What is Biomimicry and How Can it Be Implemented in Structural Engineering?

The construction industry, as it is known today, has been operating for almost as long as humanity has been in existence and in almost the same way as it did during its inception during the Bronze Age. While humans have made consistent progress in the types of building materials that are used in construction, the concept of heating, beating, and/or treating materials to make them suitable for use has largely remained true for millennia. Since the industrial revolution, the use of fossil fuels to create new synthetic materials and the standardization of building codes contributed to the use of stronger materials whose properties have been easier to control than natural materials. The construction industry has been recalcitrant in its utilization of new techniques and materials that stray from the conventional uses of concrete, steel, and timber; however, with the knowledge of a rapidly changing climate as well as demographic shifts in human populations throughout the world towards cities, the concept of sustainability has all but rushed to the fore to mitigate the damage that is and will be caused by these cultural and climatic tectonic shifts. Biomimicry is a potential tool in the implementation of sustainability in engineering and construction and although biomimicry as a concept is new within the field of structural engineering and construction, it is one of the primary tools of technological progress utilized throughout history. The term “biomimicry” is derived from the words “‘bios’ and ‘mimicry’ coming from Greek meaning ‘life’ and ‘imitation’ respectively” (Yiatros et al., 2007). The key tenet of biomimicry is to mimic nature to take advantage of the efficiency crafted from billions of years of evolutionary progress. This mimicry can be found in the engineering of the Shinkansen Bullet Train in Japan to mimic the quick and smooth flight of kingfisher birds thereby reducing the noise and electricity use of the final design. Biomimicry can also be observed in the sensors on newer cars which detect movement in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and alert the driver of potential hazards, similarly to how locusts avoid colliding with each other when they travel in swarms due to the sensitivity and efficiency in their eyesight.

Biomimicry can also be explained with similar terms including synthetic biology, biomimetics, biomaterials, or bioinspired structures. While these terms are not completely interchangeable, they offer slightly differing insights into the aspect of biomimicry that is being discussed. The term ‘biomimetics’ was first coined by Otto Schmitt in the 1950s and “relates to the development of innovative and new technologies through the distillation of principles from the study of biological systems” (Pachego-Torgal, 2015).  Biomaterials are materials created using a biological process and bioinspired structures, for instance, are an example of biomimicry which can utilize biomaterials or synthetic materials which in and of themselves mimic a biological process. Iconic author on the basics of biomimicry, Janine Benyus, described nature’s manufacturing process as having four distinct aspects; life-friendly manufacturing processes, an ordered hierarchy of structures, self-assembly, and templating of crystals with proteins. The first methodology details how, “nature manufactures its materials under life-friendly conditions – in water, at room temperature, without harsh chemicals or high pressures” (Benyus, 2009). This contradicts the methodology of “heat, beat, and treat” which Benyus explains in her book as the conventional method of materials engineering and manufacturing. “Nature thrives when three characteristics – effectiveness, efficiency, and multifunctionality – are intricately tied, causing an organism’s structural form to be dictated by the mutualism of these traits” (Chen et al., 2015).

Biomimicry in Engineering

Nature has been mimicked in many engineering fields throughout history and to great effect in the advancement of technology. More recently, robotics mimics the locomotive aspects of animal behavior. Sensors have been developed that mimic biological eyes where cameras have long used technology whose apertures borrow from the inner workings of the lenses in the eyes of mammals. More complex sensors use multiple apertures to mimic the compound eye in insects (Wright & Barrett, 2013). The field of biomimicry has some of the most application in the field of materials science, but other engineering disciplines have been able to take advantage of the biomimicry concept. The most desirable natural materials that researched in terms of potential for mimicry are materials such as bone, ligaments, timber, shells, and scales. These materials provide a hierarchical structuring which is the foundation of structural integrity in most natural structures (Pereira et al., 2015). This hierarchical structuring employs meticulously arranged components from the nanoscale to the microscale, through to the macroscale to guarantee properties that help the material in question withstand the elements. This hierarchical structure, which will be discussed in further detail throughout this literature review, is combined with engrained composite action between natural structures to provide a material which is very desirable for mimicry in synthetic materials. Not only are materials themselves the focus of biomimicry in engineering but bioinspired manufacturing processes are as well. Biomineralization and self-assembly are among the biological manufacturing processes that are explored in this literature review. New technologies that utilize biology are allowing for the completely new creation of biological materials and natural tissues with no real natural analog. That is, materials can be synthesized to mimic the properties of disparate polysaccharides and proteins that occur in nature (Keating & Young, 2019). This technology is known as synthetic biology. Synthetic biology is an emergent field in engineering which has become synonymous with the concept of biomimicry. Synthetic biology, however, relies heavily upon the development of engineered organisms for industrial-scale processing of chemical sand materials (Ball, 2018). This is the logical next step in implementing bioinspired structures in an applicable way. This biotechnology has also been used in other industries including the pharmaceutical industry where insulin is regularly produced from genetically engineered Escherichia coli bacteria cells or yeast cells. Many pharmaceutical products are created today from fermentation of engineered microorganisms (Ball, 2018). Synthetic biology constitutes different concepts to differing fields of study, but this concept can also hold the key to the melding together of the fields of engineering and biology. Synthetic biology provides a way for biologists to understand natural biological systems while chemists use the concept to develop molecules. For engineers, biology can be viewed as a technology that can facilitate the design of biological systems (Oldham et al., 2012).  

