionally, the list of potential BIDs has depth; a number

of the potential BIDs use the same biological analogies for different purposes, and a

number perform the same task using different analogies.

10.2 HOW BIDS RESEARCHED IN DEPTH FARED AGAINST SELECTION CRITERIA

Of the 194 BIDs listed, only 30 were researched in depth to see if they met the

criteria discussed in Chapter 9, due to time constraints and the lack of available

information for some of the designs. A list of these 30 BIDs is provided in Table 8 below.

The table is color-coded, with the color of the row indicating the extent to which the

design met the three selection criteria. Green (rows 1-9) means the BID met all 3 criteria

and was analyzed using the GDGs. Yellow (rows 10-22) means the design was

researched, but it is still unclear whether it meets all criteria due to deficiencies in

information collected. Grey (rows 23-28) means that the item was researched but did not

meet all criteria. Red (rows 29 and 30) means the item may have a much larger

environmental impact because of its bioinspired feature. An asterisk* in front of the

number of the design indicates that there is a ‘design library’ entry for that the design in

one of the appendices, as explained below.

10.3 DESIGN LIBRARY

The designs listed in the table above with an asterisk have a ‘design library’ entry

in one of the appendices, where all information related to that design was collected and

synthesized. Appendix A contains the design library entries for the nine designs

presented above in green that were selected for GDG analysis because they met all three

design selection criteria. Appendix B contains six entries for the designs presented above

in yellow that were close to containing enough information to be analyzed, but lacked

some significant detail. Appendix C contains three example entries for designs presented

121

Table 8: Designs researched thoroughly and how they fared against the selection criteria.

# Design Inspired By Sources *1 Self-cleaning transparent thin film Lotus leaf

[11,269-271]

*2 Eastgate Centre cooling system Termite mound [35,269,271,274]

*3 Biolytix filter Natural decomposition on a

river’s edge

[275]

*4 Daimler-Chrysler bionic car - shape Boxfish [269,273,274,276]

*5 Daimler-Chrysler bionic car -

structure –SKO method

Initially, adaptive growth of

trees; later bones

[11,274,276,277]

*6 Interface Flor i2 Entropy carpet Forest floor [278,279]

*7 Sharklet antimicrobial surface Shark skin [269,280,281]

*8 Shinkansen 500 series nose cone Kingfisher [254,269,277,282]

*9 Shinkansen 500 series pantograph Owl [254,283]

*10 Airbus 320 Shark skin riblets [113,273]

*11 Baleen water filters Blue whale [284]

*12 Calera cement Skeletons of marine

animals

[285,286]

*13 Geckel Geckos and mussels [270]

*14 HotZone radiant heater Lobster eyes [287]

*15 Passive walking bipedal robots Humans [273]

16 Adhesives Gecko feet [11,269,271,273]

17 Aircraft wings with reduced drag,

Airbus A380

Divided wing tip of birds

with wings of low aspect

ratio (buzzard, vulture,

eagle)

[11,288]


19 Mirasol color electronic screens Morpho butterfly wings [273,289]

20 Pelamis wave converter –

Aguacadoura wave farm

The redundant vertebral

units of snakes

[270]


22 Wood glue without toxins -

Columbia Forest Products

Secretions mussels use to

cling to surfaces

underwater

[290]

*23 Crystal Palace in London Giant water lily [11,68,291]

*24 Eiffel Tower Trabecular struts in the

head of a human femur or

the taper of a tulip stem

[68,11]

*25 Velcro Burs, burdock plant [11,269,271,273]

26 CAO Software Initially bones; later trees [274,276,277]

27 Sharklet Marine boat hull coatings Shark skin [281]

28 Sharklet Medical devices Shark skin [281]

29 Robocane Ecolocation [270]

30 Sonar system Dolphins [256,270]

122

above in grey that had sufficient information but did not meet all three criteria. These

entries can be used as a reference for others trying to locate information on those designs

in particular or locating large numbers of BIDs.

Where available, the following information is presented in each design library

entry: (1) an overview listing the BID, biological analogy, competing product, and

environmental advantage of the BID, (2) a description of the biological analogy, (3) a

description of the bioinspired feature, (4) quotations showing that the BID meets all three

design selection criteria, (5) a description of the competing product, and (6) a written

comparison of the environmental impact of the BID versus its competitor.

10.4 AGGREGATE DATA FROM GDG ANALYSIS

The environmental impacts of the nine BIDs that met all three selection criteria

were compared to their non-BID competitors using the GDGs. A table presenting the full

results of the GDG analysis with justification is provided in Appendix G. A summary of

the results is provided in the table below. A green box with a ‘B’ indicates the BID met

the GDG better than the competing product. A red box with a ‘W’ indicates the BID

performed worse on the guideline. Likewise, a yellow box with ‘U’ indicates it is unclear

which is better but there is reason to believe there could be a difference, and an empty

box implies that no difference is anticipated.

123

Table 9: Summary of GDG Analysis, Organized by both GDG and BID.

Part 1: GDGs 1-33 Part 2: GDGs 34-65

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Gre

en

De

sign

Gu

ide

line

s (G

DG

s)

50

0 S

eri

es

Shin

kan

sen

Pan

togr

aph

50

0 S

eri

es

Shin

kan

sen

no

se c

on

e

Dai

mle

r-C

hry

sle

r C

on

cep

t C

ar S

hap

e

Dai

mle

r-C

hry

sle

r C

on

cep

t C

ar S

tru

ctu

re

East

gate

Ce

ntr

e C

oo

ling

Syst

em

Self

-Cle

anin

g Su

rfac

e

Shar

kle

t A

nti

mic

rob

ial S

urf

ace

Bio

lyti

x B

iow

ate

r Fi

lte

r

Inte

rfac

eFL

OR

's e

ntr

op

y ca

rpe

t ti

les

Gre

en

De

sign

Gu

ide

line

s (G

DG

s)

50

0 S

eri

es

Shin

kan

sen

Pan

togr

aph

50

0 S

eri

es

Shin

kan

sen

no

se c

on

e

Dai

mle

r-C

hry

sle

r C

on

cep

t C

ar S

hap

e

Dai

mle

r-C

hry

sle

r C

on

cep

t C

ar S

tru

ctu

re

East

gate

Ce

ntr

e C

oo

ling

Syst

em

Self

-Cle

anin

g Su

rfac

e

Shar

kle

t A

nti

mic

rob

ial S

urf

ace

Bio

lyti

x B

iow

ate

r Fi

lte

r

Inte

rfac

eFL

OR

's e

ntr

op

y ca

rpe

t ti

les

Gre

en

De

sign

Gu

ide

line

s (G

DG

s)

1 B B B 34

2 B 35

3 36

4 B 37

5 B 38

6 39

7 W 40 B

8 B B 41 B B U

9

B B B 42 B

10 U U B 43

11 B B 44

12 45 B

13 46

14 47

15 48

16 49

17 B 50

18 B B 51

19 W 52

20 B 53

21 54

22 W 55 W

23 56

24 W 57

25 B U B 58 B

26 59

27 B B 60

28 B B B B B B B 61

29 62

30 63

31 64

32

B B B

65

33

124

Similarly, a summary of the GDGs met better by each of the BIDs, organized by

BID, is provided in the table below.

Table 10: GDGs met better by the BIDs.

Bioinspired Design Comparison Product GDGs Met

Better By BID

Biolytix Filter Septic tank 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 18,

25, 28, 32, 41

Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car Shape Shape of BMW 3 Series

Sedan 28

Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car Structure Standard car frame 17, 18, 27, 28

Eastgate Centre Cooling System Electric air conditioner 1, 11, 28, 32

Interface FLOR i2 Entropy Carpet Conventional modular

carpet 5, 20, 40, 45, 58

Self-Cleaning Transparent Thin Film Standard surface, spray

and ultrasonic cleaning

1, 9, 11, 25, 27,

28, 32

Sharklet Antimicrobial Surface Clorox disinfectant

bathroom cleaner 9, 41, 42

Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone Shinkansen 300 Series

nose cone 8, 28

Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph Standard pantograph

without serrations 8, 28

A number of trends were uncovered related to the GDGs that were most

frequently met superiorly by the BIDs compared to their non-BID competitors.

Seven out of 9 BIDs met GDG #28: “Specifying best-in-class energy efficiency

components” [61] better than competitors. For instance, Eastgate Centre met GDG #28

better than an office building in Harare of similar size with an electric air conditioner

because less active energy needed to be brought into the system to get the same amount

of cooling [32].

125

Additionally, 3 GDGs were met better by the BIDs as a result of their bioinspired

features for 3 out of 9 design pairs: (1) GDG #1: “Specifying renewable and abundant

resources,” (2) GDG #9: “Specifying non-hazardous and otherwise environmentally

“clean” substances, especially in regards to user health,” and (3) GDG #32:

“Interconnecting available flows of energy and materials within the product or between

the product and its environment” [61]. For instance, Biolytix met GDG #32 better than

non-BID alternatives because the flow of waste material through the system is

interconnected with the filtration function. As the waste is filtered, it becomes the humus,

which then serves as the filter for the next batch of waste [292]. Additionally, the

Biolytix system itself – which is filled with worms and insects – functions much as a

miniature soil ecosystem, where the living organisms that are a part of the product are

interconnected with the filtering and treatment functions to a greater extent than occurs in

standard septic systems [293,292].

Finally, 6 GDGs were met better by 2 out of 9 BIDs: (1) GDG #8: “Installing

protection against release of pollutants and hazardous substances,” (2) GDG #11:

“Specifying the cleanest source of energy,” (3) GDG #18: “Specifying lightweight

materials and components,” (4) GDG #25: “Implementing reusable supplies or ensuring

the maximum usefulness of consumables,” (5) GDG #27: “Minimizing the volume and

weight of parts and materials to which energy is transferred,” and (6) GDG #41:

“Ensuring minimal maintenance and minimizing failure modes in the product and its

components" [61]. For example, lotus-inspired self-cleaning surfaces met GDG #25

better than standard surfaces that were spray cleaned or cleaned using ultrasonic aqueous

cleaning methods because self-cleaning surfaces minimize the volume of water consumed

during cleaning [27]. Additionally, the structure of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept

car met GDG #27 because the bioinspired SKO method reduces the weight of the car’s

126

frame [41,294]. Since energy is transferred to the frame in the process of moving the car,

the bioinspired frame minimizes “the weight of parts and materials to which energy is

transferred” [61].

A diagram depicting these guidelines most frequently met better by the BIDs,

compared to their non-BID competitors, is shown in the figure below.

Figure 20: Trends related to the GDGs most frequently met better by the BIDs than their

competitors.

127

10.5 VALIDATION OF GDG RESULTS

The GDG analysis was validated by having different researchers independently

conduct the analysis and through the comparison of their combined results with related

work of others in the BID community.

10.5.1 Independent Raters

The GDG analysis was performed independently by two researchers – the author

and an undergraduate mechanical engineering student – to ensure the repeatability of the

results. Both researchers had access to the design library entries for the designs analyzed,

the sources cited in the design library entries, and Telenko’s master’s thesis [61], which

contains a detailed explanation of each GDG with examples. Both researchers also

performed internet searches to better understand the designs. The analysis for Eastgate

Centre was provided as a training example to the undergraduate researcher and,

consequently, was not arrived at using this method.

After the GDG analysis had been performed independently, the results of the two

raters were compared, and areas of disagreement discussed. Most disagreements in

ratings were caused by differing interpretations of the GDGs. For instance, one rater

interpreted GDG #25: “Implementing reusable supplies or ensuring the maximum

usefulness of consumables” [61] as applying to cases in which the need for energy inputs

was reduced. In this case, the rater interpreted energy inputs as ‘consumables.’ Upon

consultation with the other rater and others more familiar with the guidelines, it was

determined that energy would not be considered a ‘consumable’ in this sense, and the

reduction in energy inputs would instead be accounted for under GDG #28: “Specifying

best-in-class energy efficiency components” [61]. Most other disagreements had to do

with differences in information concerning the designs themselves. These disagreements

were quickly resolved with the other rater reading the source containing the information

128

of interest and a collective judgment being made related to the new source’s legitimacy

and the information’s relevance to the guideline in question.

10.5.2 Comparison of Results with Other Work

In some cases, it was also possible to validate the results of this study using the

work of other researchers. In particular, a 2010 paper from Wadia and McAdams [62]

and Wadia’s 2011 thesis [63], both discussed in Chapter 2, present studies where BIDs

were analyzed and either biomimetic design guidelines [62] or biomimetic design

principles [63] were generated. Additionally, this work analyzes some of the same BIDs

analyzed here – including Eastgate Centre, the shape of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic

concept car, the nose cone of the Shinkansen train, the lotus-inspired self-cleaning

surface, and the Shinkansen’s pantograph.

Specifically, one of the biomimetic design principles presented in Wadia [63] –

“Use materials and/or energy from the environment to help the product/system

accomplish its function” – and one of the biomimetic design guidelines from Wadia and

McAdams [62] – “Interact with and use environment versus isolation” – seem to get to

the heart of GDG #32 – “Interconnecting available flows of energy and materials within

the product or between the product and its environment” [61]. The examples Wadia [63]

provides for biomimetic design guideline discussed here include Eastgate Centre, the

lotus plant, and shark dentricles. This indicates that Eastgate Centre should likely meet

GDG #32, and that transparent thin films inspired by the lotus leaf and Sharklet may

likely meet this guideline as well, since their biological analogies likely meet GDG #32.

Here, Eastgate Centre and the self-cleaning transparent thin film were both found to meet

GDG #32 better than their comparison products, but Sharklet did not. This discrepancy

can be explained by the description Wadia provides explaining why shark dentricles meet

129

the biomimetic design guideline. He states: “The shark uses the water flowing along its

surface (along with its ribbed dentricles) to keep its skin clean” [63]. This trait does not

transfer to Sharklet because Sharklet does not use water, or any other medium in its

environment, to keep itself clean; instead, it prevents bacteria from forming colonies

through the use of physical barriers. Ultimately, Wadia’s [63] results prove consistent

with the findings presented in the GDG analysis above.

10.6 CONCLUSION

The data and analysis for the GDG study is presented above. Ultimately, the study

uncovered preliminary trends in a pool of nine sustainable BIDs. These designs were

found to frequently meet a number of efficiency-related GDGs, compared to a

functionally equivalent non-BID product. The results of this study were validated through

the use of two raters, along with partial validation from the results of related studies.

130

Chapter 11: Additional Keyword Trends

Chapter 11 presents a keyword study uncovering trends in the sustainable BIDs

discussed in Chapter 10. First, the methodology is presented, along with an in-depth

analysis of three keywords identified – passive mechanisms, multifunctional designs, and

optimized geometries. Each keyword is defined in the context of both biology and

engineering, examples are provided, and the keyword’s connection to a potential

reduction in environmental impact explained. Second, the classification of these three

keywords as true ‘trends’ in sustainable BIDs is validated by analyzing the 9 sustainable

designs discussed in Chapter 10 and by confirming these trends with other BID literature.

11.1 METHODOLOGY OF KEYWORD TRENDS STUDY

While conducting the study outlined in Chapter 9 and collecting the data

summarized in Chapter 10, keywords related to sustainability characteristics of the BIDs

repeatedly arose in the literature. These keywords were researched further to see if the

concepts they referenced point to a meaningful set of design characteristics desirable in

sustainable design and might be accurately applied to the other sustainable BIDs. Each

keyword trait was defined using a wide range of literature from biology and engineering,

with numerous examples of the keyword traits provided. Literature research was

conducted to confirm that the keyword traits are associated with likely sustainability

benefits, and that they are likely to be found in biology and BIDs. Using this information,

each of the 9 sustainable BIDs was analyzed for the keywords that repeatedly arose in the

study, to see if they could be regarded as possessing the trait of interest, even if no

sources in the literature directly described them as possessing those traits. Like in Chapter

10, this analysis was conducted by two independent researchers and the results compared.

The literature research and results of the analysis are provided below.

131

11.2 IDENTIFYING KEYWORDS

The keywords were identified in the literature on the 9 BIDs analyzed in Chapter

10. For instance, 4 out of 9 sustainable BIDs are described as “passive,” indicating that

passive mechanisms may be linked to sustainable BID. Five sources [292,293,295-297]

describe Biolytix as “passive”, along with four sources [29-32] for the cooling system in

Eastgate Centre, one source [266] for Sharklet, and one source [298] describing self-

correction boxfish.

Ultimately, three keywords were identified from the group of sustainable BIDs:

passive mechanisms, multifunctional designs, and optimized geometries. Each of these

terms was found in the literature on one or more of the designs and the related

sustainability characteristic was found to apply to many of the sustainable BIDs analyzed.

These three features will be discussed in detail throughout the remainder of the chapter.

11.3 PASSIVE MECHANISMS

Passive mechanisms are discussed throughout literature in biology and

engineering. Definitions and explanations of passive mechanisms from a wide range of

sources are provided below:

Okada et al. [299] distinguish active and passive compliance in the shoulder

mechanisms of humanoid robots, by explaining that “active compliance is

realized by actuators” whereas “passive compliance means mechanical

compliance of members.”

Wright et al. [300] examine the regulation of impact forces in heel-toe running

and state that “Active changes may consist of altered muscle stimulations of

initial conditions prior to heelstrike” whereas “Passive changes are a

mechanical reaction of the system to altered shoe hardness.”

132

In the context of the control of functional capillary density in red muscle,

Honig et al. [301] explain that active control would be performed “by vascular

smooth muscle,” while passive control is performed “by the rheological

properties of microvascular networks.”

Dietschy [302] states, in the context of a discussion of the mechanisms for the

intestinal absorption of bile acids, that “Net movement of a given substance

across a membrane by a passive mechanism can take place only in the

presence of a favorable electrochemical gradient.”

In the context of prosthetic hand design, Dechev et al. [303] define passive

adaptive grasp as not requiring “sensors or electronic processing” to perform

their required function.

Based on these definitions, it is clear that active mechanisms involve action to perform

the desired effect – mechanical actuators or the stimulation of muscle, for instance –

whereas passive mechanisms perform the desired function without the need for active

energy – for example, through mechanical compliance or the rheological properties of the

environment.

These definitions and explanations of passive mechanisms support the more

general definition of ‘passive mechanisms’ adopted here. Here, passive mechanisms are

defined as mechanisms that use ambient energy and perpetually-existing forces, such as

gravity, to perform functions. Their system inputs are either renewable, such as waste

heat and sunlight, or are not consumed during the operation of the mechanism, such as

gravity and magnetic properties. Other potential inputs to passive systems include

chemical attraction and repulsion, inertia, and the physics of fluid flow, for instance.

133

11.3.1 Examples of Passive Mechanisms

Passive mechanisms are found in numerous non-bioinspired engineering designs,

BIDs, and biological systems. A list of examples described as “passive” in academic

literature is provided in the table below with sources. These examples illustrate the

potentially wide scope of passive mechanisms within engineering, BID, and biology.

Table 11: Examples of passive mechanisms in non-BID engineered systems, BIDs, and

biological systems.

Engineered Systems

(not Bioinspired)

BIDs Biological Systems

1. Use of v-shaped wall

protrusions to reduce

turbulence in channel flow

[304]

2. Passive tuned mass dampers

to reduce vibrations in

buildings [305]

3. “[P]assive elastomeric engine

mounts… for isolating an

airframe from an engine”

[306]

4. Multicomponent phase

change materials used for

“passive solar heating” [307]

5. “Passive ventilation and

heating in a multi-storey

structure, by natural

convection” [308]

6. “Passive solar water-heating”

systems [309]

7. Passive solar lighting systems

for residential or commercial

structures using optical fibers

[310]

8. “[C]ircuts that provide

lossless passive soft

switching” [310]

1. Passive cooling in Eastgate

Centre [29-32]

2. “[P]assive transport of solids

by waste water” [295 ]; “on-

site passive treatment” of

waste water [297 ]; “passive

discharge of raw effluent”

[292 ]; and “Passive

ventilation” [296 ] in

Biolytix

3. Sharklet’s “passive and

nontoxic surface” [266 ]

4. Bipedal robots with passive

walking mechanisms

[311,312]

5. Micro-air vehicles with

passive joints inspired by

seagulls [313]

6. Passive systems to collect

and distribute water inspired

by thorny devils [314]

7. Passive compliance in the

shoulder mechanisms of

humanoid robots [299]

8. Passive adaptive grasp in

prosthetic hand design [303]

1. “Passive self-correction of a

body position in the boxfish”

[298]

2. Muscle actuation in animals

can be performed using

passive mechanisms in the

hinges between joints [68]

3. Passive soft tissue is present

in the subtalar and talo-

crural joints in humans [300]

4. Passive mechanisms in the

wings of fruit flies allow

elastic energy storage [315]

5. Stretching soft tissues in

humans’ hips creates passive

moments [316]

6. Passive mechanisms

contribute to functional

capillary density [301]

7. “[P]assive mechanisms drive

secretory granule

biogenesis” in the parasite

Giardia lamblia” [317]

8. Passive mechanisms cause

“ionic diffusion of bile

acid… across the small

intestine” [302]

9. The buildup of calcium salts

in human arteries can occur

passively [318]

10. “Passive mechanical forces”

are involved in caterpillar

motion [319]

134

11.3.2 Potential Environmental Benefits of Passive Mechanisms

Passive mechanisms use freely-available, clean, renewable energy. They

consequently are connected to a reduction in the consumption of active energy sources,

such as fossil fuels. In some sense, passive mechanisms can also be connected to energy

efficiency. While the technical energy efficiency of a passive mechanism may be low,

because they may use a significant amount of ambient energy, passive mechanisms can

still be considered ‘efficient’ from an environmental standpoint because they require

fewer active energy inputs to achieve the same outputs as competing products.

Many sources discuss the connection between passive mechanisms and energy

efficiency, making it clear that this interpretation of energy efficiency is not at odds with

the rest of the field. Three sources discuss passive mechanisms that allow energy storage

in the wings of fruit flies [315], in compliant members in humanoid robots [299], and in

the hips and ankles of humans [316]. This energy storage capability leads to significant

increases in energy efficiency, accounting for 10% of the inertial power in the wings of

fruit flies [315] and 35% of the net hip moment in humans [316], for instance.

Additionally, passive mechanisms in connectors for metamorphic robots have low or no

power consumption [320], and wall protrusions have been shown to reduce turbulence in

channel flow passively, resulting in as much as a 10% drag reduction compared to a

smooth surface [304].

Hence, designs containing a bioinspired passive mechanism are likely to

outperform competitors without a passive mechanism when compared using the

following GDGs: #1: “Specifying renewable and abundant resources”; #11: “Specifying

the cleanest source of energy”; and #32: “Interconnecting available flows of energy and

materials within the product or between the product and its environment” [61]. When a

reduction in energy inputs to achieve the same outputs is considered energy efficiency, as

135

explained above, GDG #28: “Specifying the best-in-class energy efficiency components”

[61] should also be included in this list.

11.3.3 Passive Mechanisms Conclusion

Passive mechanisms perform functions with the use of clean, renewable, ambient

energy sources and can be found in a wide range of biological systems, BIDs, and non-

BID engineering designs. Passive mechanisms are associated with a number of

environmental benefits related to using renewable, abundant, and clean energy; they are

often also associated with increased energy efficiency because they require the use of

fewer active energy inputs.

11.4 MULTIFUNCTIONAL DESIGNS

Multifunctional components perform numerous functions. For instance,

“[m]ultifunctional materials are integrated systems that serve multiple roles such as

structural load bearing, thermal management” and energy absorption [321]. Component

integration is one way to design multifunctional parts. Component integration is a

“design-for-manufacturing (DFM) strategy” that minimizes the total number of parts,

frequently producing complex parts [322].

Multifunctional designs are a type of integral product architecture, where “a

single chunk implements many functional elements” [322]. Many sources [323-326]

emphasize the connection between multifunctionality and integral product architectures,

stating that products with integral architectures have many functions performed by one or

a few physical parts. In contrast to integral and multifunctional designs, modular

architectures have a one-to-one correspondence between functions performed and

physical elements [322,324,326,327].

136

11.4.1 Examples of Multifunctional Designs

Many non-BID engineering designs, BIDs, and biological systems are described

in academic literature as “multifunctional.” A number of examples are provided in the

table below. Designs described as “integrated” or “integral” that appeared to

multifunctional were also included. These examples show the broad scope that

multifunctional designs have.

Table 12: Examples of multifunctional designs in non-BID engineered systems, BIDs,

and biological systems.

Engineered Systems

(not Bioinspired)


1. The physical structure for the

transmission of the BMW

R1100RS motorcycle

provides both structural

support and power

conversion [322]

2. Integrated into “the throttle-

body end of [a] redesigned

intake manifold” “are the

attachments for the EGR

return and the vacuum source

block. These attachments use

a molded ‘push in and turn’

geometry, eliminating the

need for several threaded

fasteners” [322]

3. Stone et al. [324] name

wrenches and screwdrivers as

examples of integral

products, stating that “[a]ll

functions are embodied by

one physical element.”

4. A drawer with an indentation

to accommodate a hand is an

example of an integrated

design because it eliminates

the need for a separate handle

and fasteners [325]

1. Liu and Jiang [328]

provide a list of 13

bioinspired

multifunctional materials

with sources and a list of

their multifunctional

properties, including

fabrics, glass, glass slide,

nickel, PAH-

SPEEK/PAA, PDMS,

PUA, Si wafer, silica,

silicon, UPy, and ZnO.

2. “The Eastgate Complex

integrates the internal

and external

environments reducing

the chances of system

failure” [63]

1. Liu and Jiang [328] provide a list

of 17 multifunctional materials

in biological organisms: butterfly

wings, brittlestars, cicada wings,

fish scales, gecko feet, lotus

leaves, mosquito compound

eyes, nacre, peacock feathers,

polar bear fur, rice leaves, rose

petal, shark skin, spicule, spider

capture silk, spider dragline silk,

and water strider legs.

2. “A striking particularity of nastic

structures is an efficient and

inconspicuous design that

integrates two or more

functions… into one smoothly

operating unit” [329 ]

3. The “natural fibrous composite

material” in the “cuticle of

arthropods” is “multifunctional”

[11 ]

4. The shark’s dermal denticles are

multifunctional because they

both reduce drag and keep the

skin clean” [31]

5. Pandremenos et al. [330] discuss

a number of integrated and

multifunctional designs

including the “highly integrated

modules” in “the metabolic

network of various organisms”

and honeycomb.

137

11.4.2 Potential Environmental Benefits of Multifunctional Designs

Because they are a subset of integral designs, multifunctional designs share the

same environmental benefits.

Integral designs are linked to materials efficiency for a number of reasons. First,

they frequently eliminate redundant parts; for example, a redesigned intake manifold

“eliminat[ed] the need for several fasteners” through the integration of “the attachments

for the EGR return and the vacuum source block” [322]. Additionally, the function-

sharing in integral designs reduces materials usage, and “the geometric nesting of

components” minimizes the volume [322], which is why other authors describe integral

products as “lightweight” and “compact” [330]. For example, the integral architecture of

the BMW R1100RS motorcycle, a non-BID engineered product, helped reduce the mass

and volume of the design [322].

Integral designs are loosely connected to energy efficiency as well. The material

efficiency of integral designs, discussed above, translates to a reduction in the mass, and

a reduction in energy required during transportation and operation. Additionally, products

with integral architectures are linked to a higher degree of optimization than modular

products [322,331], particularly with respect to performance characteristics, such as

“acceleration, energy consumption, aerodynamic drag” and noise that are “driven by the

size, shape, and mass of a product” [322].

As a result of their environmental benefits, multifunctional and integral designs

are likely to meet the following GDGs better than a modular comparison product: #16,

#17, #18, #21, #27, #28, #40, #52, and #59. GDGs #21: “Minimizing the number of

components”; #52: “Minimizing the # and variety of joining elements”; and #59:

“Condensing into a minimal # of parts” [61] are all related to reducing the number of

redundant parts. GDGs #16: “Employing folding, nesting or disassembly to distribute

138

products in a compact state”; #17: “Applying structural techniques and materials to

minimize the total volume of material”; #18: “Specifying lightweight materials and

components”; and #27: “Minimizing the volume and weight of parts and materials to

which energy is transferred” [61] are all associated with minimizing the volume and mass

of parts. Additionally, GDG #28: “Specifying best-in-class energy efficiency

components” [61] is associated with increased optimization for acceleration, energy

consumption, drag, and noise.

11.4.3 Potential Environmental Benefits of Modular Designs

However, modular product architectures are also associated with environmental

impact advantages, primarily during a product’s end-of-life. These advantages include

enhanced ability to be maintained [332,333], reconfigured [334], upgraded [332-334],

reused [332-335], remanufactured [335], recycled [332-335], and have problems

diagnosed and repaired [332]. For example, “the fact that the alternator is a separate

module that can be removed fairly easily (as opposed to being an integral part of the

engine block) aids in both service and in product retirement” [327].

Hence, modular designs are likely to meet the following GDGs better than a

multifunctional or integral comparison product: #38, #39, #55, #57, and #58. GDG #38:

“Reutilizing high-embedded energy components” [61] is related to the increased

reusability of different modules. GDG #39: “Planning for on-going efficiency

improvements” [61] is related to increased upgradability. GDG #55: “Ensuring that

incompatible materials are easily separated” [61] is related to increased recyclability.

GDGs #57: “Organizing in hierarchical modules by aesthetic, repair, and end-of-life

protocol” involves how a product is grouped in modules, and #58: “Implementing

139

reusable/swappable platforms, modules, and components” [61] is directly related to the

existence of modules.

11.4.4 Multifunctional Design Conclusion

Multifunctional designs perform functions with fewer overall components and

less material than modular designs. They can be found in a wide range of biological

systems, BIDs, and non-BID engineering designs. There are many environmental

tradeoffs between modular and integral/multifunctional designs, and the decision of

which type of design to use depends on the specifics of the type of product and its

intended application. Integral, and hence multifunctional, designs are associated with

materials efficiency because they eliminate redundant parts, minimize the mass of parts,

and minimize the volume of parts through nesting. They are also associated with energy

efficiency because of their reduced mass and the fact that they are more likely to be

optimized for energy-related parameters. In contrast, modular designs are associated with

environmental benefits in end-of-life; they can be more easily maintained, repaired,

reused, and recycled, for instance.

11.5 OPTIMIZED GEOMETRIES

‘Optimized geometries’ are shapes that are particularly desirable, for example,

because they are aerodynamic, resistant to deformation, prevent organisms from growing

on their surface, or encourage desirable fluid flow for heat transfer or acoustics. There is

some theoretical support indicating optimized geometries are likely to successfully

transfer their benefits to engineering designs because geometry is a surface-level

attribute, making it easier to replicate in engineering [80].

140

11.5.1 Examples of Optimized Geometries

Many non-bioinspired engineering designs, BIDs, and biological organisms

reportedly have optimized geometries. A list of examples explicitly referenced in

academic literature is provided in the table below. These examples illustrate the scope of

optimized geometries within engineering, BID, and biology.

Table 13: Examples of optimized geometries in non-BID engineered systems, BIDs, and

biological systems.

Engineered Systems

(not Bioinspired)


1. “Fiber-optic SERS sensor

with optimized geometry”

[336]

2. “A two-dimensional

lightweight cantilever

structure… comprising 40

rigidly joined beams, of

which the geometry is

optimized to reduce

vibration transmission over

a given bandwidth” [337]

3. Optimizing the geometry of

the chamber in

microchannel reactors

promotes flow uniformity

[338]

4. Optimizing blade

geometries for transonic

compressors using CFD

[339]

5. Optimized gas nozzle

geometries [340]

6. Topology optimization for

scaffolds in bone tissue

engineering [341]

7. Optimized geometries for

vascular stents [342]

1. The surface of some earth-moving

machinery (ploughs) was inspired

by the geometrically optimized

ridges on soil-moving animals [11]

2. Optimized geometries are in the

bionic concept car, and the

Shinkansen’s nose cone and

pantograph [63].

3. In an organ on a chip, “[t]he

geometry of [the]engineered tissue

interface was optimized to

approximate the blood flow rate of

the liver and to align rat

hepatocytes… as they do along the

endothelium-lined sinusoidal barrier

in vivo” [343]

4. “[M]oth-eye anti-reflection

coatings” where “[t]he geometry of

closely packed arrays of nanoripples

was optimized for operation” in

solar cells [344]

5. Using the performance of Ensis

directus, the Atlantic razor clam,

“and the animal’s geometry” Winter

et al. [345] “calculated that an

Ensis-based burrowing/anchoring

system would provide a 10X

improvement.”

6. “[O]ptimum bio-inspired attachment

structures” based on the

“[s]tructure, size, and shape of

contact elements” in “insects,

spiders, and geckos” are being

developed [346].

1. “One of the most

intriguing shapes is the

branching structure of

the “adhesive” hairs on

the foot of the gecko.

They are far finer than

anything generated by

etching processes, being

of nanometric

dimension at the

tipmost branches” [294]

2. “The optimally located

holes in the insect

cuticle deform under

external stimuli” [63]

3. “The microscopic ribs

of the shark’s scales

suppress turbulence in

the boundary-layer

flow,” reducing energy

loss caused by drag [68]

4. “Adaptive geometry of

burrow spacing in two

pocket gopher

populations” [347]

5. Andersen [348]

discusses the adaptive

geometry of geomyid

burrows in the context

of different

environmental

constraints related to

energetics.

141

11.5.2 Potential Environmental Benefits of Optimized Geometries

Ultimately, whether an optimized geometry confers a sustainability-related

benefit depends on the sense in which the geometry is optimal. If a profile on a BID is

optimized to more easily get the attention of consumers, for instance, this would not be

expected to confer a sustainability-related advantage.

In some cases, however, optimized geometries are likely to cause a system to be

more energy efficient. For instance, “The microscopic ribs of the shark’s scales suppress

turbulence in the boundary-layer flow,” reducing energy loss caused by drag [68].

Frequently, when bioinspired optimized geometries are incorporated into products, only

minor changes to the existing geometrical profile of products are required. Unless these

slight changes in geometry require different manufacturing process or materials to be

used, it seems that incorporating optimized geometries would likely have a very small

impact in other stages of the life cycle. Consequently, it is likely that incorporating an

optimized geometry would lead to a more sustainable product overall.

In addition, the models of biological systems used by engineers in BID may

frequently be more ‘optimized’ and ‘efficient’ than the biological organism they are

modeling. Weber et al. [224] observed that models of biological systems are frequently

idealized, and when they compared the performance of real and idealized versions of

cetacean flippers in water tunnel testing, they found that “[d]rag performance was

significantly improved by idealization.” Hence, if a final design is more likely to be

efficient when it has been inspired by an efficient analogy, engineers conducting BID

may see this advantage simply by modeling and idealizing the biological system.

Because of the wide range of ways geometries could be optimized, and the

consequent range of environmental impact advantages they could have, optimized

geometries are not analyzed here in terms of the GDGs they are likely to affect.

142

11.5.3 Optimized Geometries Conclusion

Optimized geometries perform a wide range of functions as a result of their

desirable shape. In some cases, optimized geometries are likely to cause a system to be

more energy efficient. Minor changes in shape to optimize geometries found in products

would likely have a very small environmental impact in other stages of the life cycle.

Hence, incorporating an optimized geometry into a design would likely lead to a more

sustainable product overall.

11.6 VALIDATION OF KEYWORD TRENDS BY ANALYZING 9 SUSTAINABLE BIDS

Two researchers analyzed the nine sustainable BIDs using the same procedure

discussed in Chapter 10 to see which contained bioinspired passive mechanisms,

multifunctional designs, and optimized geometries, and experienced an environmental

impact advantage over their competitors as a result of these bioinspired features. A

summary of these results is show in the table below. An explanation of why each design

was found to have these traits is provided in Appendix H.

Table 14: Keyword trends found in sustainable BIDS.

Bioinspired Designs Analyzed

Passive

Mechanisms

Multifunctional

Designs

Optimized

Geometries

Biolytix Filter X

Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car - Shape X

Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car -

Structure

Eastgate Centre Cooling System X X

Interface FLOR i2 Entropy Carpet

Self-Cleaning Transparent Thin Film X X

Sharklet Antimicrobial Surface X

Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone X

Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph X

As is shown in the table above, 3 of the 9 BIDs were found to have bioinspired

passive mechanisms that conferred an environmental impact advantage. To be considered

143

as such, the biological analogy needed to have a passive feature that was then transferred

to engineering and remained passive in the BID. Additionally, they needed to have a

feasible ‘active’ alternative design in engineering. All 3 BIDs with bioinspired passive

mechanisms met many of the GDGs connected to passive mechanisms better than the

competing product; all three met GDGs #1 and #32, and two of the three met GDG #11.

Two of the 9 sustainable BIDs were identified as being more multifunctional than

competing products as a result of their bioinspired features. BIDs were classified as

‘multifunctional’ only if the BID integrated two components that were separate in the

competing product, but were integrated in the biological analogy. Additionally, the

component integration needed to be the cause of the reduced environmental impact. Of

the ten GDGs theoretically associated with integral and multifunctional designs, GDGs

#17, #18, #27, #28, #40 are hit by the 9 BIDs analyzed in the study. The two BIDs

determined to be multifunctional designs hit at least one of these guidelines. With the

exception of Inteface FLOR, which met guideline #58, none of the other BIDs met any of

the GDGs associated with modularity.

Four out of ten of the designs analyzed in the study had optimized geometries that

were transferred from the biological analogy to the engineered design and conferred a

sustainability advantage.

11.6.1 How This Analysis Validates the Three Keyword Trends

This analysis is fundamentally different than the methodology that drove the

discovery of the keywords. Rather than looking in the BID literature for quotations

related to these terms for each of the designs, the designs were analyzed using the

information from the library entries and the definitions of the keywords, provided above,

to see whether or not the designs had each of the potential keyword trends. In many

144

cases, this meant that designs with no reference in the literature to the keywords were

determined to have one of the keyword trends; for instance, no quotations were found

describing the self-cleaning transparent thin film as passive, but it was still found to have

a passive mechanism in the analysis. In other cases, designs with a reference in the

literature to one of the keywords were ultimately found to not have the related keyword

trend; for instance, self-correction boxfish was described as passive in the literature

[298], but the shape of the Daimler-Chrysler concept car was not found to have a passive

mechanism. Hence, this analysis is different from the methodology that originally

developed the list of keyword and can be used to confirm that passive mechanisms,

multifunctional designs, and optimized geometries are trends in sustainable BID.

However, since the keywords were frequently found in the literature on these designs it is

more likely that this particular sample of sustainable BIDs would possess these features,

meaning further support is necessary.

11.7 VALIDATION OF TRENDS USING BID LITERATURE

Other sources in BID literature focused on finding design principles in biology or

biomimetic design principles further confirm that the three keywords identified represent

true trends in sustainable BIDs. In particular, a 2010 conference paper from Wadia and

McAdams on biomimetic guidelines [62], a 2011 thesis from Wadia on biomimetic

design principles [63], a 2009 figure from the Biomimicry Guild on life’s principles [64],

and a 2011 figure from the Biomimicry Group, also on life’s principles [65], are heavily

used. More information on these sources can be found in Chapter 2.

11.7.1 Passive Mechanisms

Three of the sources mentioned above present principles related to passive

mechanisms. Both the Biomimicry Guild and the Biomimicry Group documents deal

145

with the design principles of biology and have the analogous principles: “free energy”

[64] and “use readily available materials and energy” [65], respectively. The Biomimicry

Group also describes the “Operating Conditions” in biology as including “sunlight, water,

and gravity” [65]. These two sources imply that many passive mechanisms in biology

should exist, at least at the initial places on the food chain where this free, readily

available energy from the sun is harnessed. In addition, work confirms that BID can be

used to design products with passive mechanisms. One of Wadia’s [63] biomimetic

design principles – “Use materials and/or energy from the environment to help the

product/system accomplish its function” – is of a similar nature, but is related directly to

BIDs.

Hence, the results presented above from the keyword trends study regarding

passive mechanisms are consistent with, and validated by, the work from Wadia [63],

who used a different methodology on a pool of standard BIDs to arrive at the same trend;

this work is also consistent with efforts from the Biomimicry Guild and Biomimicry

Group, whose methodology is far less transparent, but is likely to be substantially

different from the methodology presented here.

11.7.2 Multifunctional Designs

Many sources confirm the presence of multifunctional designs in biology. The

Biomimicry Group [65] includes three principles related to multifunctional design: (1)

“integrate the unexpected”; (2) “use multi-functional design” under the category “be

resource (material and energy) efficient”; and (3) “combine modular and nested

components” under the category “integrate development with growth.” Similarly, the

Biomimicry Guild [64] lists “multi-functional design” as one of ‘Life’s Principles.’

Additionally, Pandremenos et al. [330] study a number of examples of both modular and

146

integral design architectures in biology, finding that integral architecture is common in

“cases where… strong relations among the different parts are required” “for the

biological systems to function properly.” Both Pandremenos et al. [330] and Liu and

Jiang [328] claim that biological materials are multifunctional. Helms et al. state:

“Biological designs typically result in more multi-functional and interdependent designs

than engineering designs” [144].

Additionally, work from Wadia [63] and Wadia and McAdams [62] confirm that

BID can be used to create multifunctional designs in their similar biomimetic design

principle and biomimetic design guideline – “Make a single part from two or more parts

with distinctive material properties and functionalities” and “incorporate multi-

functionality,” respectively. Wadia and McAdams [62] observed this biomimetic design

guideline in 40% of the 20 BIDs they analyzed.

11.7.3 Optimized Geometries

Both the Biomimicry Group [65] and Biomimicry Guild [64] confirm the

presence of optimized geometries in biology, through the principle: “fit form to

function,” which is under the category “be resource (material and energy) efficient” in the

Biomimicry Group’s version. Additionally, both Wadia and McAdams [62] and Wadia

[63] confirm the ability of BID to generate optimized geometries. Wadia and McAdams

[62] observed instances of “Fit form to function” in 50% of the BIDs they analyzed, and

Wadia’s [63] biomimetic design principles include - “Form: Adapt and optimize the

form/shape/size of the product to meet specific functional needs.” All of this work serves

to validate the idea that ‘optimized geometries’ are a true trend in BIDs.

147

11.8 CONCLUSION

Three keywords were identified from the literature on the 9 BIDs analyzed in

Chapter 10 – passive mechanisms, multifunctional designs, and optimized geometries.

