defining biomimicry: architectural applications in … mimicry is equally ... defining biomimicry:...

csdCenter for Sustainable Development

Defining Biomimicry: Architectural Applications in

Systems and ProductsEmily Royall

Werner LangInstructor

UTSoA - Seminar in Sustainable Architecture

2

3


main picture of presentation

Defining Biomimicry: Architectural Applications in Systems and Products

Emily Royall

Introduction

Biomimetics or Biomimicry is a fashionable term whose ultimate definition continues to evade us. The purpose of this paper is to outline a concrete theoretical and practical definition for Biomimicry and high-light its architectural applications. In effort to clarify the Biomimetics process and illuminate its relation-ship to sustainability, the Biomimicry “helix” will be introduced as a con-tinuous model illustrating two integral products of the Biomimicry process: organs and organisms. The “organs” and “organisms” of Biomimicry will be explored in reference to photovol-taics and urban planning, citing dye sensitized solar cells and the sus-tainable city, Hammarby Sjöstad, as case studies.

What is Biomimicry?

Nature has already solved many of the mechanical and structural problems humans face today without

generating residual, inactive waste. Where biological processes are continuously evolving to manipulate hydrogen, carbon and oxygen to accomplish their objectives, humans have cheaply contracted the unsus-tainable power of oil. Biomimetics seeks to remedy such error design-ing efficient systems and products. Biomimicry is a spiraling, continuous process, taking nature as inspira-tion to generate “organs” (individual products) or “organisms” (systems and processes) for the purpose of integration into a sustainable sys-tem. For example, Biomimicry could produce advanced photovoltaics (the organ) inspired by photosynthesis, or a “smart house” system (the organ-ism) modeled after bee algorithms, for the purpose of integration into a sustainable energy system. The model below illustrates this concept using a double helix.

Fig. 01 Artwork by Dale Chihuly, photographed by Thomas Hawk


4

Figure 02: The Biomimicry Helix Model by Emily Royall

The helix model of Biomimicry reflects a number of nuances. Pri-marily, the model is a spiral. This represents the idea of Biomimicry as a continuously evolving process, infinitely seeking a closer fit to the ever-changing environment. The spi-ral reflects the continuous feed back and repeated fine tuning required to adapt “organs” and “organisms” to the environment. Notably, the spiral motif is an important structural build-ing block in nature and is encoded into ourselves and environment. Secondly, “organs” and “organisms” make up the two strands of the helix, reflecting their entwined equality. Organs include singular products such as photovoltaic cells or fiber optics, and organisms are systems such as smart grids or cities. Bio-mimicry is equally capable of yielding both kinds of items. Finally, note the branches of the helix connecting the organ and organism strand. These are “sustainability” branches, em-phasizing the mutual dependence of organs and organisms. Sustainabil-

ity, integrates the organs and organ-isms produced by Biomimcry into a continuously evolving system. This integral relationship with sustainabil-ity is also relatable by a basic biologi-cal rule: nature seeks to minimize the amount of energy consumed in a given period of time (E/T).

To understand the broad applicability of Biomimicry, it is helpful to consider nature as a mentor, measure and model.

As Mentor: We can view nature not as a possession, but as a teacher.

As Measure: We can use nature as an ecological standard to measure the fitness of our own designs.

As Model: Biomimicry studies na-ture’s models and emulates these forms or processes.

There are however, a few problems with Biomimicry. It is difficult to seg-regate Biomimicry from basic prob-

lem solving. The typical conception of Biomimicry is often oversimplified into a linear process. First one asks the initial question, “How does nature solve my problem?” then observes the solution in nature, creating a de-sign that mimics the observation. For this misconception, Biomimicry has been severely criticized. I suggest that what separates Biomimicry from standard problem solving is its con-tinuous, spiral-like nature, providing no definitive solution, only products and systems which can adapt to a changing environment. Additionally, Biomimetics is typically mistaken for biotechnology. Biomimetics is not biotechnology because it does not implement “bio-assisted” processes (such as using green algae to treat waste water). Finally, Biomimicry is also often confused with art and aesthetics. Artists reproduce existing patterns in nature for an aesthetic effect. This is not Biomimicry as the organ created is not integrated with an organism in a sustainable system. The organism product of Biomimicry is the subject of the next section.