Biological Ethos vs. Engineering Ethos

A thorough understanding of the concept of biomimicry requires a thorough understanding of both biology and engineering. Biology is a hard science with a rote base which can spout forth many possibilities in applied science. Engineering, however, is an applied science with many theoretical bases which also provide many possibilities but considerably fewer opportunities to stray from the basic methodology explored. In other words, biology and engineering have differing ways of study and present differing ethos. An important difference between engineers and biologist can be seen with the use of standardization. While engineers are very familiar with the use of standardization, this isn’t the case for biologists and hard scientists in general. MIT scientist Tom Knight once wrote that those differences could be illustrated by the following example ‘‘A biologist goes into the lab, studies a system and finds that it is far more complex than anyone suspected. He’s delighted, he can spend a lot of time exploring that complexity and writing papers about it. An engineer goes into the lab and makes the same finding. His response is: ‘How can I get rid of this?’’’ Meaning that contrary to biologists, engineers excel at eliminating irrelevant complexity in order to build something that works and is fully understood (Pachego-Torgal, 2015). Christopher Voigt, a synthetic biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also stated that, “Materials science and biology speak different languages and they are good at using different types of material” (Ball, 2018). It is important that an interdisciplinary approach be taken to combine these two differing philosophies effectively and harmoniously. This literature review seeks to understand biomimicry and search for a research topic from the perspective of a structural engineer. This paper also seeks to determine a curriculum that can encourage a structural engineer to implement the mindset and ethos of a biologist in order to deliver an application that utilizes biomimicry in structural engineering. According to Pereira, “The transfer of a concept or strategy observed in Nature into a new material is not trivial, requiring first a careful analysis and study of the natural model, and then a certain degree of creativity, interpretation and abstraction in order to identify the underlying principles and mechanisms” (Pereira et al, 2015). For these reasons engineering students should acquire a more interdisciplinary course of study. A regimen that includes experimental investigation, numerical analysis, and testing must be implemented. And the most important step is to determine a biological prototype for research (Hu & Feng, 2015).

Around the globe, the built environment, infrastructure, and climate change remain some of the most pressing scientific issues of our time. The presence of emerging nations beginning and continuing to build more infrastructure to accommodate population growth is a concern that can possibly have the negative effects of this issue mitigated by implemented bioinspiration in the built environment. Developed nations also face the same problems with the addition of crumbling infrastructure that must be repaired or replaced. Concepts covered in this review, for an acceptable curriculum for structural engineers interested in biomimicry, related to the creation of new bioinspired materials could pertain to emerging nations where infrastructure is being constructed at a breakneck pace. Concepts related to retrofitting existing structures through bioinspiration or determining biomimetic methods for structural health monitoring could be useful in developed and developing nations plagued with issues of crumbling infrastructure.

References

Ball, P. (2018). Synthetic biology—Engineering nature to make materials. MRS Bulletin, 43(7), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2018.165

Benyus, J. M. (2009). Biomimicry : innovation inspired by nature. Perennial.

Chen, D. A., Ross, B. E., & Klotz, L. E. (2015). Lessons from a Coral Reef: Biomimicry for Structural Engineers. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(4), 02514002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001216

Hu, N., & Feng, P. (2015). Bio-inspired Bridge Design. In H. K. Lee, F. Pachego-Torgal, J. Labrincha, C. Yu, & M. Diamanti (Eds.), Biotechnologies and Biomimetics for Civil Engineering (pp. 235–254). Springer.

Keating, K. W., & Young, E. M. (2019). Synthetic biology for bio-derived structural materials. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 24, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2019.03.002

Oldham, P., Hall, S., & Burton, G. (2012). Synthetic Biology: Mapping the Scientific Landscape. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e34368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034368

Pachego-Torgal, F. (2015). Introduction to Biotechnologies and Biomimetics for Civil Engineering. In H. K. Lee, F. Pachego-Torgal, J. Labrincha, C. Yu, & M. Diamanti (Eds.), Biotechnologies and Biomimetics for Civil Engineering (pp. 1–20). Springer.