Each of these concepts was defined, and numerous examples of these types of designs in

non-BID engineering, BID, and biology were provided. The relation between each design

type and potential environmental impact reductions were discussed. In particular, all

three design types are associated with either energy or materials efficiency.

To determine whether these keyword design types represent true trends in

sustainable BIDs, the pool of 9 BIDs was then analyzed to see whether they actually

contained bioinspired features of these types, and to see whether these features were

associated with environmental benefits. Of 9 designs analyzed, 3 had passive

mechanisms, 2 were multifunctional, and 4 had optimized geometries. Because the

methodology used to determine the keywords is different from that used to determine

whether these design types are truly present in the BIDs, this analysis partially confirms

that these three design types represent trends in sustainable BIDs. Additionally, work

from the BID community enumerating biology’s design principles and general

biomimetic design principles further confirm the results presented here. Hence, there is

evidence that passive mechanisms, multifunctional designs, and optimized geometries are

true trends in sustainable BIDs.

148

Chapter 12: Section 2 Conclusion

Chapter 12 concludes Section 2, which identified and analyzed trends related to

environmental impact reduction in existing sustainable BIDs. A summary of Section 2 is

provided, followed by a brief discussion of the challenges encountered when conducting

the studies. This chapter concludes with a discussion of opportunities for future work,

including the types of analysis that could be done if more sustainable BIDs were analyzed

and the potential design tools and methodologies that could be developed.

12.1 SUMMARY OF SECTION 2

Chapter 9 presented a methodology for developing a comprehensive list of BIDs,

determining which designs have an environmental impact advantage as a result of their

bioinspired features, and identifying sustainability-related trends in these designs using

GDGs. Extensive information from academic sources was compiled in ‘design library’

entries in Appendices A-C for 15 designs, 9 of which were shown to have sufficient

information and a true environmental impact advantage.

Chapter 10 discussed the results of the GDG analysis for the 9 designs, showing

the types of trends that may arise in the population of sustainable BIDs. A summary of

the GDGs most frequently met better by the sustainable BIDs than competing products is

provided in the table below. Two of the four GDGs – #1 and #9 – are related to materials

selection, using renewable and abundant materials and using clean materials,

respectively; the other two GDGs – # 28 and #32 – are related to efficiency advantages.

149

Table 15: Summary of the GDGs most frequently met better by the 9 sustainable BIDs.

Frequency GDG (from Telenko [61])

3 GDG #1: Specifying renewable and abundant resources

3 GDG #9: Specifying non-hazardous and otherwise environmentally

"clean" substances, especially in regards to user health

7 GDG #28:Specifying best-in-class energy efficiency components

3 GDG #32: Interconnecting available flows of energy and materials

within the product or between the product and its environment

In Chapter 11, passive mechanisms, multifunctional designs, and optimized

geometries were identified as recurring keywords in the pool of 9 sustainable BIDs

related to environmental impact. These keywords were defined, and their connection to

reduced environmental impact – particularly energy and materials efficiency – was

explained. Finally, these keywords were validated and shown to truly represent trends in

sustainable BIDs. A summary of the results from the keyword trends analysis using the 9

sustainable BIDs is provided in the table below.

Table 16: Summary of the keyword trends found in the 9 sustainable BIDs.

Frequency Keyword Trend

3 Passive Mechanisms

2 Multifunctional Designs

4 Optimized Geometries

The results of Section 2 indicate that sustainability-related characteristics from

biology are able to be transferred to engineering, and are currently being transferred via

BID. Hence, it is possible to develop tools and methodologies directed toward using BID

for sustainable engineering design. For all sustainability-related traits, there may be

tradeoffs in other life cycle stages which should be considered before incorporating them

into a product.

150

12.2 CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED

The process of compiling the information necessary for each of the 9 designs

from academic sources was challenging. Limited reliable information was available for

each BID; numerous sources were needed for each design to verify, qualify, and add to

the information found in the initial source from the breadth and depth searches. It was

especially difficult because implemented bioinspired products with a plausible

sustainability advantage are rare. Frequently, a reference to a BID found in the depth and

breadth searches was a reference to an idea for a BID, not a reference to an actual product

or constructed system; many sources offer one-sentence ideas for BIDs, without any

discussion of what it would take to manufacture, build, use, and dispose of this system.

Additionally, few designs had evidence of a sustainability advantage, fewer still had

evidence of a sustainability advantage as a result of their bioinspired feature, and almost

none had evidence of a sustainability advantage as a result of their bioinspired feature in

peer-reviewed academic literature. It is for these reasons that few designs were analyzed.

12.3 FUTURE WORK

Many avenues exist for future work related to the studies presented in Section 2,

including analyzing more sustainable BIDs, developing sustainable BID tools and

methodologies, and identifying potential advantages of BID over alternative design-by-

analogy techniques.

12.3.1 Analyzing More Sustainable BIDs

Both studies presented in Section 2 would be greatly enhanced by analyzing more

sustainable BIDs. First, the keyword trends study would benefit because additional

keywords related to sustainability-characteristics could be identified, and the existing

keyword trends – passive mechanisms, integral and multifunctional designs, and

151

optimized geometries – could be more thoroughly verified in the population of

sustainable BIDs.

Second, including more BIDs in the GDG analysis would clarify the trends and

would allow for a more sophisticated analysis. A larger pool of sustainable BIDs would

confirm or refute the tendency towards efficiency-related GDGs observed in the 9

sustainable BIDs. Additionally, BIDs could be divided into categories based on field

(architecture, chemical engineering), type of bioinspired feature (surface topology,

behavior, energy conversion process), the presence of particular bioinspired traits

(passive mechanisms, optimized geometries), the scale of the analogy (macro scale vs.

nano scale), the product life cycle phase where the bioinspired sustainability benefit

exists (use, end-of-life), etc. to identify more sophisticated and accurate trends.

Additionally, analyzing more designs would allow researchers to examine

whether some GDGs cannot be met through BID, or are not being met through BID. For

instance, a number of GDGs concern the designer or user, such as GDG #43: “Indicating

on the product which parts are to be cleaned/maintained in a specific way” [61]. As

biology does not have a conscious user who needs instructions, sustainability solutions to

better meet this guideline are unlikely to be uncovered through BID. Likewise, easy

disassembly is typically not a valuable characteristic for organisms, as organisms

typically benefit from having all body parts attached and intact, making it unlikely that

sustainability solutions for GDGs like #62: “Specifying all joints so that they are

separable by hand or only a few, simple tools” [61] would be found using BID. Hence, a

greater number of analyzed sustainable BIDs would allow researchers to better

understand the GDGs that are and are not likely to be met using BID.

152

12.3.2 Developing Tools and Methodologies for Sustainable BID

The results of both studies in Section 2 could also serve as a foundation for

developing design tools and methodologies related to sustainable BID.

For instance, the summary of the GDG Analysis results, in Appendix G, could be

used by engineers to find examples of products that are able to meet particular GDGs. For

instance, if an engineer wanted to reduce energy consumption to better meet GDG #1, he

or she could research the BIDs that met this guideline – the Biolytix BioWater filter,

Eastgate Centre, and the self-cleaning surface inspired by the lotus leaf, as shown in the

figure below – and use these designs and their biological analogies as analogies.

Figure 21: Depiction of a potential design tool that could be used to find examples of

sustainable BIDs that meet a particular GDG. Photo credit: [35,44,349].

Additionally, a number of potential design tools and methodologies could

originate from the keyword trends study. First, a checklist for designers could be created

that explains and provides examples of each keyword trend. Somewhat like the GDGs,

153

this checklist would make designers aware of potential sustainability-related traits they

could incorporate in their designs, such as passive mechanisms. Second, methodologies

could be developed to help engineers generate designs with the keyword traits. For

example, methodologies could be developed to assist in part integration and the

development of multifunctional designs.

12.3.3 Identifying Potential Benefits of BID over Other Design-by-Analogy

Techniques

Finally, researchers could determine whether BID is more likely to generate

designs with a specific keyword trait than other design-by-analogy techniques, by

comparing the frequency of these traits in biology and in the population of alternate

analogies. Assume, for instance, that a designer wants to consider concepts with passive

mechanisms, and that 40% of all biological organisms contain a passive mechanism

while only 5% of all engineered designs do. It would then be advantageous to use

biological organisms rather than patents as analogies, due to the increased likelihood of

finding passive mechanisms in the pool of potential analogies. By comparing the rates of

these sustainability-related traits in different pools of potential analogies, sustainability-

related advantages of different analogy types can be uncovered.

12.4 CONCLUSION

Three main topics were discussed in Chapter 12. First, the results of Section 2

were summarized, establishing that biological analogies are being used by designers to

make more sustainable engineering products and that many of these bioinspired

environmental benefits are related to efficiency. Second, the challenges encountered

while identifying and collecting information on the sustainable BIDs were discussed,

particularly the difficulty in identifying sustainable bioinspired features and the time

154

associated with collecting all necessary information from reputable sources. Finally, a

number of avenues for future work were presented, including analyzing more sustainable

BIDs to allow for increased robustness of the results, developing tools and methodologies

for sustainable BID, and identifying potential benefits of BID over other design-by-

analogy techniques by examining the rates of sustainability traits in different pools of

potential analogies.

155

Chapter 13: Thesis Conclusion

Chapter 13 concludes the thesis and is broken into three sections. First, a brief

summary of the thesis is presentede, followed by a summary of the thesis contributions.

Finally, future work related to the research presented in both Sections 1 and 2 together is

provided.

13.1 SUMMARY OF THESIS

Chapters 1 and 2 serve as an introduction to the thesis. Chapter 1 introduces the

topic and explains the organization of the thesis, while Chapter 2 discusses the

fundamentals of understanding and measuring environmental impact, as well as previous

work related to design principles found in biology and BIDs.

Chapters 3-8 are grouped into Section 1, which examines the claimed benefits of

BID using literature from biology and engineering design. Chapter 3 presents the

methodology of this study. Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 examine, respectively, claims related

to ideation, optimization in biology, sustainability in biology, and features of the BIDs

themselves. Chapter 8 concludes the section, discussing claims that were not selected for

analysis, issues that arose regarding what constitutes a biological analogy, and future

work.

Chapters 9-12 are grouped into Section 2, which identifies trends in existing

sustainable BIDs. Chapter 9 presents the methodology for a study comparing sustainable

BIDs and their competitors using GDGs, and Chapter 10 discusses the results of the study

for 9 sustainable BIDs. Chapter 11 delves deeper into the information collected on the

BIDs, identifying sustainability-related trends using keywords that frequently arose in the

literature on the sustainable BIDs. Chapter 12 concludes Section 2, discussing the

difficulty in collecting sufficient information for the sustainable BIDs, the potential

156

benefits of analyzing more sustainable BIDs using the methodologies presented in the

section, potential design tools and methodologies that could be developed related to

sustainable BID, and ways in which an extension of the keyword trends study could help

identify potential benefits of BID over other design-by-analogy techniques.

13.2 DISCUSSION OF THESIS

The central theme of this thesis is two-fold. On one hand, it appears that many of

the claimed benefits of BID, including those related to sustainability in both biology and

engineering, are invalid. On the other hand, it appears that bioinspired features have and

do regularly confer sustainability-related benefits to designs and that there is significant

potential to use biological analogies in sustainable design.

Section 1 showed that there is still much work to be done concerning the

fundamental theory of BID, related to its unique capabilities and advantages over other

design methodologies, including other design-by-analogy techniques. There is substantial

confusion and disagreement related to the benefits of BID, and many of the oft-cited

reasons for conducting BID prove invalid in light of academic work from engineering

design and biology. Additionally, it is clear that the vast majority of accounts of these

benefits – provided in academic books, conference papers and journals – are not

sufficiently rigorous to avoid unintentionally misrepresenting fundamental tenants of

biology or engineering design. Whatever future theories of BID are developed must be

firmly grounded in an advanced understanding of both engineering design methodology

and biology.

Within the design theory and methodology research community, it is popular to

study and focus on the novelty-related benefits of BID in ideation. Consequently, these

benefits are well-documented, as was shown in Chapter 4, and most existing BID

157

methodologies are focused on promoting these benefits – choosing appropriately-

distanced biological analogies, maintaining relevance to the design problem, and

avoiding design fixation. Preliminary efforts in the BID community to conduct research

related to sustainable BID served to dispel the myth ‘All BIDs are sustainable,’ with the

possible unfortunate consequence of directing research efforts elsewhere.

However, there is potential to learn environmental impact reducing techniques

from biological organisms, as was shown theoretically in Chapter 6 and empirically in

Section 2. Section 2 provided examples of the types of sustainability advantages that can

be achieved using BID – both related to the GDGs they are likely to meet and the types of

bioinspired sustainability-related traits that are likely to cause their environmental impact

reductions. While the data used to arrive at the conclusions presented in Chapters 10 and

11 is limited, as only 9 sustainable BIDs were analyzed, these chapters show how

bioinspired sustainability-related features can be identified. These chapters also suggest

that many of the bioinspired sustainability-related advantages are likely to be related to

energy and materials efficiency, and that certain types of biological analogies are likely to

confer certain types of benefits, i.e. a modular biological design is more likely to aid

designers in meeting GDGs #38, #39, #55, #57, and #58 related to end-of-life advantages,

while an integral design is more likely to help designs meet GDGs #16, #17, #18, #21,

#27, #28, #40, #52, and #59 related to materials and energy efficiency.

Hence, it is hoped that this work will inspire renewed interest in the development

of sustainable BID methodologies. These methodologies will likely begin with a specific

environmental impact-related engineering problem: the redesign of a product to better

meet a specific GDG, or a more general environmental benefit, such as increased energy

efficiency in use. If the desired environmental benefit is related to the types of designs

likely to be present in biology, as would be identified through studies such as those

158

presented in Section 2, a BID methodology can then be selected. This BID methodology

will likely involve the identification of biological analogies relevant to the problem of

interest using existing methods – biological databases and experts. Based on the findings

from Section 1, not all biological organisms and systems are likely to have the same

environmental impact characteristics of interest. Hence, the pool of potential analogies

should be scoped further, to include only those with the type of environmental impact

advantage of interest, either using additional software, if possible, or through the use of

experts in biology who can determine whether certain organisms have been selected for

energy efficiency advantages, for instance. Once these analogies have been selected,

methodologies should guide designers to retain these desirable sustainability-related

features in the final design: checklists for verifying that the feature is retained in the

design, probably in conjunction with existing sustainable design tools, such as GDGs.

This transfer process may involve a closer level of mechanism imitation than is

traditionally recommended in BID aimed at producing novel designs, since design

fixation is less of a concern, and it is critical to maintain the sustainability-related benefits

of the feature being imitated in the final design.

13.3 FUTURE WORK

Numerous avenues for future work related to either the theoretical study,

presented in Section 1, or the empirical studies, presented in Section 2, were discussed in

Chapters 8 and 12, respectively. Here, one particular avenue for future work that

combines element from both sections – a theoretical study analyzing the GDGs in the

context of biology – is discussed.

Theoretically analyzing the GDGs in the context of biology would provide a

better understanding of scenarios in which there might be selection pressure in biology

159

for a trait related to each of the GDGs. Work from Chapter 6 analyzing the claims related

to specific GDGs, with explanations of when these claims do and do not hold true, could

be used as a starting point for this analysis. Table 17 below shows the relevant claims

analyzed in Chapter 6 and their analogues in the GDGs.

The results from this analysis could be used to clarify when and how biological

systems could help designers better meet each of the GDGs. For instance, GDGs #62

“Specifying all joints so that they are separable by hand or only a few, simple tools” [61]

is unlikely to frequently be related to sustainable design solutions from biology, but

solutions may be found in rare organisms that experience a fitness advantage by having

easily detachable body parts, such as lizards whose tails separate from their bodies to

increase survival in certain interactions with predators [350]. Hence, this analysis may

make GDGs that are seemingly unrelated to solutions in biology conceptually accessible

to engineers and allow a broader range of sustainability solutions to be found using BID.

Additionally, this theoretical analysis would more fully address the work begun in

Chapter 6 aimed at explaining the ways in which biology is and is not sustainable. One of

the limitations of the work in Section 1 was that only claims frequently made in the

literature on BID were available to be analyzed; no consideration was given to potential

sustainability-related benefits of biological systems that had not already been identified

by other BID authors. The GDGs, intended to capture all the ways in which products can

be made more sustainable throughout their life cycle, provide a much more complete

framework for understanding how biology is and is not sustainable.

160

Table 17: Claims analyzed in Chapter 6 with related GDGs.

Claim GDG (from Telenko [61])

Biological organisms

use renewable and

abundant inputs.

GDG #1: Specifying renewable and abundant resources

Biological materials

are nontoxic.

GDG #9: Specifying non-hazardous and otherwise environmentally

“clean” substances, especially in regards to user health


employ sustainable

manufacturing

processes.

GDG #13:Specifying clean production processes for the product and in

selection of components

GDG #23:Specifying clean, high-efficiency production processes


do not pollute.

GDG #8: Installing protection against release of pollutants and

hazardous substances

GDG #9: Specifying non-hazardous and otherwise environmentally

“clean” substances, especially in regards to user health

GDG #10:Ensuring that wastes are water-based or biodegradable

GDG #11:Specifying the cleanest source of energy

GDG #26:Implementing fail-safes against heat and material loss

Materials in biology

are recycled.

GDG #2: Specifying recyclable, or recycled materials, especially those

within the company or for which a market exists or needs to

be stimulated

GDG #4: Exploiting unique properties of recycled materials

Biology is resistant to

damage.

GDG #41:Ensuring minimal maintenance and minimizing failure

modes in the product and its components

GDG #42:Specifying better materials, surface treatments, or structural

arrangements to protect products from dirt, corrosion, and

wear

Biology is efficient. GDG #17:Applying structural techniques and materials to minimize the

total volume of material

GDG #18:Specifying lightweight materials and components

GDG #21:Minimizing the number of components

GDG #22:Specifying materials with low-intensity production and

agriculture

GDG #23:Specifying clean, high-efficiency production processes

GDG #25:Implementing reusable supplies or ensuring the maximum

usefulness of consumables

GDG #26:Implementing fail-safes against heat and material loss

GDG #27:Minimizing the volume and weight of parts and materials to

which energy is transferred

GDG #28:Specifying best-in-class energy efficiency components

GDG #31:Maximizing system efficiency for an entire range of real

world conditions

GDG #32:Interconnecting available flows of energy and materials

within the product or between the product and its

environment

161

One challenge associated with conducting this theoretical analysis is that the

researcher must have a deep and nuanced understanding of evolutionary biology, and

must be aware of a wide range of outlier biological organisms and systems. It would

likely be very difficult and time consuming for someone without a formal background in

biology to conduct such an assessment.

162

Appendix A: Design Library Entries for 9 BIDs That Met All Selection

Criteria and Were Analyzed Using GDGs

Information on 9 sustainable BIDs – Biolytix, Daimler-Chrysler Bionic car shape, Daimler-Chrysler Bionic

car structure, Eastgate Centre cooling system, Interface Flor Entropy Carpet, self-cleaning transparent thin

film, Sharklet antimicrobial surface, Shinkansen 500 series nose cone, and Shinkansen 500 series

pantograph – is presented in Appendix A. First, a summary of the basic information is provided, including

the competing product and the biological analogy. Second, a description of the biological analogy is

provided, followed by a description of the BID, quotations from authoritative sources verifying that the

selection criteria have been met, and a comparison of the environmental impact of the BID and its

competitor.

163

A.1 BIOLYTIX FILTER

Field

Civil Engineering

Biological Analogy

Natural decomposition of debris

on a river’s edge

Environmental Advantage

No chemicals, smaller filtration

system, fewer energy-consuming

parts, less maintenance

Company

Biolytix Competitor

Septic tank Life Cycle Phase

Manufacturing and Use

Biological Analogy Description

Organic matter decomposes naturally in wet environments, such as those found in riparian zones, “land

adjacent to a stream, river, lake, or wetland” [351]. Decomposition occurs more quickly in oxygen-rich

environments because the microbes that break down organic matter use oxygen for cellular respiration

[352]. As organic matter decomposes in these wet environments, the waste and pollutants are filtered by the

riparian zone [353].

Decomposition of plants in a riverbed [354,355].

Bioinspired Design Description

Biolytix is a filtration device for households that mimics the filtration and treatment of waste in riparian

zones. The Biolytix system filters and treats “raw domestic waste water and solid organic waste” [356],

including paper, cloth, sanitary pads, tampons, grass clippings, dust, hair, lint, feces, oil, grease, soap,

detergents, and household chemicals [293]. Biolytix converts this waste into “a valuable soil amendment”

[293]. As the waste travels down the filtration bed, it decomposes and forms humus. This humus “forms the

bulk of the [filtration] bed” and serves as an “active filtration matrix” that filters the wastewater [292].

As in riverbeds, oxygen is required for decomposition. Hence, it is important that the filtration system does

not clog, preventing oxygen to penetrate to the bottom of the filtration matrix. As in riverbed ecosystems,

clogging is prevented in the Biolytix filter through the action of a number of organisms [292], such as

164

“worms, composting beetles, compost flies and such… typical of a soil layer or decomposing manure”

[293]. These larger organisms “create pores throughout the filtration matrix” [292], allowing oxygen to

penetrate the column and encourage decomposition in what otherwise would be an anaerobic environment.

The larger organisms also “work synergistically with fungi, bacteria, protozoa, nematodes and other

microbes” to rapidly and completely decompose all of the solid organic waste deposited [293].

[357]

Selection Criteria Verification

#1: The design is truly bioinspired.

“The Biopod… is an ‘ecosystem in a tank’… After 2.1 billion years of Research and

Development, nature has got it right. All around us, the natural world is treating its waste…

without electricity, without large aerators and without creating septic sludge as a waste

product... Biolytix incorporated nature’s time-tested strategies into its patented BioPod… the

BioPod uses the intelligence of nature to bring you many benefits” [358].

“For about a century, engineers have used water-based processes to treat wastewater. By

studying ecology, nature’s consummate engineer, Biolytix discovered that nature has a different

solution: in nature, the most effective treatment doesn’t happen in water, but in moist soil

ecosystems on rainforest floors and on river banks. This is where organisms convert waste into

cleaning humus. The humus then helps cleanse the wastewater. Using worms and other

organisms to break down organic waste is not an innovation – they have been doing so for

millions of years. Our innovation is using nature’s highly effective biological processes to solve

today’s challenge posed by wastewater” [359].

165

“A design principle to prevent bed buildup on its peripheral surfaces is to enable controlled

erosive surface flow to occur over the surface and sides of each bed element module, but to

provide sufficient protection to the surface of the bed at the intended long term surface level to

prevent erosion of the humus matrix below this level…. The structural support framework can

be made in such a way as to provide inherent stabilization of the surface at a defined level much

as tree roots provide protection from erosive flood flows to the soil on stream banks but allow

material above the root mat to be washed away. A porous net like plastic mesh can provide this

stabilization function” [292].

#2: The design is feasible.

According to the Biolytix Southern Africa’s website: “Biolytix is commercially available”

[360]. A number of other sources echo this statement and discuss Biolytix as an existing

system. However, it appears that Biolytix suffered significant financial losses as a result of a

warranty policy concerning flooding and went bankrupt. Regardless of whether Biolytix filters

currently are commercially available, it is clear that a commercial Biolytix filter once existed

and is therefore feasible.

#3: The design has a reduced environmental impact as a result of its bioinspired feature.

“The Biolytix waste management system draws from the solutions of the natural world to solve

the problem of disposing of sewerage solids and liquids and meets several of the goals outlined

by the WBCSD [the World Business Council for Sustainable Development] concurrently,

thereby creating a more eco-friendly solution” [361].

“A Biolytix filter is the trademark name for an ecological wastewater treatment system that is

totally free of chemical inputs and that has no negative sludge of liquid effluent penetrating the

surrounding ecosystems” [362].

“Due to the efficient manner in which worm farm technology performs, it is not necessary to

add large aerating pumps or chemicals” to the Biolytix filtration system [361]. “This in turn

reduces… the negative costs to the environment” [361].

Biolytix filters are smaller than their competitors yet achieve the same amount of filtration. A

Biolytix patent states: “Filters according to the present invention have the advantage that their

sizes can be significantly less than is required for conventional filters, due to the biological

activity present and as a consequence of this specific biological activity the higher filtration

rates” [296]. A smaller size is frequently associated with lower lifecycle impact in materials,

manufacturing, and transportation.

Competitor Description

The Biolytix filter was compared to a conventional septic tank because septic tanks are the most commonly

used type of decentralized waste disposal system [363]. As can be seen in the diagrams, below, of two

different septic tank designs, septic tanks temporarily store sewage, allowing the sewage to separate based

on density. Solid waste sinks to the bottom, scum is captured on the surface, and liquid waste is removed.

Because the surface scum prevents oxygen from entering the waste [364], anaerobic conditions are present

[363], and anaerobic bacteria cause the solid waste to liquefy [364], making it possible to remove the waste

from the system. Periodically, the sludge needs to be removed. This “sludge is not biodegradable” [365].

166

Different types of septic tanks [366,367].

Comparison of Environmental Impact of BID and Competitor

The Biolytix filtration system is environmentally superior to a septic system for a number of reasons: (1)

Biolytix filters can be smaller than standard filters because of the additional filtration efficiency caused by

the river-inspired biological activity in the filter; (2) Biolytix filters do not require aerating pumps, meaning

less energy is consumed during use and fewer materials are required during production; (3) Biolytix filters

do not require added chemicals, and do not have toxic byproducts; and (4) Biolytix does not have any

byproducts such as sludge, and consequently requires less maintenance and has less of an impact during

use. Each of these items is explained in a corresponding numbered section below.

(1) Biolytix filters can be smaller than their competitors yet achieve the same amount of filtration. A

Biolytix patent claims that their filters can be significantly smaller than conventional filters

because of the higher filtration rates associated with the biological activity in the Biolytix filters

[296]. Consequently, Biolytix filters have a smaller environmental impact than septic systems

during manufacturing and transportation because less materials are required during the production

of the filters, and there is less volume and weight of materials to transport.

(2) Biolytix filter use living organisms – such as worms and insects – to aerate the waste so no

aerating pumps are needed. “Most traditional septic organic waste disposal systems use

technology that leaves the untreated matter in the wastewater. However, to maintain the ecosystem

necessary to break down the waste material several aerating pumps are needed. These pumps

aerate the waste creating bubbles thereby increasing the surface area of the waste material. This

larger physical environment allows a larger population of bacteria to break down waste material”

[361]. For a traditional septic system, “The need for aerating pumps to run continuously increases

the power consumption and complexity of the system” [361]. “Due to the efficient manner in

which worm farm technology performs” in the Biolytix system “it is not necessary to add large

aerating pumps… This in turn reduces… the negative costs to the environment” [361].

(3) Biolytix filters do not require the use of added chemicals to treat the waste, and do not create toxic

by-products. In typical household wastewater treatment systems, “chlorine based disinfection is

typically carried out on the liquid effluent, using hazardous chemicals and resulting in the

production of toxic disinfection by-products” [293]. Alternatively, disinfection could occur

thorough “a process whereby the liquid is exposed to high levels of artificially generated

167

ultraviolet radiation” [361]. However, in Biolytix filters, the “effluent moves slowly through the

bed in a matrix flow” causing the humus to be trapped and accrete in the bed and form “stable

aggregates through the action of living organisms in the biolytic filter ecosystem” [292]. “Due to

the efficient manner in which worm farm technology performs, it is not necessary to add …

chemicals” to the Biolytix filtration system [361]. Hence, “Unlike many conventional treatment

processes” the Biolytix filtration process “uses no chemicals” [360].

(4) “Unlike many conventional treatment processes” the Biolytix filtration “process… does not create

any by-products such as sludge” [360]. Instead, Biolytix’s “biologically activated filters require

little or no maintenance to keep them from blocking” [296]. In contrast, in conventional systems,

“Aqueous media such as sewage effluent, water for consumption, swimming pool water, industrial

effluent, aquaculture pond water… are commonly filtered with particulate filtering materials… to

remove suspended solids and biologically active material. Such filtering materials… are prone to

clogging due to microbial growth on the surface of the filter bed... Many sophisticated

arrangements have been devised to address this problem of clogging… Unfortunately such

methods generally involve high maintenance and have lower treatment performance” [296].

Consequently, many conventional septic waste disposal systems “need an additional ‘sludge’

removal operation to be performed every three to five years to remove the build up of unconsumed

waste. This in turn adds to the cost of running the system, as additional general maintenance is

required as well as the chemicals necessary to sterilize the wastewater” [361].

168

A.2 DAIMLER-CHRYSLER BIONIC CAR – SHAPE

Field

Mechanical Engineering

Biological Analogy

Aerodynamic exterior profile of the

spotted boxfish (Ostracion

meleagris)


Stability and lower coefficient of

friction – reduced fuel consumption

Company

Daimler-Chrysler Competitor

Same car without bioinspired shape,

estimated using BMW 3 Series Sedan

Life Cycle Phase

Use


The spotted boxfish is a stable and efficient swimmer due to its shape. When a boxfish swims, “tiny

vortices form along the edges on the upper and lower parts of [its] body to stabilize the fish” [368],

allowing it to “maintain a smooth swimming trajectory and a stable position, even in a turbulent sea” [298].

The formation of vortices is controlled, in part, by the keeled carapaces on the boxfish, shown below, that

“produc[e] flows and pressure distributions that comprise an efficient, self-correcting system for pitch and

yaw” [39]. This increased stability caused by the formation of vortices is believed to result in energy

savings during swimming [39,40] because the fish does not have to actively right itself.

Anterior, posterior, and lateral views of the spotted boxfish. Scale bars are 1 cm [39].


The shape of the body of the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept car was inspired by the boxfish (Ostracion

meleagris) [11], and biologists were involved in its design [368]. The concept car was fully manufactured

and can be driven, although it was never produced on a large scale. Despite its boxy shape, the air drag

coefficient of the bionic car is 0.19, which indicates that the car is exceptionally aerodynamic [41]. For

comparison, the drag coefficient (cw) of the BMW 3 Series, the comparison vehicle, is 0.27 [369].

169

Shape evolution from boxfish to car [40].



According to Daimler’s website, the Mercedes-Benz bionic concept car is a “vehicle study with

the streamlined contours of a boxfish” [368].

“Applied to automotive engineering, the boxfish is… an ideal example of rigidity and

aerodynamics. Moreover, its rectangular anatomy is practically identical to the cross-section of

a car body. And so the boxfish became the model” for the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept car

[368].


The Daimler website describes the Daimler-Chrysler bioinic concept car as “fully-functioning

and driveable” [368].


“The application of bionics can easily be illustrated by means of the Mercedes concept car

called Bionic Car…The vehicle study was made with the most favorable contours of the boxfish

as seen from a fluid mechanics point of view. The air drag coefficient of 0.19 was a peak in

aerodynamic performance” [41]. This statement indicates that the bionic car is aerodynamic and

has low drag as a result of its bioinspired shape. These features are likely to result in lower fuel

consumption.


The competitor of bionic-shaped car is the same car that has a standard body shape. In order to have

approximate environmental data on this theoretical car, the BMW 3 series sedan was selected because it is

approximately the same size as the bionic car. The drag coefficient (cw) of the BMW 3 Series, which is a

function of the shape of the car, is 0.27 [369].

BMW 3 Series Sedan [370].

170


The Daimler-Chrysler bionic car gets 70 miles per gallon, “about 30 percent more than for a standard-

production car” [368]. The Daimler website attributes the low fuel consumption of the bionic concept car to

the bioinspired features of the design: “the optimal aerodynamic properties derived from the boxfish and

[another bioinspired feature] create the conditions for a low fuel consumption and excellent performance”

[368]. A substantial portion of this fuel consumption reduction can likely be attributed to the reduction in

drag of the bioinspired car over a standard similarly-sized car, such as the BMW 3 Series Sedan. According

to the Daimler website: “with a Cd value of 0.19 the fully-functioning and driveable Mercedes-Benz bionic

car is among the aerodynamically most efficient in this size category” [368]. By comparison, the drag

coefficient of the BMW 3 Series Sedan is 0.27 [369], significantly greater than the 0.19 measured for the

Daimler-Chrysler Bionic Car [368].

171

A.3 DAIMLER-CHRYSLER BIONIC CAR – STRUCTURE

Field


Biological Analogy

Material allocation in bone growth


Less material used in the car

frame; weight and fuel

consumption reduction

Company

DaimlerChrysler Competitor

Same car without bioinspired

structure

Life Cycle Phase

Materials and Use


Bones change in size and shape depending on how they are stressed in a process called modeling. In

modeling, material is added to bones in high stress areas and is removed from bones in low-stress areas

[235,236,371]. As a result of the modeling process, bones are both “strong and relatively

lightweight”[277].

Porous bone structure [314].


The frame of the bionic car was designed to be as lightweight as possible using soft kill option (SKO)

software. SKO is a finite-element model inspired by bone growth [372] that allocates material only where

stresses require.

Model of bionic car’s structure[373].

172



According to Daimler’s website, the project to design the Mercedes-Benz bionic concept car

was a “unique research project by biologists and engineers” which utilized a “bionic design

process for intelligent lightweight construction” [368].

The Daimler site also states: “bone structures… show how nature achieves maximum strength

with the minimum use of materials. Bone structures are always in accordance with actual loads

encountered… In consultation with bionics experts, DaimlerChrysler researchers have

developed a computer-assisted process for transferring the growth principle used by nature to

automobile engineering. It is based on the SKO method (Soft Kill Option)… This bionic SKO

process enables an optimal component geometry which meets the requirements of lightweight

construction, safety and durability in equal measure” [368].

On the Daimler press site, the features of the bionic concept car are listed. It states: “Roof

structure with large areas of glass, calculated and designed according to the bionic SKO

method” [374].

In a 2009 paper, Mattheck, the developer of the SKO method, states: “SKO is a FEM-based

method that is inspired by osteoclasts in bones nibbling away non-loaded parts in the bony

structure” [375].

Of course, this design is indirectly bioinspired because the software was created to make bone-like

structures; the structure was not directly taken from the appearance of a bone that is loaded similarly

to how a car is loaded, for instance.

Additionally, there is some controversy regarding whether SKO software is inspired by tree growth.

For instance, Vincent claims that “Soft Kill Option (a finite-element model by Mattheck (1989)

developed from his studies on stress-relieving shapes in the adaptive growth of trees) was used to

design the chassis of the DaimlerChrysler Bionic Car” [11]. I believe Vincent is either confused or

using misleading language here. Mattheck developed two separate optimization tools based on

biological studies. SKO is based on bone, while CAO is based on tree growth. I confirmed in an

email with Mattheck [372] that SKO software is not inspired by tree growth.


The Daimler website describes the Daimler-Chrysler bionic concept car as “fully-functioning

and driveable” [368].


A great potential weight reduction for the bionic structure is associated with the use of

bioinspired SKO software in the design: “If the complete body-in-white structure is considered

according to the SKO method, the weight is decreased by around 30%, while at the same time,

the stability, crash safety, and driving dynamics are excellently maintained” [41]. This weight

reduction will translate to a reduction in fuel consumption, and hence, a reduced environmental

impact.

The following quote from Vincent presents a similar estimate for weight savings: “Parts of the

recent and much-touted boxfish concept car, a design study by Daimler-Chrysler, used a stress-

relieving design tool developed by Claus Mattheck, who studied the growth of trees to gain an

173

insight into how nature would deal with the strength-to-weight problem. The resulting weight

savings was on the order of 40 percent” [294]. Although Vincent is mistaken about the

biological source of inspiration for the design, discussed above, this quote is still included

because the weight savings estimate is presumably still correct. This weight reduction will

translate to a reduction in fuel consumption, and hence, a reduced environmental impact.


The competitor of the bioinspired structure of the bionic car is the same car that has a standard frame.

Frame of a typical sedan [376].


The Daimler-Chrysler bionic car has around a 30% [41,368] to 40% [294] lower weight and 30% lower

fuel consumption than a standard car [368]. The Daimler website attributes the low fuel consumption of the

bionic concept car to the bioinspired features of the design: “[another bioinspired feature] and a new

lightweight construction concept taken from nature create the conditions for a low fuel consumption and

excellent performance” [368].

174

A.4 EASTGATE CENTRE COOLING SYSTEM

Field

Architecture

Biological Analogy

Cooling in termite mounds


Reduced electricity use

Company

Arup Madrid – Construction

Pearce Partnership - Design

Competitor

Electric air conditioner for a

building of similar size in the

same location

Life Cycle Phase

Use


At least two models for airflow and cooling exist for termite mounds. The first is for capped chimney

termite mounds. In this model, heat from the colony rises to the top of the mound, where the warm air is

released through the porous surface, and where cooler, denser air comes in and then sinks to the bottom of

the nest [34]. The second model is for open chimney termite mounds. In this model, the top of the mound is

above the boundary layer, meaning air blowing past the top of the mound has a higher velocity than air at

the openings near the ground; this difference in air velocity generates a Venturi flow which draws in air at

ground level, through the mound and out the chimney [34]. These two models are depicted below.

Models of fluid flow in termite mounds [34].


Eastgate Centre is structured to promote desirable fluid flow. It has a series of chimneys along its length

and openings at ground level. Rising heat generated by people and machinery in the building causes

thermosiphon flow, and chimneys on the roof, above the boundary layer of the wind, prompt induced flow,

drawing hot air out the chimney and cool air in at ground level [34]. The cooling system in Eastgate is also

designed to take advantage of the 10 to 14 degree Celsius diurnal temperature swings experienced in

Harare, Zimbabwe; the building draws in cool air at night and allows warm air to rise out of the building

during the day [32]. Eastgate Centre’s passive cooling system is assisted by fans [29]. At night, the fans

draw in cool air at ground level at a rate between seven and ten air changes per hour [29-31], cooling the

175

entire building and the concrete mass upon which the building rests. During the day, cool air is drawn into

the building near ground level and is cooled further by the concrete floor that serves as a thermal mass.

.

Eastgate Centre exterior [35]. Diagram of airflow in Eastgate Centre [32].



Mick Pearce, the lead architect for Eastgate, quotes a passage from the 2003 Prince Claus

Award he received for the Eastgate design on his curriculum vitae. The passage states: “Based

on the termite mound analogy, Mick Pearce’s Eastgate building uses the mass of the building as

insulation and the diurnal temperature swing outside to keep its interior uniformly cool” [33].

Although the passage on the award is not considered a reputable source for proving that a

design is bioinspired, the fact that Mick Pearce included this passage on his CV indicates that

he is, at least, not opposed to the claims made in the passage.

Additionally, there is a quote from Mick Pearce cited in the book The Architectural Expression

of Environmental Controls where Pearce discusses the design of Eastgate Centre. He states: “If

the termites could create a natural air-conditioning system, we must be able to use that as a

model and that grew and it remained with us for the whole design period” [30].

Although neither of the sources cited above is a direct statement in a primary source, taken together, they

provide sufficient evidence that Eastgate Centre was truly bioinspired.


Construction of Eastgate was completed in April 1996 [29].


The associate director of Arup states in peer-reviewed conference paper that, according to data

monitoring building performance “subsequent to the completion of construction,” Eastgate

“consumes up to 50% less energy than a comparable air conditioned office building” in Harare

[32].

176


Eastgate Centre’s passive cooling system was compared to a theoretical similarly-sized office building in

Harare with an industrial-sized electric air-conditioning system. A traditional industrial air conditioning

system would involve a substantial mass of equipment and would consume a large amount of electricity. In

2008, the most recent year for which data is available, approximately 53% of electricity in Zimbabwe came

from hydropower, 46% from coal and peat, and the remainder from petroleum [268].

Industrially-sized electric air conditioner [377]. Much electricity in Zimbabwe is from coal[378].


Compared to an industrial air conditioning system run on electricity from hydropower, coal/peat, and

petrolum, Eastgate Centre’s passive cooling system is environmentally superior.

First, Eastgate has reduced number of ‘active’ energy inputs compared to a standard industrial air

conditioner, i.e. Eastgate consumes less electricity, fossil fuels, and energy from engineered energy-

harvesting devices than an industrial air conditioning system would.

Second, Eastgate has reduced carbon emissions because it consumes less electricity than an industrial air

conditioning system, and a large percentage of the electricity in Zimbabwe is produced from carbon-

intensive sources. As stated above, approximately 53% of electricity in Zimbabwe comes from hydropower

[268]. While the relative environmental impact of hydropower compared to other electricity resources is

small, there are still significant carbon emissions associated with the construction of dams and flooding of

land for dams, as well as an impact on wildlife in the rivers. Additionally, coal, peat, and oil, which make

up for the remaining 47% of electricity production in Zimbabwe [268], all have well-know

environmentally-damaging effects, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, the energy resources used in Eastgate Centre are more renewable and abundant than the sources of

electricity that would be needed to power an industrial air conditioner. The passive cooling system in

Eastgate runs for the most part without active energy due to the shape of the building and the dynamics of

fluid flow in those spaces. Essentially, this system runs on ambient heat, which is renewable and abundant.

In contrast, an industrial air conditioner in Zimbabwe runs on electricity from hydropower, coal, peat, and

petroleum. In general, hydropower is considered a renewable energy resource because the supply of

freshwater in rivers that generate hydropower is naturally replenished. However, hydropower resources are

vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather events, such as drought, meaning these resources are not

always renewable and abundant. Additionally, coal, peat, and petroleum are all considered nonrenewable

fossil fuel resources. In terms of the abundance of these resources in Zimbabwean context, coal and peat

are relatively abundant while petroleum is not; over the last 40 years, Zimbabwe has consistently been able

to supply enough coal and peat to meet all of its own needs, but its oil demand has been wholly supplied by

imported sources [268].

177

A.5 INTERFACE FLOR I2 ENTROPY CARPET

Field

Artistic design

Biological Analogy

Random patterns on forest floor


Reduction in scrap rate and

maintenance, longer product life

Company

InterfaceFLOR Competitor

Conventional modular carpet

with a nap orientation that needs

to be from a particular dye lot

Life Cycle Phase

Use


A forest floor is aesthetically attractive and is covered in leaves, sticks, pinecones and a wide range of other

materials with different shapes and colors that fall to the ground in random positions. This randomness

makes it difficult to spot something that might otherwise look out of place.