The Organism

The process of Biomimicry yields “organisms” in the sense that nature can inspire the design of efficient systems. As mentioned earlier, bio-logical systems (and efficient man-made systems) seek to minimize the amount of energy consumed over time. Because this basic concept is inherent to all sustainable systems, Biomimicry on this level can have applications for many fields including government and business mod-els. Business models can fashion themselves after natural processes which are “waste-free, cyclical, and very efficient, running on sunlight, use only what it needs, and focus-

o r g a n i sm

orga

n s u s t a i n a b i l i t y

B

IOM

IMIC

RY


5

ing on resource productivity.” The context of this paper will deal with a more architectural application to the biomimetic production of systems; urban planning. In relating biology to urban plan-ning we can reflect on the principles illustrated by Richard Hopper in his 1970s article published in the Ameri-can Planning Association magazine. Hopper suggests that all man made and natural systems have inherent carrying capacity that can be

1. used as a limit for growth

2. ignored and exceeded with the conse-quence of degrading the system

3. expanded through new technologies and methods of design or planning

Essentially Hopper makes an argu-ment that is appropriate to Biomimic-ry. In developing a sustainable urban blueprint, one must include basic bio-logical rules in mind. Hopper states that there is a limit to the growth of a system before it becomes unsus-tainable (or exceeds energy over time), and if this energy ceiling is ignored the system may be degraded over time. Additionally, the potential energy ceiling of a system can be ex-panded through innovative technol-ogy. These basic principles illustrate the natural relationship between cities and nature and providing some insight into the sustainability of met-ropolitan areas.

Cities and Biology

What makes cities sustainable? There appears to be popular consen-sus that three principles define the sustainability of the urban frontier: Density, specialization and localized infrastructure.

Density:Dense metropolitan areas show lower rates of vehicle own-ership and usage. A nationwide analysis of vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. revealed that the top ten largest metropolitan areas produce 23.5% of the total vehicle miles trav-eled (VMT), while housing 26.3% of the national population, reinforcing the notion that metropolitan resi-dents drive less than the average American. Additionally, although total driving is concentrated in metropoli-tan areas, the greatest driving per person occurs in low density South-western and Southeastern regions. The spread of urban sprawl notably requires more energy usage per capita and does not minimize E/T. Austin, Texas is no exception. An Austin resident will drive an average of 31.1 miles per day. The percent-age of commuters walking to work is only 2.2%, and the percentage of commuters using Transit is a dismal 2.8%. Ironically, Austin ranks above average when measuring the extent of urban sprawl compared to other major metropolitan areas.

Specialization:This is an area vital to city life. Diversity of a city including the specialization of retail enterprises and civic centers is fundamental for the incubation of new ideas and enterprises so prized in major metro-politan areas. The diversity of a city is made up of a plethora of special-ized parts, contributing to the city’s flourishing economy and society. Similarly, the life of an ecosystem is stimulated by the specialization of a variety of interconnected partici-pants. Specialization allows a system to be self-sufficient, relying primarily on the goods and services of the localized system.

Localized Infrastructure: Less energy

is expended when individuals travel shorter distances for the services they need. The centralized infrastruc-ture of an urban area contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions and convenience of city-dwellers. Many biological systems such as plant or animal cells operate on the same principle, often minimizing the distance of resources in effort to reduce E/T.

In essence, metropolitan cities are sustainable for much of the same reasons that biological systems are sustainable. Seeking to minimize en-ergy consumption over time, natural systems appear to use analogous mechanisms that humans have created, (or have naturally evolved) to solve similar efficiency problems. Such is a credit to the concept of Biomimicry which evidently, is not entirely foreign. Naturally and histori-cally, humans have built cities limited by the land, exhibiting Hopper’s principles of energy ceilings as well the biological principles of sustain-ability. Cities built before the indus-trial age of the 19th century were far more modest in their energy de-mands. They were built into the land, integrating nature and industry as a working rural and urban landscape. Ancient European cities had com-mon business areas, central squares and localized infrastructure reducing the need to travel long distances for resources. These cities even oper-ated on a cyclic system, using the land to produce food and energy for settlement activity which naturally incurred waste that was once again reapplied to the soil. Such cities of the past were fueled by solar power, illuminated at day break and end-ing activity at night fall. Ironically the contemporary sustainable movement fashions itself as a novel trend, while


6

the basic principles of sustainability appear to be “going back to nature.”