A forest floor [379].


Interface FLOR’s i2 Entropy modular carpet has an artistic design composed of a seemingly random

assortment of shapes and colors within the individual tiles. Similar to a forest floor, the random shapes and

patterns in the design make it difficult “for any tile to look out of place” [380]. Because of this intentional

randomness, one can place tiles from different dye lots and tiles with different nap orientations next to each

other without ruining the aesthetics of the carpet [380]. Additionally, the random pattern allows old tiles to

be replaced with new tiles from different dye lots, without having the visual differences between old and

new tiles and tiles from different dye lots be problematic [380]. Consequently, the randomness

incorporated into the artistic design of the tile reduces scrap rates during tile production and installation,

and extends the attractive and useful life of the carpet as a whole.

178

i2 Entropy carpet tiles with seemingly random patterns [381].


#1: The design is truly bioinspired. According to Eric Nelson, vice president of Interface Americas, “the Interface designed team

looked to nature to find a more efficient, less wasteful approach to design. The team noticed

that nature produced randomness rather than uniformity (every rock is different in size and

shape, no two leaves are the same, etc.). This idea gave birth to Entropy®” [382].

Interface FLOR’s website: “Using the principles of biomimicry, we created i2TM

, our second

design platform. Biomimicry seeks sustainable solutions by using nature as a model. Like

leaves on a forest floor, i2 tiles vary from one to the other – yet they come together to form a

beautiful floor” [279].

The case of Entropy carpet is a borderline case because nature-inspired designs are not necessarily

biologically-inspired. If Entropy was inspired by the fact that no two rocks are the same, it would be a

geologically-inspired design, not a biologically-inspired one. However, one of the quotations above

explicitly states that biomimicry was used to create i2 tiles, and both sources mention being inspired by

leaves on a forest floor. Hence, it the Entropy carpet tiles are assumed to be bioinspired.


Entropy was launched in early 2000 [383].


Entropy carpet “mimics the randomness of the forest floor with small sections, or tiles, each

composed of different shades of color. Because color matching is no longer a problem, only a

worn or damaged section needs replacement” [384]. This suggests that the bioinspired

randomness in the pattern allows the carpet as a whole to have a longer use phase.


Typical modular carpet tiles with a specific solid color or pattern are used as the competing product. It is

assumed that the patterns on adjacent tiles and their nap direction must be aligned and all tiles - or tiles of

the same type – are from the same dye lot [380].

179

For instance, for the carpet below, it is important that all the logo tiles were created in the same dye lot so

that the colors of all the tiles match; the same is true for all the solid blue tiles. If one of the blue tiles was

from a different dye lot, and was slightly greener for instance, it would stand out. This means that all the

carpet tiles for a particular room and all replacement tiles for that room are purchased at the same time and

come from the same dye lot. It also means that when tiles are replaced, the overall appearance of the carpet

will be diminished. For instance, after ten years, the carpet below will become faded. If one of the blue tiles

were replaced with another from the same dye lot that had been sitting in storage, it would stand out as the

only bright and new tile in the room.

Additionally, it is important for all the logo tiles to be facing the same direction and for the checkerboard

pattern of tiles to be maintained. If this photo depicted the carpet on a smaller scale, it would become

apparent that it is also important to have the nap directions aligned, in much the same way it is important

for someone sewing a striped shirt to ensure that the left side of the shirt does not have horizontally-

oriented stripes when the right side of the same shirt has vertically-oriented stripes.

Typical carpet tiles [385] have a particular orientation matching colors.


The randomness in the artistic design of Entropy carpet tiles reduces scrap rates in production and

installation and increases the useable, aesthetically-pleasing life of the carpet as a whole, compared to

standard modular carpets. “Given the apparent randomness of the pattern and color scheme, worn or soiled

tiles in a particular installation may easily be replaced with and unused tile without the new tile looking as

dramatically different from the remaining tiles as often results with tiles with conventional patterns” [380].

Although not here selected as the competing product for analysis, Entropy also presents a sustainability

advantage over conventional broadloom carpets for the same reasons – less waste in installation and a

longer carpet life. Eric Nelson, vice president of Interface Americas states in an article in Global Business

and Organizational Excellence: “Compared with broadloom, which can entail as much as 14 percent waste,

Entropy tiles can be installed two-and-a-half times faster and with as little as 1.5 percent waste” [382].

180

A.6 SELF-CLEANING TRANSPARENT THIN FILM

Field

Materials Science

Biological Analogy

Lotus leaf Environmental Advantage

Consumes less water and harsh

chemicals during cleaning

Company

The University of Tokyo, Sofia

University, Daido Institute of

Technology

Competitor

Standard surface cleaned using

spray or ultrasonic aqueous

cleaning methods

Life Cycle Phase

Use


The leaves of Nelumbo nucifera, or lotus, plant are water-repellant, or hydrophobic, causing water to bead

on the surface of the leaf, as is shown in the photograph below. This feature causes the lotus leaf to exhibit

self-cleaning properties: “contaminating particles are picked up by water droplets or they adhere to the

surface of the droplets and are then removed with the droplets as they roll off the leaves” [17]. This process

is depicted in the diagram below on the right. This self-cleaning propensity is known as the ‘lotus effect’

and provides a biological advantage to the plant by allowing it to avoid damage caused by chemical

contamination from the air, as well as protecting the it from pathogens, such as spores and conidia, by

depriving them of water [17].

Water droplets on a lotus leaf [45]. Diagram of self-cleaning process [386].


Nakajima et al. [42] present in a 2000 paper a thin film that is transparent, durable, and superhydrophobic,

meaning it repels water as the lotus leaf does. Consequently, like the lotus leaf, this thin film also

distributes self-cleaning properties. The film can potentially be applied to the surface of parts so that they

can be cleaned by spraying a mist of water on the part, as opposed to using spay cleaning or aqueous

cleaning techniques [43]. The dirt particles on the surface of the part can then be absorbed into the beads of

water that form and roll off the part[27].

181

Surface with self-cleaning coating [44]



In their 2000 paper in Langmuir, Nakajima et al. mention the connection between their self-

cleaning thin film and the lotus leaf: “the excellent hydrophobicity of … superhydrophobic

surfaces gradually degrades, in general, during long-time outdoor exposure due to the buildup

of stain. This was a crucial and inevitable problem for artificially constructed superhydrophobic

surfaces. Natural lotus leaves avoid this problem by continuous metabolism of their surface wax

layer and maintain their hydrophobicity during their lifetime. Since a proper metabolic

mechanism of lotus leaves is difficult to duplicate, practical applications of superhydrophobic

surfaces have been limited” [42]. The authors of this paper take for granted that the lotus leaf is

a biological analogy for the self-cleaning thin film they are presenting.


Nakajima et al. describe their transparent, superhydrophobic thin films with self-cleaning

properties in detail in Langmuir [42]. The thin film is a fully-functional prototype, although the

method by which it is produced is still in development. “Although the preparation of

superhydrophobic surfaces has been extensively studied, only a few methods have been

reported for transparent films thus far”[387], and there is only laboratory scale production.

However, the thin films themselves are fully-functional, and the bioinspired innovation is one

related to behavior of the product in the use phase, not an innovation in production.


A life cycle analysis study from Raibeck et al. examined the environmental impact of the use

phase of cleaning gears with a bioinspired self-cleaning surface, compared to gears with a

standard surface, cleaned using aqueous cleaning methods. It found “a large water and energy

savings when using the self-cleaning surface” [43].

From a peer-reviewed conference paper from the same research group presenting life cycle

analysis results on this self-cleaning transparent thin film presented in the Nakajima et al.

paper: “Environmental benefits are obvious in the use phase of a self-cleaning coating, as

compared to industrial cleaning methods. Much less energy and water is consumed when

cleaning a self cleaning surface, as compared to spay or ultrasonic aqueous cleaning methods.

The aqueous cleaning methods also require solvents which create additional environmental

burdens” [27].

182


The self-cleaning surface was compared to a standard surface on a part regularly cleaned using either

ultrasonic aqueous cleaning or spray cleaning techniques. Raibeck et al. explain the difference between

these two cleaning methods:

In ultrasonic cleaning, the part to be cleaned is submerged in a solution of water and solvent, and

sound waves are used to produce bubbles through cavitation. The vibration of the bubbles removes

contaminants from the part. In spray cleaning, a solution of water and solvent is sprayed from

many angles onto a part. Spray cleaning machines often have additional rinse and drying stations.

[27]

Because ultrasonic cleaning and spray cleaning are both feasible competitors for the self-cleaning thin film,

and because relevant environmental data was available for both methods, both were analyzed.

Ultrasonic cleaning of forceps [388]. Spray cleaning machine [389].


A life cycle inventory study of self-cleaning thin film conducted by Raibeck et al. [27] found that,

compared to both the spray and ultrasonic cleaning methods, the self-cleaning coating provides

environmental benefits during the coating’s use phase because it requires less energy and water. The

potential environmental benefits of the self-cleaning surface are countered by the resource consumption and

emissions resulting from the production of chemicals used to make the coating; “The production of the self-

cleaning coating consumes more than 10 times the energy it takes to clean it” [27]. Consequently, an

engineer designing a system must know how often the system will be cleaned during its lifetime and what

alternative cleaning methods are available, in order to choose the option with the lowest environmental

impact. In this case, if the use phase of the design is expected to overwhelmingly dominate the product’s

environmental impact, it is likely that the incorporation of the bioinspired sustainable design solution from

the lotus leaf will lead to a more sustainable design.

183

A.7 SHARKLET ANTIMICROBIAL SURFACE

Field

Materials Science

Biological Analogy

Surface texture of shark skin Environmental Advantage

Reduced need to clean surface,

leading to reduced consumption of

toxic chemical during cleaning, and

risk of evolution of ‘superbugs’

Company

Sharklet Technologies, Inc. Competitor

Clorox disinfectant bathroom

cleaner

Life Cycle Phase

Use


“The skin of fast-swimming sharks” has micro ridges on it, called dermal dentricles or riblets [390] that

prevent biofouling, the attachment of unwanted microorganisms on a surface [266,390]. These riblets are

“aligned in the direction of fluid flow” and are spaced in such a way as to prevent organisms from attaching

to the surface [390]. This feature is beneficial to fast-swimming sharks because biofouling organisms create

drag and would require the shark to expend more energy while swimming. Because the skin of fast-

swimming sharks is void of biofouling organisms, it is considered by some to be “a prominent example of a

low friction surface in water” [266].

Left: Topography of shark skin. The bar in the top left is 500 µm [391]. Right: Shark [392].


Sharklet antimicrobial surfaces are strips that can be applied to a variety of surfaces, such as bathroom door

panels or countertops, to control bacterial growth between cleanings. Sharklet strips have a patterned

microtopography inspired by shark skin that prevents the growth of bacteria without the use of chemical

biocides. In an experiment measuring biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus on Sharket surfaces,

observations suggested that “the protruded features of the topographical surface provided a physical

obstacle to deter the expansion of small clusters of bacteria present in the recesses into microcolonies”

[267]. Because bacterial buildup occurs more slowly on Sharklet surfaces, these surfaces need to be cleaned

184

less frequently, meaning less cleaning chemicals are consumed during the life of the surface. Sharklet strips

have a life of 90 days [393].

Sharklet topography[264] . Sharklet push door plates [394].



Sharklet’s website, promotional materials, patents, and academic papers from one of Sharklet’s founders

indicate that the design for Sharklet is bioinspired and was inspired by the topography of shark skin:

Sharket’s website tells the story of how Sharklet was developed when the inventor was working

on preventing algae from coating vessels for the navy and developed an antifouling strategy

based on shark skin. The website states: “Sharklet Technologies is… honored to offer a

biomimetic technology inspired by the shark”[264].

Sharklet promotional materials: “Sharklet is biomimetic – it is inspired by the shape, pattern

and microbe resistant properties of shark skin” [395].

Sharklet patents: “The Sharklet topography is based on the topography of a shark’s skin” [266].

Peer-reviewed papers from one of Sharklet’s founders: The use of a model correlating

wettability with bioadhesion “led to the design concept of a biomimetic structure inspired by

the skin of fast-moving sharks (Sharklet AFTM)” [267].


Sharklet Surface Protection samples can currently be purchased online on Sharklet’s website

and more Sharklet products are sold by Tactivex [394].


According to a Sharklet patent, Sharklet surfaces reduce the energy required during cleaning:

Sharklet surfaces “can provide reduced energy and cost required to clean surfaces of biofouling

by reducing biofouling in the first place. As a result, there can be longer times between

maintenance/cleaning of surfaces” [266].

Sharklet is non-toxic. In the ‘Field of the Invention’ section for another Sharklet-related patent,

it states: “The invention relates to articles and related devices and systems having surface

topography and/or surface elastic properties for providing non-toxic bioadhesion control”

(italics mine) [396]. It also states:

185

The present invention describes a variety of scalable surface topographies for modification of

bio settlement and bioadhesion, such as bioadhesion of biofouling organisms including, but not

limited to, algae, bacteria and barnacles… it has been proven through experimental testing that

surface topographies according to the invention provide a passive and non-toxic surface, which

through selection of appropriate feature sizes and spacing, can significantly… reduce settlement

and adhesion of the most common fouling marine algae known, as well as the settlement of

most barnacles (italics mine) [396].

Additionally, there is reason to believe Sharklet is environmentally advantageous because it

does not support the evolution of superbugs. The Sharklet website (not peer-reviewed) states:

Sharklet “Offers no risk for antimicrobial resistance. It is the Sharklet-textured surface alone

that disrupts bacteria’s ability to survive, not antimicrobial agents that contribute to the

development of ‘superbugs’”[397]. There are no claims found in peer-reviewed literature that

overtly agree with this statement. However, the claim that Sharklet does not contribute to

antimicrobial resistance is supported by biological peer-reviewed literature that describes how

superbugs evolve.

“The term ‘superbugs’ refers to microbes with enhanced morbidity and mortality due to

multiple mutations endowing high levels of resistance to the antibiotic classes specifically

recommended for their treatment” [398]. Superbugs evolve through the widespread use of

antibiotics and biocides, such as those found in cleaning products: “The development of

generations of antibiotic-resistant microbes and their distribution in microbial populations

throughout the biosphere are the results of many years of unremitting selection pressure from

human applications of antibiotics, via underuse, overuse, and misuse” [398]. Additionally, “The

limited scientific evidence available indicates that bacterial resistance to biocides may

contribute to the development and dissemination of antibiotic resistance, which is a serious

concern relative to the worldwide anti-infective therapy for humans and animals” [399]. There

is no evidence to suggest that products, such as Sharklet, that prevent bacterial growth through

non-chemical mechanisms, would contribute to the evolution of superbugs.


Clorox Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner was selected as an appropriate competitor for Sharklet antimicrobial

surfaces because both products could be used to prevent bacteria growth in a bathroom. Clorox disinfecting

bathroom cleaner is a chemical cleaner that contains: water, butoxydiglycol, tetrapotassium EDTA

(ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), alkyl polyglucoside, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, alkyl

dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride, amine oxides, fragrance, and silicone emulsion [400]. It is

meant to be sprayed on dirty bathroom surfaces, allowed to stand for 10 minutes if the user is trying to

disinfect the surface, and then be wiped off the surface [401]. Reportedly, it “kills 99.9% of germs

commonly found in bathrooms” [402].

186

Clorox Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner [400].


According to its material safety data sheet, Clorox disinfecting bathroom cleaner contains four hazardous

substances: (1) Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DGBE), (2) Tetrapotassium ethylenediamine

tetraacetate (ETDA), (3) n-Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC), and (4) n-Alkyl dimethyl

ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride [403].

The second substance listed – ETDA – is not biodegradable. According to DOW Chemical, “Salts of

EDTA do not pass tests as ‘readily biodegradable’ ” [404], meaning that a typical bathroom cleaner, such

as Clorox, is not biodegradable.

There is strong reason to believe that the third substance - ADBAC - contributes to the development of

superbugs. “Although the concentrations of the active agents at the point of application can be generally

controlled, sub-lethal exposure to biocide occurs as they become dissipated in the environment” and can

consequently exert selection pressure [405]. “The widespread incorporation of antibacterial agents into

consumer products has compounded the problem, especially for agents with lower chemical reactivity, such

as the quaternary ammonium compounds” (QACs) [405]. QACs “are biocides that have recently come

under scrutiny for their role in antibiotic resistance… Many studies have shown that exposure to QACs at

subinhibitory concentrations leads to the selection of intrinsically resistant bacteria in a microbial

community or results in the development or acquisition of resistance mechanisms” [399]. The Center for

Disease lists ADBAC as a quatemary ammonium compound [406]. This implies that use of ADBAC could

lead to the development of resistance mechanisms in bacteria and ultimately contribute to the evolution of

superbugs.

Additionally, ADBAC is toxic to many different kinds of animals. The EPA categorizes ADBAC “as

highly toxic to fish… and very highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates… on an acute exposure basis” [407].

ADBAC is also “moderately toxic to birds” and “slightly toxic to mammals on an acute basis” [407].

In contrast to chemical biocides, such as those found in Clorox, Sharklet is nontoxic and does not

contribute to the evolution of superbugs. Instead, the shape, size, and spacing of features on Sharklet’s

surface “physically interfere “with the settlement and adhesion of microorganisms” [396]. Sharklet surfaces

prevent bacteria growth, meaning that these surfaces stay cleaner longer and consequently need to be

cleaned less frequently.

Sharklet has to be thrown away after 90 days and presumably disposed of in a landfill. Clorox most likely

is either rinsed down the drain, or is disposed of in a landfill on paper towels and other cleaning supplies.

187

A.8 SHINKANSEN 500 SERIES NOSE CONE

Field


Biological Analogy

Piscivore kingfisher beak Environmental Advantage

Reduction in electricity consumption,

Quieter

Company

West Japan Railway Company

Hitachi

N+P Industrial Design

Competitor

A standard nose cone,

approximated using the

Shinkansen 300 Series

Life Cycle Phase

Use


There are two types of kingfishers: piscivores and insectivores. Piscivore kingfishers have a distinctive bill

shape, described by some as “narrow black spear-shaped bills” [408], or “needlelike mandibles” [409].

These can be seen in the images below.

Kingfishers [410,411].


The 500 Series Shinkansen is an award-winning Japanese train that was “Regarded as the fastest electric

train in commercial operation in 1998” [412]. It has a maximum operating speed of 300 km/h, and a

maximum speed of 320 km/hr [413].

However, higher train speeds are associated with higher noise, and “In Japan, noise is said to be the greatest

impediment to raising commercial speeds” of trains [414]. Noise is particularly an issue when tracks run

through tunnels, and “Half of the entire Sanyo Shinkansen Line (from Osaka to Hakata)” – where the 500

series Shinkansen runs – “is made up of tunnel sections” [415]. “When a high-speed railway train enters a

tunnel, a compression wave is generated ahead of the train and propagates along the tunnel. Subsequently

this wave is emitted outward from the exit toward the surrounding area as an impulsive wave which causes

an impulsive noise like a sonic boom produced by a supersonic aircraft” [416]. This boom and aerodynamic

vibration for some trains has been “so intense that residents 400 meters away have registered complaints”

[415]. Consequently, measures had to be taken during the design of the 500 Series Shinkansen to reduce

noise.

188

High speed trains create compression waves in tunnels, causing a loud noise when it exits [417].

One of the noise-reduction measures was to change the shape of the train’s nose cone to better handle the

transition from low pressure air to high pressure air found in tunnels. The shape of the nose cone was

inspired by the shape of a kingfisher’s beak, as described previously. “The Shinkansen bullet train design

uses a conical nose to achieve high speeds and reduce noise while exiting tunnels” [62]. The nose “has a

streamline shape that is 15m in length and almost round in cross section” [415].

Left: Shinkansen nose cone [418]. Right: Sketch connecting Shinkansen’s tunnel exit to kingfisher [419].



Eiji Nakatsu, the director responsible for test runs of the 500 Series Shinkansen, recalls how the

nose cone of the Shinkansen came to be inspired by the kingfisher:

[O]ne of our young engineers told me that when the train rushes into a tunnel, he felt

as if the train had shrunk. This must be due to a sudden change in air resistance, I

thought. The question the occurred to me - is there some living thing that manages

sudden changes in air resistance as a part of daily life? … To catch its prey, a

kingfisher dives from the air, which has low resistance, into high-resistance water, and

moreover does this without splashing. I wondered if this is possible because of the

keen edge and streamlined shape of its beak. So we conducted tests to measure

pressure waves arising from shooting bullets of various shapes into a pipe and a

thorough series of simulation tests of running the trains in tunnels, using a space

research super-computer system. Data analysis showed that the ideal shape for this

Shinkansen is almost identical to a kingfisher's beak [415].

189

While overcoming differences across the air/water interface is critical for the kingfisher to be

successful fishing, and this interface represents an abrupt change in pressure, there is no

evidence in biological literature indicating that the shape of the kingfisher’s beak is particularly

well-suited for overcoming this transition. In contrast, a number of authors describe splashes

when the kingfisher dives. Skutch describes the fishing behavior of the Amazon Kingfisher:

“Suddenly the wings close, the hazy circles vanish, the kingfisher plunges swiftly downward,

head foremost and breaks the surface with a splash”[420]. Remson refers to the disruption

caused by the dive of a kingfisher: “After a dive, a kingfisher almost always moved to a new

perch overlooking a new patch of water. The disturbance created by the dive probably alerted

small fishes in the area to surface predation, and it was then presumably more profitable to

move on” [421]. Marshall describes the loud plop Azure Kingfisher’s make while fishing: “It

was interesting to watch the birds dive into water only a few inches deep from a considerable

height, strike the surface with a loud ‘plop,’ turn swiftly, and fly to the same bough with their

catch” [422].

While the biological phenomenon that inspired Nakatsu may not be supported by the biological

literature, or may not be unique to kingfishers and therefore not prominently discussed in

literature on kingfishers, is of little consequence. As in the case of Eastgate Centre’s cooling

system, all that is critical is that the design was inspired by nature, not that the designer

understood the natural system completely.


The Shinkansen 500 Series has been in operation since 1997 [413,277].


Both of the environmental claims made about the nose cone of the Shinkansen 500 series – (1)

that it reduces the electricity consumption of the train and (2) that it is quieter – are somewhat

problematic, although both prove to be sufficiently supported in the literature as representing a

true and meaningful environmental impact reduction.

First, claims are frequently made in gray literature indicating that the shape of the kingfisher-

inspired nose cone has reduced the electricity consumption of the train. For instance, Eiji

Nakatsu states in his Japan for Sustainability Newsletter interview that the shape of the nose

cone “has enabled the new 500-series to reduce air pressure by 30% and electricity use by

15%, even though speeds have increased by 10% over the former series” [415]. This source is

cited in a number of reliable online sources, including Ask Nature [423]. These same numbers

also appear in an article in Wired Science [277].

Additionally, there are numerous related, albeit less explicit, statements in academic literature.

For instance, books on the 500 Series Shinkansen describe the train as a “synthesis of

aerodynamics, technology, and design” [412] and as having “an extremely aerodynamic

profile” [424]. Also, observations have been made indicating that the 500 series generates less

wind than other trains when existing tunnels, despite the fact that it is moving faster [413].

These statements referring to ‘aerodynamic’ profiles and a reduction in wind imply that the

train has less drag and, consequently, would consume less electricity, as is claimed in the gray

literature. These statements taken together indicate that there truly is a reduction in electricity

190

consumption of the Shinkansen as a result of its bioinspired nose cone.

Finally, it is not surprising that the noise-reduction aspects of the nose cone are more heavily

emphasized in the literature than the reduction in electricity consumption. An article in the

Japan Railway and Transport Review confirms: “noise and vibration are two areas of particular

attention in Japan because reducing them ensures a better environment for trackside residents.

In general, aero-acoustic noise is reduced by using smooth exterior surfaces and reduced air

resistance is a bonus” [414]. Since the attention of the designers and Japanese community

members appears to have been on noise reduction – and not environmental impact in general –

it is not surprising that a discussion on the reduced environmental impact is not prominent in

literature on this topic.

Second, numerous academic sources agree that the 500 Series Shinkansen is quieter as a result

of its bioinspired nose cone.

o A refereed conference paper states: “The Shinkansen bullet train design uses a conical

nose to… reduce noise while exiting tunnels” [62].

o A book on the Shinkansen trains agrees: the author observed while “Standing next to

tunnels along the Sanyō Shinkansen,” that “While the 500-series shinkansen was

travelling at 300 km/hr, it was often the 0-series travelling some 90 km/hr slower that

made the most noise” [413].

The noise reduction is likely due to a variety of factors, including the kingfisher-inspired

profile.

Claims are also made in gray literature that the 500 Series Shinkansen is quieter as a result of its

bioinspired nose cone.

o An article in Wired Science states that “By modeling bullet train noses on kingfisher

beaks, West Japan Railway Company engineers created the 500 series… The trains are

quieter, 10 percent faster and use 15 percent less electricity” [277].

o Ask Nature states: “The Shinkansen Bullet Train has a streamlined forefront and

structural adaptations to significantly reduce noise resulting from aerodynamics in

high-speed trains” [282].

This claim that the reduced noise output by the Shinkansen is an environmental benefit may be

problematic because product noise may not be considered a true or significant environmental

impact. Instead, it may be viewed as a purely aesthetic feature of the product, or as a local and

immediate environmental impact that is not of interest if one is looking at environmental impact

from a global or national perspective. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, noise is considered a

true environmental impact in this analysis. Additionally, number of other reputable sources

describe noise as having a true environmental impact.

o The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers noise to be

pollution [425].

o Tanaka et al. discuss noise standards as ‘environmental standards’ that affect the

‘living environment’; “very strict environmental quality standard against Shinkansen

noise is applied for the purpose of keeping a pleasant living environment” [426].

o OECD documents refer to ‘noise emissions’ in the context of a discussion on

globalization, transportation, and the environment; “International road and rail freight

transport accounts for a minor, but increasing , share of global transport emissions of

air pollutants (e.g. NOx) and noise emissions” [427].

o Hood refers to noise pollution: “Another significant environmental issue in Japan is

noise pollution” [413]

o Horihata et al. also refer to noise pollution : “In regard to running Shinkansens at high

speed, it is necessary to face… a variety of environmental concerns” such as “the

191

environmental problem of noise pollution” [428].

o Soejima, the president of Japan’s Railway Technology Research Institute (RTRI),

writes in a 2003 article that the most significant environment-related research area for

the railway in Japan has been related to reducing noise from the trains. “[N]oise and

vibration are two areas of particular attention in Japan because reducing them ensures

a better environment for trackside residents” [414]. “So far, environmental R&D in

Japan has been aimed at resolving problems of trackside noise and vibrations. In the

future, greater attention will have to be paid to examining noise sources, analyzing

sound transmission paths, and developing better ways to evaluate low-frequency

vibration. But the impact of railways on the global environment also needs examining

from the perspectives of energy conservation, global warming, waste disposal and

recycling” [414].

Anthropogenic noise has negative effects on human and animal health. In humans, “Noise

interferes with complex task performance, modifies social behavior and causes annoyance.

Studies of occupational and environmental noise exposure suggest an association with

hypertension… In both industrial studies and community studies, noise exposure is related to

catecholamine secretion. In children, chronic aircraft noise exposure impairs reading

comprehension and long-term memory and may be associated with raised blood pressure”

[429].

Noise has also been shown to have a negative impact on birds. “Traffic noise is known to have

a negative impact on bird populations” [430]. “Road traffic has negative impacts on the density

of breeding birds in many parts of the world” [431]. “In open landscapes, only noise and visual

stimuli can explain the observed effects” and in forests, only noise can [431]. Noise from

railways may divide habitats for animals adverse to the noise, “contributing to ‘islandification’,

separating communities and often reducing gene flow” [432]. Islandification may have long-

term evolutionary effects on the species.


The competitor of the nose cone of the 500 Series Shinkansen train is the nose cone of the 300 Series

Shinkansen train, shown below.

The Shinkansen 300 [433].

192


The use stage of Shinkansen trains has been found to overwhelmingly dominate the life cycle

environmental impact of the trains. A life cycle assessment (LCA) study from Miyauchi et al. [434]

comparing the environmental impact of variations of Shinkansen Series 0, Series 100, and Series 300 trains

found that more than 95% of life cycle energy consumption (LCE) and the lifecycle CO2 emissions

(LCCO2) occurs in the use phase of the train. These findings strongly suggest that the use phase of the

Shinkansen 500 series is likely to dominate the environmental impact of the train.

Miyauchi et al. [434] also found that “Given the same conditions (number of stations where the train stops,

and the maximum speed), both LCE and LCCO2 reduce according to the series number (0 series, 100

series, 300 series). This can be considered to be bought about mainly from the effects of improvement such

as lightening the vehicle, use of the regenerative brake, and reduction of running resistance” [434].

Consequently, it is also likely that seemingly minor improvements in the running resistance of the Series

500 due to the modifications inspired by the kingfisher are likely to substantially reduce the environmental

impact, compared to a standard train, over the life of the train.

The bioinspired nose cone is quieter than a nonbioinspired nose cone, and is also likely more aerodynamic.

Consequently, the bioinspired nose cone on the Series 500 Shinkansen will likely have reduced electricity

consumption, compared to a train with a standard pantograph. Both these environmental benefits occur in

the use phase of the train. Additionally, the information above suggests that even minor improvements in

the efficiency of the train in the use phase are likely to substantially affect the environmental impact of the

train as a whole, since the use phase dominates the environmental impact of trains.

193

A.9 SHINKANSEN 500 SERIES PANTOGRAPH

Field


Biological Analogy

Owls’ serrated primary feathers Environmental Advantage

Reduction in electricity consumption,

Quieter

Company

West Japan Railway Company

Hitachi

N+P Industrial Design

Competitor

Standard pantograph without

serrations

Life Cycle Phase

Use


Owls are extraordinarily quiet fliers [415] because of their serrated primary feathers [435,436],

shown in the photograph below. These serrated feathers are located on the leading edge of owls’ wings

[436]. These feathers break “down turbulence into smaller currents called micro-turbulences” which

are then absorbed by the soft feathers on the owl [435]. Because noise is a direct result of turbulence

generated during flight, the noise from the owl’s flight is effectively muffled [435,436].

How Owl Feathers Work[435]; Screech owl’s serrated edge of primary feather [437]; Magnified

“[s]errations of the 10th

primary of a barn owl”[436].


The 500 Series Shinkansen is an award-winning Japanese train that was “[r]egarded as the fastest electric

train in commercial operation in 1998” [412]. It has a maximum operating speed of 300 km/h, and a

maximum speed of 320 km/hr [413].

However, higher train speeds are associated with higher noise, and “In Japan, noise is said to be the greatest

impediment to raising commercial speeds” of trains [414]. “One of the most important factors to reduce

noise outside the Shinkansen is the system for transferring current to the train. This system consists of a

pantograph and an insulator” [438]. For an electric train, the pantograph is “The mechanism that collects

electricity from the overhead cables” [413]. “The noise created around the pantograph is due to both the

contact between the pantograph itself and the overhead wires, as well as the air friction upon the

194

pantograph and its shields as the train moves at speed” [413]. “[A] large… noise is generated when the air

hits pantographs, the current collectors that receive electricity from the overhead wires” [415].

To address the problem with noise on the pantograph due to air friction, “‘serrations’ were inscribed on

main part of the pantograph, and this succeeded in reducing noise enough to meet the world's strictest

standards. This technology is called a ‘vortex generator’” and is inspired by owls’ serration feathers [415].

Pantograph mechanism of 500 Series Shinkansen based on serration feathers (note the owl picture

in the museum plaque on right) [439,440].



Eiji Nakatsu, an active member of the Wild Bird Society of Japan and “the director responsible

for the test runs of the Shinkansen series” recalls: “I had the honor of meeting Mr. Seiichi

Yajima, then an aircraft design engineer and also a member of the Wild Bird Society of Japan.

From him I learned how much of current aircraft technology has been based on studies of the

functions and structures of birds. I learned that the owl family has the most silent fliers of all

birds... It seems that the owl family has acquired the function of "quiet flying" so that prey such

as mice, will receive no warning that the owl is about to strike. Inspired by this fact, we

conducted wind tunnel tests to analyze the noise level coming from a flying owl, using a stuffed

owl courtesy of the Osaka Municipal Tennoji Zoo. We learned that one of the secrets of the owl

family's low-noise flying lies in their wing plumage, which has many small saw-toothed

feathers protruding from the outer rim of their primary feathers… These saw-toothed wave

feathers are called "serration feathers," and generate small vortexes in the air flow that break up

the larger vortexes which produce noise. It took 4 years of strenuous effort by our younger

engineers to practically apply this principle. Finally, "serrations" were inscribed on main part of

the pantograph, and this succeeded in reducing noise enough to meet the world's strictest

standards” [415].


The Shinkansen 500 Series has been in operation since 1997 [413,277].


It is likely that the owl-inspired serrations on the 500 Series pantograph reduce the drag on the

train. A number of journal and book authors imply that this is the case, although none both

195

make this statement directly and describe the bioinspired feature of the pantograph precisely.

In a journal article, Koganezawa et al. [441] discuss how the incorporation of owl-inspired

serrations in transportation vehicles have been shown to decrease drag, implying that this is

likely the case in the 500 Series pantograph as well: “Generally, flow separations due to

vortices cause the increase of drag force.” “In the air-plane industry, ‘vortex generators’ which

have the same mechanism as” serrations on owl feathers “make small vortices and help

boundary layer separation delay downstream” [441]. By delaying boundary layer separation,

these ‘vortex generators’ reduce the drag force on the plane wing. Vortex generators inspired by

owl serrations “are used to reduce drag force and improve mileage of cars” [441]. They also

state: “To reduce running noise of Shinkansen, Japanese bullet train, the vortex generators have

been also applied to its pantograph” [441], implying that the drag reduction seen in both

airplanes and cars would likely be seen in the case of the pantograph as well.

In a book on Shinkansen trains, Hood states: “The noise created around the pantograph is due to

both the contact between the pantograph itself and the overhead wires, as well as the air friction

upon the pantograph and its shields as the train moves at speed” [413]. This means that a

reduction in noise could be caused by a reduction in air friction on the pantograph, and

consequently would reduce the drag on the train. As shown below, the owl-inspired pantograph

causes a reduction in noise, meaning that there is also possibly a reduction in air friction, and

consequently drag force, on the pantograph as a result.

In a book on Bullet Trains, Biello directly states: “The 500 Series also uses an innovative

pantograph design… which helps reduce wind resistance” [424]. Unfortunately, he describes

the pantograph as being "shaped like a wing” [424] which is somewhat incorrect or inexact; the

pantograph is not shaped like a wing, but it has serrations on it shaped like serrations feathers. It

is possible, however, that the author is correct in stating that the bioinspired feature reduces

wind resistance.

Journal articles and books indicate that the 500 Series Shinkansen is quieter as a result of its

bioinspired pantograph.

o Koganezawa et al. [441] explain: “To reduce running noise of Shinkansen, Japanese

bullet train, the vortex generators” inspired by owl serrations “have been also applied

to its pantograph.”

o In addition, Hood’s observations show that the 500 series is quieter than competitors.

He observed while “Standing next to tunnels along the Sanyō Shinkansen,” that

“While the 500-series shinkansen was travelling at 300 km/hr, it was often the 0-series

travelling some 90 km/hr slower that made the most noise” [413].

The noise reduction is likely due to a variety of factors, including the owl feather-inspired

pantograph.

More explicit claims regarding the reduction in noise from the bioinspired pantograph have

been made in gray literature.

o In his interview with Japan for Sustainability, Nakatsu [415] states that “‘serrations’

were inscribed on the main part of the pantograph, and this succeeded in reducing

noise enough to meet the world’s strictest standards” for the 500 Series Shinkansen.

o AskNature’s site for the Shinkansen states that “Engineers were able to reduce the

pantograph’s noise by adding structures to the main part of the pantograph to create

many small vortices… similar to the way an owl’s primary feathers have serrations”

[282].

196

Additionally, the incorporation of serrations has been shown to reduce noise in studies on

airplanes, increasing the likelihood that they could do so on train pantographs.

o Bachmann et al [436] explain: “In aviation, serrations might act as turbulence

generators at the leading edge of the wing. In a series of papers from the early 1970s…

several wind tunnel experiments were performed to investigate the impact of artificial

two-dimensional serrations of different length and spacing in the flow field. In these

studies, serrations influenced the air flow separation, enhanced lift of the wings, and

reduced noise generated by the wings.”

o Koganezawa et al. [441] concur: “In the air-plane industry, ‘vortex generators’ which

have the same mechanism as the serrations” in owls “have been used in terms of…

noise reduction.”

This claim that the reduced noise output by the Shinkansen is an environmental benefit may be

problematic because product noise may not be considered a true or significant environmental

impact. Instead, it may be viewed as a purely aesthetic feature of the product, or as a local and

immediate environmental impact that is not of interest if one is looking at environmental impact

from a global or national perspective. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, noise is considered a

true environmental impact in this analysis. Additionally, number of other reputable sources

describe noise as having a true environmental impact, as were discussed above in the “Selection

Criteria Verification” section for the Shinkansen 500 series nose cone.


The competing product is a standard 500 series pantograph without the serrations inspired by the owl

feathers. Instead, the competing pantograph would have smooth sides.


The use stage of Shinkansen trains has been found to overwhelmingly dominate the life cycle

environmental impact of the trains. A life cycle assessment (LCA) study from Miyauchi et al. comparing

the environmental impact of variations of Shinkansen Series 0, Series 100, and Series 300 trains found that

more than 95% of life cycle energy consumption (LCE) and the lifecycle CO2 emissions (LCCO2) occurs in

the use phase of the train [434]. These findings strongly suggest that the use phase of the Shinkansen 500

series is likely to dominate the environmental impact of the train.

Miyauchi et al. also found that “Given the same conditions (number of stations where the train stops, and

the maximum speed), both LCE and LCCO2 reduce according to the series number (0 series, 100 series,

300 series). This can be considered to be bought about mainly from the effects of improvement such as

lightening the vehicle, use of the regenerative brake, and reduction of running resistance” [434].

Consequently, it is also likely that seemingly minor improvements in the running resistance of the Series

500 due to the modifications of the pantograph inspired by owl feathers are likely to substantially reduce

the environmental impact.

The bioinspired pantograph is quieter than a nonbioinspired pantograph, and is also likely more

aerodynamic. Consequently, the bioinspired pantograph on the Series 500 Shinkansen will likely have

reduced electricity consumption, compared to a train with a standard pantograph. Both these environmental

benefits occur in the use phase of the train. Additionally, the information above suggests that even minor

improvements in the efficiency of the train in the use phase are likely to substantially affect the

environmental impact of the train as a whole, since the use phase dominates the environmental impact of

trains.

197

Appendix B: Design Library Designs with Insufficient Information

Information on 6 BIDs – Airbus 320, Baleen Water Filters, Passive Walking Bipedal Robots,

Calera Cement, Geckel, and the HotZone Radiant Heater – is presented in Appendix B. The same format

used for the designs in Appendix A was also intended to be used here. However, designs presented in

Appendix B had insufficient information to positively identify them as sustainable BIDs. Information that

was unavailable is not included. Occasionally information from less-reputable sources, or a source citing

information of interest, was included with the hope that someone continuing the work could confirm this

information in more reliable sources or in the original source. Additionally, as these designs were not

selected for analysis, the information contained in these design library entries is more frequently in the

form of relevant quotations from authoritative sources, as opposed to more synthesized material.

198

B.1 AIRBUS 320

Field

Aeronautical Engineering

Biological Analogy

Shark skin riblets Environmental Advantage

Unconfirmed

Company

Airbus Competitor

Standard surface Life Cycle Phase

Use


“As do many fast-swimming marine organisms, sharks pay a large metabolic cost to overcome the drag on

their body surface. The skin scales of some sharks possess tiny ridges that run parallel to the longitudinal

body axis. The grooved body surface reduces drag through its influence on the boundary layer ” [273].

“Shark skin has a unique microstructure that appears to serve multiple functions for the shark. In the case of

fast-swimming sharks, arguments can be made that the microgeometry associated with the shark skin

reduces drag allowing for higher swimming speeds and increased turning ability on some species. The

majority of the research has involved deducing the turbulent skin-friction drag-reduction capabilities of the

shark skin microgeometry consisting of streamwise riblets, although the separation control mechanisms that

may be present have also been considered. Finally, current biomimetic technological applications of shark

skin microstructure are reviewed, including shark skin swimsuits to anti-fouling surfaces for ocean-going

vessels” [442].


“Riblet sheets, modeled on shark skin, reduced the fuel consumption of an Airbus 320 when placed over

the wings and fuselage.” [273]. “Riblets are small surface protrusions aligned with the direction of flow,

which confer an anisotropic roughness to a surface. They are one of the few techniques that have been

successfully applied to the reduction of the skin friction in turbulent boundary layers, both in the laboratory

and in full aerodynamic configurations” [443].




“Airbus has launched its new "Sharklet" large wingtip devices, specially designed to enhance

the eco-efficiency and payload-range performance of the A320 Family. Offered as a forward-fit

option, Sharklets are expected to result in at least 3.5 percent reduced fuelburn over longer

sectors, corresponding to an annual CO2 reduction of around 700 tonnes per aircraft. The A320

will be the first model fitted with Sharklets, which will be delivered around the end of 2012, to

be followed by the other A320 Family models from 2013. Air New Zealand is the launch

customer for the Sharklets which are specified for its future A320 fleet” [444].


199

“Riblet sheets, modeled on shark skin, reduced the fuel consumption of an Airbus 320 when

placed over the wings and fuselage” [273].

“Riblets have been used successfully to reduce the overall drag of aerofoils [12] and aircraft

[13] with optimum riblet spacings of the order of 30–70 mm. Szodruch [14] reports on the

flight tests of a commercial aeroplane (Airbus 320) with riblets over 70 per cent of its surface,

and estimates an overall 2 per cent drag reduction, based on the fuel savings obtained. A

summary of those tests, including maintenance and durability issues, can be found in Robert

[15]. The discrepancy between the optimum laboratory performance and full configurations is

probably to be expected from any method based on the reduction of skin friction. Not all the

drag of an aircraft is friction [16], and much of the latter is distributed over three-dimensional or

geometrically complex areas where drag control is difficult to optimize. Note that those

limitations might not apply to configurations that are very different from commercial aircraft,

such as gliders or other high-performance vehicles” [443].

200

B.2 BALEEN WATER FILTERS

Field


Biological Analogy

Baleen whales (also called

whalebone whales or great

whales)


Unconfirmed

Company

Baleen Filters Pty Limited Competitor

Standard filter Life Cycle Phase

Use


“[B]aleen whales such as fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), which gulp-feed as they swim, use and

inward push in front and outward pull on the side (or lower side) to reopen their enormous mouths and

expand their throats. Contraction of the muscles of the conspicuously corrugated throats pushes water and

food through their baleen plates as the mouth closes. So as the whale swims that combination of muscle

contraction followed by pressure-driven expansion pumps the vast volumes of water it needs to process”

[445].

According to the Baleen Filters website: “The word ‘Baleen’ is an anatomical description for the

whalebone that belongs to a group of filter-feeding whales. The baleen is essentially the filter mechanism

that enables the whale to collect plankton, small fish and other marine organisms from the water during

feeding. The combination of a sweeping action of the tongue and the reversing of the water flows as the

whales dive and re-surface during feeding, enable them to capture and strain food, then clean their baleen

prior to the next dive”[446].

Diagram and photo of baleen whale [447].

201


“A new dimension in separation technology, a self-cleaning filter, originally patented by the University of

South Australia and critically tested by industry. It is now being sold under the ‘Baleen’ Trademark…The

Baleen Filter technology is an adaptation of this natural technique used by whales to keep their baleen clean

and free from long-term deposits.”[446]. “Baleen Filter technology provides non-pressurised separation to

25 microns without chemical assistance, and to 3 microns with chemical assistance. The Baleen Filter

removes suspended organics, fines, bacterium and sands from wastewater streams”[448]. According to a

patent related to the filter, the goal of the design was “to produce a filtration system which more readily and

continually clears accumulating contaminants from a filter medium during a filtering process” [449].

“The Baleen Filter uses a double act of high pressure, low volume sprays, one which dislodges material

caught by the filter media, whilst the other spray sweeps the material away for collection. This process

removes even the most troublesome of constituents such as grit, suspended and fibrous matter, grease and

oil from water without blocking the filter. As water flows through the filter media, solids initially

suspended in the water are left behind. But before they accumulate to block the screen media the second

spray transports these contaminants away from the filtering zone, enabling the filtering process to continue

without disruption” [448].

Baleen water filter [450,451].



According to the Baleen website: “The baleen is essentially the filter mechanism that enables

the whale to collect plankton, small fish and other marine organisms from the water during

feeding. The combination of a sweeping action of the tongue and the reversing of the water

flows as the whales dive and re-surface during feeding, enable them to capture and strain food,

then clean their baleen prior to the next dive. The Baleen Filter technology is an adaptation of

this natural technique used by whales to keep their baleen clean and free from long-term

deposits.”[446].


According to the Baleen Filters website: “The Baleen Filter can be ordered directly from us or

via one of our representatives. You can purchase an appropriate unit or lease one from us”

[452].

202


According to one of Baleen’s European patents: “This invention relates to an improved form of

filter, and in particular to a filter having a novel means of clearing contaminants from the

upstream or filtration side of the filter to thereby increase filtering efficiency”[453]. However, it

is unclear that this additional filtering efficiency is a direct result of the bioinspired feature.

Additionally, the Baleen Filters website (a non-peer-reviewed source) provides a list of the

major benefits of the filters for industry. This list includes a number of claimed environmental

benefits, including: “Small footprint - saving valuable land;” “Environmentally friendly,

reduced or no chemicals required;” “Low operating costs, low energy needs and low

maintenance;” and “Simplicity in industrial wastewater management” [448]. It is possible that

some or all of these claims are valid and could be confirmed in peer-reviewed sources.

However, claims made on the Baleen website are not considered sufficient for the purposes of

this analysis.

Conclusion: Evidence that the Baleen filter meets criterion #3 as a result of its bioinspired feature

is likely to be found in peer-reviewed sources but is still required.


The competing product is a standard filtration system discussed in the Baleen patent. In a standard

filtration system, the particles being filtered out of the fluid are captured in a way that obstructs the fluid

flow and eventually requires cleaning of the filtration device [449]. “Typical cleaning processes include:

periodic back flushing where the direction of fluid flow through the filter medium is reversed; and

mechanical scraping where a scraper traverses the surface of the filter medium to remove contaminants

thereby exposing the filter medium to damage. These cleaning processes interrupt the filtering process and

therefore introduce inefficiencies. Furthermore, in some applications it is impractical to clean the filter

medium frequently enough to prevent build up of contaminant on the filter medium surface using those

cleaning processes and therefore poor filtration efficiencies result. While there exist numerous types of self-

cleaning filters their limitations include: the types of fluids that they are able to filter, their durability, the

flow rates achievable and the operational time of the filtration process before shutdown is required” [449].

203

B.3 PASSIVE WALKING BIPEDAL ROBOT

Field

Robotics

Biological Analogy

Human walking Environmental Advantage

Passive (energy efficient) walking

Company

University researchers Competitor

Actively-controlled walking

robot, Honda Asimo

Life Cycle Phase

Use


Humans walk efficiently on two legs without high-power or high-frequency actuation [311]. While

walking, humans push off with their ankles and have “powered leg swinging” [311]. Whittington et al.

[316] showed experimentally that the stretching of soft tissues in the hips and ankles of humans creates

passive moments, allowing for energy absorption while the leg swings, accounting for up to “35% of the

net hip flexor moment” and approximately 15% of net plantarflexor work.


“In contrast to mainstream robots, which actively control every joint angle at all times, passive-dynamic

walkers do not control any joint angle at any time” [311]. “Passive-dynamic walkers are simple mechanical

devices, composed of solid parts connected by joints, that walk stably down a slope. They have no motors

or controllers, yet can have remarkably humanlike motions… Here we present three robots based on

passive-dynamics, with small active power sources substituted for gravity, which can walk on level ground.

These robots use less control and less energy than other powered robots, yet walk more naturally, further

suggesting the importance of passive-dynamics in human locomotion” [311].

“Three level-ground powered walking robots based on the ramp-walking designs… (A) The Cornell

biped. (B) The Delft biped. (C) The MIT learning biped” [311].

204



“Each of the robots here has some design features that are intended to mimic humans. The

Cornell and Delft bipeds use anthropomorphic geometry and mass distributions in their legs and

demonstrate ankle push-off and powered leg swinging, both present in human walking (14, 19).

They do not use high-power or high-frequency actuation, which are also unavailable to humans.

These robots walk with humanlike efficiency and humanlike motions (Fig. 4 and movies S1 to

S3). The motor learning system on the MIT biped uses a learning rule that is biologically

plausible at the neural level (20). The learning problem is formulated as a stochastic optimal

feedback control problem; there is emerging evidence that this formulation can also describe

biological motor learning (21)” [311].

“A common misconception has been that gravity power is essential to passive-dynamic

walking, making it irrelevant to understanding human walking. The machines presented here

demonstrate that there is nothing special about gravity as a power source; we achieve successful

walking using small amounts of power added by ankle or hip actuation. We expect that

humanoid robots will be improved by further developing control of passive-dynamics–based

robots and by paying closer attention to energy efficiency and natural dynamics in joint-

controlled robots (26). Whatever the future of humanoid robots, the success of human mimicry

demonstrated here suggests the importance of passive-dynamic concepts in understanding

human walking” [311].


Numerous fully-functional prototypes exist. See photos above.


“These robots use less control and less energy than other powered robots, yet walk more

naturally” [311].

In general: “Traditional direct drive actuation system of robotic manipulators is probably one of

the easiest ways to actuate robotic walkers, due to its simplicity in mechanical implementation

and the fact that the rotational motion of motors is directly mapped into rotational motion of the

joints. Consequently, if we just require an appropriate functionality of a robotic walker, the

direct drives with a gear set would be a convenient solution. However, biological walkers that

use an inverted pendulum like mechanism [1, 2, 3] are considered energy efficient relatively

with respect to the state of the art robotic walkers [12, 13], using a different kind of actuators,

the muscles, which can be considered as elastic (stretchable) linear actuators. Energy efficiency

and the level of walk cycle precision and smoothness are among important reasons for

mimicking biological walkers” [312].


The competitor is the Honda Asimo, an actively-controlled walking robot with motors and actuators

controlling all aspects of the walking motion.


“To compare efficiency between humans and robots of different sizes, it is convenient to use the

dimensionless specific cost of transport, ct 0 (energy used)/(weight _ distance traveled). In order to isolate

205

the effectiveness of the mechanical design and controller from the actuator efficiency, we distinguish

between the specific energetic cost of transport, cet, and the specific mechanical cost of transport, cmt.

Whereas cet uses the total energy consumed by the system (11 W for the Cornell biped), cmt only considers

the positive mechanical work of the actuators (3 W for the Cornell biped). The 13-kg Cornell biped

walking at 0.4 m/s has cet , 0.2 and cmt , 0.055. Humans are similarly energy effective, walking with cet ,

0.2, as estimated by the volume of oxygen they consume (VO2), and cmt , 0.05 (12–14). Measurement of

actuator work on the Delft biped yields cmt , 0.08. Based on the small slopes that it descends when passive,

we estimate the MIT biped to have cmt Q 0.02. Although the MIT and Delft bipeds were not specifically

designed for low-energy use, both inherit energetic features from the passive-dynamic walkers on which

they are based. By contrast, we estimate the state-of-the-art Honda humanoid Asimo to have cet , 3.2 and

cmt , 1.6 (15). Thus Asimo, perhaps representative of joint-angle controlled robots, uses at least 10 times

the energy (scaled) of a typical human” [311].

“The Cornell biped is specifically designed for minimal energy use. The primary energy losses for humans

and robots walking at a constant speed are due to dissipation when a foot hits the ground and to active

braking by the actuators (negative work). The Cornell design demonstrates that it is possible to completely

avoid this negative actuator work. The only work done by the actuators is positive: The left ankle actively

extends when triggered by the right foot hitting the ground, and vice versa. The hip joint is not powered,

and the knee joints only have latches. The average mechanical power (10) of the two ankle joints is about 3

W, almost identical to the scaled gravitational power consumed by the passive-dynamic machine on which

it is based (8). Including electronics, microcontroller, and actuators, the Cornell biped consumes 11 W

(11)” [311].

Conclusion: Passive walking bipedal robots appear to meet all three criteria for selection. However,

too much of the information comes from one source alone. More information from other sources

should be included.

206

B.4 CALERA CEMENT

Field

Process Engineering

Biological Analogy

Growth of reef coral Environmental Advantage

Sequesters carbon

Company

Calera Corporation Competitor

Portland cement Life Cycle Phase

Use


“Ocean chemistry involves the gradual absorption and mineralization of carbon. Over geologic time, vast

amounts of CO2 are naturally absorbed into the oceans and converted into stable minerals, such as

limestone” [454]. “Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in

the form of the mineral calcite… Most limestones form in shallow, calm, warm marine waters. That type of

environment is where organisms capable of forming calcium carbonate shells and skeletons can easily

extract the needed ingredients from ocean water. When these animals die their shell and skeletal debris

accumulate as a sediment that might be lithified into limestone. Their waste products can also contribute to

the sediment mass. Limestones formed from this type of sediment are biological sedimentary rocks. Their

biological origin is often revealed in the rock by the presence of fossils” [455]. If calcium carbonate

(CaCO3) “is heated to a high temperature in a kiln the products will be a release of carbon dioxide gas

(CO2) and calcium oxide (CaO)” [455].

“[M]arine cement…is produced by coral when making their shells and reefs, taking calcium and

magnesium in seawater and using it to form carbonates at normal temperatures and pressures” [203].

According to Constantz: “Stony corals calcify by nucleation and growth of aragonite fibers on seed nuclei

packets produced by the coral. Aragonite fibers arrange into polycrystalline bundles that lift the coral

upward during fiber growth, entrapping fibrils and tissue sheets, from the undersurface of the calicoblastic

epithelium, between growing crystals. The morphology and arrangement of the aragonite fibers are

controlled by inorganic kinetic factors of crystal growth, akin to inorganically precipitated marine cements.

Corals selectively plane- off extending fibers on completed structures and stop fiber growth. Similar

skeletal construction and maintenance mechanisms are found in other phyla” [456].

Reef coral [285].

http://geology.com/fossils/

207


Calera has developed a cement-making process inspired by the mechanisms underlying growth of reef coral

[285]. Calera cement “would capture and store carbon dioxide similarly to how coral absorb calcium and

magnesium to build their shells” [457]. In the Calera process, “CO2 is mineralized in an aqueous

precipitation process. CO2 reacts with calcium or magnesium in e.g. brines resulting in carbonates with can

be used as a building material. Calera supposedly exhibits a CO2 capture efficiency of 70-90% with a good

input conversion. It remains open to what degree these carbonates as the final product show cementitious

properties” [458]. “The heart of the Calera process is the formation of novel, metastable calcium and

magnesium carbonate and bicarbonate minerals, similar to those found in the skeletons of marine animals

and plants, by capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas and converting the gas to stable solid minerals. These

novel 'polymorphs' make it possible to produce high reactive cements without calcining the carbonate as is

the case with conventional portland cement” [459].

Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Carbonates [460].



“[I]n 1984, when Brent Constantz was a graduate student at the University of California at

Santa Cruz” he studied “coral growth mechanisms in the Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific, as

well as the deep sea and temperate latitudes. His insights about the physiochemically-dominated

skeletogentic mechanism of reef coral led” him to become “interested in co-opting coral growth

mechanisms for creating large structures in tropical oceans out of ‘mother-of-pearl’ or synthetic

limestone. His vision was that these mechanisms would be lifted out of the sea in modules and

assembled into massive structures in the built environment, like buildings and bridges…

Constantz contacted Khosla in 2007 with his idea about a new ‘green cement’ to replace the

carbon-intensive Portland cement, the third largest source of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Khosla saw the value of the idea immediately and funded Calera... Within a few months,

Constantz had assembled a team that was making carbonate cements from seawater, hauled

208

over from Santa Cruz to their facility in Los Gatos in a water trailer. In October 2007, while

Khosla was visiting the Los Gatos laboratory, the team noted that lack of carbon dioxide in the

seawater was limiting the reaction, and there was a need for more carbon dioxide. An

experiment was in progress, bubbling carbon dioxide through the seawater, and it was noted

that the yield increased eight-fold. Constantz turned to Khosla and asked, ‘Where can we get

large quantities of carbon dioxide?’ ” [285].

“Natural chemical processes in the world’s oceans inspire the Calera's technology. For

millennia these processes have helped to balance the world’s carbon cycle and created massive

formations of carbonate deposits, such as the white cliffs of Dover” [454].


“Calera’s technology may be suitable for a variety of facilities, including both retrofits and new

plants. We have successfully retrofitted our technology at the demonstration level to an existing

gas plant in Moss Landing, California” [454].

“Calera has conducted multi-pollutant testing with the process operated on flue gas from a wide

variety of coals in the pilot scale plant” [461].

“We have demonstrated the continuous operation at laboratory scale and have constructed a 1-

ton per day pilot scale system at our facility in Moss Landing” [462].

Currently, a demonstration plant exists at Moss Landing, CA, which uses flue gas from

Dynegy’s Moss Landing natural gas facility [463]. According to Calera, the demonstration unit

has been shown to capture 86% of the CO2 from the incoming flue gas, and similar capture

percentages were also achieved from their “pilot size coal combustion test unit” [464].


Calera cement, manufactured using flue gas from power plants, has potential to provide an

environmentally sustainable alternative to standard types of cement and standard carbon capture

and sequestration methods [465] because it sequesters CO2 from the flue gas and uses it to

create valuable building materials [466].

“Calera cement can potentially greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions” [457].


“Cement is the most widely used building material, having a variety of applications in construction. It is

characterized as a finely crushed, inorganic powder” [457]. “Calera cement can be used as a replacement

for Portland cement” [203]. “The process for creating the most widely used cement, portland cement, is an

energy intensive process, which consumes considerable natural resources, such as limestone. In addition,

portland cement production releases harmful air pollutants, detrimental to human respiratory health, and

also emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide” [457]. Sun et al. [457] detail the production process of

Portland cement - from raw material processing, to clinker formation, to the crushing of clinker with

additives to form Portland cement - and discuss related energy consumption and environmental impacts in

each step.

209

White Portland Cement [467], and Portland Cement [468].


The production of cement has a large negative environmental impact.

“Cement, which is mostly commonly composed of calcium silicates, requires heating limestone

and other ingredients to 2,640 degrees F (1,450 degrees C) by burning fossil fuels… Making one

ton of cement results in the emission of roughly one ton of CO2- and in some cases much more”

[203].

“Cement production emits a wide range of air pollutants (including nitrogen oxides, sulfur

dioxides, and particulate matter (PM)) that affect human health (Marlowe and Mansfield 2002).

Trace and toxic releases of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, ammonia, heavy metals, and organic

compounds are known to occur during cement production (US EPA 2006). Furthermore, cement

production contributes to at least 5% of the global carbon dioxide emissions (Azios 2008)” [457].

Calera cement uses abundant materials, consumes pollutants, and generates valuable resources.

“Nor are there any limitations on the raw materials of the Calera cement: Seawater containing

billions of tons of calcium and magnesium covers 70 percent of the planet and the 2,775 power

plants in the U.S. alone pumped out 2.5 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2006. The process results in

seawater that is stripped of calcium and magnesium—ideal for desalinization technologies—but

safe to be dumped back into the ocean. And attaching the Calera process to the nation's more than

600 coal-fired power plants or even steel mills and other industrial sources is even more attractive

as burning coal results in flue gas with as much as 150,000 parts per million of CO2” [203].

“The heart of the Calera process is the formation of novel, metastable calcium and magnesium

carbonate and bicarbonate minerals, similar to those found in the skeletons of marine animals and

plants, by capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas and converting the gas to stable solid minerals.

These novel 'polymorphs' make it possible to produce high reactive cements without calcining the

carbonate as is the case with conventional portland cement.

“Akin to portland cement and aggregate which derive from mining operations in quarries and

subsequent processing, the precise stoichiometry of Calera's cements will vary somewhat by site

and will include other trace/minor components. In particular, many trace components will be

captured from the flue gas such as sulfur oxides and mercury and will be incorporated into the

solid phase as insoluble sulfates and carbonates. After removal from the water and appropriate

processing, the solids have value in a number of construction applications” [459].

“Calera supposedly exhibits a CO2 capture efficiency of 70-90% with a good input conversion. It

remains open to what degree these carbonates as the final product show cementitious properties.

The inventors claim the product to be carbon negative” [458].

210

Conclusion: A number of recent papers still refer to Calera cement in terms of investors’ beliefs, how

much CO2 the cement “would capture” [457], and what impact there will be for Calera “if

successful” [469], indicating Calera has not proven, at least publicly, that its process is effective and

environmentally-beneficial. Additionally, the FAQ section of Calera’s website has questions such as

“When can we expect to see an actual Calera cement?” and “What is the carbon footprint of your

product?” [464]; Calera’s responses to these questions are vague. The carbon footprint question is

answered with the statement, “The ultimate goal is to produce products that are carbon negative,

and as we scale up and refine our technology, that remains at the forefront,” [464] meaning the

design has not been finalized and it is not clear what the true environmental impact of this cement

will be.

211

B.5 GECKEL

Field

Materials Science

Biological Analogy

Geckos and mussels Environmental Advantage

May not exist

Company

Northwestern University Competitor

Uncertain Life Cycle Phase

None known


Geckos and mussels have very different strategies for successfully attaching to objects in their

environment. Geckos have the ability to rapidly stick to and detach from surfaces while they are moving

[470,471], using hairlike attachment devices called setae [470,472]. Setae have a branching structure that

ends with very thin foot hairs [294] on the order of 200 nm at the end of the branch [470]. Because of the

adhesive properties of setae, geckos are able to stick to smooth surfaces [270,298] and walk up vertical

surfaces and across ceilings [270,470-472]. However, geckos are unable to stick to wet surfaces [471].

In contrast, mussels are able to attach to surfaces underwater and are able to attach to almost any surface

[21], “including classically adhesion-resistant materials” [473]. Additionally, surface adhesion in mussels

occurs on a much longer time scale than geckos. Adhesion in muscles is intended to anchor the muscle in

the intertidal zone so that it does not get washed out to sea or brought too far inland and broken on rocks

[471]. This ‘anchor,’ called a byssus [21,474], is formed from a chemical glue secreted by the muscle

surfaces [471,472].

Gecko Foot [475], and Mussel Adhesion [471].


Geckel is a nanoadhesive inspired by both the dry adhesive properties of geckos and the wet adhesive

properties of mussels [298,470]. It is comprised of essentially “arrays of gecko-mimetic nanoscale pillars

coated with a thin mussel-mimetic polymer film” [470]. A diagram of the fabrication process of geckel is

shown in the figure below. Geckel can be used for a wide range of applications that require wet or dry

temporary adhesives [470,476], such as securing “two wet sides of a cut tissue” in medicine [298].

Additionally, the attachment of geckel adhesive is reversible; after over 1000 cycles of contact and

separation [298,470], there is only a 15% reduction in adhesion strength in water and a 2% reduction in air

[472].

212

[470]



A paper in Nature from Lee et al. explains the development of geckel: “We refer to the

resulting flexible organic nanoadhesive as ‘geckel’, reflecting the inspiration from both gecko

and mussel” [470].

In a patent for geckel, Messersmith et al. state: “The present invention provides a unique

‘mimetic’ functional combination of the two unique natural adhesion mechanisms inspired by

geckos and mussels” [472].

Messersmith et al. also state: “Described herein is a new class of hybrid biologically-inspired

adhesives comprising an array of nanofabricated polymer columnar pillars coated with a thin

layer of a synthetic polymer that mimics the wet adhesive proteins found in mussel holdfasts…

This hybrid adhesive, which combines the salient design elements of both gecko and mussel

adhesives, provides a useful reversible attachment means for a variety of surfaces in many

environments” [472].


A prototype of geckel exists and the fabrication method is discussed thoroughly in Lee et al.

[470]. While it is likely the manufacturing process would change substantially during large-

scale manufacturing, the environmental impact in the other life cycle phases is likely to remain

the same as is displayed in this prototype of geckel.

213

However, the authors refer to potential future improvements to the functionality of geckel:

“Further refinement of the pillar geometry and spacing, the pillar material, and mussel-mimetic

polymer may lead to even greater improvements in performance of this nanostructured

adhesive” [470]. This suggests that the current prototype may not qualify as ‘fully functional’.

The Messersmith Research Group’s website for geckel states: “Our next step is to scale up the

geckel adhesive for mass production, optimize the pillar geometry, and engineer mussel-

mimetic polymers. We believe geckel adhesives will be used in many applications such as

medical, industrial, and military settings in the future” [474].


No information was found indicating a reduced environmental impact as a result of BID for

Geckel.


The manufacturing of Geckel is explained below.

“E-beam lithography (eBL) was used to create an array of holes in a polymethyl methacrylate

(PMMA) thin film supported on Silicon (Si) (PMMA/Si master). Casting of

poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) onto the master followed by curing and lift-off resulted in gecko-

mimetic nanopillar arrays. Finally, a mussel adhesive protein mimetic polymer is coated onto the

fabricated nanopillars. The topmost organic layer contains catechols, a key component of wet

adhesive proteins found in mussel holdfasts” [472].

The purpose of geckel is not to be more sustainable, but to provide a new function – allowing glues to

adhere under water.

Messersmith says in an interview: “adhesion in a wet environment is very difficult to achieve. The

simple fact that a mussel can attach to a wet surface that’s submerged underwater during adhesion

is actually quite remarkable. There are very few man-made adhesives that work well under those

conditions” [471].

The improved functionality of Geckel is also emphasized elsewhere: “Repetitive AFM

measurements showed that geckel adhesive’s wet- and dry-adhesion power was only slightly

diminished during many cycles of adhesion, maintaining 85% in wet (red) and 98% in dry (black)

conditions after 1100 contact cycles (FIG.5). To our knowledge no other gecko-mimetic adhesive

has demonstrated efficacy for more than a few contact cycles,2,8

and none have been shown to

work under water” [472].

Conclusion: To be considered for analysis, sources indicating that Geckel has an environmental

advantage as a result of its bioinspired feature would need to be identified.

214

B.6 HOTZONE RADIANT HEATER

Field


Biological Analogy

Lobster eyes Environmental Advantage

Unconfirmed

Company

Radiant Optics Competitor

Standard radiant heater Life Cycle Phase

Use


Lobster eyes, and the eyes of other long-bodied crustaceans of the suborder Macrura, have multiple

radially-oriented square lenses [477-479], as can be seen in the figure below of the shrimp eye. These

lenses act as mirrors and focus the light on “one or more photoreceptors” [298] so that the intensity of the

light in the deep sea environment is amplified [298,477,479]. As a result of these box mirrors, “the eyes of

shrimp and lobsters enjoy more than 250 times the light-catching power of the human eye” [479].

Shrimp eye [479], and Caribbean spiny lobster [480].


The HotZone radiant heater is an infrared spot heater that imitates the mirrored lenses found in the lobster

eye to focus heat on a particular point, or to disburse it over a specified area. A patent for the radiant lenses

describes the design in detail:

“[W]hen the face of the unit is disposed out of the plane…then the radiation undergoes a

dispersing effect in the sense that the outgoing rays or lines of reflected radiation tend to diverge

from the axis which intersects the face of the unit…Conversely, when the face of the unit is

disposed below the focal plane… then the radiation undergoes a condensing effect in the sense

that the outgoing rays or lines of reflected radiation tend to converge on the axis in question…

Accordingly, by varying the location of the radiation face of the unit with respect to the focal

plane of the panel, it is possible to vary the extent to which each unit of radiation undergoes

superposition, that is, the extent to which each unit of radiation is imaged or “stacked” in the area

to be heated, together with other units of radiation from the face of the radiation unit. This in turn,

enables the designer to irradiate a specified work space in more or less intensified form than than

the radiation source itself would provide by direct transmission to that space. For example, given a

particular BTU per square foot rating… and a particular area… to be irradiated, the designer can

215

determine not only the best shape and size for the panel, but also the spatial relationship between

the panel and the face of the unit which will provide the best level of heat in the space to be

heated. Furthermore, since the designer is able to concentrate more heat within the space in

question than was possible with a conventional heater having the same BTU per square foot

rating, he can space the heater further above the work space to generate a ‘sun effect’ and

eliminate the discomfort to personnel which occurs when the heater is disposed so close that they

experience ‘swings’ in temperature as they move in an out of its image.

“A similar but opposite effect occurs in the eyes of crustaceans of the suborder Macrura, such as

shrimp, crayfish and lobsters. They have compound mirror lens at the outer peripheries of their

eyes.... They operate to ‘stack’ incoming light at points on the retina of the eyes of the crustaceans,

so that the dim light which is commonly available to them in their natural habitat, is intensified for

the purpose of their vision. Of course, the panel 10 uses this superposition effect to focus points of

radiation on an area below the panel, whereas the lens of the eye of the crustacean uses it to

intensify incoming light on the retina of the eye. However, in other applications of the invention,

the panel 10 can be used to intensify bands of incoming light on points similar to the radiation

points” [477].

Diagrams and photograph of the HotZone Radiant Heater [481,482].



“Radiant Optics was founded in 1985… by inventor/entrepreneur Roger Johnson to capitalize

on his lobster-eye inspired compound reflective lens that uniquely focuses and directs infrared

energy… Johnson and his team developed and marketed a complete line of gas, then electric

heaters, fitted with the patented IRLensTM

to allow customers and partners to develop and

implement highly energy efficient spot heating and thermal comfort solutions. Over the years,

tens of thousands of HotZoneTM

heaters have been sold… In 2008, Johnson exclusively

licensed the assets of Radiant Optics to Schaefer Ventilation of Sauk Rapids, MN” [483].

The Schaefer Ventilation Equipment website reads: “Welcome to the home of the HotZone®

heater and the lobster eye-inspired IRLensTM” [484].


“Over the years, tens of thousands of HotZoneTM

heaters have been sold into factories,

warehouses, arenas, stores and residences” [483].


No explicit claims regarding a reduced environmental impact of the heater were found during research

on this design. However, the HotZone website (not peer-reviewed) does have a statement claiming an

216

environmental benefit of the heater. The HotZone website states:

[T]he patented lobster-eye IRLensTM… focuses three to five times more infrared energy into

the center of the beam than heaters without lenses. This revolutionary design makes HotZone®

the most energy-efficient infrared heater on the market… The revolutionary design of the

IRLensTM captures the majority of the infrared wasted by ALL other heaters on the market and

FOCUSES it on a targeted area or zone… As a result, the HotZone® can:

Increase delivered heat by 300-500%...

Reduce total heating costs by 50% or more.

Doesn’t heat areas that don’t need it. [484]

Additionally, a HotZone-related patent discusses how the performance of the reflectors is substantially

reduced when they are hot: “For example, increasing the metal temperature of aluminum from 100 deg. F

to 500 deg. F. may increase its absorption of certain wavelengths of radiant energy by up to a factor of

about three to five” [481]. The patent goes on to discuss ways to reduce the temperature of the reflectors by

“providing cooling air behind the reflector,” or:

by increasing the ability of the reflector surface that is exposed to the radiant energy to provide

energy radiantly. In one example, this includes tailoring or modifying the reflector material’s

emissivity to enhance reflection on the reflective (e.g., toward the radiant surface) or to enhance

radiation from the reflector’s backside better (e.g., away from the radiant heater element’s

surface). This may also be accomplished by designing the geometry of one or more of the

reflectors [481].

It seems likely that changing the geometry of the reflectors, as mentioned in the last sentence, is the

approach taken by HotZone and explains why the website claims the 300-500% increase in heat delivery

with the associated reduction in heating costs.


The competitor in this case is a standard radiant heater without the boxy bioinspired lenses.


A HotZone-related patent argues that standard radiant heaters are not as efficient as claimed:

Radiant heaters convert gas, electric, or other non-radiant energy… into radiant energy. Other

resulting non-radiant energy output (such as convective) diminishes heater efficiency. Other heater

byproducts may contribute to air pollution. Existing radiant heaters have typically emphasized the

primary radiant energy output. More particularly, they have typically disregarded the energy

wasted by flue product gas… and by other convective gas flow... Electric radiant heater products

typically claim to be 100% efficient on the grounds that all the input electricity is converted into

some sort of heat. Gas radiant heater products (such as tube heaters, for example) typically claim

very high efficiency on the grounds that the wasted flue product includes low unburned chemical

energy. However, existing radiant heaters unnecessarily waste and amount of radiant energy equal

to the convective heat gain in the ambient and/or flue products [481].

Conclusion: Although there may be reason to believe an environmental benefit exists as a result of

the bioinspired feature, a peer-reviewed source is needed to confirm these suspected environmental

benefits.

217

Appendix C: Design Library Designs Eliminated Using 3 Criteria

Information on 3 BIDs – Crystal Palace in London, the Eiffel Tower, and Velcro – is presented in

Appendix C. The same format used for the designs in Appendix A was also intended to be used here.

However, designs presented in Appendix C had were eliminated using at least one of the three criteria.

Hence, a full analysis was not deemed necessary, and some sections are left blank.

218

C.1 CRYSTAL PALACE IN LONDON

Field

Architecture

Biological Analogy

Uncertain – Possibly the Giant

Water Lily


May not exist


The Giant Water Lily [485,486].

DESIGN DESCRIPTION

The Crystal Palace [487,488].



There are no firsthand accounts from Paxton, the designer of the Crystal Palace, indicating that his

design was bioinspired. In addition, secondhand accounts are in disagreement on this issue, as is shown

below.

Phillip Ball, in his 2001 article in Nature, states that Paxton’s design for the Crystal Palace was

inspired by “the ribbed stem of a lily leaf” [68]. Ball does not provide a citation for this

statement.

Ask Nature, a project of the Biomimicry Institute, has a website that agrees with Ball. It states

that Paxton “mimicked the ribs and struts of the giant water-lily to provided the support

needed” for the Crystal Palace [489]. This website does not contain a citation for this statement.

219

However, another AskNature site explains the inspiring strategy behind the Crystal Palace and

provides a quotation from Attenborough explaining Paxton’s process of bioinspiration [490].

Attenborough states that Paxton was both a gardener and an architect. He received one of the

first seedlings from the Amazon water-lily to reach Europe when he was running the Duke of

Devonshire’s gardens in the mid-19th

century [491]. Paxton “built one of the first big

glasshouses. When he came to design the cast-iron supports for his hithero unprecedented

expanse of glass, he remembered the ribs and struts of his giant water-lily that supported

gigantic leaves and used them as the basis of his designs not only for the glass-houses at

Chatsworth but also, a few years later, for his architectural masterpiece, the Crystal Palace in

London”[491]. As is typical of most books, Attenborough does not provide a reference to the

primary source of this information.

Vogel, on the contrary, uses the example of the Crystal Palace as one which shows how the idea

of bioinspiration romanticized a design, even when the design was not truly bioinspired [116]. Vogel finds a speech from Paxton speaking of how a greenhouse he designed before the Crystal

Palace was inspired by a leaf, but concludes that there is no evidence that the Crystal Palace

was inspired by the giant water lily [116].

Julian Vincent et al. cite Vogel’s analysis when discussing bioinspired systems which “may be

apocryphal in their derivation, have the status of urban myth, or be the product of over-

enthusiasm” [11].


The Crystal Palace was constructed “in 1851 for the Great Exhibition held in London’s Hyde

Park” [487].


There is no evidence of peer-reviewed documentation indicating that the potentially bioinspired

features of the Crystal Palace are environmentally beneficial.

Conclusion: The Crystal Palace meets neither criterion #1 nor #3.

220

C.2 EIFFEL TOWER

Field

Architecture

Biological Analogy

Uncertain – Possibly bone

structure, trabecular struts in the

head of a human femur, or the

taper of a tulip stem


May not exist


Tulip Stem [492]. Head of human femur [493].

DESIGN DESCRIPTION

Eiffel Tower [494].



There are no firsthand accounts from Eiffel, the designer of the Eiffel Tower, indicating that his design

was bioinspired. In addition, secondhand accounts are in disagreement on this issue. Philip Ball, in a

2001 article in Nature, states that the Eiffel Tower was inspired by bone structure [68]. Ball does not

provide a citation for this statement. Julian Vincent et al., in a 2006 article in Journal of the Royal

Society Interface, state that there are myths that the Eiffel Tower was inspired by the human femur or a

221

tulip stem, but that it was actually just designed to resist wind loading [11]. Vincent et al. also do not

provide a citation for their statement. It is easy to see how two contradicting statements in white

literature, which propagate through the literature through citations, may cause confusion. Ball’s

statement, for instance, has been cited by Reap et al. in a 2005 IMECE article [28].


The Eiffel Tower was constructed in 1889 for the World’s Fair.


There is no evidence of peer-reviewed documentation indicating that the potentially bioinspired features

of the Eiffel Tower are environmentally beneficial.

Conclusion: The Eiffel Tower meets neither criterion #1 nor #3.

222

C.3 VELCRO

Field


Biological Analogy

Cockleburs Environmental Advantage

May not exist

Company

Velcro, Inc. Competitor

Buttons, zippers, shoelaces Life Cycle Phase

None


Cockleburs disperse the seeds of plants. Because of their hooked structure that mechanically interlocks

upon contact with fur or cloth, for example, burs are easily able to detach from their plant and attach to

passers-by [495]. This hooked structure is visible in the magnified view below.

Cockleburs [496,497], and magnified hooks on fruit of C. lutetiana [495].


Velcro is widely used as a fastener; it is a “separable fastening device comprised of two elements” – one

with loops, and the other with hooks that hold their shape [498]. “[W]hen two layers of this type are

pressed into face to face relation a substantial percentage of hooks engage with one another, and the two

layers are thus hooked one to the other. Separation requires a force of considerable magnitude when it is

attempted to release a large number of hooks at once but separation may be quite readily effected by

progressively peeling the layers apart” [498]. One of the first Velcro-related patents in the US states that

Velcro is “adapted to be used… as closing devices for clothing, blinds or the like” [498]. Some other

applications for Velcro include: shoes, roller skates, memo boards, coats, gloves, costumes, watches,

Velcro walls, knee braces, and products for use in space.

223

Velcro [499,500].



Velcro USA’s website tells the story of the bioinspiration for Velcro: “In the early 1940's,

Swiss inventor George de Mestral went on a walk with his dog... Upon his return home, he

noticed that his dog's coat and his pants were covered with cockleburrs. His inventor's curiosity

led him to study the burrs under a microscope, where he discovered their natural hook-like

shape. This was to become the basis for a unique, two-sided fastener - one side with stiff

"hooks" like the burrs and the other side with the soft "loops" like the fabric of his pants. The

result was VELCRO® brand hook and loop fasteners” [232].


Velcro is a widely-available commercial product.


Velcro is a very general fastening product with a wide range of applications. When compared to

other temporary attachment devices – such as buttons, zippers, strings, and tape – there is no.

logical or fundamental reason why Velcro would offer an environmental advantage as a result

of its bioinspired features. There is no evidence in peer-reviewed literature that this is the case.

In some texts, Velcro is mentioned as a more sustainable alternative to permanent attachment

procedures – such as welding – because it promotes easy disassembly and allows for

remanufacturing. An entry in the Encyclopedia of Production and Manufacturing Management

recommends: “Replace screws, glues and welds with new two-way snap-fit or velcro fasteners.

Taking apart a snap-fitted or Velcro-fitted product is easier, and requires less energy than taking

apart a welded product” [501]. A conference working paper on design for disassembly, provides

a list of ‘traditional’ disassembly methods “in order, from greatest to least disassemblability”

[502]. The list is as follows: “velcro, collets, clips, slip fit, bolted, force fit, welded with same

material and welded with another material or glued” [502].


One of the first Velcro-related patents in the US states that Velcro is intended to replace “slide fasteners,

buttons and other attachments of this type, particularly when a flexible closure, which is invisible and can

be opened easily, is desirable” [498]. The competitors for Velcro considered here are buttons, zippers, and

shoelaces. These are all temporary attachment devices for clothing-related applications.

224

Buttons [503], Zipper/Slide Fastener [504], Shoelaces [505].


When compared to competing temporary attachment devices – such as buttons, zippers, shoelaces – there is

no logical or fundamental reason why Velcro would offer an environmental advantage. All of these

attachment devices already operate mechanically, using only human energy. Ostensibly, the only

differences in use between these options and Velcro are: (1) the aesthetic appearance of the fastening

device, as well as (2) the level of fine motor skills required in fastening and unfastening the device.

Any environmental impact differences would be unrelated to the bioinspired shape of the hooks and loops

of Velcro, except for, perhaps, the manufacturing processes required to produce the hook and loops.

Examples in the literature that cite Velcro as a more sustainable alternative to welding, for instance, are not

citing the most common applications for Velcro, and their claims would hold true for a wide range of

temporary attachment devices, not just those inspired by the hooks of the cocklebur.

Conclusion: Velcro does not meet criterion #3.

225

Appendix D: Green Design Guidelines Adapted From Telenko [61]

A. Ensure sustainability of resources by: 1. Specifying renewable and abundant resources

2. Specifying recyclable, or recycled materials, especially those within the company or for which a

market exists or needs to be stimulated

3. Layering recycled and virgin material where virgin material is necessary

4. Exploiting unique properties of recycled materials

5. Employing common and remanufactured components across models

6. Specifying mutually compatible materials and fasteners for recycling

7. Specifying one type of material for the product and its subassemblies

B. Ensure healthy inputs and outputs by: 8. Installing protection against release of pollutants and hazardous substances

9. Specifying non-hazardous and otherwise environmentally “clean” substances, especially in regards

to user health

10. Ensuring that wastes are water-based or biodegradable

11. Specifying the cleanest source of energy

12. Including labels and instructions for safe handling of toxic materials

13. Specifying clean production processes for the product and in selection of components

14. Concentrating toxic elements for easy removal and treatment

C. Ensure minimum use of resources in production and transportation phases by: 15. Replacing the functions and appeals of packaging through the product’s design

16. Employing folding, nesting or disassembly to distribute products in a compact state

17. Applying structural techniques and materials to minimize the total volume of material

18. Specifying lightweight materials and components

19. Specifying materials that do not require additional surface treatment of inks

20. Structuring the product to avoid rejects and minimize material waste in production

21. Minimizing the number of components

22. Specifying materials with low-intensity production and agriculture

23. Specifying clean, high-efficiency production processes

24. Employing as few manufacturing steps as possible

D. Ensure energy efficiency of resources during use by: 25. Implementing reusable supplies or ensuring the maximum usefulness of consumables

26. Implementing fail-safes against heat and material loss

27. Minimizing the volume and weight of parts and materials to which energy is transferred

28. Specifying best-in-class energy efficiency components

29. Implementing default power down for subsystems that are not in use

30. Ensuring rapid warm up and power down

31. Maximizing system efficiency for an entire range of real world conditions

32. Interconnecting available flows of energy and materials within the product or between the product

and its environment

226

33. Incorporating part-load operation and permitting users to turn off systems in part or whole

34. Use feedback mechanisms to indicate how much energy or water is being consumed

35. Incorporating intuitive controls for resource-saving features

36. Incorporating features that prevent waste of materials by the user

37. Defaulting mechanisms to automatically reset the product to its most efficient setting

E. Ensure appropriate durability of the product and components by: 38. Reutilizing high-embedded energy components

39. Planning for on-going efficiency improvements

40. Improving aesthetics and functionality to ensure the aesthetic life is equal to the technical life

41. Ensuring minimal maintenance and minimizing failure modes in the product and its components

42. Specifying better materials, surface treatments, or structural arrangements to protect products from

dirt, corrosion, and wear

43. Indicating on the product which parts are to be cleaned/maintained in a specific way

44. Making wear detectable

45. Allowing easy repair and upgrading, especially for components that experience rapid change

46. Requiring few service and inspection tools

47. Facilitating testing of components

48. Allowing for repetitive dis- and re- assembly

F. Ensure disassembly, separation, and purification by: 49. Indicating on the product how it should be opened and make access points obvious

50. Ensuring that joints and fasteners are easily accessible

51. Maintaining stability and part placement during disassembly

52. Minimizing the # and variety of joining elements

53. Ensuring that destructive disassembly techniques do not harm people or reusable components

54. Ensuring reusable parts can be cleaned easily and without damage

55. Ensuring that incompatible materials are easily separated

56. Making component interfaces simple and reversibly separable

57. Organizing in hierarchical modules by aesthetic, repair, and end-of-life protocol

58. Implementing reusable/swappable platforms, modules, and components

59. Condensing into a minimal # of parts

60. Specifying compatible adhesives, labels, surface coatings, pigments, etc. which do not interfere

with cleaning

61. Employing one disassembly direction without reorientation

62. Specifying all joints so that they are separable by hand or only a few, simple tools

63. Minimizing the number and length of operations for detachment

64. Marking materials in moulds with types and reutilization protocol

65. Using a shallow or open structure for easy access to subassemblies

227

Appendix E: 128 Sources Analyzed in BID Benefits Study

Table 18: 128 Sources Analyzed in BID Benefits Study. The first 29 with an asterisk*

provide an extended explanation of BID benefits.