Cities and Cells

Biomimicry shows great potential for urban planning. Imagine a city mod-eled after a cell. Although this design remains conceptual, a number of realistic applications can be inferred. This hypothetical city would possess as a cell does, three major charac-teristics:

1. self-sufficiency

2. porosity

3. adaptability

Consider the potential architectural applications of the following con-cepts.

Cells are largely self sufficient as re-flected particularly by their organiza-tion. A cell is contained; its contents spread only to the plasma membrane limits. This way, components of the cell do not have to commute large distances to achieve their purpose. Resources are localized and orga-nized, without unnecessary repetition of infrastructure. As in a city, carbon

dioxide is generated as waste, but is transformed into reusable products. Additionally, the old infrastructure of a cell (worn out components) is broken down by structures called lysosomes, and recycled for further use. The deconstruction and reuse of materials, as opposed to demolition has worked favorably for urban envi-ronments, avoiding typical demolition costs ($50/ton or more) and reducing building costs. Cities could also potentially mimic cellular trans-port, where transportation within the cell uses locally produced energy.

Yet despite their self-sufficiency, both cells and cities must adapt to their environment and retain an element of porosity. Cells respond to internal and external changes in their envi-ronment and also depend crucially on effective communication systems and signaling. Like a city, a cell’s “in-ternational” communication is equally as important as its local communica-tion, allowing for the organized func-tion of a unified system.

Evolution of Cities

Cities like any other organism can-not remain stagnant in any climate

whether political, economical or environmental. In this way, a city is continually evolving, and so too must its sustainable infrastructure. Con-trary to the implication of its title, the sustainable movement is a perma-nent process much like the Biomim-icry Spiral model introduced earlier. Sustainable infrastructure must therefore consistently seek a closer fit to an ever-changing environment. The addition of a bulky photovoltaic cell is not necessarily a sustainable technology as it does not provide facile alteration or adaptation to its surroundings. Nothing is sustainable forever.

Defining how flow systems change over time, Constructal Theory highlights how a system must be architecturally designed to ensure survival. Constructal theory operates on a basic rule:

For a system to survive it must evolve to provide increasingly easy access to the currents that flow through it.

Although seemingly abstract and ir-relevant, this rule elegantly illustrates why some systems thrive and others

Figure 03: veins in a leafFigure 04: human lungs

Figure 05: satellite image of a river basin


7

fail. For any of these systems to sustain or survive, they must be ar-chitecturally designed in such a way that the elements within that system increasingly get to where they need to go. Figure 3 through 5 illustrate constructal theory.

Here, we see the physical evidence that human lungs and a river basin have both evolved to in the optimal way to get their materials where they need to go (oxygen in the case of the lungs and water for the river basin). Over time these two systems adapt-ed to a changing atmosphere, finding the maximum fit of their objectives to the environment; sustainability in a nutshell.

Another biological example of Con-structal Theory can also be found in native grass prairies whose flexibility of dominating grasses between wet and dry seasons allow the species to “redraw” the system to accommodate environmental changes. This simply illustrates that to ensure any man made system’s survival, we must maintain the flexibility to recognize important changes and reserve the freedom to “redraw” our designs. This directly applies to urban plan-ning and architecture in the sense that designers and architects should consider the elasticity of their de-sign. Can the design accommodate change? Is the building material flexible enough for alteration? To ensure the survival of an urban development, urban planners should consider the potential for adaptation and evolution of their design.

Case Study: Hammarby Sjöstad

In the outskirts of Stockholm lies Sweden’s hailed “sustainable city,” Hammarby Sjöstad. It functions

(perhaps unknowingly) in a similar manner to a cell via its self-suffi-ciency, porosity and adaptability. It is an example of how designers are already applying Biomimicry without even knowing it.

Hammarby is currently home to some 25,000 residents in 11,000 apartments located in a southeastern pocket of Stockholm. The project is expected to be completed in 2015, projecting 35,000 individuals to live and work in the area. Historically, the port area was a small-scale industrial “shantytown,” dotted with temporary infrastructure largely consisting of corrugated steel shacks. In 1998 this area was demolished to make room for a sustainable city. Several fea-tures of Hammarby Sjöstad make it an excellent example of the potential of Biomimicry in urban design.