# Source

*1 [506] Chakrabarti, A. and L. H. Shu, 2010, “Biologically Inspired Design,” Artificial Intelligence

for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, pp. 453-454.

*2 [12] Wilson, J. O. and D. Rosen, 2007, "Systematic Reverse Engineering of Biological Systems,"

IDETC/CIE 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC2007-35395.

*3 [97] Nagel, J. K. S., R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2010, "Exploring the Use of Category and

Scale to Scope a Biological Functional Model," IDETC/CIE2010, Montreal, Canada,

DETC2010-28873.

*4 [507] Coelho, D. A. and C. A. M. Versos, 2011, “A Comparative Analysis of Six Bionic Design

Methods,” International Journal of Design Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 114-131.

*5 [508] Vandevenne, D., P.-A. Verhaegen, S. Dewulf and J. R. Duflou, 2012, "Automatically

Populating the Biomimicry Taxonomy for Scalable Systematic Biologically-Inspired

Design," IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, IL, DETC2012-70928.

*6 [509] Glier, M. W., J. Tsenn, J. S. Linsey and D. A. McAdams, 2012, "Evaluating the Directed

Method for Bioinspired Design," IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, IL, DETC2012-71511.

*7 [127] Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, “Biomimetics - Using Nature to Inspire Human Innovation,”

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 1, pp. P1-P12.

*8 [86] Vincent, J. F. V. and D. L. Mann, 2002, “Systematic Technology Transfer from Biology to

Engineering,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 360, pp. 159-173.

*9 [13] Helms, M., A. Goel and S. Vattam, 2010, "The Effect of Functional Modeling on

Understanding Complex Biological Systems," IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada,

DETC2010-28939.

*10 [116] Vogel, S., 1998, Cats' Paws and Catapults: Mechanical Worlds of Nature and People,

W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

*11 [117] Solga, A., Z. Cerman, B. F. Striffler, M. Spaeth and W. Barthlott, 2007, “The Dream of

Staying Clean: Lotus and Biomimetic Structures,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2,

No. 4, pp. S126-S134.

*12 [72] Bruck, H. A., A. L. Gershon, I. Golden, S. K. Gupta, L. S. G. Jr, E. B. Magrab and B. W.

Spranklin, 2007, “Training Mechanical Engineering Students to Utilize Biological

Inspiration During Product Development,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4,

pp. S198-S209.

*13 [220] Otero, T., 2008, “Reactive Conducting Polymers as Actuating Sensors and Tactile Muscle,”

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 035004.

*14 [510] Forbes, P., 2005, "Something New Under the Sun," The Gecko's Foot: Bio-inspiration:

Engineering New Materials from Nature, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, NY,

pp. 1-28.

*15 [139] Gunderson, S. L. and R. C. Schiavone, 1995, "Microstructure of an Insect Cuticle and

Applications to Advanced Composites," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials

(M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 163-197.

*16 [122] Frankel, R. B. and D. A. Bazylinski, 1995, "Structure and Function of Magnetosomes in

Magnetotactic Bacteria," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya

and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 199-215.

*17 [98] Trexler, M. and R. M. Deacon, 2012, "Artificial Senses and Organs: Natural Mechanisms

and Biomimetic Devices," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.),

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 35-93.

228

Table 18, cont. *18 [239] Masselter, T., G. Bauer, F. Gallenmuller, T. Haushahn, S. Poppinga, C. Schmitt, R. Seidel,

O. Speck, M. Thielen, T. Speck, W. Barthlott, P. Ditsche-Kuru, H. Immink, J. Bertling, N.

Molders, A. Nellesen, M. Rechberger, F. Cichy, M. Gude, M. Hermann, K. Lunz, J.

Knippers, J. Lienhard, S. Schleicher, R. Luchsinger, C. Mattheck, I. Tesari, M. Milwich, T.

Stegmaier, C. Neinhuis and H. Schwager, 2012, "Biomimetic Products," Biomimetics:

Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 377-429.

*19 [229] Stachelberger, H., P. Gruber and I. C. Gebeshuber, 2011, "Biomimetics: Its Technological

and Societal Potential," Biomimetics - Materials, Structures and Processes (P. Gruber, D.

Bruckner, C. Hellmichet al, Eds.), Springer, New York.

*20 [69] Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, "Introduction to Biomimetics: The Wealth of Inventions in Nature as

an Inspiration for Human Innovation," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y.

Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1-40.

*21 [511] Gruber, P., D. Bruckner, C. Hellmich, H.-B. Schmiedmayer, H. Stachelberger and I. C.

Gebeshuber, 2011, "Preface," Biomimetics - Materials, Structures, and Processes, Springer,

New York.

*22 [67] Nagel, R. L., P. A. Midha, A. Tinsley, R. B. Stone, D. A. McAdams and L. H. Shu, 2008,

“Exploring the Use of Functional Models in Biomimetic Conceptual Design,” Journal of

Mechanical Design, Vol. 130.

*23 [512] Jenkins, C. H. M., 2005, "Preface," Compliant Structures in Nature and Engineering (C. H.

M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA.

*24 [68] Ball, P., 2001, “Life's Lessons in Design,” Nature, Vol. 409, pp. 413-416.

*25 [270] Allen, R., 2010, "Introduction," Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Nature's Secrets to

Design Cutting-Edge Technology (R. Allen, Ed.), The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, pp. 6-21.

*26 [155] Hobaek, T. C., K. G. Leinan, H. P. Linaas and C. Thaulow, 2011, “Surface Nanoengineering

Inspired by Evolution,” BioNanoScience, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 63-77.

*27 [43] Raibeck, L., J. Reap and B. Bras, 2008, "Investigating Environmental Benefits of

Biologically Inspired Self-Cleaning Surfaces," 15th CIRP International Conference on Life

Cycle Engineering, Sydney, Australia.

*28 [62] Wadia, A. P. and D. A. McAdams, 2010, "Developing Biomimetic Guidelines for the

Highly Optimized and Robust Design of Complex Products or Their Counterparts,"

IDETC/CIE2010, Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-28708.

*29 [119] Nagel, J. K. S., R. L. Nagel, R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2010, “Function-Based,

Biologically Inspired Concept Generation,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,

Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 04, pp. 521-535.

30 [156] Langella, C., 2006, "Hybrid Design. Encoding Biological Principles in Sustainable Design,"

Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges, Wuppertal,

Germany.

31 [136] Richter, K. and I. Grunwald, 2010, "Bio-inspired Polyphenolic Adhesives for Medical and

Technical Applications: Introduction," Biological Adhesive Systems: From Nature to

Technical and Medical Application (J. v. Byern and I. Grunwald, Eds.), Springer-

Verlang/Wien, Austria, pp. 201-202.

32 [513] Yang, H. T. Y., C.-H. Lin, D. Bridges, C. J. Randall and P. K. Hansma, 2010, “Bio-Inspired

Passive Actuator Simulating an Abalone Shell Mechanism for Structural Control,” Smart

Materials and Structures, Vol. 19, No. 10.

33 [70] Hambourger, M., G. F. Moore, D. M. Kramer, D. Gust, A. L. Moore and T. A. Moore, 2009,

“Biology and Technology for Photochemical Fuel Production,” Chemical Society Reviews

Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 25-35.

229

Table 18, cont. 34 [152] Knippers, J. and T. Speck, 2012, “Design and Construction Principles in Nature and

Architecture,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 015002.

35 [28] Reap, J., D. Baumeister and B. Bras, 2005, "Holism, Biomimicry and Sustainable

Engineering," ASME IMECE, Orlando, Florida, IMECE2005-81343.

36 [11] Vincent, J. F. V., O. A. Bogatyreva, N. R. Bogatyrev, A. Bowyer and A.-K. Pahl, 2006,

“Biomimetics: Its Practice and Theory,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, Vol. 3, pp.

471-482.

37 [85] Vattam, S. S., M. E. Helms and A. K. Goel, 2010, “A Content Account of Creative

Analogies in Biologically Inspired Design,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,

Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 467-481.

38 [226] Bhushan, B., 2012, Biomimetics: Bioinspired Hierarchial-Structured Surfaces for Green

Science and Technology, Springer, New York.

39 [514] Sartori, J., U. Pal and A. Chakrabarti, 2010, “A Methodology for Supporting "Transfer" in

Biomimetic Design,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and

Manufacturing, Vol. 24, pp. 483-505.

40 [14] Nagel, J. K., 2010, "Systematic Design of Biologically-Inspired Engineering Solutions,"

Mechanical Engineering, Oregon State University,

41 [245] Vattam, S. S. and A. K. Goel, 2011, "Foraging for Inspiration: Understanding and

Supporting the Online Information Seeking Practices of Biologically Inspired Designers,"

ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computeres and

Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48238.

42 [228] Anastas, P. T. and J. C. Warner, 1998, "Future Trends in Green Chemistry," Green

Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 115-119.

43 [188] Turney, T., 2009, "Future Materials and Performance," Technology, Design and Process

Innovation in the Built Environment (P. Newton, K. Hampson and R. Drogemuller, Eds.),

Taylor & Francis, New York, pp. 31-53.

44 [247 ] Shu, L. H., 2010, “A Natural-Language Approach to Biomimetic Design,” Artificial

Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 507-

519.

45 [114] Chiu, I. and L. H. Shu, 2007, “Biomimetic Design Through Natual Language Analysis to

Facilitate Cross-Domain Information Retrieval,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering

Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 21, pp. 45-59.

46 [515] Tarascon, J.-M., 2008, “Towards Sustainable and Renewable Systems for Electrochemical

Energy Storage,” ChemSUSChem, Vol. 1, No. 8-9, pp. 777-779.

47 [227] Vincent, J., 2009, “Biomimetics - A Review,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering and Medicine, Vol. 223, No. 8, pp. 919-939.

48 [115] Cheong, H., I. Chiu, L. H. Shu, R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2011, “Biologically

Meaningful Keywords for Functional Terms of the Functional Basis,” Journal of

Mechanical Design, Vol. 133, No. 2, pp. 021007-1.

49 [94] Ke, J., I. Chiu, J. S. Wallace and L. H. Shu, 2010, "Supporting Biomimetic Design by

Embedding Metadata in Natural-Language Corpora," ASME IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal,

Canada, DETC2010-29057.

50 [24] Moore, A. L., D. Gust and T. A. Moore, 2007, “Bio-inspired Constructs for Sustainable

Energy Production and Use,” L'Actualite Chimique, No. 308-309, pp. 50-56.

51 [234] Nagel, J. K. S., R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2010, "An Engineering-to-Biology

Thesaurus for Engineering Design," ASME IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada,

DETC2010-28233.

52 [222] French, M., 1994, Invention and Evolution: Design in Nature and Engineering, Cambridge

University Press, New York.

230

Table 18, cont. 53 [88] Cheong, H., I. Chiu and L. H. Shu, 2010, "Extraction and Transfer of Biological Analogies

for Creative Concept Generation," IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-29006.

54 [230] Gruber, P., 2011, "Biomimetics in Architecture [Architekturbionik]," Biomimetics -

Materials, Structures and Processes (P. Gruber, D. Bruckner, C. Hellmichet al, Eds.),

Springer, New York, NY, pp. 127-148.

55 [516] Vincent, J. F. V., 2005, "Compliant Structures and Materials in Animals," Compliant

Structures in Nature and Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA,

pp. 3-20.

56 [217] Ennos, A. R., 2005, "Compliance in Plants," Compliant Stuctures in Nature and

Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA, pp. 21-37.

57 [517] Jenkins, C. H. M., 2005, "Design of Compliant Structures," Compliant Structures in Nature

and Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA, pp. 247-261.

58 [518] Glier, M. W., J. Tsenn, J. S. Linsey and D. A. McAdams, 2011, "Methods for Supporting

Bioinspired Design," International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition,

Denver, Colorado, IMECE2011-63247.

59 [519] Meijer, K., J. C. Moreno and H. H. C. M. Savelberg, 2006, "Biological Mechanisms as

Models for Mimicking: Sarcomere Design, Arrangement and Muscle Function,"

Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL, pp. 41-56.

60 [240] Lipson, H., 2006, "Evolutionary Robotics and Open-Ended Design Automation,"


Raton, FL, pp. 129-153.

61 [118] Hanson, D., 2006, "Robotic Biomimesis of Intelligent Mobility, Manipulation, and

Expression," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 177-200.

62 [520] Ummat, A., A. Dubey and C. Mavroidis, 2006, "Bio-Nanorobotics: A Field Inspired by

Nature," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press,

Boca Raton, FL, pp. 201-227.

63 [106] Zhang, S., H. Yokoi and X. Zhao, 2006, "Molecular Design of Biological and Nano-

Materials," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL pp. 229-242.

64 [219] Dennis, R. G. and H. Herr, 2006, "Engineered Muscle Actuators: Cells and Tissues,"


Raton, FL, pp. 243-266.

65 [521] Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, "Artificial Muscles Using Electroactive Polymer," Biomimetics:

Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp.

267-290.

66

[522] Szema, R. and L. P. Lee, 2006, "Biologically Inspired Optical Systems," Biomimetics:

Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp.

291-308.

67 [125] Nemat-Nasser, S., S. Nemat-Nasser, T. Plaisted, A. Starr and A. V. Amirkhizi, 2006,

"Mulitfunctional Materials," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-

Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 309-340.

68 [523] Carlson, J., S. Ghaey, S. Moran, C. A. Tran and D. L. Kaplan, 2006, "Biological Materials

in Engineering Mechanisms," Biomimetics:Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-


69 [103] Gorb, S. N., 2006, "Functional Surfaces in Biology: Mechanisms and Applications,"


Raon, FL, pp. 381-397.

231

Table 18, cont. 70 [524] Lou, Z., S. Hosoe and M. Ito, 2006, "Biomimetic and Biologically Inspired Control,"


Raton, FL, pp. 399-425.

71 [329] Stahlberg, R. and M. Taya, 2006, "Nastic Structures: The Enacting and Mimicking of Plant

Movements," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC


72 [104] Muller, R., J. Ma, Z. Yan, C. Grimm and W. Mio, 2011, "Bioinspiration from Biodiversity

in Sensor Design," International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Denver,

Colorado, IMECE2011-64487.

73 [208] Wainwright, S. A., W. D. Biggs, J. D. Currey and J. M. Gosline, 1976, Mechanical Design

in Organisms, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

74 [120] Harris, C. M., 2009, “Biomimetics of Human Movement: Functional or Aesthetic?,”


75 [525] Plamondon, N. and M. Nahon, 2009, “A Trajectory Tracking Controller for an Underwater

Hexapod Vehicle,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 036005.

76 [231] Vogel, S., 2009, “Nosehouse: Heat-Conserving Ventilators Based on Nasal Counterflow

Exchangers,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 046004.

77 [526] Armour, R., K. Paskins, A. Bowyer, J. Vincent and W. Megill, 2007, “Jumping Robots: A

Biomimetic Solution to Locomotion Across Rough Terrain,” Bioinspiration and

Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. S65-S82.

78 [527] Dabiri, J. O., 2007, “Renewable Fluid Dynamic Energy Derived from Aquatic Animal

Locomotion,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. L1-L3.

79 [121] Abdel-Aal, H. A. and M. E. Mansori, 2011, "Chapter 4: Reptilian Skin as a Biomimetic

Analogue for the Design of Deterministic " Biomimetics - Materials, Structures and

Processes (P. Gruber, D. Bruckner, C. Hellmichet al, Eds.), Springer, New York, NY, pp.

51-79.

80 [101] Gorb, S. N., M. Sinha, A. Peressadko, K. A. Daltorio and R. D. Quinn, 2007, “Insects Did It

First: A Micropatterned Adhesive Tape for Robotic Applications,” Bioinspiration and


81 [144] Helms, M., S. S. Vattam and A. K. Goel, 2009, “Biologically Inspired Design: Process and

Products,” Design Studies, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 606-622.

82 [528] Gopal, V. and M. J. Z. Hartmann, 2007, “Using Hardware Models to Quantify Sensory Data

Acquisition Across the Rat Vibrissal Array,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4,

pp. S135-S145.

83 [237] Muller, R. and R. Kuc, 2007, “Biosonar-Inspired Technology: Goals, Challenges and

Insights,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. S146-S161.

84 [213] Liu, C., 2007, “Micromachined Biomimetic Artificial Haircell Sensors,” Bioinspiration and


85 [529] Nakrani, S. and C. Tovey, 2007, “From Honeybees to Internet Servers: Biomimicry for

Distributed Management of Internet Hosting Centers,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol.

2, No. 4, pp. S182-S197.

86 [75] Nagel, J. K. S. and R. B. Stone, 2011, "A Systematic Approach to Biologically-Inspired

Engineering Design," ASME 2011 International Design Engineering and Technical

Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC,

DETC2011-47398.

87 [123] Beheshti, N. and A. C. Mcintosh, 2007, “The Bombardier Beetle and Its Use of a Pressure

Relief Valve System to Deliver a Periodic Pulsed Spray,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics,

Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 57-64.

232

Table 18, cont. 88 [530] Margerie, E. d., J. Mouret, S. Doncieux and J.-A. Meyer, 2007, “Artificial Evolution of the

Morphology and Kinematics in a Flapping-Wing Mini-UAV,” Bioinspiration and

Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 65-82.

89 [531] Bartol, I., M. Gordon, P. Webb, D. Weihs and M. Gharib, 2008, “Evidence of Self-

Correcting Spiral Flows in Swimming Boxfishes,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 3,

No. 1, pp. 014001.

90 [225] Vargas, A., R. Mittal and H. Dong, 2008, “A Computational Study of the Aerodynamic

Performance of a Dragonfly Wing Section Gliding in Flight,” 2008, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.

026004.

91 [96] Glier, M. W., D. A. McAdams and J. S. Linsey, 2011, "Concepts in Biomimetic Design:

Methods and Tools to Incorporate into a Biomimetic Design Course," ASME 2011 Design

Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering

Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48571.

92 [532]

Myrick, A., K.-C. Park, J. R. Hetling and T. C. Baker, 2008, “Real-Time Odor

Discrimination Using a Bioelectronic Sensor Array Based on the Insect

Electroantennogram,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 046006.

93 [201]

Wainwright, S. A., 1995, "What We Can Learn from Soft Biomaterials and Structures,"

Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP

Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 1-12.

94 [533] Sarikaya, M., J. Liu and I. A. Aksay, 1995, "Nacre: Properties, Crystallography,

Morphology, and Formation," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials (M.

Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 35-90.

95 [534] Mann, S., 1995, "Biomineralization, the Inorganic-Organic Interface, and Crystal

Engineering," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I. A.

Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 91-116.

96 [535] Calvert, P., 1995, "Biomimetic Ceramics and Hard Composites," Biomimetics: Design and

Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New

York, pp. 145-161.

97 [82] Mak, T. W. and L. H. Shu, 2004, “Abstraction of Biological Analogies for Design,” CIRP

Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 117-120.

98 [71] Vincent, J. F. V., 2008, “Biomimetic Materials,” Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 23,

No. 12, pp. 3140-3147.

99 [154] Bar-Cohen, Y., 2012, "Introduction: Nature as a Source of Inspiring Innovation,"

Biomimetics:Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,

pp. 1-34.

100 [536] Vattam, S. S., M. Helms and A. K. Goel, 2010, "Biologically Inspired Design: A

Macrocognitive Account," IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-28567.

101 [537] Potter, K. A., B. Gui and J. R. Capadona, 2012, "Biomimicry at the Cell-Material Interface,"

Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,

pp. 95-129.

102 [73] Rey, A. D., D. Pasini and Y. K. Murugesan, 2012, "Multiscale Modeling of Plant Cell Wall

Architecture and Tissue Mechanics for Biomimetic Applications," Biomimetics: Nature-

Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 131-168.

103 [202] Strange, D. G. T. and M. L. Oyen, 2012, "Biomimetic Composites," Biomimetics: Nature-

Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 169-212.

104 [194] Wolpert, H. D., 2012, "Biological Optics," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-


105 [110] Lee, D. W., 2012, "Biomimicry of the Ultimate Optical Device - The Plant," Biomimetics:


233

Table 18, cont. 106 [137] Yen, J., M. J. Weissburg, M. Helms and A. K. Goel, 2012, "Biologically Inspired Design: A

Tool for Interdisciplinary Education," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-


107 [105] Barthelat, F., 2007, “Biomimetics for Next Generation Materials,” Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 365, No. 1861, pp. 2907-2919.

108 [111] Argunsah, H. and B. L. Davis, 2012, "Application of Biomimetics in the Design of Medical

Devices," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL, pp. 445-459.

109 [538] Fish, F. E., A. J. Smits, H. Haj-Hariri, H. Bart-Smith and T. Iwasaki, 2012, "Biomimetic

Swimmer Inspired by the Manta Ray," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-


110 [124] Kulfan, B. M. and A. J. Colozza, 2012, "Biomimetics and Flying Technology,"

Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,

pp. 525-674.

111 [190] Bar-Cohen, Y., 2012, "Biomimetics - Reality, Challenges, and Outlook," Biomimetics:


112 [539] Weiner, S. and P. Zaslansky, 2004, "Structure-Mechanical Function Relations in Bones and

Death," Learning from Nature How to Design New Implantable Biomaterials: From

Biomineralization Fundamentals to Biomimetic Materials and Processing Routes (R. L.

Reis and S. Weiner, Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 3-

13.

113 [126] Leonor, I. B., H. S. Azevedo, I. Pahkuleva, A. L. Oliveira, C. M. Alves and R. L. Reis,

2004, "Learning from Nature How to Design Biomimetic Calcium-Phosphate Coatings,"

Learning from Nature How to Design New Implantable Biomaterials: From

Biomineralization Fundamental to Biomimetic Materials and Processing Routes (R. L. Reis

and S. Weiner, Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 171,

pp. 123-150.

114 [540] Aizenberg, J. and G. Hendler, 2004, "Learning from Marine Creatures How to Design

Micro-Lenses," Learning from Nature: How to Design New Implantable Biomaterials:

From Biomineralization Fundamentals to Biomimetic Materials and Processing Routes (R.

L. Reis and S. Weiner, Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,

Vol. 171, pp. 151-166.

115 [9] Wikipedia,2012, Biomimicry. 2012.

116 [541] Isaacson, A.,2009, Nature Inspiring Green Design for Planes, Train, Autos & More. Popular

Mechanics.

117 [542] Freedman, M.,2010, Nature is the Model Factory. Newsweek.

118 [112] Gebeshuber, I. C., B. Y. Majlis and H. Stachelberger, 2009, “Tribology in Biology:

Biomimetic Studies Across Dimensions and Across Fields,” International Journal of

Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 321-327.

119 [543] Offner, D. H., 1995, "Introduction to Design Homology," Design Homology: An

Introduction to Bionics, David Offner, Urbana, Illinois, pp. 1-12.

120 [209] Paturi, F. R., 1976, "Chapter 16: Where Do We Go from Here?," Nature: Mother of

Invention: The Engineering of Plant Life, Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp. 199-203.

121 [544] Reis, R. L., 2004, "Preface," Learning from Nature How to Design New Implantable

Biomaterials: From Biomimeralization Fundamentals to Biomimetic Materials and

Processing Routes (R. L. Reis and S. Weiner, Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. xi-xiv.

234

Table 18, cont. 122 [74] Papanek, V., 1984, "Chapter 8: The Tree of Knowledge: Biological Prototypes in Design,"

Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, Van Nostrand Reinhold,

New York, pp. 186-214.

123 [21] Benyus, J. M., 1997, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, William Morrow and

Company, Inc., New York.

124 [7] Wann, D., 1994, Biologic: Designing with Nature to Protect the Environment, Johnson

Books, Boulder, Colorado.

125 [135] Ausubel, K., 2004, "Introduction," Nature's Operating Instructions: The True

Biotechnologies (K. Ausubel and J. P. Harpignies, Eds.), Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

126 [187] Benyus, J., 2004, "Biomimicry: What Would Nature Do Here?," Nature's Operating

Instructions: The True Biotechnologies (K. Ausubel and J. P. Harpignies, Eds.), Sierra Club

Books, San Francisco.

127 [113] Dickinson, M. H., 1999, “Bionics: Biological Insight into Mechanical Design,” PNAS:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 25, pp. 14208-14209.

128 [246] Yen, J. and M. Weissburg, 2007, “Editorial: Perspectives on Biologically Inspired Design:

Introduction to the Collected Contributions,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4.

235

Appendix F: BIDs Found from Breadth and Depth Searches

Table 19: BIDs Found from Breadth and Depth Searches. Designs #1-95 were found

using the breadth search; designs #96-194 were found using the depth

search.

# Design Inspired By Sources

1 Dirt and water-repellent paint/coating Lotus leaf

[11,269-271]



4 Medical ultrasound imaging Echolocation of bats [271]

5 Velcro Burs, burdock plant [11,269,271,273]

6 Horn-shaped, saw-tooth design for lumberjack

blades

Wood-burrowing beetle [271]

7 Road reflectors Cat eyes [271]

8 Temperature-adapting clothing Pinecone [271]

9 Morphing aircraft wings Birds [113,271]

10 Morphing aircraft skin Fish scales [271]

11 RFID tags read through water and on metal Wing structure of blue

morpho butterfly

[271,314]

12 Nanosensors to detect explosives Wing structure of butterflies [271]

13 Adhesives Gecko feet [11,269,271,273]

14 Eastgate Centre cooling system Termite mound [35,269,271,274]

15 UAVs Hummingbirds [271]

16 B.I.A.S. Biologically Inspired Acoustic

Systems

Big brown bat [545]

17 Baleen water filters Blue whale [284]

18 BioBASE mooring for wave energy devices Bull kelp [274,546]

19 BioFriend anti-microbial filter Human cells [547]

20 Adhesive tape Insect feet [548]

21 Medical adhesive Sandcastle worm [549]

22 Biolytix water filter Natural decomposition on a

river’s edge

[275]

23 Biomatrica Sample Matrix – stores biological

samples without refrigeration

Brine shrimp (sea monkeys) [550]

24 Biodegradable water-soluble polymers Oyster [551]

25 BioSTREAM tidal energy harvester Bluefin tuna [552]

26 Calera cement-making process Skeletons of marine animals [285,286]

27 Daimler-Chrysler bionic car - shape Boxfish [269,273,274,276]

28 Daimler-Chrysler bionic car - structure –SKO

software

Initially, adaptive growth of

trees; later bones

[11,274,276,277]

29 CAO Software Initially bones; later trees [274,276,277]

30 Capillary faucet energy harvester Coconuts [553]

31 Carbon dioxide-based plastics Plants [554]

32 ChromaFlair color-shifting paint Morpho butterfly [555]

33 Crystal Palace in London Giant water lily [11,68,291]

34 Dew bank bottle Namib desert beetle, bumpy

surface of the elytra of

beetles

[11,556]

236

Table 19, cont. 35 Dyesol solar cells Photosynthesis [557]

36 Eco-machine wastewater treatment system Aquatic ecosystems [558]

37 FLOWE wind farm Fish [559]

38 Fog-catching materials Namib desert beetle [560]

39 Goateck traction hiking sole Mountain goats [561]

40 GreenShield fabric finish Morpho butterfly/lotus [562]

41 GROW Solar Ivy Leaves [563]

42 Heliotrope sun-tracking system for solar

panels

Flowers [564]

43 HotZone radiant heater, using IRLens Lobster eyes [287]

44 Humidity responsive silk fibers Spider [565]

45 Humidity sensor without electronics Hercules beetle [566]

46 i2 modular carpet Forest floor [278,279]

47 IntAct Labs, LLC biosensor Protein in mammalian ear

canals

[567]

48 Joinlox mechanical method of joining

components

Clams and other shellfish [568]

49 Kalundborg, Denmark Ecosystem symbiosis [274,569]

50 LOCUST visual collision detector Locusts swarms [570]

51 Self-cleaning clay roof Lotus, butterfly wings [571]

52 Self-cleaning Lotusan paint Lotus, butterfly wings [11,113,572]

53 Mechanically adaptive polymer

nanocomposites

Sea cucumber [573]

54 Medical implant coating Blue mussel [574]

55 Microfluidic silk assembly Spider [575]

56 Mincor TX TT self-cleaning textile coating Lotus [576]

57 Mirasol color electronic screens Morpho butterfly wings [273,289]

58 Morphotex structural colored fibers Morpho butterfly wings [254,577]

59 MothEye and MARAG anti-glare and anti-

reflective films

Eyes of nocturnal moths [578]

60 Nanosphere self-cleaning fabric Morpho butterfly wings [579]

61 ORNILUX glass that reduces bird collisions UV-reflective spider silk [580]

62 Pangolin backpack from recycled truck tubes Pangolin [581]

63 PAX water mixer Bull kelp [582]

64 PaxFan fans Bull kelp [583]

65 Phillips helmets with external membrane Human head [584]

66 Pipeline leak sealer Platelets [585]

67 Polar thermos cozy Polar bear [586]

68 Power Plastic solar cell Chlorophyll [587]

69 PureBond wood glue Blue mussel [588]

70 Self-cleaning fabric Doves [589]

71 Self-cleaning optical coatings Moth eyes and cicada wings [590]

72 Self-cleaning surface Spider hairs [591]

73 Sharklet antimicrobial surfaces Shark skin [269,280,281]

74 Shinkansen 500 series train - nose cone Kingfisher [254,269,277,282]

75 Shinkansen 500 series train - pantograph Owl [254,283]

76 Tunnel boring machine Shipworm [283]

77 Soil moving equipment Common earthworm [592]

237

Table 19, cont. 78 Solar water still and pump Tree [593]

79 Stabilitech vaccine stabilization technology Spikemoss [594]

80 Swiss Re headquarters building Sea sponge [595]

81 Sycamore ceiling fan Sycamore tree seed pod [596]

82 VitRIS and HydRIS vaccine stabilization

technologies

Anhydrobiosis in plants,

animals, and bacteria

[597]

83 Water-repellent ship coatings Water fern [598]

84 Flapping micro-aerial vehicles (MAVs) Insect flight [599]

85 Solar cells Apposition compound eyes

of some dipterans

[600]

86 Robots with compliant materials in

locomotory system (soft robots)

Tobacco hornworm

caterpillar (Manduca sexta)

[319]

87 Odor-detecting robots Moth behavior [601]

88 Robot that rights itself in midair Gecko [313]

89 Undulating robot that moves through air Snake [313]

90 UAVs that fly in updrafts Storks [313]

91 Micro-air vehicles Birds – hummingbird,

budgerigar

[11,313]

92 Robotic thorax Flies [313]

93 Micro-air vehicles with passive joints Seagulls [313]

94 Radio-controlled gliders Soaring ravens, turkey

vultures, seagulls, and

pelicans

[313]

95 Robotic maple seed Maple seed [313]

96 Earth ceramics with nanopores to control

humidity

Dirt in termite mounds [254]

97 Tiny solar batteries Way leaves turn sunlight into

energy

[254]

98 Body armor African freshwater fish

Polypterus senegalus scales

[254]

99 Pacemaker Humpback whale heart [254]

100 JR Central’s N700 series Shinkansen Front end modeled after an

eagle’s outstretched wings

[254]

101 Suitewall silica coating for exterior tiles Snail shell’s self-cleaning

bumps

[254]

102 Australia’s Biosignal Ltd. Healthcare products Algae’s ability to block

bacteria’s signals

[254]

103 Cooling system in Council House 2 in

Melbourne, Australia

Termite mound’s evaporative

cooling from aquifer water

[274,602]

104 Solar energy cell technology Photosynthesis [274]

105 Carbon Sequestration method from CO2

Solutions

Chemical processes in

mammals during respiration

[274]

106 Novomer carbon-based polymers used for

building materials

Carbon sequestration in

plants

[274]

107 Teatro del Agua- desalinization process in

Canary Islands by Grimshaw Architects

Namib desert beetle [274]

108 London’s Porticullis House Termite mounds [602]

109 Sharklet Marine boat hull coatings Shark skin [281]

238

Table 19, cont. 110 Sharklet Medical devices Shark skin [281]

111 Wind turbine blades Serrated fin of humpback

whale

[269]

112 Anti-counterfeit technology for bank notes,

passports, and credit cards

Iridescent colors of

Indonesian peacock butterfly

[269]

113 Leonardo da Vinci’s flying machines Birds [11,68]

114 Designing buildings from the roof down Bee and spider [11]

115 Henry Mitchell’s design of a pile made of

cones that digs itself into the ground

Forms of seed vessels [11]

116 Clement Ader’s steam powered aircraft (Eole) Bats wings [11]

117 Ignaz and Igo Etrich’s stable wing design Winged seed of Alsomitra

macrocarpa

[11]

118 Jeronimidis material that has glass fiber in

resin matrix making it tough in impact

Cellulose walls in wood,

wood in tension

[11]

119 Surface textures Lotus leaf [11]

120 Antireflective surfaces Insect eyes [11]

121 Antireflective surfaces Insect wings [11]

122 Antireflective surfaces Leaves of plants in the

understory of tropical

rainforests

[11]

123 Antireflective polythene sheet for solar panels

- 10% improvement in capture of light

Insect eyes, wings, or plant

leaves

[11]

124 Robotic control systems Natural neural circuits

especially in insects

[11]

125 Camouflage - Hugh Cott (presumably animals) [11]

126 Motion camouflage (staying in same spot in

visual field)

Dragonfly [11]

127 Surfaces of earth-moving machinery (ploughs,

bulldozers)

Geometrically optimized

ridges and bumps on soil-

moving animals

[11]

128 Hulls of sailing boats Vortices induces by ridges on

shark skin

[11]

129 Lining of pipes carrying liquid Vortices induces by ridges on

shark skin

[11]

130 Aircraft with a drag reduction of 5-10% Vortices induces by ridges on

shark skin

[11]

131 Aircraft wings with reduced drag, Airbus

A380

Divided wing tip of birds


ratio (buzzard, vulture, eagle)

[11,288]

132 Underwater propellers with reduced drag Divided wing tip of birds


ratio (buzzard, vulture, eagle)

[11]

133 Twiddlefish submersibles by Nekton, Inc. Fins of fish [11]

134 Low-drag dirigibles Penguin [11]

135 Lightweight tensile structures in architecture

(Frei Otto)

Spider webs [11]

136 Eiffel Tower Trabecular struts in the head

of a human femur or the taper

of a tulip stem

[11,68]

239

Table 19, cont. 137 Swimsuits Shark skin [11]

138 Entrance gate to world exposition in Paris in

1900

Radiolarians [68]

139 Wright brothers’ plane Swooping vultures [68]

140 C. Culmann’s construction crane Bone [68]

141 Sonar system Dolphins [256,270]

142 Acoustic Pulses Bottlenose dolphins [256]

143 Robocane Ecolocation [270]

144 Fins on modern aircraft wings that improve

airflow and reduce drag

“Fingers” on the wingtips of

birds of prey

[270]

145 Flipper-type propulsion system for underwater

robot vehicle

Turtle [270]

146 Foot-powered propulsion unit for kayak Penguin [270]

147 DIDSON acoustic camera Ecolocation [270]

148 Finnisterre breathable warm waterproof textile

for surfers

Waterproof pelage of seals

and otters

[270]

149 Chronino humanoid robot Human [270]

150 Underwater robotic vehicles that cancel out

departing vortices

Timing of fish tail strokes

and jellyfish pulses to

maximize energy recovery

from vortices

[270]

151 Geckel Geckos and mussels [270]

152 Pelamis wave converter – Aguacadoura wave

farm

The redundant vertebral units

of snakes

[270]

153 Microelectrodes for brain implants that are

stiff for insertion and then relax

Sea cucumber’s body states

that vary in stiffness

[270]

154 Micromechanical systems on AUVs Lateral line of a fish-

mechanoreceptor system

[270]

155 Robot that flies like a bird from Festo Bird- lightweight seagull [603]

156 Convert carpet How nature would

manufacture a floor

[279]

157 Self-repairing concrete Skin [314]

158 Surfboard Humpback whale [314]

159 Less painful needles Mosquito [314]

160 Passive systems to collect and distribute

naturally chilled water

Thorny devil [314]

161 Antifouling coating Adhesives secreted by

muscles

[272]

162 Biomimetic polymer for antifouling – zosteric

acid

Eel grass [272]

163 Antifouling – covalently cross-linked gel Skin of pilot whale [272]

164 X ray telescope Shrimp/lobster eye [478]

165 Collimator for x-ray lithography Lobster eye lens [478]

166 Car Paint Scarab beetle [273]

167 Increased solar cell light capture Hawkmoth [273]

168 Airbus 320 Shark skin riblets [113,273]

169 Bipedal robots Humans [273]

170 Novel, motion producing devices Muscles [273]

240

Table 19, cont. 171 Enzyme activity preservation Diatom [273]

172 Filtration, biosensor filtration, imunoisolation Diatom [273]

173 Surface adhesion Flies [273]

174 Surface adhesion Spiders [273]

175 Evolutionary Computing, Genetic Algorithms DNA [273]

176 Camouflage Moths [273]

177 Micro air vehicles leading edge vortex Hawkmoth [273]

178 Microair vehicles wing design Hummingbird [273]

179 Hydroplane strut wave reduction Bat Toes (for catching fish) [273]

180 Hydroplane strut wave reduction Black Skimmer Mandible [273]

181 Human oscillatory propelled exoskeletons,

flippers, and submarines

Tuna, dolphins, seals [273]

182 Robo-Tuna Tuna, dolphins, seals [273]

183 Underwater sensing, target acquisition,

obstacle avoidance

Mottled sculpin (fish) [273]

184 Data storage and readout, medical diagnostics,

surveillance, photography

Honeybee eye [273]

185 Underwater plume tracing and source finding Moths, lobsters [273]

186 Robotic source tracking using chemotaxis and

c.elegans based on neural network

C. Elegans [273]

187 Fluidic lens Whale eye [273]

188 Hydrophobic surfaces Rose petals [604]

189 Wood glue without toxins - Columbia Forest

Products

Secretions mussels use to

cling to surfaces underwater

[290]

190 Self-Healing Pipelines – Brinker Technology Platelets [290]

191 Biosignal film that prevents bacteria from

colonizing

Seaweed [290]

192 Qualcomm Mirasol display Butterfly wings, peacocks [290]

193 Carbozyme flue scrubber, converts CO2 to

limestone powder

Enzymes of mollusks [290]

194 Norian SRS biomineral bone cement used in

orthopedic surgery

Physiochemically-dominated

skeletogentic mechanism of

reef coral

[285]

241

Appendix G: Comparison of the Environmental Impact of BIDs and

Competitors Using GDGs with Justification

Nine sustainable BIDs were compared to a functionally-equivalent standard product using the

GDGs presented in Appendix D. The analysis is provided below. First, the guidelines met better by the

BIDs than their non-bioinspired competitor are provided, followed by the guidelines met worse by the BID

than their non-bioinspired competing product, if any, and the guidelines for which such an assessment is

uncertain, or only valid in some limited scenarios.

G.1 BIOLYTIX

Table 20: The GDGs met better by Biolytix than by its competitor.

GDG # Guideline Why Bioinspired Design Meets Guideline Better

1 Specifying renewable

and abundant resources

Biolytix uses solid waste in the system along with worms and

insects to filter and treat wastewater. All these inputs are both

renewable and abundant. In contrast, conventional septic systems

require nonrenewable chemical inputs.

2 Specifying recyclable, or

recycled materials,

especially those within

the company or for

which a market exists or

needs to be stimulated

The Biolytix process uses recycled human waste to filter new

wastewater. This does not occur in septic tanks.

4 Exploiting unique

properties of recycled

materials

The Biolytix process uses recycled human waste to filter new

wastewater.

9 Specifying non-

hazardous and otherwise

environmentally "clean"

substances, especially in

regards to user health

Biolytix uses worms and insects to filter and treat wastewater. In

contrast, conventional septic systems require potentially

hazardous chemical inputs for the disinfection process that

creates toxic byproducts.

10 Ensuring that wastes are

water-based or

biodegradable

Biolytix breaks down all waste and does not have the non-

biodegradable sludge byproduct that a traditional septic tank

does. Additionally, Biolytix uses solid waste in the system along

with worms and insects to filter and treat wastewater. In contrast,

conventional septic systems require chemical inputs that are

potentially not water-based or biodegradable. Presumably, the

chemicals used would be harsh biocides – as their function is to

kill all bacteria and pathogens in the waste.

18 Specifying lightweight

materials and

components

Because of the way Biolytix is designed, it is more efficient at

filtering and treating waste than a septic system. Consequently,

for the same amount of filtration, a Biolytix system can be

smaller than a septic system. This means the weight is minimized

and less energy needs to be transferred to the system during

transport of the system to the point of use.

242

Table 20, cont. 25 Implementing reusable

supplies or ensuring the

maximum usefulness of

consumables

Biolytix uses solid waste in the system along with worms and

insects – reusable supplies – to filter and treat wastewater. In

contrast, conventional septic systems require chemical inputs

which cannot be reused.

28 Specifying best-in-class

energy efficiency

components

In terms of energy consumption, Biolytix is more efficient than a

standard septic system. With Biolytix, a user can get the same

filtration output but with less energy input into aerating pumps to

remove the sludge.