Self Sufficiency

Construction: Hammarby focuses on using localized resources and recycled materials for building con-struction. Similar to how lysosomes in a cell recycle existing material and reuse relevant resources, Hammarby Sjostad has outlined procedures to draw materials from the demolition site. Pressure treated timber may not be used for construction, and Copper is not used as ducting material.

Transportation: Unique and efficient transportation options within the city reduce the amount of energy con-sumed and minimize CO2 byproduct. Hammarby Sjöstad expects 80% of residents’ and workers’ journeys to be by public transport (via the light rail “Tvärbanan”), on foot or by bicycle by the year 2010. As of today, two thirds of residents participate in alternative forms of transporta-

tion, whereas one third of trips are car-borne. Taking advantage of localized resources, one of the major transportation options is a free public ferry operating between the northern to southern borders of the city. One fourth of residents report using the ferry regularly. Despite these options, 66% of residents still own a car. Hammarby has therefore encour-aged carpooling, and the city expects at least 15% of residents to par-ticipate by 2010. Currently 8% (270 residents) participate in the program.

Energy: Energy will come from the waste and the sun. Hammarby’s entire heating supply is based on waste or rewnewable energy sourc-es. Hammarby’s district heating and cooling is centralized. The combined heat and power plant uses com-bustible waste as an energy source (biofuels), producing electricity and district heating. Additionally, the Hammarby heat plant extracts waste heat from treated wastewater in the Henriksdal wastewater treatment plant. District cooling is provided by the Hammarby heat plant heat pumps, where heat is exchanged into water cooling. In this way, cool-ing is a byproduct of district heating. Solar cells and building integrated photovoltaics have been installed for the collection of energy. The energy from a 1m² solar cell module produc-es 100 kWh/year, corresponding to the domestic electricity requirements of 3m² residential floor space.

Water: Water is a valuable, moni-tored resource in both a cell and a city. The installation of water-saving washing machines, dishwashers, low flush toilets and air mixer taps have reduced the average water use of an individual by 25%. Hammarby’s goal is to reduce water use by 50%,


8

from 200 litres per person per day to 100 litres within the next few years (Average water use figures are based on the Stockholm average). Using a new water treatment system, 95% percent of the phosphorous and nitrogen extracted from waste water is recycled on agricultural land. Ad-ditionally storm and drainage water from urban runoff is treated and reused.

Waste: Hammarby operates on a cyclic system reminiscent of efficient cities of the past. Waste is reused for the soil treatment and the production of biofuels and biogas, used to run transportation systems and appli-

Figure 09: Interior of Hammarby Sjöstad

Figure 06: Map of Hammarby Sjöstad

Figure 08: Waterside view of Hammarby Sjöstad

Figure 07: Map of Service Locations


9

The Organs

Organs help organisms to function. Without efficient organs, a system cannot be considered sustainable. Biomimicry is capable of not only constructing theoretical concepts and efficient processes, but also tangible products. Biomimicry is best known for the organs it produces, which unfortunately are often gadgets advertising idealistic technology. The goal of this section is to illustrate the practical applications of the physical products Biomimicry can generate.

Architectural Products: Biomimicry can yield concept designs for general urban planning as well as site-spe-cific infrastructure. One particularly innovative example is the Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe de-signed by architect Mick Pearce. The nation’s largest shopping mall is modeled after a termite mound indig-enous to the area, using a passive heating and cooling system. Termites build large mounds that must be kept at precisely 87 degrees F despite exterior temperatures ranging from 35 to 104 degrees. The termites achieve this by constantly opening and closing a series of heating and

financial incentives encouraged busi-nesses to open before the market had fully developed, an impressive initiative. Finally, Hammarby Sjöstad has excellent public spaces, with a permeable street pattern as well as an extensive network of parks. Ham-marby has indicated that at least 15m² of courtyard space and a total of 25–30m² of courtyard space and park area must be within 300m of every apartment. Addition-ally, at least 15% of the courtyard space is sunlit for at least 4-5 hours during the spring and fall equinoxes.

Adaptability

The city has emphasized its role as a “laboratory” testing new building techniques, water purification sys-tems and evaluating new technology. GlashusEtt is the city’s education center. Here officials and residents can meet to discuss the future of the city while addressing current issues and developments. The education center reflects recognition of sus-tainability as a continuous process, constantly requiring open discussion and flexible remodeling.

ances. Hammarby implements a multilevel waste management model. Combustible waste is transported to the Högdalenverket where it is incin-erated and recycled as heating and electricity. Food waste is transported to Sofielund where it is composted into soil with the ultimate goal of be-ing converted into biogas and bio-fertilizers. News-papers and packaging are recycled into other products, and electronic waste is disassembled and reused, though unusable excesses are de-posited in landfills. Hazardous waste is incinerated.

Porosity

The master plan of the city was a collaborative effort, inviting the par-ticipation of over 20 architects and designers. Though it is self sufficient and enclosed, the city is not cultur-ally or economically exclusive. The Masterplan team effectively aspired to create a new inner city district, designing extensive waterside units with floor to ceiling heights encour-aging retail. The high density de-velopment creates an urban district that can sustain a range of shops and services. Planning policy and

Figure 10: Architectural applications of Biomimicry. Left: The Eastgate Centre in Harhare, Zimbabwe. Right: self-cleaning paint by Lotusan


10

cooling vents throughout the mound over the course of a day. The system is carefully adjusted to convection currents, sucking up air in the lower part of the mound down into marginal enclosures and back up through a channel to the peak of the termite bound where heat is released. The Eastgate Centre, primarily made of concrete, operates in a similar way where outside air is either warmed or cooled by the concrete, vented through floors and offices, and ulti-mately escapes in ceiling vents. De-velopers of the Eastgate Centre have saved 3.5 million dollars from not installing an air conditioning system alone. These savings have trickled down to the tenants, whose rents are 20 percent lower than those of other commercial buildings.

Automation Systems: Biomimicry has shown increasing promise for the automation systems industry. Smart Grids supply electricity to consumers using digital technologies in effort to reduce energy consumption and increase reliability. Fiber Optics is frequently required for the efficient display and transportation of informa-tion within these systems. The Venus Flower Basket Sponge make their

own fiber optics and are better ca-pable of transmitting light than indus-trial fiber optic cables. Additionally, Venus Sponge fibers are produced at low temperatures using natural materials and are more flexible than the man-made variety. A study of the way this species generates its own fiber optics could reveal how humans could make stronger, more efficient fiber optics at ambient temperatures. Another example of Biomimicry’s contribution to automation systems is the Smart Switch developed by RE-GEN Energy, which manages energy mimicking the swarm bee logic of self organization. The goal is to avoid simultaneous energy demands from appliances without sacrificing indi-vidual performance. The product at-taches to the electric box of a home and communicates with household appliances, turning off unused ap-pliances as needed without human intervention. The device is simple to install and tests have revealed that it can reduce energy consumption by 30% on commercial and residential buildings.

Building Materials: Biomimicry is a huge contributor to the field of green building materials. One exciting de-

velopment is the self-cleaning paint Lotusan, which mimics the bumps on a lotus leaf used to collect water and clean foliage. Tiny bumps in the paint analogously collect dirt off of the buildings when exposed to rainwater, allowing a façade to essentially clean itself. The self assembly of natural building materials is another promis-ing area of biomimetics research. Sandia National Labs has found a

Table 1. Comparison of Solar Cell Materials

Solar Cell mate-rial

Crystalline Silicon Polycrystalline Silicon

Amorphous Silicon

Embodied Energy (kW-hrs/m2)

553 407 116

Energy Conver-sionEfficiency (%)

15-22 14-15 7-10

Figure 11: Dyesol Panel

Figure12: DSSC as flexible thin film


11

way to create a self-assembly coat-ing process. Hard building materials can be produced via the “self assem-bly” or simply the interlocking of mol-ecules manipulated by evaporation at room temperature. The potential of this already existing technology is related to Photovoltaics. Imagine spraying the necessary precursors onto a desired area and watching the materials self assemble naturally. Case Study: Dye Sensitized Solar Cells (DSSC)

The most important organ application of Biomimicry is the use of Dye Sen-sitized PV systems. DSSC is supe-rior to many Silicon based PV for in manufacturing, cost and application.

Manufacturing: There are three major types of Silicon PV cells avail-able on the market today; they are single crystal, polycrystalline, and amorphous silicon. A great deal of embodied energy is required in the manufacture of a Silicon based PV cell. The following chart illustrates the embodied energy for the three types of Silicon PV.