32 Interconnecting available

flows of energy and

materials within the

product or between the

product and its

environment

The flow of waste material through the Biolytix filter is

interconnected with the functioning of the product. As the waste

is filtered, it becomes the humus, which then filters the next batch

of waste. Additionally, the Biolytix filter itself – which is filled

with worms and insects – functions much as a miniature soil

ecosystem, where the living organisms that are a part of the

product are interconnected with the filtering and treatment

functions to a greater extent than occurs in septic systems with

anaerobic bacteria.

41 Ensuring minimal

maintenance and

minimizing failure

modes in the product and

its components

Unlike septic systems, Biolytix does not need to be maintained

regularly for sludge removal.

G.2 DAIMLER-CHRYSLER BIONIC CAR – SHAPE

Table 21: The GDGs met better by the shape of the bionic car than by its competitor.



energy efficiency

components

The reduced drag of the bioinspired car results in fuel savings,

compared to the same car with a standard shape. Consequently,

the bioinspired car uses less fuel to go the same distance as its

nonbioinspired competitor, meaning it is more energy efficient.

243

G.3 DAIMLER-CHRYSLER BIONIC CAR – STRUCTURE

Table 22: The GDGs met better by the structure of the bionic car than by its competitor.


17 Applying structural

techniques and materials

to minimize the total

volume of material

The SKO method allows for light-weighting by getting rid of

unnecessary material. This method has reduced the frame weight

by 30% [368].

18 Specifying lightweight

materials and

components

The bioinspired SKO method reduces the weight of the car’s

structure by 30% [41].

27 Minimizing the volume,

area and weight of parts

and materials to which

energy is transferred

The bioinspired SKO method reduces the weight of the car

frame. Since energy is transferred to the car frame in the process

of moving the car, the bioinspired frame minimizes the weight of

parts and materials to which energy is transferred.


energy efficiency

components

The bioinspired SKO method reduces the weight of the car

frame. Consequently, the bioinspired car uses less fuel to go the

same distance as its non-bioinspired competitor, meaning it is

more energy efficient than its competitor.

244

G.4 EASTGATE CENTRE COOLING SYSTEM

Table 23: The GDGs met better by the Eastgate Centre’s cooling system than by its

competitor.




Air circulation in Eastgate occurs as a result of the buoyancy

properties of the air and the geometric design of the building,

allowing for a substantial reduction in electricity consumption

when compared to an industrial air conditioning unit. The

buoyancy of air is both renewable and abundant, compared to the

electricity needed to power an industrial air conditioner.

11 Specifying the cleanest

source of energy

Eastgate uses geometry and waste heat from buildings along with

assisting fans instead of relying much more heavily on electricity

from ‘unclean’ sources, such as coal.


energy efficiency

components

Eastgate Centre’s cooling output is the same as a hypothetical

competing industrial air conditioner’s output. However, less

active energy, in the form of electricity, is needed in Eastgate

Centre to achieve this output than would be required by an

industrial air conditioner. Consequently, Eastgate Centre’s

passive cooling system is more energy efficient than the

competing industrial air conditioning system.


flows of energy and



product and its

environment

The waste heat from Eastgate Centre drives thermosiphon flow.

The higher velocity air at the top of the chimney drives the

induced flow. These flows of hot and cool air between the

cooling system and the atmosphere around the building produce

cooling. Consequently, Eastgate’s cooling system design

successfully interconnects available flows of air within itself and

between itself and its environment to produce cooling. In

contrast, air conditioners typically are stand-alone units, not

designed to take advantage of the physics of fluid flows outside

of the system.

245

G.5 INTERFACE FLOR I2 ENTROPY CARPET

Table 24: The GDGs met better by Entropy carpet than by its competitor.


5 Employing common and

remanufactured

components across

models

If each individual carpet or dye lot is viewed as its own model,

Entropy carpet is artistically designed to allow tiles to be used

across models, extending the useful lifetimes of these carpet tiles

and avoiding the need for new tiles to be manufactured.

Consequently, Entropy modular carpet meets the spirit of the

guideline.

20 Structuring the product

to avoid rejects and

minimize material waste

in production

Entropy carpet is artistically designed so that dye aberrations on

individual tiles are not noticed, reducing the scrap rates in

production.

40 Improving aesthetics and

functionality to ensure

the aesthetic life is equal

to the technical life

This guideline is met better by the Entropy carpet design than the

competitor in two ways: (1) Stains on a carpet tile are less

noticeable on entropy carpet, meaning it is less likely that a

stained tile would need to be replaced for aesthetic reasons, i.e.

the aesthetic life of the individual tiles is extended to better meet

the technical life of the tile. (2) If a stain is noticeable and a tile

needs to be replaced, only the stained tile needs to be replaced

with Entropy carpet, and the aesthetic quality of the carpet is

maintained. In this case, the aesthetic life of the carpet is better

maintained after a tile is replaced to better match the technical

life of the carpet.

45 Allowing easy repair and

upgrading, especially for

components that

experience rapid change

Entropy carpet allows for easier repair/upgrading of worn or

stained tiles than standard modular carpet because new Entropy

tiles blend in better with worn tiles, maintaining the appearance

and extending the life of the carpet. In the case of tiles with a

standard design, more tiles might need to be replaced at once, so

that the new tile would not stand out compared to the old tiles, or

the general appearance of the carpet would be compromised,

possibly resulting in a shorter overall lifetime of the carpet.

Additionally, old and new standard tiles would need to be from

the same dye lot and oriented according to nap.

58 Implementing

reusable/swappable

platforms, modules, and

components

Entropy carpet tiles are reusable/swappable carpet components.

Entropy tiles from different dye lots can be used together, in

contrast to standard modular carpets where tiles from different

dye lots cannot be swapped.

246

Table 25: The GDGs Entropy tiles might meet better than standard carpet tiles in some

scenarios.

GDG # Guideline Why Bioinspired Design Probably Meets Guideline Better

41 Ensuring minimal

maintenance and

minimizing failure


its components

Carpet maintenance would most likely refer to cleaning the

carpet, but it could also refer to replacing tiles. Entropy carpet

tiles are slightly faster to replace than standard carpet tiles

because they do not need to be oriented according to nap

orientation. Consequently, they could be viewed as slightly

reducing the maintenance load compared to a standard carpet.

G.6 SELF-CLEANING TRANSPARENT THIN FILM

Table 26: The GDGs met better by the self-cleaning surface than by its competitor.




The self-cleaning film uses gravity and surface texture in place of

added chemicals, water, and energy which would otherwise be

needed to clean the product

9 Specifying non-





Water mist is 'clean'. Trichloroethylene (the chemical cleaning

solvent in the industrially-cleaned scenario) causes cancer in

animals and is linked to kidney and liver disease in humans

[605].

11 Specifying the cleanest

source of energy

The self-cleaning surface uses gravity and the surface texture to

clean, instead of electricity.

25 Implementing reusable



consumables

The self-cleaning surface uses less water during cleaning in the

use phase than a standard surface cleaned using spray or

ultrasonic aqueous cleaning methods.

27 Minimizing the volume,

area and weight of parts

and materials to which

energy is transferred

With the self-cleaning surface in the use phase, less water is used

(volume/weight are minimized) and less energy consequently

needs to be transferred to these materials during the cleaning

process.


energy efficiency

components

The same cleaning output is achieved by the self-cleaning surface

with less active energy required than when a standard surface is

cleaned using spray or ultrasonic aqueous cleaning methods.


flows of energy and



product and its

environment

The self-cleaning surface uses gravity and the texture of the

surface coating, instead of pressurized water and chemicals, to

reduce total energy and water consumption during cleaning. It

thereby utilizes available energy from within the product to

perform cleaning.

247

Table 27: The GDGs met worse by the self-cleaning surface than by its competitor.

GDG # Guideline Why Competitor Design Meets Guideline Better

7 Specifying one type of

material for the product

and its subassemblies

The self-cleaning film must be applied to the original surface

which is made of another type of material. In contrast, a standard

surface would be made of only one type of material.

19 Specifying materials that

do not require additional

surface treatment or inks.

The self-cleaning film is itself a surface treatment of material. A

standard material would not have a thin film or required surface

treatment.

22 Specifying materials

with low-intensity

production and

agriculture

The self-cleaning film is currently produced from titanium

acetylacetonate, aluminum acetylacetonate, boehmite, ethanol,

and a water repellent agent [27]. A lot of energy is consumed in

the production of these materials Raibeck, 2008 #26}. Ethanol,

for instance, is well-known to be an energy- and water-intensive

material.

24 Employing as few

manufacturing steps as

possible

The self-cleaning thin film must be applied to the surface during

manufacturing. For a standard surface, no application step is

required.

55 Ensuring that

incompatible materials

are easily separated.

The thin film and the glass surface probably cannot be recycled

together. The self-cleaning thin film is unlikely to be easily

separated from the surface of the part for recycling purposes,

compared to a standard part where no separation is necessary.

Table 28: The GDGs that might be met better by the self-cleaning surface than by its

competitor, but ambiguity exists.

GDG # Guideline Why Competitor Design Probably Meets Guideline Better


water-based or

biodegradable

Tricloroethylene displays “very slow biodegradation” and

contamination of groundwater and soil “can be a very serious

problem” [606]. However, if you are cleaning a non-

biodegradable or non-water based substance off the part the

waste will not be guaranteed to be water-based or biodegradable.

Here, we consider the dirt on the part as an inherent part of the

waste being removed.

248

G.7 SHARKLET ANTIMICROBIAL SURFACE

Table 29: The GDGs met better by Sharklet than by its competitor.


9 Specifying non-





Sharklet can be used in place of toxic and biocidal disinfectants

or cleaning agents like Clorox that could directly harm the health

of the user, harm the health of the organisms that will contact the

waste water, or contribute to the evolution of superbugs, which

are environmentally ‘bad’ when taking an instrumental view of

the environment.

41 Ensuring minimal

maintenance and

minimizing failure


its components

Sharklet ensures that cleaning-related maintenance is minimized.

Instead of cleaning bathroom surfaces daily or weekly

(depending on the location), Sharklet surfaces can be cleaned less

frequently, perhaps as infrequently as once every 90 days (the life

of a Sharklet strip) as a result of its bioinspired topography.

42 Specifying better

materials, surface

treatments, or structural

arrangements to protect

products from dirt,

corrosion, and wear

Sharklet protects the surface it is covering from bacteria by using

better structural arrangements of surface features that prevent

bacteria from adhering to – and growing on – the surface.

Table 30: The GDGs where it is unclear whether Sharklet or its competitor is

environmentally superior.

GDG # Guideline Why It is Unclear Which Design Meets Guideline Better


water-based or

biodegradable

Sharklet still has to be cleaned with Clorox, just less, so the

wastes from Clorox are equally water-based/biodegradable

during use. We have no information on whether Sharklet is

water-based or biodegradable. This could be a way in which

Sharklet is worse.

25 Implementing reusable



consumables

In one sense, consumable Sharklet strips can be used to keep

surfaces clean longer than just Clorox, and consequently could be

viewed as ‘ensuring maximum usefulness of consumables’.

However, this perspective may not be valid because the intent of

this guideline is most likely to compare two different quantities

of the same type of consumables. In the case of Sharklet,

however, we are comparing the usefulness of two different types

of consumables (a little Clorox with Sharklet strips vs. a lot of

Clorox). This is an apples to oranges comparison, and the

environmentally superior choice is unclear, but a significant

difference as a result of the bioinspired feature is likely to exist.

249

G.8 SHINKANSEN 500 SERIES NOSE CONE

Table 31: The GDGs met better by the Shinkansen nose cone than by its competitor.


8 Installing protection

against release of

pollutants and hazardous

substances

The kingfisher-inspired nose cone is designed to minimize noise

pollution.


energy efficiency

components

The reduced drag on the bioinspired nose cone results in

electricity savings, compared to the nose cone on the 300 Series

Shinkansen. Consequently, the 500 Series train with the

bioinspired nose cone uses less fuel to go the same distance as its


G.9 SHINKANSEN 500 SERIES PANTOGRAPH

Table 32: The GDGs met better by the Shinkansen pantograph than by its competitor.

GDG # Guideline Why Bioinspired Design Probably Meets Guideline Better

8 Installing protection

against release of

pollutants and hazardous

substances

The owl feather-inspired pantograph is designed to minimize

noise pollution.


energy efficiency

components

The reduced drag on the bioinspired pantograph results in

electricity savings, compared to the same pantograph with a

standard shape. Consequently, the train with the bioinspired

pantograph uses less fuel to go the same distance as its


250

Appendix H: Analysis of 9 Sustainable BIDs for Passive Mechanisms,

Multifunctional Designs, and Optimized Geometries

Nine sustainable BIDs were analyzed to identify passive mechanisms, multifunctional designs,

and optimized geometries. Justification for each determination of whether the keyword trend was present is

provided for each design, along with relevant quotations from other sources, in particular Wadia [63].,

which support this analysis.

H.1 BIOLYTIX

Table 33: Keyword Trends Analysis for Biolytix.

Keyword

Trend

Trend

Present? Justification

Passive

Mechanisms

Yes The Biolytix system filters and treats domestic waste water and solid

organic waste [293,356] passively [297], with “passive ventilation” and the

“passive transport” of waste through the system [296]. This occurs without

active cleaning of the filtration device [296] or the use of active chemical

inputs [360,361]. It uses gravity to transport material and the renewable

bioenergy in worms and insects to provide ventilation.

Multifunctional

Designs

No There is no reason to believe that Biolytix has multifunctional

characteristics as a result of its bioinspired feature.

Optimized

Geometries

No The decomposition process in nature is being mimicked, not any particular

geometry.

H.2 DAIMLER-CHRYSLER BIONIC CAR – SHAPE

Table 34: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Shape of the Bionic Car.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

No The shape of the bionic car does not use passive energy sources to perform

a function.

Multifunctional

Designs

No There is no reason to believe that the shape of the bionic car has

multifunctional characteristics as a result of its bioinspired feature.

Optimized

Geometries

Yes The streamlined shape of the car was inspired by the boxfish. Due in part to

its bioinspired shape, the air drag coefficient of the bionic car is 0.19,

which indicates that the car is exceptionally aerodynamic [41] compared to

the BMW 3 Series, which has a drag coefficient of 0.27 [369]. This

consequently reduces fuel consumption. The boxfish is a stable and energy

efficient swimmer because of the desirable vortices formed along its body

during swimming [39,40]. The optimized geometry was transferred from

biology to engineering, presumably with slight modifications. Wadia

agrees: “The shape of the car is optimized to reduce air drag coefficient

leading to higher efficiency” [63].

251

H.3 DAIMLER-CHRYSLER BIONIC CAR – STRUCTURE

Table 35: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Structure of the Bionic Car.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

No The structure of the bionic car does not use passive energy sources to

perform a function.

Multifunctional

Designs

No There is no reason to believe that the structure of the bionic car has

multifunctional characteristics as a result of its bioinspired feature.

Optimized

Geometries

No The structure of the bionic concept car is not inspired by a biological

geometry, but by a process of putting material in highly stressed areas, i.e.

an optimized structure. This structure does not directly imitate the structure

in bones, but the process of developing the optimized structure in the car

mimics the process of developing the optimized structure in bones.

H.4 EASTGATE CENTRE COOLING SYSTEM

Table 36: Keyword Trends Analysis for Eastgate Centre’s Cooling System.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

Yes The cooling system in Eastgate Centre is classified as passive in

architectural literature [31] because the layout of the building promotes the

rise of hot air through the chimneys and away from the building’s

inhabitants [34]. This cooling is fueled by the physical properties of fluid

flow and the structure of the building, eliminating the need for energy-

intensive air conditioning and reducing the energy consumption of the

building by approximately 50% [32]. An active cooling system would be a

traditional industrial air conditioner. Wadia agrees: “The concrete floors

serve as an energy source (passive cooling: thermal energy exchange with

air drawn from the exterior) in the termite mound inspired Eastgate

Building” [63].

Multifunctional

Designs

Yes Eastgate integrates the structure of the building with the building’s cooling

system, eliminating the need for an industrial air conditioner. The design of

Eastgate’s cooling system “incorporates a number of air shafts and voids,

integral with the structure which allows cool air to enter the building at its

base and warm air to discharge at roof level” [32]. Wadia agrees that

integration occurs in Eastgate Centre: “The Eastgate Complex integrates

the internal and external environments reducing the chances of system

failure” [63].

Optimized

Geometries

No Eastgate imitates the fluid flow in termite mounds, allowing for heat to rise

and cool air to enter the way termite mounds do. This is related to

mimicking the structure of termite mounds through chimneys, not

mimicking the actual geometry of the termite mounds.

252

H.5 INTERFACE FLOR I2 ENTROPY CARPET

Table 37: Keyword Trends Analysis for Entropy Carpet.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

No The artistic design of the carpet tiles does not use passive inputs to perform

a function.

Multifunctional

Designs

No There is no sense in which two components or systems are integrated in the

aesthetic design of the carpet that were not also integrated in the competing

design.

Optimized

Geometries

No The design of the bioinspired carpet tiles mimics color schemes and the

random visual pattern found on forest floors, not a shape or geometry.

H.6 SELF-CLEANING TRANSPARENT THIN FILM

Table 38: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Self-Cleaning Surface.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

Yes Gravity and the surface texture of the self-cleaning transparent thin film are

the inputs that allow cleaning to occur more passively than spray or

ultrasonic aqueous cleaning methods. While self-cleaning surfaces still

require a mist of water to be introduced, the cleaning process itself is more

passive than in alternative cleaning options; cleaning here happens with

less active energy and in response to the existing chemical conditions

inherent in the coating, instead of in response to the active dissolution of

dirt particles and the action of the pressurized water pushing the particles

off the surface.

Multifunctional

Designs

Yes The surface of the part itself and the cleaning mechanism are integrated in

the self-cleaning transparent thin film, allowing for the elimination of

additional cleaning modules. Liu and Jiang [328] discuss the lotus leaf as

an example of “biological materials with function integration,” saying that

it “Superhydrophobicity, low adhesion” and “self-cleaning” functions.

Optimized

Geometries

No The surface texture of the self-cleaning thin film allows water to bead up

because the contact angle is high. However, this texture does not mimic the

actual geometry of the lotus leaf.

253

H.7 SHARKLET ANTIMICROBIAL SURFACE

Table 39: Keyword Trends Analysis for Sharklet Antimicrobial.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

No Sharklet antimicrobial surface prevents bacteria growth through their shape.

However, the prevention of bacteria growth is not the same as containing a

mechanism for passive cleaning. Hence, Sharklet antimicrobial surface

does not contain a passive mechanism. This result may confusing to those

knowledgeable about Sharklet because Sharklet marine is described as

having a passive cleaning mechanism. According to one of the Sharklet

patents: “it has been proven through experimental testing that surface

topographies according to the invention provide a passive and nontoxic

surface, which through selection of appropriate feature sizes and spacing,

can significantly… reduce settlement and adhesion of the most common

marine algae known, as well as the settlement of barnacles” [266]. Sharklet

marine would act as a self-cleaning surface and would be passive for the

same reasons the self-cleaning transparent thin film is, but Sharklet

antimicrobial is not.

Multifunctional

Designs

No Sharklet antimicrobial is a bacteria-prevention module separate from the

door or surface where it would be applied. It is an additional module added

to the door and cleaning systems. While it reduces the amount of Clorox

required for cleaning, it is not multifunctional compared to the standard

door and cleaning system and does not reduce the number of modules or

components the system requires.

Optimized

Geometries

Yes Sharklet antimicrobial surfaces have geometries inspired by shark skin that

are optimized to prevent bioadhesion [396,266]. According to one of the

Sharklet patents: “the geometric shape and arrangement of individual

features of Sharklet was likely critical because it enhanced anti-settlement

effectiveness over topographies of equivalent dimensions” [266]. This

message is echoed in another Sharklet patent as well [396].

H.8 SHINKANSEN 500 SERIES NOSE CONE

Table 40: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Shinkansen 500 Series Nose Cone.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

No The geometry of the nose cone does not use passive inputs to perform a

function.

Multifunctional

Designs

No There is no sense in which components have been integrated in the

bioinspired design to produce more functional parts.

Optimized

Geometries

Yes The geometry of the kingfisher was transferred to the nose cone, making it

more aerodynamic, reducing drag, and ultimately saving energy. Wadia

agrees: “The nose’s optimized shape manipulates air flowing over it to

reduce air pressure accumulation” [63].

254

H.9 SHINKANSEN 500 SERIES PANTOGRAPH

Table 41: Keyword Trends Analysis for the Shinkansen 500 Series Pantograph.

Keyword

Trend

Trend


Passive

Mechanisms

No The pantograph serrations do not use passive inputs to perform a function.

Multifunctional

Designs

No There is no sense in which components have been integrated in the

bioinspired design to produce more functional parts.

Optimized

Geometries

Yes The serrations on owl's feathers are mimicked geometrically in the

Shinkansen's pantograph. Wadia agrees: “The shape of the edges on the

pantograph is optimized to create smaller vortices in the airflow that in turn

help with noise regulation” [63]

255

References

[1]Schick, K. D. and N. Toth, 1993, Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and

the Dawn of Technology, Simon & Schuster, New York.

[2]May, R. M., J. H. Lawton and N. E. Stork, 1995, "Assessing Extinction Rates,"

Extinction Rates (J. H. Lawton and R. M. May, Eds.), Oxford University Press,

Oxford, pp. 1-24.

[3]Lodge, D. and K. Shrader-Frechette, 2003, “Nonindigenous Species: Ecological

Explanation, Environmental Ethics, and Public Policy,” Conservation Biology,

Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 31-37.

[4]EPA, 1999, Considering Ecological Processes in Envionmental Impact Assessments,

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Federal

Activities.

[5]Chapin III, F. S., E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviner, R. L. Naylor, P. M. Vitousek, H. L.

Reynolds, D. U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O. E. Sala, S. E. Hobbie, M. C. Mack and S.

Diaz, 2000, “Consequences of Changing Biodiversity,” Nature, Vol. 405, pp.

234-242.

[6]The Earth Charter Initiative,2000, The Earth Charter.

[7]Wann, D., 1994, Biologic: Designing with Nature to Protect the Environment, Johnson

Books, Boulder, Colorado.

[8]Jones, C. G., J. H. Lawton and M. Shachak, 1994, “Organisms as Ecosystem

Engineers,” Oikos, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 373-386.

[9]Wikipedia,2012, Biomimicry. 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimicry.

[10]Wikipedia,2012, Bionics. 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionics.

[11]Vincent, J. F. V., O. A. Bogatyreva, N. R. Bogatyrev, A. Bowyer and A.-K. Pahl,

2006, “Biomimetics: Its Practice and Theory,” Journal of the Royal Society

Interface, Vol. 3, pp. 471-482.

[12]Wilson, J. O. and D. Rosen, 2007, "Systematic Reverse Engineering of Biological

Systems," IDETC/CIE 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC2007-35395.

256

[13]Helms, M., A. Goel and S. Vattam, 2010, "The Effect of Functional Modeling on

Understanding Complex Biological Systems," IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal,


[14]Nagel, J. K., 2010, "Systematic Design of Biologically-Inspired Engineering

Solutions," Mechanical Engineering, Oregon State University,

[15]Vollrath, F. and D. P. Knight, 2001, “Liquid Crystalline Spinning of Spider Silk,”

Nature, Vol. 410, pp. 541-548.

[16]Dabiri, J. O., S. P. Colin and J. H. Costello, 2006, “Fast-swimming Hydromedusae

Exploit Velar Kinematics to Form an Optimal Vortex Wake,” The Journal of

Experimental Biology, Vol. 209, pp. 2025-2033.

[17]Barthlott, W. and C. Neinhuis, 1997, “Purity of the Sacred Lotus, or Escape from

Contamination in Biological Surfaces,” Planta, Vol. 202, pp. 1-8.

[18]Raschi, W. and C. Tabit, 1992, “Functional Aspects of Placoid Scales: A Review and

Update,” Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Vol. 43, pp.

123-147.

[19]North Shore City Government, ,Environmental Education. 2013,

http://www2.northshorecity.govt.nz/our_environment/Environmental_education/S

hopping_default.htm.

[20]Davies, C., 2006, Robot Gecko Wind Time Approval. 2013,

http://www.slashgear.com/robot-gecko-wins-time-approval-

072397/#entrycontent.

[21]Benyus, J. M., 1997, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, William Morrow

and Company, Inc., New York.

[22]Earthsky.org,2011, Biomimicry Offers Sustainable Solutions Inspired by Nature, Fast

Company. 2012, http://www.fastcompany.com/1734291/biomimicry-offers-

sustainable-solutions-inspired-by-nature.

[23]Merchant, B.,2011, How Biomimicry Drives Sustainability: From Fish-Inspired Wind

Turbines to the Future of 3-D Printing, Treehugger.com. 2012,

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/how-biomimicry-drives-

sustainability-from-fish-inspired-wind-turbines-to-the-future-of-3-d-printing-

video.html.

257

[24]Moore, A. L., D. Gust and T. A. Moore, 2007, “Bio-inspired Constructs for

Sustainable Energy Production and Use,” L'Actualite Chimique, No. 308-309, pp.

50-56.

[25]Faure, E., P. Lecomte, S. Lenoir, C. Vreuls, C. V. D. Weerdt, C. Archambeau, J.

Martial, C. Jerome, A.-S. Duwez and C. Detrembleur, 2011, “Sustainable and

Bio-inspired Chemistry for Robust Antibacterial Activity of Stainless Steel,”

Journal of Materials Chemistry, Vol. 21, pp. 7901-7904.

[26]Evans, M.,2012, What is Biomimicry? Design Emulating Nature, About.com. 2012,

http://sustainability.about.com/od/GreenBuilding/a/What-Is-Biomimicry.htm.

[27]Raibeck, L., J. Reap and B. Bras, 2008, "Life Cycle Inventory Study of Biologically

Inspired Self-Cleaning Surfaces," ASME IDETC/CIE 2008, Brooklyn, New York,

DETC2008-49848.

[28]Reap, J., D. Baumeister and B. Bras, 2005, "Holism, Biomimicry and Sustainable

Engineering," ASME IMECE, Orlando, Florida, IMECE2005-81343.

[29]Jones, D. L., 1998, Architecture and the Environment: Bioclimatic Building Design,

The Overlook Press, Woodstock, New York.

[30]Baird, G., 2001 The Architectural Expression of Environmental Controls, Spon

Press, New York.

[31]Thomas, D., 2002, Architecture and the Urban Environment: A Vision for the New

Age, Architectural Press, Woburn, Massachusetts.

[32]Chown, M., 2003, "Building Simulation as an Aide to Design," Eighth International

IBPSA Conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

[33]Curriculum Vitae: Mick Pearce, Architects for Peace. 2011,

http://www.architectsforpeace.org/mickprofile.php.

[34]Turner, J. S. and R. C. Soar, 2008, "Beyond Biomimicry: What Termites Can Tell Us

About Realizing the Living Building," First International Conference on

Industrialized, Intelligent Construction (I3CON), Loughborough University.

[35]Biomimicry Institute,2010, Eastgate Centre Building, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/373ec79cd6dba791bc00ed32203706a1.

[36]California Air-Conditioning Systems, Inc. Lomita, CA. 2013,

http://www.californiaac.com/.

258

[37]Patterson, M.,2009, Eastgate Center, Ask Nature,

http://www.asknature.org/product/373ec79cd6dba791bc00ed32203706a1#change

Tab.

[38]Ask Nature,2013, Eastgate Centre Building. 2013, http://www.asknature.org/browse.

[39]Bartol, I. K., M. Gharib, P. W. Webb, D. Weihs and M. S. Gordon, 2005, “Body-

Induced Vortical Flows: A Common Mechanism for Self-Corrective Trimming

Control in Boxfishes,” The Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol. 208, pp. 327-

344.

[40]Choi, J.-g. and M. Kim, 2009, "The Usage and Evaluation of Anthropomorphic Form

in Robot Design," Undisciplined!: Design Research Society Conference,

Sheffield, United Kingdom.

[41]Thomer, K. W., 2007, "Materials and Concepts in Body Construction," Automotive

Paintings and Coatings (H.-J. Streitberger and K.-F. Dossel, Eds.), Wiley-VCH,

Weinheim, Germany, pp. 23-25.

[42]Nakajima, A., K. Hashimoto, T. Watanabe, K. Takai, G. Yamauchi and A. Fujishima,

2000, “Transparent Superhydrophobic Thin Films with Self-Cleaning Properties,”

Langmuir, Vol. 16, pp. 7044-7047.

[43]Raibeck, L., J. Reap and B. Bras, 2008, "Investigating Environmental Benefits of

Biologically Inspired Self-Cleaning Surfaces," 15th CIRP International

Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Sydney, Australia.

[44]Srivathsan, A.,2006, Smart Materials and Self-Cleaning Bathrooms. The Hindu,

http://www.hindu.com/pp/2006/06/03/stories/2006060300360300.htm.

[45]2012, Ask Nature. 2012, http://www.asknature.org/strategy/714e970954253ace485ab

f1cee376ad8.

[46]ISO, ,2006, ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -

Principles and Framework, 2nd Edition. Geneva, Switzerland.

[47]ISO, 2007,"ISO Standards for Life Cycle Assessment to Promote Sustainable

Development," 2011, http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1019.

[48]ISO.,2006, ISO 14044: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -

Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland.

259

[49]Reap, J., F. Roman, S. Duncan and B. Bras, 2008, “A Survey of Unresolved

Problems in Life Cycle Assessment: Part 1: Goal and Scope and Inventory

Analysis,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13, pp. 290-300.

[50]Finnveden, G., 2000, “On the Limitations of Life Cycle Assessment and

Environmental Systems Analysis Tools in General,” International Journal of Life

Cycle Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 229-238.

[51]Jolliet, O., R. Muller-Wenk, J. Bare, A. Brent, M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, N. Itsubo,

C. Pena, D. Pennington, J. Potting, G. Rebitzer, M. Stewart, H. U. d. Haes and B.

Weidema, 2004, “The LCIA Midpoint-Damage Framework of the UNEP/SETAC

Life Cycle Initiative,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 9, No.

6, pp. 394-404.

[52]Nash, R. F., 1989, The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics, The

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

[53]Brennan, A. and Y.-S. Lo, 2011, "Environmental Ethics," Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (E. N. Zalta, Ed.).

[54]United Nations, 1992, Convention on Biological Diversity. 2012,

http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/.

[55]United Nations,1992, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro.

2012.

[56]UNESCO,1997, Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations

Towards Future Generations. Paris, UNESCO: Culture of Peace Programme.

[57]Millet, D., L. Bistangnino, C. Lanzavecchia, R. Camous and T. Poldma, 2007, “Does

the potential of the use of LCA match the team design needs?,” Journal of

Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp. 335-346.

[58]Lewis, H. and J. Gertsakis, 2001, Design + Environment: A Global Guide to

Designing Greener Goods, Greenleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffield.

[59]Sroufe, R., S. Curkovic, F. Montabon and S. A. Melnyk, 2000, “The New Product

Design Process and Design for Environment: Crossing the Chasm,” International

Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 267-291.

[60]Bhamra, T. A., S. Evans, T. C. McAloone, M. Simon, S. Poole and A. Sweatman,

1999, "Integrating Environmental Decisions into the Product Development

260

Process: Part1 The Early Stages," First International Symposium on

Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, IEEE.

[61]Telenko, C., 2009, "Developing Green Design Guidelines: A Formal Method and

Case Study," MS Thesis,Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas.

[62]Wadia, A. P. and D. A. McAdams, 2010, "Developing Biomimetic Guidelines for the

Highly Optimized and Robust Design of Complex Products or Their

Counterparts," IDETC/CIE2010, Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-28708.

[63]Wadia, A. P., 2011, "Developing Biomimetic Design Principles for the Highly

Optimized and Robust Design of Products or Their Components," Mechanical

Engineering, Texas A&M University,

[64]Biomimicry Guild, 2009, Life's Principles, http://osbsustainablefuture.org/home/

section-newsletter/20101spring6isleleitch/.

[65]Biomimicry Group,2011, Life's Principles, http://bouncingideas.files.wordpress.com/

2012/01/lifes-principles.png.

[66]Biomimicry 3.8, 2012, Frequently Answered Q's. 2013,

http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry38/frequently-answered-qs/#faq12.

[67]Nagel, R. L., P. A. Midha, A. Tinsley, R. B. Stone, D. A. McAdams and L. H. Shu,

2008, “Exploring the Use of Functional Models in Biomimetic Conceptual

Design,” Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 130.

[68]Ball, P., 2001, “Life's Lessons in Design,” Nature, Vol. 409, pp. 413-416.

[69]Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, "Introduction to Biomimetics: The Wealth of Inventions in

Nature as an Inspiration for Human Innovation," Biomimetics: Biologically

Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1-

40.

[70]Hambourger, M., G. F. Moore, D. M. Kramer, D. Gust, A. L. Moore and T. A.

Moore, 2009, “Biology and Technology for Photochemical Fuel Production,”

Chemical Society Reviews Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 25-35.

[71]Vincent, J. F. V., 2008, “Biomimetic Materials,” Journal of Materials Research, Vol.

23, No. 12, pp. 3140-3147.

261

[72]Bruck, H. A., A. L. Gershon, I. Golden, S. K. Gupta, L. S. G. Jr, E. B. Magrab and B.

W. Spranklin, 2007, “Training Mechanical Engineering Students to Utilize

Biological Inspiration During Product Development,” Bioinspiration and


[73]Rey, A. D., D. Pasini and Y. K. Murugesan, 2012, "Multiscale Modeling of Plant

Cell Wall Architecture and Tissue Mechanics for Biomimetic Applications,"

Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL, pp. 131-168.

[74]Papanek, V., 1984, "Chapter 8: The Tree of Knowledge: Biological Prototypes in

Design," Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 186-214.

[75]Nagel, J. K. S. and R. B. Stone, 2011, "A Systematic Approach to Biologically-

Inspired Engineering Design," ASME 2011 International Design Engineering and

Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference,

Washington, DC, DETC2011-47398.

[76]Markman, A. B. and K. L. Wood, 2009, "The Cognitive Science of Innovation

Tools," Tools for Innovation (A. B. Markman and K. L. Wood, Eds.), Oxford

University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-22.

[77]Shah, J. J., N. Vargas-Hernandez and S. M. Smith, 2003, “Metrics for Measuring

Ideation Effectiveness,” Design Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 111-134.

[78]Oman, S. K., I. Y. Tumer, K. Wood and C. Seepersad, 2012, “A Comparison of

Creativity and Innovation Metrics and Sample Validation Through In-Class

Design Projects,” Research in Engineering Design, pp. DOI 10.1007/s00163-012-

0138-9.

[79]Boden, M. A., 2004, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, Routledge,

London.

[80]Wilson, J. O., D. Rosen, B. A. Nelson and J. Yen, 2010, “The Effects of Biological

Examples in Idea Generation,” Design Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 169-186.

[81]Casakin, H. and G. Goldschmidt, 1999, “Expertise and the Use of Visual Analogy:

Implications for Design Education,” Design Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 153-175.

[82]Mak, T. W. and L. H. Shu, 2004, “Abstraction of Biological Analogies for Design,”

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 117-120.

262

[83]Chan, J., K. Fu, C. Schunn, J. Cagan, K. Wood and K. Kotovsky, 2011, “On the

Benefits and Pitfalls of Analogies for Innovative Design: Ideation Performance

Based on Analogical Distance, Commonness, and Modality of Examples,”

Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133, No. 8, pp. 081004-1

[84]Lopez, R., J. S. Linsey and S. M. Smith, 2011, "Characterizing the Effect of Domain

Distance in Design-by-analogy," ASME 2011 International Design Engineering

Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference,

Washington, DC, DETC2011-48428.

[85]Vattam, S. S., M. E. Helms and A. K. Goel, 2010, “A Content Account of Creative

Analogies in Biologically Inspired Design,” Artificial Intelligence for

Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 467-481.

[86]Vincent, J. F. V. and D. L. Mann, 2002, “Systematic Technology Transfer from

Biology to Engineering,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol.

360, pp. 159-173.

[87]Price, S.,2000, Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators. Science News. T.

Phillips, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2012,

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1/.

[88]Cheong, H., I. Chiu and L. H. Shu, 2010, "Extraction and Transfer of Biological

Analogies for Creative Concept Generation," IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal,


[89]Mak, T. W. and L. H. Shu, 2004, "Use of Biological Phenomena in Design by

Analogy," ASME 2004 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and

Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah,

USA, DETC2004-57303.

[90]Mak, T. W. and L. H. Shu, 2008, “Using Descriptions of Biological Phenomena for

Idea Generation,” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 19, pp. 21-28.

[91]Dahl, D. W. and P. Moreau, 2002, “The Influence and Value of Analogical Thinking

During New Product Ideation,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, No. 1,

pp. 47-60.

[92]Benami, O. and Y. Jin, 2002, "Creative Stimulation in Conceptual Design," ASME

2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and Information

in Engineering Conference, Montreal, Canada, DETC2002/DTM-34023.

263

[93]Christensen, B. T. and C. D. Schunn, 2007, “The Relationship of Analogical

Distance to Analogical Function and Preinventive Structure: The Case of

Engineering Design,” Memory & Cognition, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 29-38.

[94]Ke, J., I. Chiu, J. S. Wallace and L. H. Shu, 2010, "Supporting Biomimetic Design by

Embedding Metadata in Natural-Language Corpora," ASME IDETC/CIE 2010,

Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-29057.

[95]Fu, K., J. Chan, J. Cagan, K. Kotovsky, C. Schunn and K. Wood, 2012, "The

Meaning of 'Near' and 'Far': The Impact of Structuring Design Databases and the

Effect of Distance of Analogy on Design Output," IDECTC/CIE 2012, Chicago,

IL.

[96]Glier, M. W., D. A. McAdams and J. S. Linsey, 2011, "Concepts in Biomimetic

Design: Methods and Tools to Incorporate into a Biomimetic Design Course,"

ASME 2011 Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and

Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48571.

[97]Nagel, J. K. S., R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2010, "Exploring the Use of

Category and Scale to Scope a Biological Functional Model," IDETC/CIE2010,

Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-28873.

[98]Trexler, M. and R. M. Deacon, 2012, "Artificial Senses and Organs: Natural

Mechanisms and Biomimetic Devices," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation

(Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 35-93.

[99]Sadava, D., H. C. Heller, G. H. Orians, W. K. Purves and D. M. Hillis, 2008, Life:

The Science of Biology, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

[100]Basalla, G., 1988, "Chapter 1: Diversity, Necessity, and Evolution," The Evolution

of Technology (G. Basalla and W. Coleman, Eds.), Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, United Kingdom.

[101]Gorb, S. N., M. Sinha, A. Peressadko, K. A. Daltorio and R. D. Quinn, 2007,

“Insects Did It First: A Micropatterned Adhesive Tape for Robotic Applications,”

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. S117-S125.

[102]World Intellectual Property Organization, 2012, WIPO IP Statistics Data Center.

Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations. 2013,

http://ipstatsdb.wipo.org/ipstats/patentsSearch.

264

[103]Gorb, S. N., 2006, "Functional Surfaces in Biology: Mechanisms and Applications,"

Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC

Press, Boca Raon, FL, pp. 381-397.

[104]Muller, R., J. Ma, Z. Yan, C. Grimm and W. Mio, 2011, "Bioinspiration from

Biodiversity in Sensor Design," International Mechanical Engineering Congress

& Exposition, Denver, Colorado, IMECE2011-64487.

[105]Barthelat, F., 2007, “Biomimetics for Next Generation Materials,” Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 365, No. 1861, pp. 2907-2919.

[106]Zhang, S., H. Yokoi and X. Zhao, 2006, "Molecular Design of Biological and

Nano-Materials," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-

Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL pp. 229-242.

[107]Thomas, D. N. and G. S. Dieckmann, 2002, “Antartic Sea Ice - A Habitat for

Extremophiles,” Science, Vol. 295, pp. 641-644.

[108]Stetter, K. O., 1999, “Extremophiles and Their Adaptation to Hot Environments,”

FEBS Letters, Vol. 452, pp. 22-25.

[109]Nies, D. H., 2000, “Heavy Metal-Resistant Bacteria as Extremophiles: Molecular

Physiology and Biotechnological Use of Ralstonia sp. CH34,” Extremophiles,

Vol. 4, pp. 77-82.

[110]Lee, D. W., 2012, "Biomimicry of the Ultimate Optical Device - The Plant,"


Raton, FL, pp. 307-330.

[111]Argunsah, H. and B. L. Davis, 2012, "Application of Biomimetics in the Design of

Medical Devices," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.),


[112]Gebeshuber, I. C., B. Y. Majlis and H. Stachelberger, 2009, “Tribology in Biology:

Biomimetic Studies Across Dimensions and Across Fields,” International Journal

of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 321-327.

[113]Dickinson, M. H., 1999, “Bionics: Biological Insight into Mechanical Design,”

PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, No. 25, pp.

14208-14209.

[114]Chiu, I. and L. H. Shu, 2007, “Biomimetic Design Through Natual Language

Analysis to Facilitate Cross-Domain Information Retrieval,” Artificial

265

Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 21, pp.

45-59.

[115]Cheong, H., I. Chiu, L. H. Shu, R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2011,

“Biologically Meaningful Keywords for Functional Terms of the Functional

Basis,” Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 133, No. 2, pp. 021007-1.

[116]Vogel, S., 1998, Cats' Paws and Catapults: Mechanical Worlds of Nature and

People, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

[117]Solga, A., Z. Cerman, B. F. Striffler, M. Spaeth and W. Barthlott, 2007, “The

Dream of Staying Clean: Lotus and Biomimetic Structures,” Bioinspiration and


[118]Hanson, D., 2006, "Robotic Biomimesis of Intelligent Mobility, Manipulation, and

Expression," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen,

Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 177-200.

[119]Nagel, J. K. S., R. L. Nagel, R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2010, “Function-

Based, Biologically Inspired Concept Generation,” Artificial Intelligence for

Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 04, pp. 521-535.

[120]Harris, C. M., 2009, “Biomimetics of Human Movement: Functional or Aesthetic?,”


[121]Abdel-Aal, H. A. and M. E. Mansori, 2011, "Chapter 4: Reptilian Skin as a

Biomimetic Analogue for the Design of Deterministic " Biomimetics - Materials,

Structures and Processes (P. Gruber, D. Bruckner, C. Hellmichet al, Eds.),

Springer, New York, NY, pp. 51-79.