DSSC requires less energy for manufacture than each of these silicon options, though the energy conversion efficiency is roughly 11%. DSSC are manufactured at relatively low cost on production equipment similar to manufacturing processes used by printing industries. Addition-ally, DSSC is manufactured using readily available materials that are relatively non-toxic. Ruthenium dye is one of the primary materials used in DSSC production. An analysis of the availability of Ruthenium reveals reserves that are projected to last well over 150 years. Silicon however is not found in nature so abundantly.

Manufactures instead harvest poly-silicon, splitting its molecules into Silicon via the Czochralski process at high temperatures.

Carbon emissions are a large con-cern when considering silicon pro-duction. Currently, fourteen tonnes of Silicon are required to generate one mega watt of electricity. For every 1 tonne of Silicon produced, 1.5 tonnes of CO2 is emitted. Typically a Silicon based solar cell will pay back this embodied energy in 1-5 years. A life cycle assessment of amorphous silicon PV systems showed a total embodied energy of 42 g CO2/kWh.

Alternatively DSSC produces be-tween 19–47 g CO2/kWh, reflecting a great potential for CO2 emission reduction.

Currently nine producers manufac-ture the bulk of silicon available on the market, and collective in 2006 produced 35.5 ktons of Si, effectively emitting 53.55 kton of CO2 per an-num (based on the above conversion factor). These figures can be related to Austin, Texas. Given the current PV capacity of Austin, 3.4 MW, and assuming the majority of PV installed to date is silicon based, we can yield a rough estimate of 71.4 tonnes of CO2 already emitted by production of these solar cell systems. Addition-ally, Austin Energy projects a PV capacity of 200MW within the next few years. If all these installations are silicon based PV, 4,200 tonnes of CO2 will have been emitted in their production.

From an environmental perspective, the main improvement DSSC has made over the prevailing silicon tech-nology is by the increase in conver-sion efficiency from solar radiation to

electricity generation using lower em-bodied energy in manufacture and organic materials. DSSC is currently being tested against national stan-dards by two major manufacturers, Dyesol and Fujikura.

Cost: The market price and demand is on the rise for silicon as a result of increasing demand from the com-puter and semiconductor industries. Silicon market prices are expected to rise considerably as polysilicon reserves (the empirical material used to produce silicon) are in decline. When comparing total production of silicon to its usage over the last decade, we find that the total produc-tion of silicon is increasing while the total unused has completely dimin-ished. This has a negative impact on the future of silicon prices, contribut-ing to PV costs of 2$/watt or more. Alternatively, DSSC projects costs 1$/watt making it readily competitive with the coal industry.

Application: The installation and ap-plication of DSSC has a number of advantages over Silicon PV. Com-pared to silicon PV, performance of DSSC varies less with temperature fluctuations. The maximum power point voltage (Vmpp) for DSSC varies by 20mV over a temperature range of -10ºC to 70ºC whereas that of crystalline silicon cells significantly decreases with increasing tempera-ture (Murray). Furthermore the flex-ible, film-like nature of DSSC makes it a perfect candidate for Building In-tegrated Photovoltaics (BIPV). BIPV has a number of advantages and has been shown to be more efficient than providing a systems energy using a PV power plant. DSSC can be easily applied to building envelopes and facades, giving it much architectural potential. DSSC can be integrated


12

into southern facades, used for shadowing and even incorporated into glazings. Additionally a flat roof is not required for its installation, un-like the bulky infrastructure of Silicon PV. DSSC also out performs Silicon PV in diffuse light conditions, when a panel cannot be directed towards the sunlight at an optimum angle. On an aesthetic level, DSSC can be customized in its appearance and is available in a variety of colors and shapes, catering to broader architec-tural applications.

The Branches

Sustainability ultimately links or-gans and organisms together, and can be defined as the agent tying the Biomimicry “loop”. For a sys-tem to be sustainable, the organs and organisms must be integrated together in a mutually dependent re-lationship. Sophisticated Biomimicry is the imitation of this relationship, effectively creating a unique, sustain-able system. For example an organ produced by Biomimicry (the smart switch) is not inherently sustainable, but becomes so when integrated into the organism (a smart grid energy distribution system). Or a city built with sustainable urban planning is not sustainable unless the individual buildings within that system are also energy efficient. This concept can operate on various micro and macro scales. Furthermore it must be acknowledged that sustainability is not simply an idea, it is a reality of nature, easily identified and imitated. Such is the goal of Biomimicry, to ultimately produce the organs and organisms for the purpose of integra-tion into a sustainable system, infi-nitely seeking an increasingly close fit to an ever-changing environment.