[122]Frankel, R. B. and D. A. Bazylinski, 1995, "Structure and Function of

Magnetosomes in Magnetotactic Bacteria," Biomimetics: Design and Processing

of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New

York, pp. 199-215.

[123]Beheshti, N. and A. C. Mcintosh, 2007, “The Bombardier Beetle and Its Use of a

Pressure Relief Valve System to Deliver a Periodic Pulsed Spray,” Bioinspiration

and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 57-64.

[124]Kulfan, B. M. and A. J. Colozza, 2012, "Biomimetics and Flying Technology,"


Raton, FL, pp. 525-674.

266

[125]Nemat-Nasser, S., S. Nemat-Nasser, T. Plaisted, A. Starr and A. V. Amirkhizi,

2006, "Mulitfunctional Materials," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired

Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 309-340.

[126]Leonor, I. B., H. S. Azevedo, I. Pahkuleva, A. L. Oliveira, C. M. Alves and R. L.

Reis, 2004, "Learning from Nature How to Design Biomimetic Calcium-

Phosphate Coatings," Learning from Nature How to Design New Implantable

Biomaterials: From Biomineralization Fundamental to Biomimetic Materials and

Processing Routes (R. L. Reis and S. Weiner, Eds.), Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 171, pp. 123-150.

[127]Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, “Biomimetics - Using Nature to Inspire Human Innovation,”

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 1, pp. P1-P12.

[128]Fong, D. W., T. C. Kane and D. C. Culver, 1995, “Vestigialization and Loss of

Nonfunctional Characters,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 26,

pp. 249-268.

[129]Bejder, L. and B. K. Hall, 2002, “Limbs in Whales and Limblessness in Other

Vertebrates: Mechanisms of Evolutionary and Developmental Transformation and

Loss,” Evolution and Development, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 445-458.

[130]Goodwin, B., 2009, "Beyond the Darwinian Pardigm: Understanding Biological

Forms," Evolution: The First Four Billion Years (M. Ruse and J. Travis, Eds.),

The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 299-312.

[131]Starr, C., C. A. Evers and L. Starr, 2006, Basic Concepts in Biology, Thomson

Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

[132]Travis, J. and D. N. Reznick, 2009, "Adaptation," Evolution: The First Four Billion

Years (M. Ruse and J. Travis, Eds.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 105-131.

[133]Campbell, N. A. and J. B. Reece, 2005, Biology, Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San

Francisco.

[134]Drezner, T. and Z. Drezner, 2006, "Genetic Algorithms: Mimicking Evolution and

Natural Selection in Optimization Models," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired

Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press Boca Raton, FL, pp. 157-175.

[135]Ausubel, K., 2004, "Introduction," Nature's Operating Instructions: The True

Biotechnologies (K. Ausubel and J. P. Harpignies, Eds.), Sierra Club Books, San

Francisco.

267

[136]Richter, K. and I. Grunwald, 2010, "Bio-inspired Polyphenolic Adhesives for

Medical and Technical Applications: Introduction," Biological Adhesive Systems:

From Nature to Technical and Medical Application (J. v. Byern and I. Grunwald,

Eds.), Springer-Verlang/Wien, Austria, pp. 201-202.

[137]Yen, J., M. J. Weissburg, M. Helms and A. K. Goel, 2012, "Biologically Inspired

Design: A Tool for Interdisciplinary Education," Biomimetics: Nature-Based

Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 331-360.

[138]Peterson, A. T., J. Soberon, R. G. Pearson, R. P. Anderson, E. Martinez-Meyer, M.

Nakamura and M. B. Araujo, 2011, "Chapter 2: Concepts of Niches," Ecological

Niches and Geographic Distributions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New

Jersey, pp. 7-22.

[139]Gunderson, S. L. and R. C. Schiavone, 1995, "Microstructure of an Insect Cuticle

and Applications to Advanced Composites," Biomimetics: Design and Processing

of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New

York, pp. 163-197.

[140]Houde, A. E., 1987, “Mate Choice Based Upon Naturally Occurring Color-Pattern

Variation in a Guppy Population,” Evolution, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 1-10.

[141]Walther, B. A., 2003, “Do Peacocks Devote Maintenance Time to Their Ornamental

Plumage? Time Budgets of Male Blue Peafoul Pavo cristatus,” Ludiana, Vol. 4,

No. 2, pp. 149-154.

[142]Schluter, D., T. D. Price and L. Rowe, 1991, “Conflicting Selection Pressures and

Life History Trade-Offs,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences, Vol. 246, No. 1315, pp. 11-17.

[143]Andersson, M., 1994, Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

[144]Helms, M., S. S. Vattam and A. K. Goel, 2009, “Biologically Inspired Design:

Process and Products,” Design Studies, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 606-622.

[145]Lynch, M., 2007, “The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of

Organismal Complexity,” PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, Vol. 104, No. 1, pp. 8597-8604.

[146]Charlesworth, B. and D. Charlesworth, 2009, "Evolution of the Genome,"

Evolution: The First Four Billion Years (M. Ruse and J. Travis, Eds.), The

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 152 - 176.

268

[147]Barton, N. and L. Partridge, 2000, “Limits to Natural Selection,” BioEssays, Vol.

22, pp. 1075-1084.

[148]Stoltzfus, A. and L. Y. Yampolsky, 2009, “Climbing Mount Probable: Mutation as a

Cause of Nonrandomness in Evolution,” Journal of Heredity, Vol. 100, No. 5, pp.

637-647.

[149]Hodgkinson, A. and A. Eyre-Walker, 2011, “Variation in the Mutation Rate Across

Mammalian Genomes,” Nature Reviews, Vol. 12, pp. 756-766.

[150]Barton, N. H., 2000, “Genetic Hitchhiking,” Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B, Vol. 355, pp. 1553-1562.

[151]Meiklejohn, C. D., K. L. Montooth and D. M. Rand, 2000, “Positive and Negative

Selection on the Mitochondrial Genome,” TRENDS in Genetics, Vol. 23, No. 6,

pp. 259-263.

[152]Knippers, J. and T. Speck, 2012, “Design and Construction Principles in Nature and

Architecture,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 015002.

[153]Reznick, D. N. and R. E. Recklefs, 2009, “Darwin's Bridge Between

Microevolution and Macroevolution,” Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

[154]Bar-Cohen, Y., 2012, "Introduction: Nature as a Source of Inspiring Innovation,"

Biomimetics:Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL, pp. 1-34.

[155]Hobaek, T. C., K. G. Leinan, H. P. Linaas and C. Thaulow, 2011, “Surface

Nanoengineering Inspired by Evolution,” BioNanoScience, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 63-

77.

[156]Langella, C., 2006, "Hybrid Design. Encoding Biological Principles in Sustainable

Design," Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and

Challenges, Wuppertal, Germany.

[157]Payne, J. L. and S. Finnegan, 2007, “The Effect of Geographic Range on the

Extinction Risk During Background and Mass Extinction,” PNAS: Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104, No. 25, pp. 10506-10511.

[158]Fusco, G. and A. Minelli, 2010, “Phenotypic Plasticity in Development and

Evolution: Facts and Concepts,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

B, Vol. 365, pp. 547-556.

269

[159]Agrawal, A. A.,2001, Phenotypic Plasticity in the Interaction and Evolution of

Species. Science. 294: 321-326.

[160]Boratynski, Z., E. Koskela, T. Mappes and T. A. Oksanen, 2010, “Sex-Specific

Selection on Energy Metabolism - Selection Coefficients for Winter Survival,”

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 23, pp. 1969-1978.

[161]Sengupta, B., M. Stemmler, S. B. Laughlin and J. E. Niven, 2010, “Action Potential

Energy Efficiency Varies Among Neuron Types in Vertebrates and

Invertebrates,” PLoS Computational Biology, No. 7, pp. e1000840.

[162]Niven, J. E. and S. B. Laughlin, 2008, “Energy Limitation as a Selective Pressure

on the Evolution of Sensory Systems,” The Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol.

211, pp. 1792-1804.

[163]Ruxton, G. D. and D. M. Wilkinson, 2011, “The Energetics of Low Browsing in

Sauropods,” Biology Letters, Vol. 7, pp. 779-781.

[164]Barber, J., 2009, “Photosynthetic Energy Conversion: Natural and Artificial,”

Chemical Society Reviews, Vol. 38, pp. 185-196.

[165]Gee, H., R. Howlett and P. Campbell, 2009, “15 Evolutionary Gems,” Nature, pp.

doi:10.1038/nature07740.

[166]Ayala, F. J., 2009, "Molecular Evolution," Evolution: The First Four Billion Years

(M. Ruse and J. Travis, Eds.), The Belknoap Press of Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA, pp. 132 -151.

[167]Green, M. S., 2006, Engaging Philosophy: A Brief Introduction, Hackett Publishing

Company, Indianapolis.

[168]Salmon, M. H., 2007, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Cengage

Learning, Belmont, CA.

[169]World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology,2010,

The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change. Paris, France, United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): 7-39.

[170]United Nations, 1998, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change.

270

[171]Haas, G., F. Wetterich and U. Kopke, 2001, “Comparing Intensive, Extensified and

Organic Grassland farming in Southern Germany by Process Life Cycle

Assessment,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 83, No. 1-2, pp. 43-

53.

[172]Aubin, J., E. Papatryphon, H. M. G. v. d. Werf and S. Chatzifotis, 2009,

“Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Carnivorous Finfish Production

Systems Using Life Cycle Assessment,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17,

No. 3, pp. 354-361.

[173]Rotz, C. A., F. Montes and D. S. Chianese, 2010, “The Carbon Footprint of Dairy

Production Systems Through Partial Life Cycle Assessment,” Journal of Dairy

Science, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 1266-1286.

[174]Peters, G. M., H. V. Rowley, S. Wiedemann, R. Tucker, M. D. Short and M. Schulz,

2010, “Red Meat Production in Australia: Life Cycle Assessment and

Comparison with Overseas Studies,” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol.

44, No. 4, pp. 1327-1332.

[175]Kim, S., B. E. Dale and R. Jenkins, 2009, “Life Cycle Assessment of Corn Grain

and Corn Stover in the United States,” International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 160-174.

[176]Pimentel, D. and T. W. Patzek, 2005, “Ethanol Production Using Corn,

Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower,”

Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 65-76.

[177]Lardon, L., A. Helias, B. Sialve, J.-P. Seyer and O. Bernard, 2009, “Life-Cycle

Assessment of Biodiesel Production from Microalgae,” Environmental Science &

Technology, Vol. 43, No. 17, pp. 6475-6481.

[178]Mooney, H. A. and R. J. Hobbs, 2000, "Introduction," Invasive Species in a

Changing World (H. A. Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, Eds.), Island Press,

Washington, DC.

[179]Lee, C. E., 2002, “Evolutionary Genetics of Invasive Species,” Trends in Ecology &

Evolution, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 386-391.

[180]Crooks, J. A., 2002, “Characterizing Ecosystem-Level Consequences of Biological

Invasions: The Role of Ecosystem Engineers,” Oikos, Vol. 97, pp. 153-166.

271

[181]Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga and D. Morrison, 2005, “Update on the Environmental and

Economic Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States,”

Ecological Economics, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 273-288.

[182]National Resource Management Ministerial Council - Vertebrate Pests Committee,

2010, National Feral Camel Action Plan: A National Strategy for the

Management of Feral Camels in Australia. Barton, Australian Capital Territory,

Commonwealth of Australia, http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/

invasive/publications/pubs/feral-camel-action-plan.pdf

[183]Clark, P.,2011, Australia Poised to Allow Camel Cull. The Financial Times.

London.

[184]Coleman, F. C. and S. L. Williams, 2002, “Overexploiting Marine Ecosystem

Engineers: Potential Consequences for Biodiversity,” Trends in Ecology &

Evolution, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 40-44.

[185]Jones, C. G., J. H. Lawton and M. Shachak, 1997, “Positive and Negative Effects of

Organisms as Physical Ecosystem Engineers,” Ecology, Vol. 78, No. 7, pp. 1946-

1957.

[186]Wilkinson, D. M., E. G. Nisbet and G. D. Ruxton, 2012, “Could Methane Produced

by Sauropod Dinosaurs Have Helped Drive Mesozoic Climate Warmth?,”

Current Biology, Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. R292-R293.

[187]Benyus, J., 2004, "Biomimicry: What Would Nature Do Here?," Nature's Operating

Instructions: The True Biotechnologies (K. Ausubel and J. P. Harpignies, Eds.),

Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

[188]Turney, T., 2009, "Future Materials and Performance," Technology, Design and

Process Innovation in the Built Environment (P. Newton, K. Hampson and R.

Drogemuller, Eds.), Taylor & Francis, New York, pp. 31-53.

[189]Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, "Biomimetics: Reality, Challenges, and Outlook,"



[190]Bar-Cohen, Y., 2012, "Biomimetics - Reality, Challenges, and Outlook,"


Raton, FL, pp. 693-714.

[191]Golley, F. B., 1960, “Energy Dynamics of a Food Chain of an Old-Field

Community,” Ecological Monographs, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 187-206.

272

[192]Yakimov, M. M., K. N. Timmis and P. N. Golyshin, 2007, “Obligate Oil-Degrading

Marine Bacteria,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 18, pp. 257-266.

[193]Pavlik, B. M. and E. Manning, 1993, “Assessing Limitations on the Growth of

Endangered Plant Populations, II. Seed Production and Seed Bank Dynamics of

Erysimum capitatum ssp. Angustatum and Oenothera deltoides ssp. Howellii,”

Biological Conservation, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 267-278.

[194]Wolpert, H. D., 2012, "Biological Optics," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation

(Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 267-305.

[195]Kalaitzis, J. A., R. Chau, G. S. Kohli, S. A. Murray and B. A. Neilman, 2012,

“Biosynthesis of Toxic Naturally-Occuring Seafood Contaminants,” Toxicon,

Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 244-258.

[196]Ferrao-Filho, A. S., S. M. F. O. Azevedo and W. R. DeMott, 2000, “Effects of

Toxic and Non-Toxic Cyanobacteria on the Life History of Tropical and

Temperate Cladocerans,” Freshwater Biology, Vol. 45, pp. 1-19.

[197]Mendoza, E. and R. Dirzo, 2009, “Seed Tolerance to Predation: Evidence from the

Toxic Seeds of the Buckeye Tree (Aesculus californica; Sapindaceae),” American

Journal of Botany, Vol. 96, No. 7, pp. 1255-1261.

[198]Akhtar, Y., M. B. Isman, L. A. Niehaus, C.-H. Lee and H.-S. Lee, 2012,

“Antifeedant and Toxic Effects of Naturally Occuring and Synthetic Quinones to

the Cabbage Looper, Trichoplusia ni,” Crop Protection, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 8-14.

[199]Gibbs, H. L. and S. P. Mackessy, 2009, “Functional Basis of a Molecular

Adaptation: Prey-Specific Toxic Effects of Venom from Sistrurus Rattlesnakes,”

Toxicon, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 672-679.

[200]Price, D. R. G., H. A. Bell, G. Hinchliffe, E. Fitches, R. Weaver and J. A.

Gatehouse, 2009, “A Venom Metalloproteinase from the Parasitic Wasp Eulophus

pennicornis is toxic towards its host, tomato moth (Lacanobia oleracae),” Insect

Molecular Biology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 195-202.

[201]Wainwright, S. A., 1995, "What We Can Learn from Soft Biomaterials and

Structures," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I.

A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 1-12.

273

[202]Strange, D. G. T. and M. L. Oyen, 2012, "Biomimetic Composites," Biomimetics:

Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp.

169-212.

[203]Biello, D.,2008, Cement from CO2: A Concrete Cure for Global Warming?

Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cement-

from-carbon-dioxide.

[204]Feng, S. and R. Xu, 2001, “New Materials in Hydrothermal Synthesis,” Accounts of

Chemical Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 239-247.

[205]Kato, C. and Y. Nogi, 2001, “Correlation Between Phylogenetic Structure and

Function: Examples from Deep-Sea Shewanella,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology,

Vol. 35, pp. 223-230.

[206]Abe, F. and K. Horikoshi, 2001, “The Biotechnological Potential of Piezophiles,”

TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 102-108.

[207]Yayanos, A. A., R. V. Boxtel and A. S. Dietz, 1983, “Reproduction of Bacillus

stearothermophilus as a Function of Temperature and Pressure,” Applied and

Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 1357-1363.

[208]Wainwright, S. A., W. D. Biggs, J. D. Currey and J. M. Gosline, 1976, Mechanical

Design in Organisms, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

[209]Paturi, F. R., 1976, "Chapter 16: Where Do We Go from Here?," Nature: Mother of

Invention: The Engineering of Plant Life, Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp.

199-203.

[210]Crutzen, P. J., I. Aselmann and W. Seiler, 1986, “Methane Production by Domestic

Animals, Wild Ruminants, Other Herbivorous Fauna, and Humans,” Tellus, Vol.

38B, pp. 271-284.

[211]Parveen, S., K. M. Portier, K. Robinson, L. Edmiston and M. L. Tamplin, 1999,

“Discriminant Analysis of Ribotype Profiles of Escherichia coli for

Differentiating Human and Nonhuman Sources of Fecal Pollution,” Applied and

Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 65, No. 7, pp. 3142-3147.

[212]Geldreich, E. E. and B. A. Kenner, 1969, “Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in Stream

Pollution,” Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. R336-R352.

[213]Liu, C., 2007, “Micromachined Biomimetic Artificial Haircell Sensors,”


274

[214]Fotheringham, N., 1976, “Population Consequences of Shell Utilization by Hermit

Crabs,” Ecology, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 570-578.

[215]Department of Energy, 2013, How Fossil Fuels Were Formed. Washington, D.C.

2013,

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html.

[216]Bond, W. J. and J. E. Keeley, 2005, “Fire as a Global 'Herbivore': The Ecology and

Evolution of Flammable Ecosystems,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 20,

No. 7, pp. 387-394.

[217]Ennos, A. R., 2005, "Compliance in Plants," Compliant Stuctures in Nature and

Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA, pp. 21-37.

[218]Hughes, T. P., A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R.

Grosberg, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P.

Marshall, M. Nystrom, S. R. Palumbi, J. M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen and J.

Roughgarden, 2003, “Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of

Coral Reefs,” Science, Vol. 301, pp. 929-933.

[219]Dennis, R. G. and H. Herr, 2006, "Engineered Muscle Actuators: Cells and

Tissues," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.),


[220]Otero, T., 2008, “Reactive Conducting Polymers as Actuating Sensors and Tactile

Muscle,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 035004.

[221]Tester, J. W., E. M. Drake, M. J. Driscoll, M. W. Golay and W. A. Peters, 2005,

Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[222]French, M., 1994, Invention and Evolution: Design in Nature and Engineering,

Cambridge University Press, New York.

[223]Smil, V., 1999, Energies: An Illustrated Guide to the Biosphere and Civilization,

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[224]Weber, P. W., M. M. Murray, L. E. Howle and F. E. Fish, 2009, “Comparison of

Real and Idealized Cetacean Flippers,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 4,

No. 4, pp. 046001.

275

[225]Vargas, A., R. Mittal and H. Dong, 2008, “A Computational Study of the

Aerodynamic Performance of a Dragonfly Wing Section Gliding in Flight,” 2008,

Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 026004.

[226]Bhushan, B., 2012, Biomimetics: Bioinspired Hierarchial-Structured Surfaces for

Green Science and Technology, Springer, New York.

[227]Vincent, J., 2009, “Biomimetics - A Review,” Proceedings of the Institution of

Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering and Medicine, Vol. 223,

No. 8, pp. 919-939.

[228]Anastas, P. T. and J. C. Warner, 1998, "Future Trends in Green Chemistry," Green

Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 115-119.

[229]Stachelberger, H., P. Gruber and I. C. Gebeshuber, 2011, "Biomimetics: Its

Technological and Societal Potential," Biomimetics - Materials, Structures and

Processes (P. Gruber, D. Bruckner, C. Hellmichet al, Eds.), Springer, New York.

[230]Gruber, P., 2011, "Biomimetics in Architecture [Architekturbionik]," Biomimetics -

Materials, Structures and Processes (P. Gruber, D. Bruckner, C. Hellmichet al,

Eds.), Springer, New York, NY, pp. 127-148.

[231]Vogel, S., 2009, “Nosehouse: Heat-Conserving Ventilators Based on Nasal

Counterflow Exchangers,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.

046004.

[232]Velcro,2011, Who is Velcro USA Inc.? 2012,

http://www.velcro.com/index.php?page=company.

[233]Vattam, S., B. Wiltgen, M. Helms, A. K. Goel and J. Yen, 2011, "DANE: Fostering

Creativity in and through Biologically Inspired Design," Design Creativity 2010

(T. Taura and Y. Nagai, Eds.), Springer-Verlag London Limited, pp. 115-122.

[234]Nagel, J. K. S., R. B. Stone and D. A. McAdams, 2010, "An Engineering-to-

Biology Thesaurus for Engineering Design," ASME IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal,


[235]Turner, C. H., 2006, “Bone Strength: Current Concepts,” Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1068, No. 1, pp. 429-446.

[236]Weinkamer, R. and P. Fratzl, 2011, “Mechanical Adaptation of Biological Materials

- The Examples of Bone and Wood,” Materials Science and Engineering C, Vol.

31, pp. 1164-1173.

276

[237]Muller, R. and R. Kuc, 2007, “Biosonar-Inspired Technology: Goals, Challenges

and Insights,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. S146-S161.

[238]Sullivan, T. and F. Regan, 2011, “The Characterization, Replication and Testing of

Dermal Denticles of Scyliorhinus canicula for Physical Mechanisms of

Biofouling Prevention,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 1-11.

[239]Masselter, T., G. Bauer, F. Gallenmuller, T. Haushahn, S. Poppinga, C. Schmitt, R.

Seidel, O. Speck, M. Thielen, T. Speck, W. Barthlott, P. Ditsche-Kuru, H.

Immink, J. Bertling, N. Molders, A. Nellesen, M. Rechberger, F. Cichy, M. Gude,

M. Hermann, K. Lunz, J. Knippers, J. Lienhard, S. Schleicher, R. Luchsinger, C.

Mattheck, I. Tesari, M. Milwich, T. Stegmaier, C. Neinhuis and H. Schwager,

2012, "Biomimetic Products," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-


[240]Lipson, H., 2006, "Evolutionary Robotics and Open-Ended Design Automation,"



[241]Nelson, R. A., J. G. Edgar Folk, E. W. Pfeiffer, J. J. Craighead, C. J. Jonkel and D.

L. Steiger, 1983, "Behavior, Biochemistry, and Hibernation in Black, Grizzly, and

Polar Bears," Fifth International Conference on Bear Research and Management,

Madison, Wisconsin.

[242]Lowe, S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas and M. D. Poorter,2000, 100 of the World's

Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species

Database. Auckland, New Zealand, The Invasive Species Specialist Group

(ISSG). 2013, http://calendar.k-state.edu/withlab/consbiol/IUCN_invaders.pdf.

[243]Reap, J., F. Roman, S. Duncan and B. Bras, 2008, “A Survey of Unresolved

Problems in Life Cycle Assessment: Part 2: Impact Assessment and

Interpretation,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13, pp. 374-

388.

[244]Telenko, C., 2012, "Probabilistic Graphical Modeling as a Use Stage Inventory

Method for Environmentally Concious Design," Mechanical Engineering, Texas,

Austin.

[245]Vattam, S. S. and A. K. Goel, 2011, "Foraging for Inspiration: Understanding and

Supporting the Online Information Seeking Practices of Biologically Inspired

Designers," ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences

277

& Computeres and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC,

DETC2011-48238.

[246]Yen, J. and M. Weissburg, 2007, “Editorial: Perspectives on Biologically Inspired

Design: Introduction to the Collected Contributions,” Bioinspiration and

Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4.

[247]Shu, L. H., 2010, “A Natural-Language Approach to Biomimetic Design,” Artificial

Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No.

4, pp. 507-519.

[248]Beck, B. B., 1980, Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by

Animals, Garland Publishing, Inc. , New York.

[249]Hunter, J. P., 1998, “Key Innovations and the Ecology of Macroevolution,” Trends

in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 31-36.

[250]Zikmund, W. G., 2003, Business Research Methods, Thomson Southwestern,

Mason, Ohio.

[251]Ask Nature, 2013, Browse Biomimicry, The Biomimicry 3.8 Institute. 2013,

http://www.asknature.org/browse.

[252]2011, Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 014001-019501,

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-3190/6/1.

[253]2010, “Special Issue on Bioinspired Flight,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol.

5, No. 4, pp. 040401-049901.

[254]Bird, W.,2008, Natural by Design. The Japan Times Online,

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080824x1.html.

[255]Bionics, Wikipedia. 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionics.

[256]Pailhas, Y., C. Capus, K. Brown and P. Moore, 2010, “Analysis and Classification

of Broadband Echoes Using Bio-Inspired Dolphin Pulses,” Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 127, No. 6, pp. 3809-3820.

[257]Youngblood, J. P. and N. R. Sottos, 2008, “Bioinspired Materials for Self-Cleaning

and Self-Healing,” MRS Bulletin, Vol. 33, pp. 732-738.

278

[258]Development of Oil Resistant Material That Prevents Fingerprint Smutching, Say

People. 2013, http://saypeople.com/2011/12/05/development-of-oil-resistant-

material-that-prevents-fingerprint-smutching/#axzz2ReHWxT3H.

[259]HitchScan Wireless Trailer System - Wireless Sensor, RVFun Products. 2013,

http://www.rvfunproducts.com/hitchscan-wireless-trailer-system-wireless-sensor-

p-2291.html.

[260]Joanne,Top 10 Cutest Animals Threatened by BP Oil Spill, Ranker. 2013,

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-cutest-animals-threatened-by-bp-oil-

spill/joanne.

[261]Palter, S. F.,2006, Geckos Grabbing Gizmos in the Or, docinthemachine.com. 2013,

http://docinthemachine.com/geckosintheor/.

[262]Karp, J.,2008, Sticky Tape to Heal Surgical Incisions, MIT Technology Review,

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409625/sticky-tape-to-heal-surgical-

incisions/.

[263]Ushnaroy,2010, The Exciting Glass Bottom Boat Ride on Blue Bay Marine Park,

Mauritius. 2013, http://www.travelihub.com/the-exciting-glass-bottom-boat-ride-

on-blue-bay-marine-park-mauritius/.

[264]Sharklet Technologies Inc., 2010, Technology: Inspired by Nature. 2012,

http://www.sharklet.com/technology/.

[265]Brennan, A. B., R. H. Baney, M. L. Carman, T. G. Estes, A. W. Feinberg, L. H.

Wilson and J. F. Schumacher,2010, Surface Topographies for Non-Toxic

Bioadhesion Control. United States. US 7,650,848 B2.

[266]Brennan, A. B., C. J. Long, J. W. Bagan, J. F. Schumacher and M. M.

Spiecker,2010, Surface Topographies for Non-Toxic Bioadhesion Control. United

States. US 2010/0226943 A1.

[267]Chung, K. K., J. F. Schumacher, E. M. Sampson, R. A. Burne, P. J. Antonelli and

A. B. Brennan, 2007, “Impact of Engineered Surface Microtopography on

Biofilm Formation of Staphylococcus Aureus,” Biointerphases, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.

89-94.

[268]IEA,2010, Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries 2010. Paris, France,

International Energy Agency: II.303-II.304.

279

[269]2010, Test Your Knowledge of Biomimicry, CNN Tech. 2011,

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/06/21/biomimicry.design.quiz/index

.html.

[270]Allen, R., 2010, "Introduction," Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Nature's

Secrets to Design Cutting-Edge Technology (R. Allen, Ed.), The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 6-21.

[271]Wikipedia,2010, Bionics. 2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionics.

[272]Kohli, N.,2007, Biofouling and Design of a Biomimetic Hull-Grooming Tool. West

Bethesda, Maryland, Naval Surface Warefare Center: Carderock Division: 1-38.

[273]Vattam, S., M. Helms and A. K. Goel,2007, Biologically-Inspired Innovation in

Engineering Design: A Cognitive Study, Graphics, Visualization and Usability

Center, Georgia Institute of Technology.

[274]Zari, M. P., 2010, “Biomimetic Design for Climate Change Adaptation and

Mitigation,” Architectural Science Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 172-183.

[275]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Biolytix Water Filter, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/f9d2ab73e15de8d6e44bc15cac4549a3.

[276]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, CAO and SKO Design Software, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/99d6740a0a07a9d003480f1c414ee177.

[277]Venton, D.,2011, Mother Nature as Engineer: 9 Design Tricks Borrowed from

Biology. Wired Science, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/

biomimicry-gallery/?pid=1785.

[278]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, i2 Modular Carpet, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/a84a9167f21f1cc690e0e673c4808833.

[279]FLOR, I.,2012, About Our Products. 2012,

http://www.interfaceflor.com/Default.aspx?Section=2&Sub=3.

[280]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Sharklet AF, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/3c21a56f0ba2ae549894a2bf79372bda.

[281]Sharklet Technologies, Inc., 2010, Home. 2011, http://www.sharklet.com/.

[282]Biomimicry Institute,2010, Shinkansen Train, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/6273d963ef015b98f641fc2b67992a5e.

280

[283]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, Sir Marc Isambard Brunel’s Tunnel Borer, Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/689fd8eaadf3fb570097fa5c4ffb7049.

[284]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, Baleen Filters Water Filters, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/0fdee3b68d08f075009711803dc93c16.

[285]Calera,Our Story. 2012, http://calera.com/index.php/about_us/our_story/.

[286]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Calera MAP Cement-Making Process, Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/9242c6b587aba1877c788cd8409d60ac.

[287]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, HotZone Radiant Heater, Using IRLens, Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/0571c3e5e3376604c4c51840dbc3281d.

[288]Airbus,2012, Biomimicry, Imitating Nature's Best Ideas. 2012,

http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco-efficiency/design/biomimicry/?contentId=

[_TABLE%3Att_content%3B_FIELD%3Auid]%2C&cHash=22935adfac92fcbbd

4ba4e1441d13383.

[289]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Mirasol Display Technology, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/af429a05af212ee9fc74977247408bf5.

[290]Vella, M.,Design Tips from Mother Nature. Bloomberg Businessweek. 2012,

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/02/0209_green_biomimic/source/1.htm.

[291]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Crystal Palace in London, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/a13b2a14313fcc7123e827269a1d8a73.

[292]Cameron, D. O.,2005, Biolytic Filtration. USPTO. United States, Dowmus Pty. Ltd.

US 6,890,439 B2.

[293]Cameron, D. O.,1997, Method for Treating Wastewater and Solid Organic Waste.

USPTO. United States, Dowmus Pty Ltd. 5,633,163.

[294]Vincent, J., 2010, "Chapter 6: New Materials and Natural Design," Bulletproof

Feathers: How Science Uses Nature's Secrets to Design Cutting-Edge Technology

(R. Allen, Ed.), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 132-171.

[295]Cameron, D. O.,1999, Effluent Treatment System. USPTO. United States, Downus

Pty. Ltd. 5,919,366.

281

[296]Cameron, D. O.,1999, Self-Cleansing Filter. USPTO. United States, Dowmus Pty

Ltd. 5,976,374.

[297]Biolytix Water, 2011, Why Biolytix? 2011, http://www.biolytix.co.nz/commercial/

why_biolytix_25_key_benefits/.

[298]Yen, J., 2010, "Chapter 1: Marine Dynamics," Bulletproof Feathers: How Science

Uses Nature's Secrets to Design Cutting-Edge Technology (R. Allen, Ed.), The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 22-43.

[299]Okada, M., Y. Nakamura and S. Ban, 2001, "Design of Programmable Passive

Compliance Shoulder Mechanism," Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International

Conference on Robotics & Automation, Seoul, Korea.

[300]Wright, I. C., R. R. Neptune, A. J. v. d. Bogert and B. M. Nigg, 1998, “Passive

Regulation of Impact Forces in Heel-Toe Running,” Clinical Biomechanics, Vol.

13, pp. 521-531.

[301]Honig, C. R., C. L. Odoroff and J. L. Frierson, 1982, “Active and Passive Capillary

Control in Red Muscle at Rest and in Excercise,” American Journal of Physiology

- Heart and Circulatory Physiology, Vol. 243, pp. H196-H206.

[302]Dietschy, J. M., 1968, “Mechanisms for the Intestinal Absorption of Bile Acids,”

Journal of Lipid Research, Vol. 9, pp. 297-309.

[303]Dechev, N., W. L. Cleghorn and S. Naumann, 2001, “Multiple Finger, Passive

Adaptive Grasp Prosthetic Hand,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 36, pp.

1157-1173.

[304]Sirovich, L. and S. Karlsson, 1997, “Turbulent Drag Reduction by Passive

Mechanisms,” Nature, Vol. 388.

[305]Lin, C.-C., J.-M. Ueng and T.-C. Huang, 1999, “Seismic Response Reduction of

Irregular Buildings Using Passive Tuned Mass Dampers,” Engineering

Structures, Vol. 22, pp. 513-524.

[306]Jolly, M. R., D. J. Rossetti, M. A. Norris and L. R. Miller,1998, Hybrid Active-

Passive Noise and Vibration Control System for Aircraft. USPTO. United States,

Lord Corporation. 5,845,236.

[307]Peippo, K., P. Kauranen and P. D. Lund, 1991, “A Multicomponent PCM Wall

Optimized for Passive Solar Heating,” Energy and Buildings, Vol. 17, pp. 259-

270.

282

[308]Letan, R., V. Dubovsky and G. Ziskind, 2003, “Passive Ventilation and Heating by

Natural Convection in a Multi-Storey Building,” Building and Environment, Vol.

38, pp. 197-208.

[309]Canbazoglu, S., A. Sahinaslan, A. Ekmekyapar, Y. G. Aksoy and F. Akarsu, 2005,

“Enhancement of Solar Thermal Energy Storage Performance Using Sodium

Thiosulfate Pentahydrate of a Conventional Solar Water-Heating System,”

Energy and Buildings, Vol. 37, pp. 235-242.

[310]Grise, W. and C. Patrick, 2002, “Passive Solar Lighting Using Fiber Optics,”

Journal of Industrial Technology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 2-7.

[311]Collins, S., A. Ruina, R. Tedrake and M. Wisse, 2005, “Efficient Bipedal Robots

Based on Passive-Dynamic Walkers,” Science, Vol. 307, No. 5712, pp. 1082-

1085.

[312]Kljuno, E., J. J. Zhu, R. L. W. II and S. M. Reilly, 2011, "A Biomimetic Elastic

Cable Driven Quadruped Robot - The Robocat," International Mechanical

Engineering Congress & Exposition, Denver, Colorado, IMECE2011-63534.

[313]Lentink, D. and A. A. Biewener, 2010, “Nature-Inspired Flight - Beyond the Leap,”

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 1-9.

[314]Dem Bones Dem Bones, Simply Healthy. 2012,

http://simplyhealthy4u.blogspot.com/.

[315]Dickinson, M. H. and M. S. Tu, 1997, “The Function of Dipteran Flight Muscle,”

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Vol. 116A, No. 3, pp. 223-238.

[316]Whittington, B., A. Silder, B. Heiderscheit and D. G. Thelen, 2008, “The

Contribution of Passive-Elastic Mechanisms to Lower Extremity Joing Kinetics

During Human Walking,” Gait & Posture, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 628-634.

[317]Gottig, N., E. V. Elias, R. Quiroga, M. J. Nores, A. J. Solari, M. C. Touz and H. D.

Lujan, 2006, “Active and Passive Mechanisms Drive Secretory Granule

Biogenesis During Differentiation of the Intestinal Parasite Giardia lamblia,”

Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 281, No. 26, pp. 18156-18166.

[318]Doherty, T. M., K. Asotra, L. A. Fitzpatrick, J.-H. Qiao, D. J. Wilkin, R. C.

Detrano, C. R. Dunstan, P. K. Shah and T. B. Rajavashisth, 2003, “Calcification

in Atherosclerosis: Bone Biology and Chronic Inflammation at the Arterial

283

Crossroads,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, Vol. 100, No. 20, pp. 11201-11206.

[319]Saunders, F., B. A. Trimmer and J. Rife, 2011, “Modeling Locomotion of a Soft-

Bodied Arthropod Using Inverse Dynamics,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics,

Vol. 6, pp. 016001.

[320]Pamecha, A., C.-J. Chiang, D. Stein and G. Chirikjian, 1996, "Design and

Implementation of Metamorphic Robots," The 1996 ASME Design Engineering

Technical Conference and Computers in Engineering Conference, Irvine,

California, 96-DETC/MECH-1149.

[321]Seepersad, C. C., B. M. Dempsey, J. K. Allen, F. Mistree and D. L. McDowell,

2004, “Design of Multifunctional Honeycomb Materials,” American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 1025-1033.

[322]Ulrich, K. T. and S. D. Eppinger, 2004, Product Design and Development, 3rd

Edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.

[323]Cutherell, D., 1996, "Chapter 16: Product Architecture," The PDMA Handbook of

New Product Development (J. Milton D. Rosenau, A. Griffin, G. A. Castellion

and N. F.Anschuetz, Eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 217-235.

[324]Stone, R. B., K. L. Wood and R. H. Crawford, 2000, “A Heuristic Method for

Identifying Modules for Product Architectures,” Design Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1,

pp. 5-31.

[325]Otto, K. and K. Wood, 2001, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering

and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle Ridge, New Jersey.

[326]Sosa, M. E., S. D. Eppinger and C. M. Rowles, 2003, “Identifying Modular and

Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions,” Journal of

Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, pp. 240-252.

[327]Newcomb, P. J., B. Bras and D. W. Rosen, 1996, "Implications of Modularity on

Product Design for the Life Cycle," The 1996 ASME Design Engineering

Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering Conference, Irvine,

California, 96-DETC/DTM-1516.

[328]Liu, K. and L. Jiang, 2011, “Bio-Inspired Design of Multiscale Structures for

Function Integration,” Nano Today, Vol. 6, pp. 155-175.

284

[329]Stahlberg, R. and M. Taya, 2006, "Nastic Structures: The Enacting and Mimicking

of Plant Movements," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-


[330]Pandremenos, J., E. Vasiliadis and G. Chryssolouris, 2012, “Design Architectures in

Biology,” Procedia CIRP, Vol. 3, pp. 448-452.

[331]Jose, A. and M. Tollenaere, 2005, “Modular and Platform Methods for Product

Family Design: Literature Analysis,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol.

16, pp. 371-390.

[332]Tseng, H.-E., C.-C. Chang and J.-D. Li, 2008, “Modular Design to Support Green

Life-Cycle Engineering,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34, pp. 2524-

2537.

[333]Umeda, Y., S. Fukushige, K. Tonoike and S. Kondoh, 2008, “Product Modularity

for Life Cycle Design,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 57, pp.

13-16.

[334]Gu, P., M. Hashemian and S. Sosale, 1997, “An Integrated Modular Design

Methodology for Life-Cycle Engineering,” Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 46, No. 1,

pp. 71-74.

[335]Gu, P. and S. Sosale, 1999, “Product Modularization for Life Cycle Engineering,”

Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 15, pp. 387-401.

[336]Lucotti, A. and G. Zerbi, 2007, “Fiber-Optic SERS Sensor with Optimized

Geometry,” Sensors and Actuators B, Vol. 121, pp. 356-364.

[337]Anthony, D. K., S. J. Elliott and A. J. Keane, 2000, “Robustness of Optimal Design

Solutions to Reduce Vibration Transmission in a Lightweight 2-D Structure, Part

I: Geometric Design,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 229, No. 3, pp. 505-

528.

[338]Commenge, J. M., L. Falk, J. P. Corriou and M. Matlosz, 2002, “Optimal Design

Flow Uniformity in Microchannel Reactors,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.

345-358.

[339]Benini, E., 2004, “Three-Dimensional Multi-Objective Design Optimization of a

Transonic Compressor Rotor,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 20, No. 3,

pp. 559-565.

285

[340]Kohlmann, K. T., M. Thiemann and W. H. Brunger, 1991, “E-Beam Induced X-Ray

Mask Repair with Optimized Gas Nozzle Geometry,” Microelectronic

Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 279-282.

[341]Lin, C.-Y., R. M. Schek, A. S. Mistry, X. Shi, A. G. Mikos, P. H. Krebsbach and S.

J. Hollister, 2005, “Functional Bone Engineering Using ex Vivo Gene Therapy

and Topology-Optimized, Biodegradable Polymer Composite Scaffolds,” Tissue


[342]Timmins, L. H., M. R. Moreno, C. A. Meyer, J. C. Criscione, A. Rachev and J. E.

M. Jr., 2007, “Stented Artery Biomechanics and Device Design Optimization,”

Medical & Biological Engineering and Computing, Vol. 45, pp. 505-513.

[343]Huh, D., Y.-s. Torisawa, G. A. Hamilton, H. J. Kim and D. E. Ingber, 2012,

“Microengineered Physiological Biomimicry: Organs-on-Chips,” Lab on a Chip,

Vol. 12, pp. 2156-2164.

[344]Martin-Palma, R. J. and A. Lakhtakia, 2012, “Engineered Biomimicry for

Harvesting Solar Energy: A Bird's Eye View,” International Journal of Smart and

Nano Materials, pp. 1-8.

[345]Winter, A. G., A. H. Slocum, A. E. Hosoi and R. L. H. Deits, 2009, "The Design

and Testing of Roboclam: A Machine Used to Investigate and Optimize Razor

Clam-Inspired Burrowing Mechanisms for Engineering Applications,"

IDETC/CIE 2009, San Diego, California, DETC2009-86808.

[346]Arzt, E., 2006, “Biological and Artificial Attachment Devices: Lessons for

Materials Scientists from Flies and Geckos,” Materials Science and Engineering

C, Vol. 26, pp. 1245-1250.

[347]Reichman, O. J., T. G. Whitham and G. A. Ruffner, 1982, “Adaptive Geometry of

Burrow Spacing in Two Pocket Gopher Populations,” Ecology, Vol. 63, No. 3,

pp. 687-695.

[348]Andersen, D. C., 1982, “Belowground Herbivory: The Adaptive Geometry of

Geomyid Burrows,” The American Naturalist, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 18-28.

[349]Biolytix. 2012, http://www.environmentalplumbingsolutions.com.au/biolytix.htm.

[350]Naya, D. E., C. Veloso, J. L. P. Munoz and F. Bozinovic, 2007, “Some Vaguely

Explored (But Not Trivial) Costs of Tail Autotomy in Lizards,” Comparative

Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, Vol. 146, No. 2, pp. 189-193.

286

[351]Gregorich, E. G., L. W. Turchenek, M. R. Carter and D. A. Angers, Eds., 2001, Soil

and Environmental Science Dictionary, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

[352]Phillips, M., 2002, "Wetlands," Biology (R. Robinson, Ed.), New York, Vol. 4, pp.

197-198.

[353]The American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2005, Riparian. The Free Dictionary,

Farlex, Inc. 2012, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/riparian.

[354]Green, K.,2009, Maintaining Composure While Decomposing. Gardening for

Nature. 2012, http://gardeningfornature.blogspot.com/2009/11/maintaining-

composure-while-decomposing.html.

[355]Jo-Ann,2011, The Lay of the Land. 2012, http://bilberryhill.wordpress.com/.

[356]Taylor, M., W. P. Clarke and P. F. Greenfield, 2003, “The Treatment of Domestic

Wastewater Using Small-Scale Vermicompost Filter Beds,” Ecological


[357]Biolytix,How it Works: In Pictures. 2012, http://www.biolytix.com/in-pictures/.

[358]Biolytix,Biolytix... Award Winning Wastewater Treatment Systems. 2012,

http://www.biolytix.com/.

[359]Biolytix,How It Works: Biolytix Copies Nature. 2012,

http://www.biolytix.com/copies-nature/.

[360]Biolytix Southren Africa, 2008, How Biolytix Works. 2012,

http://www.biolytix.co.za/?page_id=4.

[361]Turner, S., 2009, “ASIT - A Problem Solving Strategy for Education and Eco-

Friendly Sustainable Design,” International Journal of Technology and Design

Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 221-235.

[362]Swilling, M. and E. Annecke, 2006, “Building Sustainable Neighbourhoods in

South Africa: Learning from the Lynedoch Case,” Environment and

Urbanization, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 315-332.

[363]Qasim, S. R., 2006, "Small Flow Wastewater Treatment Technology for Domestic

and Special Applications," Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and

Engineering (J. R. Pfafflin and E. N. Ziegler, Eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,

Vol. 2, pp. 1082 - 1093.

287

[364]The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2007, Septic Tank. The Free Dictionary,

Farlex, Inc. 2012, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Septic+Tank.

[365]Pro-Pump,Understanding Septic Systems. 2013, http://www.propump.com/

septic.asp.

[366]Wikipedia,2010, Scheme of Septic Tank. 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

File:Septic_tank_EN.svg.

[367]Sheldon Farm Septic Tank Service, I.,2012, How Septic Systems Work. Ashby, MA.

2012, http://www.pottyon.com/How_Septic_Systems_Work.html.

[368]Daimler,2005, The Mercedes-Benz Bionic Car: Streamlined and Light, Like a Fish

in Water - Economical and Environmentally Friendly Thanks to the Latest Diesel

Technology. Press Kit: The Mecedes-Benz Bionic Car as a Concept Vehicle.

Washington. 2011, http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-885913-1-815003-1-

0-0-815031-0-1-11702-854934-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html?TS=1320351831755.

[369]BMW, BMW 3 Series Sedan: All the Facts. 2011,

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2008/allfacts/engine/tec

hnical_data.html.

[370]NewCarBuyingGuide.Com. 2011, http://newcarbuyingguide.com/images/articles/

reviews/bmw/BMW3Series01.jpg.

[371]Office of the Surgeon General, 2004, "The Basics of Bone in Health and Disease,"

Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services.

[372]Personal Communication. Mattheck, C., Feb 16, 2012, Bionic Car. J. O'Rourke.

[373] 2011, http://newark1.com/uploaded_images/boxfish-design1-720183.jpg.

[374]2005, At a Glance: More Special Technical and Stylistic Features of the Concept

Car. Washington, Daimler. 2012, http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-

885913-1-815020-1-0-0-0-0-1-11702-854934-0-1-0-0-0-0-

0.html?TS=1329513791918.

[375]Mattheck, C., K. Bethge, A. Sauer, J. Sorensen, C. Wissner and O. Kraft, 2009,

“About Cracks, Dunce Caps and a New Way to Stop Cracks,” Fatigue &

Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, Vol. 32, pp. 484-492.

[376]CarWireFire,Car Audio. 2012, http://carwirefire.com/noise_solutions.html.

288

[377]Building Sizes that Require an Industrial Air Conditioner, Must Know How. 2011,

http://www.mustknowhow.com/index.php/air-conditioning/building-sizes-that-

require-an-industrial-air-conditioner.

[378]2010, Economists: Every $1 of Electricity from Coal Does $2 in Damage to U.S.,

inagist. 2011, http://inagist.com/greenforall/119485680350011393/Economists

%3A_Every_$1_of_electricity_from_coal_does_$2_in_damage_to_U.S.

[379]2010, Philly Bagged Leaf Drive Kicks Off Nov 8th, GreenPhillyBlog.com. 2012,

http://www.greenphillyblog.com/tag/2010/.

[380]Daniel, S. D. and D. D. Oakey,2009, Random Installation Carpet Tiles. USPTO.

United States, Interface, Inc. 7,601,413 B2.

[381]2011, Get the Complete Picture at Greenbuild, Jetson Green. 2011,

http://www.jetsongreen.com/2011/10/get-the-complete-picture-epd-

greenbuild.html.

[382]Nelson, E., 2009, “How Interface Innovates with Suppliers to Create Sustainablity

Solutions,” Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.

22-30.

[383]FLOR, I.,2012, i2TM

Modular Carpet - How Nature Would Design a Floor. 2012,

http://www.interfaceflor.com/Default.aspx?Section=3&Sub=11.

[384]Robbins, J.,2002, Second Nature. Smithsonian, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/

science-nature/Second_Nature.html.

[385]2012, Jacksonville Jaguars Tile, Jacksonville Jaguars: Jerseys & Memorabilia

Shopping. 2012, http://www.jaguarsfootballdeals.com/fan/jacksonville-jaguars-

tile.

[386]Poole, B.,2007, Biomimetics: Borrowing from Biology. Science Articles: The Naked

Scientists: Science Radio & Science Podcasts, http://www.thenaked

scientists.com/HTML/articles/article/biomimeticsborrowingfrombiology/.

[387]Nakajima, A., A. Fujishima, K. Hashimoto and T. Watanabe, 1999, “Preparation of

Transparent Superhydrophobic Boehmite and Silica Films by Sublimation of

Aluminum Acetylacetonate,” Advanced Materials, Vol. 11, No. 16, pp. 1365-

1368.

289

[388]Ultrawave,2012, Ultrasonic Technology - How Ultrasonic Cleaning Works. 2012,

http://www.ultrawave.co.uk/pages/Ultrasonic-Technology-54.php.

[389]Direct Industry, Karcher: Parts Solvent Cleaning Machine (Spray). 2012,

http://www.directindustry.com/prod/karcher/part-cleaning-machines-spray-5768-

212991.html#.

[390]Dean, B. and B. Bhushan, 2010, “Shark-Skin Surfaces for Fluid-Drag Reduction in

Turbulent Flow: A Review,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,

Vol. 368, pp. 4775-4806.

[391]2010, Shark Skin Boat Hulls Are on the Horizon, Maritime Journal. 2012,

http://www.maritimejournal.com/features101/vessel-build-and-

maintenance/vessel-repair-and-maintenance/shark-skin-boat-hulls-are-on-the-

horizon.

[392]A Walk in the Woods, The Huffington Post. 2012, http://i.huffpost.com/

gadgets/slideshows/203250/slide_203250_587234_small.jpg.

[393]2010, Sharklet Technologies, Inc. 2011, http://www.sharklet.com/sharklet-

products/push-door-plate-skin/.

[394]2010, SharkletTM

Surface Protection, Sharklet Technologies, Inc. 2012,

http://www.sharklet.com/sharklet-products/sharklet-safetouch-for-commercial/.

[395]Sharklet Technologies, Inc., Sharklet Safetouch. 2012, http://www.sharklet.com/wp-

content/themes/sharklet/pdfs/Sharklet-SafeTouch-Commercial-2010.pdf.

[396]Brennan, A. B., R. H. Baney, M. C. Turnage, T. G. Estes, A. W. Feinberg, L. H.

Wilson and J. F. Schumacher,2010, Surface Topographies for Non-Toxic

Bioadhesion Control. USPTO. United States, University of Florida Research

Foundation. US 2010/1026404 A1.

[397]Sharklet Technologies, Inc., 2010, SharkletTM

Surface Protection. 2012,

http://www.sharklet.com/sharklet-products/sharklet-safetouch-for-commercial/.

[398]Davies, J. and D. Davies, 2010, “Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance,”

Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 417-433.

[399]Tezel, U. and S. G. Pavlostathis, 2012, "Role of Quaternary Ammonium

Compounds on Antimicrobial Resistance in the Environment," Antimicrobial

Resistance in the Environment (P. L. Keen and M. H. M. M. Montforts, Eds.),

Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

290

[400]Clorox,2012, What's in Clorox Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner?, The Clorox

Company. 2012, http://www.clorox.com/products/clorox-disinfecting-bathroom-

cleaner/ingredients-and-safety/.

[401]Clorox,2012, Clorox Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner: Usage Instructions. 2012,

http://www.clorox.com/products/clorox-disinfecting-bathroom-cleaner/how-to/.

[402]Clorox,2012, Clorox Disinfecting Cleaner: About. 2012,

http://www.clorox.com/products/clorox-disinfecting-bathroom-cleaner/.

[403]Clorox,2004, Material Safety Data Sheet: Clorox Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner.

Oakland, CA, Clorox Professional Products Company: 1,

http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/downloads/msds/cloroxdisinfectingcleaners/cl

oroxdisinfectingbathroomcleaner11-04.pdf.

[404]DOW,2012, Product Safety Assessment (PSA):Salts of Ethylenediaminetetraacetic

Acid (EDTA). 2012, http://www.dow.com/productsafety/finder/edta.htm.

[405]McBain, A., A. Richard and P. Gilbert, 2002, “Possible Implications of Biocide

Accumulation in the Environment on the Prevalence of Bacterial Antibiotic

Resistance,” Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, Vol. 29, pp.

326-330.

[406]Rutala, W. A., D. J. Weber and Heathcare Infection Control Practices Advisory

Committee, 2008, Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare

Facilities, CDC Centers for Disease Control: 1-158.

[407]EPA, 2006, Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl

Ammonium Chloride (ADBAC). Washington, D.C., Office of Prevention,

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/

REDs/adbac_red.pdf.

[408]Moyle, R. G., J. Fuchs, E. Pasquet and B. B. Marks, 2007, “Feeding Behavior, Toe

Count, and the Phylogenetic Relationships Among Alcedinine Kingfishers

(Alcedininae),” Journal of Avian Biology, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 317-326.

[409]Katzir, G. and J. M. Camhi, 1993, “Escape Response of Black Mollies (Poecilia

sphenops) to Predatory Dives of a Pied Kingfisher (Ceryl rudis),” Copeia, Vol.

1993, No. 2, pp. 549-553.

[410]Amazing Photo of Kingfisher Diving, Alistair.pott. 2012,

http://alistairpott.com/2009/05/20/amazing-photo-of-kingfisher-diving.

291

[411]Swiss/Japan Association for Engineers and Scientists, 2006, Train-Kingfisher, Cnet.

2012, http://news.cnet.com/2300-11395_3-6130045-5.html?tag=mncol.

[412]Lovegrove, K., 2004, Railway: Identity, Design and Culture, Laurence King

Publishing, London.

[413]Hood, C. P., 2006, Shinkansen: From Bullet Train to Symbol of Modern Japan,

Routledge, New York, NY.

[414]Soejima, H.,2003, Railway Technology in Japan - Challenges and Strategies. Japan

Railway & Transport Review: 4-13.

[415]Kobayashi, K.,2005, JFS Bio-mimicry Interview Series: No.6 Technologies Learned

from Living Things: "Shinkansen Technology Learned from an Owl?" - The Story

of Eiji Nakatsu. Japan for Sustainability Newsletter. #031,

http://www.japanfs.org/en_/newsletter/200503-2.html.

[416]Mashimo, S., E. Nakatsu, T. Aoki and K. Matsuo, 1997, “Attenuation and

Distortion of a Compression Wave Propagating in a High-Speed Railway

Tunnel,” JSME International Journal, Series B: Fluids and Thermal Engineering,

Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 51-57.

[417]High-Speed Trains, Design and the Universe. 2012, http://designanduniverse.com/

articles/high-speed_trains.php.

[418]N+P Industrial Design GmbH, 2012, Shinkansen 500 Nozomi. 2012,

http://www.neumeister-partner.com/en/node/405.

[419]T, G.,2011, One Kingfisher Can Set a Rapid Speed Train Back on Track. 2012,

http://www.groept.be/www/bachelor_programs/vision_of_engineering/

kingfisher/.

[420]Skutch, A. F., 1957, “Life History of the Amazon Kingfisher,” The Condor, Vol.

59, No. 4, pp. 217-229.

[421]Remsen, J. V., 1991, Community Ecology of Neotropical Kingfishers, University of

California Press, Berkely, CA.

[422]Marshall, A. J., 1931, “The Azure Kingfisher,” The Emu, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 44-47.

[423]2011, Beak Provides Streamlining: Common Kingfisher, Ask Nature. 2012,

http://www.asknature.org/strategy/4c3d00f23cae38c1d23517b6378859ee.

292

[424]Biello, D., 2002, Bullet Trains: Inside and Out, The Rosen Publishing Group, New

York.

[425]EPA, 2011, Air and Radiation: Noise Pollution. 2012,

http://www.epa.gov/air/noise.html.

[426]Tanaka, Y., R. Takahashi and T. Tamada, 2003, "Noise Control of Sanyo

Shinkansen," The 32nd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control

Engineering, Seogwipo, Korea.

[427]OECD, Globalisation, Transport and the Environment. 2012,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/45/45095528.pdf.

[428]Horihata, K., H. Sakamoto, H. Kitabayashi and A. Ishikawa,2008, Environmentally

Friendly Railway-Car Technology. Hitachi Review. 57: 18-22.

[429]Stansfeld, S. A. and M. P. Matheson, 2003, “Noise Pollution: Non-Audiory Effects

on Health,” British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 68, pp. 243-257.

[430]Rheindt, F. E., 2003, “The Impact of Roads on Birds: Does Song Frequency Play a

Role in Determining Susceptibility to Noise Pollution?,” Journal of Ornithology,

Vol. 144, No. 3, pp. 295-306.

[431]Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen, 2006, "Chapter 12: Impact of Road Traffic on Breeding

Bird Populations," Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the

Environment (J. Davenport and J. L. Davenport, Eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands, Vol. 10, pp. 255-274.

[432]Davenport, J. and J. L. Davenport, 2006, "Introduction," Ecology of Transportation:

Managing Mobility for the Environment (J. Davenport and J. L. Davenport, Eds.),

Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 10.

[433]Riihimaki, J.,2007, High Speed Trains - Sokol, Nieie, 4rail.net. 2012,

http://4rail.net/ref_fast_sokol.html.

[434]Miyauchi, T., T. Nagatomo, T. Tsujimura and H. Tsuchiya, 1999, “Fundamental

Investigations of LCA of Shinkansen Vehicles,” Quarterly Report of the Railway

Technical Research Institute (RTRI), Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 204-209.

[435]Winkler, S.,How Can Owls Fly Silently?, How Stuff Works. 2012,

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/birds/owl-fly-

silently1.htm.

293

[436]Bachmann, T. and H. Wagner, 2011, “The Three-Dimensional Shape of Serrations

at Barn Owl Wings: Towards a Typical Natural Serration as a Role Model for

Biomimetic Applications,” Journal of Anatomy, Vol. 219, No. 2, pp. 192-202.

[437]Conner, J.,2012, Winter Birds, Mixed Shots, SmugMug. 2012,

http://nacotejack.smugmug.com/Murky-Bird-Pix/Winter-Birds-mixed-

shots/1053283_YhoUo/2/50339724_rfYsU#!i=50339724&k=rfYsU.

[438]Matsumoto, M., K. Masai and T. Wajima,1999, New Technologies for Railway

Trains. Hitachi Review: 134-138.

[439]2006, Pantograph Mechanism of 500 Series Shinkansen Based on Owl Feather.

2012, http://opencage.info/pics.e/large_6708.asp.

[440]Kubotake,2010, 500 Series Shinkansen Set W1 Passing Maibara Station on the

"Nozomi 29" Service, Wikipedia. 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:

JRW_Shinkansen_Series_500_W1_sets.jpg.

[441]Koganezawa, S., S. Ohtsuka and K. Funabashi, 2011, “Linear Protrusion Structure

on Carriage-Arm Surface for Reduction of Flow-Induced Carriage Vibration in

Hard Disk Drives,” Microsystem Technologies, Vol. 17, No. 5-7, pp. 799-804.

[442]Lang, A. W., 2009, "Chapter 2: The Shark Skin Effect," Functional Properties of

Bio-Inspired Surfaces (E. A. Favret and N. O. Fuentes, Eds.), World Scientific,

Hackensack, NJ, pp. 17-38.

[443]Garcia-Mayoral, R. and J. Jimenez, 2011, “Drag Reduction by Riblets,”

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol. 369, No. 1940, pp. 1412-

1427.

[444]Airbus,2009, Airbus launches "Sharklet" Large Wingtip Devices for A320 Family

with Commitment from Air New Zealand. 2012, http://www.airbus.com/

newsevents/news-events-single/detail/airbus-launches-sharklet-large-wingtip-

devices-for-a320-family-with-commitment-from-air-new-zealan/.

[445]Vogel, S., 2010, "Moving Heat and Fluids," Bulletproof Feathers (R. Allen, Ed.),

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 110-131.

[446]Baleen Filters Pty Limited, 2011, About Baleen: Overview. 2012,

http://www.baleenfilters.com/about.asp.

294

[447]Factzoo.com,2010, Baleen Whales - World's Largest Creature, Filter-Feeders.

2012, http://www.factzoo.com/mammals/worlds-largest-creatures-filter-feeding-

whales.html.

[448]Baleen Filters Pty. Limited, ,2011, The Product: Overview. 2012,

http://www.baleenfilters.com/product.asp.

[449]Obst, Y.,2002, Filter with Counter Flow Clearing. USPTO. United States,

University of South Australia. US 6,354,442 B1.

[450]Water, Waste & Environmental Ltd, 2010, Technologies. 2012, http://ww-

e.co.uk/index.php?p=1_2_Technologies.

[451]JDV Equipment Corporation, 2011, Baleen Filter. 2012,

http://www.jdvequipment.com/baleen-filter.

[452]Baleen Filters Pty Limited, 2011, How to Order. 2012,

http://www.baleenfilters.com/how_to_order.asp.

[453]Obst, Y.,2003, Filter with Counter Flow Clearing. European Patent Office. AT BE

CH DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LI LU MC NL PT SE, Baleen Filters Pty

Limited. EP 0946248 B1.

[454]Calera,Carbon Dioxide Technology. 2012, http://calera.com/index.php/technology/

technology_vision/.

[455]King, H.,2012, Limestone, geology.com. 2012, http://geology.com/rocks/

limestone.shtml.

[456]Constantz, B. R., 1986, “Coral Skeleton Construction: A Physiochemically

Dominated Process,” PALAIOS, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 152-157.

[457]Sun, H., R. Jain, K. Nguyen and J. Zuckerman, 2010, “Sialite Technology -

Sustainable Alternative to Portland Cement,” Clean Technologies and

Environmental Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 503-516.

[458]Schneider, M., M. Romer, M. Tschudin and H. Bolio, 2011, “Sustainable Cement

Production - Present and Future,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 41, No. 7,

pp. 642-650.

[459]Calera,The Science: Carbonate Formation. 2012, http://calera.com/index.php/

technology/the_science/.

295

[460]Calera,Our Process. 2012, http://calera.com/index.php/technology/our_process/.

[461]Calera,Criteria Pollutant Control. 2012, http://calera.com/index.php/technology/

pollution_control/.

[462]Calera,Electrochemistry. 2012, http://calera.com/index.php/technology/

electrochemistry/.

[463]Calera,2011, Case Study: Moss Landing. 2011, http://www.calera.com/index.php/

case_studies/.

[464]Calera,2011, Frequently Asked Questions. 2011, http://www.calera.com/index.php

/about_us/faqs/.

[465]Kolstad, C. and D. Young,2010, Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and Storage for

the Latrobe Valley, University of Califonia, Santa Barbara.

[466]Constantz, B. R., A. Youngs and T. C. Holland,2010, CO2-Sequestering Formed

Building Materials. United States. US 7,771684 B2.

[467]Portland Cement Association, 2012, Architectural and Decorative Concrete. 2012,

http://www.cement.org/decorative/overview.asp.

[468]Aubuchon Hardware, 2012, Portland Cement, 47 Lb. 2012, http://paint-and-

supplies.hardwarestore.com/50-276-concrete-patch/portland-cement-221101.aspx.

[469]Nidumolu, R., C. K. Prahalad and M. R. Rangaswami,2009, Why Sustainability Is

Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Business Review: 57-64.

[470]Lee, H., B. P. Lee and P. B. Messersmith, 2007, “A Reversible Wet/Dry Adhesive

Inspired by Mussels and Geckos,” Nature, Vol. 448, pp. 338-341.

[471]Dolan, R.,2010, Stuck on Mussel Research to Develop Medical Adhsives. Medill

Reports Chicago. Chicago, IL.

[472]Messersmith, P. B., H. Lee and B. P. Lee,2008, Biomimetic Modular Adhesive

Complex: Materials, Methods and Applications Therefore. USPTO. United States.

US 2008/0169059 A1.

[473]Lee, H., S. M. Dellatore, W. M. Miller and P. B. Messersmith, 2007, “Mussel-

Inspired Surface Chemistry for Multifunctional Coatings,” Science, Vol. 318, pp.

426-430.

296

[474]Messersmith Research Group, 2010, Gecko-Mussel Mimetic Adhesive. Evanston,

IL, Northwestern University. 2012, http://biomaterials.bme.

northwestern.edu/gecko.asp.

[475]Greenemeier, L.,2008, Sticky Science: Gecko Toes Key to Adhesive that Doesn't

Lose Its Tackiness. Scientific American.

[476]Greiner, C., 2010, "Gecko-Inspired Nanomaterials," Biomimetic and Bioinspired

Nanomaterials (C. Kumar, Ed.), Wiley, Weinheim, Germany, pp. 1-40.

[477]Johnson, R. N.,1990, Lens-Like Radiant Energy Transmission Control Means.

USPTO. United States, Radiant Optics, Inc. 4,896,656.

[478]Land, M. F., 2000, “Eyes with Mirror Optics,” Journal of Optics A: Pure and

Applied Optics, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. R44-R50.

[479]Ings, S., 2008, “Darwin 200: An Eye for the Eye,” Nature, Vol. 456, pp. 304-209.

[480]Lohmann, K. J., 2010, “Magnetic-Field Perception,” Nature, Vol. 464, pp. 1140-

1142.

[481]Johnson, R. N.,2004, Radiant Energy Source Systems, Devices, and Methods

Capturing, Controlling, or Recycling Gas Flows. USPTO. United States. US

2004/0255927 A1.

[482]Drillspot,2012, Hot Zone Wall Mount Radiant Heater. 2012,

http://www.drillspot.com/products/1410875/Hot_Zone_HZE15120SW_Electric_I

nfrared_heater.

[483]HotZone,2008, HotZone: History. Sauk Rapids, MN, Schaefer Ventilation

Equipment. 2012, http://www.radiantoptics.com/History.htm.

[484]Schaefer Ventilation Equipment, 2008, Hotzone Radiant Heaters. 2012,

http://www.schaeferfan.com/HOTZONE_RADIANT_HEATERS_C1983.cfm.

[485]Giant Amazon Water Lily Gaining Size, The Living Rainforest. 2012,

http://www.livingrainforest.org/news/giant-amazon-water-lily-gaining-size/.

[486]Ramakrishnan, R. and R. R. Konwar,2010, Wet, Wild, and Wonderful, The Hindu.

2012, http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/kids/article98282.ece.

[487]BBC,2004, Crystal Palace. London. 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/

articles/2004/07/27/history_feature.shtml.

297

[488]Wikipedia,2012, The Crystal Palace. 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

The_Crystal_Palace.

[489]2010, Crystal Palace in London, Ask Nature. 2011, http://www.asknature.org/

product/a13b2a14313fcc7123e827269a1d8a73#changeTab.

[490]Leaves Given Structural Support: Giant Water-Lily Ask Nature. 2011,

http://www.asknature.org/strategy/902666afb8d8548320ae0afcd54d02ae.

[491]Attenborough, D., 1995, The Private Life of Plants: A Natural History of Plant

Behaviour, Princeton University Press.

[492]2012, 30" Tulip Stem, GD International China Trade Online. 2012, http://www.gd-

wholesale.com/chinaproduct/mf23d/av1191to1bv/30-tulip-stem-m59743.html.

[493]Hossler, F.,Head of a Human Femur, Science Photo Library. 2012,

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/118847/enlarge.

[494]2011, The Beauty of the Eiffel Tower, Beautiful Tourism. 2012,

http://www.idntourism.com/the-beauty-of-eiffel-tower/.

[495]Gorb, E. and S. Gorv, 2002, “Contact Separation Force of the Fruit Burrs in Four

Plant Species to Dispersal by Mechanical Interlocking,” Plant Physiology and

Biochemistry, Vol. 40, pp. 373-381.

[496]2012, http://www.forestryimages.org/images/3072x2048/5392712.jpg.

[497]Knight, D. J.,2009, Inspired by Nature. New York State Conservationist, New York

Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012.

[498]de Mestral, G. 1961, Separable Fastening Device. USPTO. United States,

International Velcro Company. 3,009,235.

[499]Use of Velcro, Interesting Topics. 2012, http://www.interestingtopics.net/use-of-

velcro-id-342.

[500]Anderson, T. E.,2005, Velcro Being Pulled Apart (94x), Small World Nikon. 2012,

http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/gallery/year/2005/21.

[501]Gupta, S. M. and P. Veerakamolmal, 2000, "Environmental Issues: Reuse and

Recycling in Manufacturing Systems," Encyclopedia of Production (P. M.

Swamidass, Ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 192-197.

298

[502]Justel, D., R. Vidal and M. Chiner, 2005, "TRIZ Applied for Eco-Innovation in

Design for Disassembly," 1st IFIP TC-5 Working Conference on CAI, Ulm,

Germany.

[503]2011, Button Button Whos Got the Button. Norfolk, MA, In the Loop. 2012,

http://keepyourneedleshappy.com/inspiration-of-the-month/button-button-whos-

got-the-button/.

[504]2012, Stock Photo - Detail of a Green Zipper (Slide Fastener) on White

Background, 123RF, http://www.123rf.com/photo_4421188_detail-of-a-green-

zipper-slide-fastener-on-white-background.html.

[505]2009, Science of the Shoelace, Homeschooling 100 Digits,

http://100digits.com/?p=1743.

[506]Chakrabarti, A. and L. H. Shu, 2010, “Biologically Inspired Design,” Artificial

Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, pp.

453-454.

[507]Coelho, D. A. and C. A. M. Versos, 2011, “A Comparative Analysis of Six Bionic

Design Methods,” International Journal of Design Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.

114-131.

[508]Vandevenne, D., P.-A. Verhaegen, S. Dewulf and J. R. Duflou, 2012,

"Automatically Populating the Biomimicry Taxonomy for Scalable Systematic

Biologically-Inspired Design," IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, IL, DETC2012-

70928.

[509]Glier, M. W., J. Tsenn, J. S. Linsey and D. A. McAdams, 2012, "Evaluating the

Directed Method for Bioinspired Design," IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, IL,

DETC2012-71511.

[510]Forbes, P., 2005, "Something New Under the Sun," The Gecko's Foot: Bio-

inspiration: Engineering New Materials from Nature, W.W. Norton & Company,

Inc., New York, NY, pp. 1-28.

[511]Gruber, P., D. Bruckner, C. Hellmich, H.-B. Schmiedmayer, H. Stachelberger and I.

C. Gebeshuber, 2011, "Preface," Biomimetics - Materials, Structures, and

Processes, Springer, New York.

[512]Jenkins, C. H. M., 2005, "Preface," Compliant Structures in Nature and

Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA.

299

[513]Yang, H. T. Y., C.-H. Lin, D. Bridges, C. J. Randall and P. K. Hansma, 2010, “Bio-

Inspired Passive Actuator Simulating an Abalone Shell Mechanism for Structural

Control,” Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 19, No. 10.

[514]Sartori, J., U. Pal and A. Chakrabarti, 2010, “A Methodology for Supporting

"Transfer" in Biomimetic Design,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,

Analysis, and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, pp. 483-505.

[515]Tarascon, J.-M., 2008, “Towards Sustainable and Renewable Systems for

Electrochemical Energy Storage,” ChemSUSChem, Vol. 1, No. 8-9, pp. 777-779.

[516]Vincent, J. F. V., 2005, "Compliant Structures and Materials in Animals,"

Compliant Structures in Nature and Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT

Press, Billerica, MA, pp. 3-20.

[517]Jenkins, C. H. M., 2005, "Design of Compliant Structures," Compliant Structures in

Nature and Engineering (C. H. M. Jenkins, Ed.), WIT Press, Billerica, MA, pp.

247-261.

[518]Glier, M. W., J. Tsenn, J. S. Linsey and D. A. McAdams, 2011, "Methods for

Supporting Bioinspired Design," International Mechanical Engineering Congress

& Exposition, Denver, Colorado, IMECE2011-63247.

[519]Meijer, K., J. C. Moreno and H. H. C. M. Savelberg, 2006, "Biological Mechanisms

as Models for Mimicking: Sarcomere Design, Arrangement and Muscle

Function," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.),


[520]Ummat, A., A. Dubey and C. Mavroidis, 2006, "Bio-Nanorobotics: A Field Inspired

by Nature," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen,

Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 201-227.

[521]Bar-Cohen, Y., 2006, "Artificial Muscles Using Electroactive Polymer,"



[522]Szema, R. and L. P. Lee, 2006, "Biologically Inspired Optical Systems,"



300

[523]Carlson, J., S. Ghaey, S. Moran, C. A. Tran and D. L. Kaplan, 2006, "Biological

Materials in Engineering Mechanisms," Biomimetics:Biologically Inspired

Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 365-379.

[524]Lou, Z., S. Hosoe and M. Ito, 2006, "Biomimetic and Biologically Inspired

Control," Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.),


[525]Plamondon, N. and M. Nahon, 2009, “A Trajectory Tracking Controller for an

Underwater Hexapod Vehicle,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 4, No. 3,

pp. 036005.

[526]Armour, R., K. Paskins, A. Bowyer, J. Vincent and W. Megill, 2007, “Jumping

Robots: A Biomimetic Solution to Locomotion Across Rough Terrain,”


[527]Dabiri, J. O., 2007, “Renewable Fluid Dynamic Energy Derived from Aquatic

Animal Locomotion,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. L1-L3.

[528]Gopal, V. and M. J. Z. Hartmann, 2007, “Using Hardware Models to Quantify

Sensory Data Acquisition Across the Rat Vibrissal Array,” Bioinspiration and


[529]Nakrani, S. and C. Tovey, 2007, “From Honeybees to Internet Servers: Biomimicry

for Distributed Management of Internet Hosting Centers,” Bioinspiration and


[530]Margerie, E. d., J. Mouret, S. Doncieux and J.-A. Meyer, 2007, “Artificial

Evolution of the Morphology and Kinematics in a Flapping-Wing Mini-UAV,”

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 65-82.

[531]Bartol, I., M. Gordon, P. Webb, D. Weihs and M. Gharib, 2008, “Evidence of Self-

Correcting Spiral Flows in Swimming Boxfishes,” Bioinspiration and

Biomimetics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 014001.

[532]Myrick, A., K.-C. Park, J. R. Hetling and T. C. Baker, 2008, “Real-Time Odor

Discrimination Using a Bioelectronic Sensor Array Based on the Insect

Electroantennogram,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 046006.

[533]Sarikaya, M., J. Liu and I. A. Aksay, 1995, "Nacre: Properties, Crystallography,

Morphology, and Formation," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials

(M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 35-90.

301

[534]Mann, S., 1995, "Biomineralization, the Inorganic-Organic Interface, and Crystal

Engineering," Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya and

I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 91-116.

[535]Calvert, P., 1995, "Biomimetic Ceramics and Hard Composites," Biomimetics:

Design and Processing of Materials (M. Sarikaya and I. A. Aksay, Eds.), AIP

Press, Woodbury, New York, pp. 145-161.

[536]Vattam, S. S., M. Helms and A. K. Goel, 2010, "Biologically Inspired Design: A

Macrocognitive Account," IDETC/CIE 2010, Montreal, Canada, DETC2010-

28567.

[537]Potter, K. A., B. Gui and J. R. Capadona, 2012, "Biomimicry at the Cell-Material

Interface," Biomimetics: Nature-Based Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC


[538]Fish, F. E., A. J. Smits, H. Haj-Hariri, H. Bart-Smith and T. Iwasaki, 2012,

"Biomimetic Swimmer Inspired by the Manta Ray," Biomimetics: Nature-Based

Innovation (Y. Bar-Cohen, Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 495-523.

[539]Weiner, S. and P. Zaslansky, 2004, "Structure-Mechanical Function Relations in

Bones and Death," Learning from Nature How to Design New Implantable

Biomaterials: From Biomineralization Fundamentals to Biomimetic Materials

and Processing Routes (R. L. Reis and S. Weiner, Eds.), Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 3-13.

[540]Aizenberg, J. and G. Hendler, 2004, "Learning from Marine Creatures How to

Design Micro-Lenses," Learning from Nature: How to Design New Implantable

Biomaterials: From Biomineralization Fundamentals to Biomimetic Materials


Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 171, pp. 151-166.

[541]Isaacson, A.,2009, Nature Inspiring Green Design for Planes, Train, Autos & More.

Popular Mechanics.

[542]Freedman, M.,2010, Nature is the Model Factory. Newsweek.

[543]Offner, D. H., 1995, "Introduction to Design Homology," Design Homology: An

Introduction to Bionics, David Offner, Urbana, Illinois, pp. 1-12.

[544]Reis, R. L., 2004, "Preface," Learning from Nature How to Design New Implantable

Biomaterials: From Biomimeralization Fundamentals to Biomimetic Materials

302


Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. xi-xiv.

[545]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, B.I.A.S. Biologically Inspired Acoustic Systems, Ask

Nature. 2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/0fdee3b68d08f0750097

11803dc93c16.

[546]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, bioBASE Mooring System, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/0af0cefd471050bcc5de19367aae3237.

[547]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, BioFriend Anti-Microbial, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/4535c47d225d0585cd4139133629f19d.

[548]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Bioinspired Adhesive Tape, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/2dbddc320a256b0c84fb3ef7b9131e1d.

[549]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Bioinspired Material Adhesive, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/65bba2940a2ce1e9de9f0e2e0164ced3.

[550]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Biomatrica Sample Matrix, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/df78111ca0805a840a4b9a32628d9c79.

[551]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Biopolymers, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/a3dda50e918bfd34b509b96f2ca62979.

[552]Biomimicry Institute, 2008, BioSTREAM Tidal Energy, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/a3676b91b1431c1727ab8517d1575f5e.

[553]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Capillary Faucets, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/7a6f6ce2f13399d9f9dcbc2bfae10d1b.

[554]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Carbon Dioxide-Based Plastics, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/c3143ba9e46e4adafb11645a7f1b7b95.

[555]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, ChromaFlair Color-Shifting Paints, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/b3a96e92b68e9de4226c40e058409d30.

[556]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Dew Bank Bottle, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/313a2fdcdc072fbfc7ae7e69962eab80.

[557]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Dye Solar Cell Technology, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/313a2fdcdc072fbfc7ae7e69962eab80.

303

[558]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Wastewater Treatment Without Chemicals, Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/d0a39e225aea22ee036e9602369c6ee0.

[559]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, FLOWE Wind Farm Design, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/20015e39f852cfc1382828afef82b916.

[560]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Fog-Catching Materials, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/ce46c846e11fb2e99eff7f1143df3bd3.

[561]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, Goatek Traction Hiking Sole, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/e53fed91dd6e8d4a348f3454493d4c90.

[562]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, GreenShield Fabric Finish, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/28dac96ae850e0972f1a61db94844994.

[563]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, GROW Solar Ivy, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/256b9f497821497773d9f0c442ab367a.

[564]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Heliotrope Sun-Tracking System, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/347aedb6508fed4c9a373bf3fc7eca65.

[565]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, Humidity Responsive Fibers, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/f09a2bc54034f51a9084bd423524cb60.

[566]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Humidity Sensor, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/971a4991263e78d44efcbe5a3053d159.

[567]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, IntAct Labs, LLC Biosensor, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/7084aacc31039ca27ab8fd02ffbbcd98.

[568]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, Joinlox, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/0e663bb73680a395ec14d29d02f6a5ae.

[569]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, Kalundborg Industrial Symbiosis, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/b08979c20b2d379a8af64fa83826db34.

[570]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, LOCUST Visual Collision Detector, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/4912392abba072c917725028dc47c2c7.

[571]Biomimicry Institute, 2008, Lotus Clay Roofing Tiles, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/aaef0c685b83f9240a61863b8a27b81e.

304

[572]Biomimicry Institute, 2008, Lotusan Paint, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/6b8342fc3e784201e4950dbd80510455.

[573]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Mechanically Adaptive Polymer Nanocomposites, Ask

Nature. 2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/4482a19d387bc20978550e

7490799fbd.

[574]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Medical Implant Coating, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/c16a58d2f0fb8a4b6098ef89f1fbce29.

[575]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Microfluidic Silk Assembly, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/db078b01d8a8cda426c5d81317034080.

[576]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Mincor TX TT Textile Coating, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/b0b23316d7587d93d3e5891df168d19e.

[577]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Morphotex Structural Colored Fibers, Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/4c0e62f66bcccabf55a1f189da30acb3.

[578]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, MothEYE and MARAG Films, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/b7fd4cfaf7380bb1f00e8759cfddc7e6.

[579]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, NanoSphere Fabric Finish, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/600e2a50746fa6339870554b2a7a36fd.

[580]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, ORNILUX, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/077e9d44e8e12f039458729f8de1ada9.

[581]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Pangolin Backpack, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/cb31d079e6398e2c9e78e92443940a11.

[582]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, PAX Water Mixer, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/1a119e978284900963298a0aac59a120.

[583]Biomimicry Institute, 2009, PaxFan Fans, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/91eebf530a565f2024b894d7dd661733.

[584]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Phillips Head Protection Systems (PHPS), Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/52b0b0cd3c9afbf7d6cbb8ed83aac6af.

[585]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Platelet Technology Leak Sealer, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/897d0e619743c41d4cbb528e1a8bac95.

305

[586]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Polar Thermos Cozy, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/2d8d7cd3ed6cb2ee83704bf7ebf161dc.

[587]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Power Plastic Solar Cell Technology, Ask Nature.

2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/a21fcbc8ff5a053c793164e3fdffc249.

[588]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, PureBond Technology, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/22aa5601fcdb68b5d2dc9e3d3a22f7f1.

[589]Biomimicry Institute, 2008, Self-Cleaning Fabric, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/a0c03b1905b495f3b8d65728b09c8ae3.

[590]Biomimicry Institute, 2008, Self-Cleaning Optical Coatings, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/ea0c697201031255bfcbc2f6a22a7a99.

[591]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Self-Cleaning Surface, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/a0c03b1905b495f3b8d65728b09c8ae3.

[592]Biomimicry Institute, 2008, Soil-Moving Equipment, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/012cdf8145f7d47924ce686a9fb033a0.

[593]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Solar Water Still and Pump, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/1c404f66d0f4746f5f4810a2a92ecf1c.

[594]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Stabilitech Vaccine Stabilization Technology, Ask

Nature. 2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/107c8e637bde3ccd25f19

fc97ce20f7b.

[595]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Swiss Re Building, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/b8b39318c66e6c873137da2910785413.

[596]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Sycamore Ceiling Fan, Ask Nature. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/dd0648940077b68055b2a01cac1f50cc.

[597]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, VitRIS and HydRIS Vaccine Stabilization Technologies,

Ask Nature. 2010, http://www.asknature.org/product/fd6de0964dc5224631

c8d67aa3713937.

[598]Biomimicry Institute, 2010, Water-Repellent Ship Coatings. 2010,

http://www.asknature.org/product/b554d0e2babb24b9bb6858b889ea8178.

[599]Mengesha, T. E., R. R. Vallance and R. Mittal, 2011, “Stiffness of Desiccating

Insect Wings,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 014001.

306

[600]Chiadini, F., V. Fiumara, A. Scaglione and A. Lakhtakia, 2011, “Simulation and

Analysis of Prismatic Bioinspired Compound Lenses for Solar Cells: II.

Multifrequency Analysis,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.

014002.

[601]Myrick, A. and T. Baker, 2011, “Locating a Compact Odor Source Using a Four-

Channel Insect Electroantennogram Sensor,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics,

Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 016002.

[602]French, J. J. R. and B. M. Ahmed, 2010, “Commentary: The Challenge of

Biomimetic Design for Carbon-Neutral Buildings Using Termite Engineering,”

Insect Science, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 154-162.

[603]Talk, T.,2011, A Robot that Flies Like a Bird, http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=Fg_JcKSHUtQ&feature=player_embedded&noredirect=1.

[604]Bhushan, B. and M. Nosonovsky, 2010, “The Rose Petal Effect and the Modes of

Superhydrophobicity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Vol.

368, No. 1929, pp. 4713-4728.

[605]NIOSCH,2010, Trichloroethylene, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC). 2012, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0629.html.

[606]DOW,2010, Chlorinated Solvents Biodegradability. DOW Answer Center, The

DOW Chemical Company. 2012, https://dow-answer.custhelp.com/app/

answers/detail/a_id/1338/kw/chlorinated%20solvents%20biodegradability.

Environmentally Sustainable Bioinspired Design

Documents

Transcript of Environmentally Sustainable Bioinspired Design