Sources

Aizenberg, Joanna, and Gordon Hendler. Designing efficient microlens arrays: les-sons from Nature. Tech. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 24 June 2004. Web. <www.rsc.org/materials>.

Andrew. “Biomimetic and Sustainable Archi-tecture: Learning from the Eastgate Building in Harare, Zimbabwe.” Weblog post. Z+ Blog. 2004. Web. <http://www.zpluspartners.com/zblog>. “Ask Nature.” The Biomimicry Institute. Web. Summer 2009. <http://www.asknature.org>. Benyus, Janine M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Morrow, 1997. Print.

CABE. Rep. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Web. <http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/hammarby-sjostad>.

Desilvestro, Hans, and Yanek Hebting. “Ru-thenium-based dyes for Dye Solar Cells.” Ma-terials Science. Sigma Aldrich. Web. <http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/materials-science/organic-electronics/dye-solar-cells.html>.

Desilvestro, Hans, Sylvia Tulloch, and Gavin Tulloch. Volume Manufacture of Dye Solar Cells. Rep. Dyesol, 2008. Web. <http://www.dyesol.com/index.php?element=Volume+Manufacture+of+Dye+Solar+Cells>. Dorn, Jonathan G. “Solar Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007.” The Economics of PV. Earth Policy Institute, 27 Dec. 2007. Web. <http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007.htm>.

Ellin, Nan. Integral Urbanism. New York: Rout-ledge, 2006. Print.

Hamilton, Tyler. “Managing Energy with Swarm Logic.” Technology Review. MIT, 4 Feb. 2009. Web. <http://www.dyesol.com/index.php?element=Volume+Manufacture+of+Dye+Solar+Cells>.

Harvey, Austin Energy, Tim. “AE PV Estimate.” Message to the author. 11 Aug. 2009. E-mail.

Hough, Michael. City Form and Natural Process. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold Company, 1984. Print. “How Do Solar Panels Work?” Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association. Web. <http://

www.glrea.org/articles/index.html>.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Print.

McGee, Tim. “Constructal Theory: Introduc-tion to the Inverse of Biomimicry.” Treehug-ger. Web. <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/constructal_the.php>.

Murray, Paul, Andy Thein, Sylvia Tulloch, and Hans Desilvestro. “Dye Solar Cells: The New Kid on the Block.” Photovoltaics World. Web. <www.pvworld.com>.

Passino, Kevin M. Biomimicry for Optimiza-tion, Control and Automation. New York: Springer, 2--4. Print.

Pierce, Joshua, and Andrew Lau. Net Energy Analysis for Sustainable Energy Production from Silicon Based Solar Cells. Tech. The Pennsylvania State University, 2002. Web. <http://jupiter.clarion.edu/~jpearce/Papers/netenergy.pdf>. Platt, Brenda. Resources up in Flames. Rep. Waste to Wealth. Web. <http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/upinflames.pdf>.

“Urban Density.” Smart Growth America. Web. <http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/>.

Van Brummelen et al. “Life Cycle Assessment of Roof Integrated SolarCell Systems, (Report: Department of Science, Technology and Soci-ety, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 1994.

Van Sark, W.G.H.J.M, G.W Brandsen, and M. Fleuster. Analysis of the silicon market: Will thin films profit? Tech. Elsevier Energy Policy, 30 Jan. 2007. Web. <http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/chem/2008-0304-200907/NWS-E-2007-326.pdf>.

Images

Hawk, Thomas. Chihuly_92. Digital image. Flickr. Web. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2603598680/>.

Satellite image of tributaries. Digital image. White Lake Data Management. CFO. Web. <http://www.m2dxtx.com/>

Eastgate building. Digital image. Web. <http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/ter-mitehararezimbabwe.jpg>.

Dysol thin film and panel. Digital image. Geni-


13

tron Sviluppo. Web. <http://www.genitronsvi-luppo.com/>

All Hammarbi Sjostad Images. Digital image. Hammarby Sjostad. Web. <http://www.ham-marbysjostad.se/>.

defining biomimicry: architectural applications in … mimicry is equally ... defining biomimicry:...

Documents