Pereira, P., Monteiro, G., & Prazeres, D. (2015). General Aspects of Biomimetic Materials. In H. K. Lee, F. Pachego-Torgal, J. Labrincha, C. Yu, & M. Diamanti (Eds.), Biotechnologies and Biomimetics for Civil Engineering (pp. 57–80). Springer.

Yiatros, S., Wadee, M. A., & Hunt, G. R. (2007). The load-bearing duct: biomimicry in structural design. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 160(4), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2007.160.4.179

Sustainability and Birmingham, AL's Sustained Issues: Cultural Observations Abroad

            The cultures of the Netherlands, Egypt, and Birmingham, Alabama (in the United States) vary greatly. Differing cities within each country had a unique view on sustainability, architecture, transportation, along with a myriad of other facets of modern civilization. In the Netherlands, the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Delft showed differences in infrastructure due to many factors, including history and geography, while maintaining a central focus on the prevailing cultural identity of the Netherlands. Cairo and Alexandria, in Egypt, also featured subtle differences due to the same factors. This review will detail the cultural milieu of the Netherlands and Egypt while comparing the countries' cities to each other and to Birmingham, Alabama.

            Pragmatism and sensibility consume the atmosphere of everyday life in the Netherlands. A sense of camaraderie was built from the need to protect the land from the powerful seas (most of the Netherlands is under sea level) by building windmills to pump water back toward the ocean. This history has directly influenced Dutch culture and can be seen in the architecture of many of the cities in the Netherlands. Canals run through each major city in the Netherlands, connecting each city and giving water a means of which to travel back toward the ocean. Dutch innovation in the face of hardship can also be examined in Amsterdam architecture, where large hooks protrude from the tops of many of the buildings. Along with the protrusion of these hooks, most of these older Amsterdam buildings featured a characteristic “lean” towards the particular street that they face.

            These two domineering characteristics of each Amsterdam building were present in order for individuals to lift heavy objects into homes and buildings for hundreds of years and is still used as a method to do the same thing today. The steep stairwells and narrow design of buildings in Amsterdam prevented people from simply carrying large objects directly into a building so the hooks at the top of each building were used as leverage and the characteristic lean in each building ensured that the object's sway, while being lifted, could not damage the building. In Rotterdam, buildings and architecture are more modern and feature a minimalist yet avant garde aesthetic. This change in design from Amsterdam is due mostly to the intense bombing of Rotterdam that occurred during the Second World War. This destruction forced the rebuilding of the city which is evident in the larger walking areas and taller buildings that Rotterdam has in relation to Amsterdam.

Rotterdam focuses on this history and continues to keep it as a visible part of its cultural identity by projecting film from WWII on a large billboard outside of the Central Station.

The make-up of the city of Delft largely is based on the university that lies therein, TU Delft. Even though this city features older architecture, such as that found in Amsterdam, TU Delft has created a hub of innovation and youth that permeates the city center.

Although there are a slew of differences between Birmingham, AL and the Netherlands, one of the greatest visible differences is the presence of reliable and diverse means of public transportation available in the Netherlands. The Netherlands features a very unique and extensive network of bike lane infrastructure in the city centers as well as the more rural areas and suburbs. The presence of trams, trains, and buses along with infrastructure geared toward traveling by bike throughout the country provides several reliable choices of transport for citizens. Also, the mostly flat topography of the country makes riding a bicycle for long distances very simple for the average person. There are also a large amount of charging stations for electric vehicles.

The Dutch culture is based primarily on pragmatic solutions rather than ideology. The aforementioned means of transportation and infrastructure are not only better for the environment but they are simple means of traversing large areas cheaply and effectively. This is the predominant attitude of the Dutch people, to determine solutions to problems that are practical, offering several pros to areas of efficiency, economy, and social structure.

Egypt is a country steeped in history and architectural/engineering knowledge. The engineering prowess of Egypt can be viewed throughout its history in the construction of the world famous pyramids, surrounding Cairo, to more modern structure such as the state-of-the-art library/museum in Alexandria.

The cultural makeup of Egypt is about as diverse as the Netherlands where Cairo features a more sprawling and huge urban landscape and Alexandria is indicative of a more Mediterranean culture with its proximity to the Mediterranean sea and countries such as Italy.

One major difference between Egypt and the Netherlands are the modes of public transportation and the problems with traffic and congestion that are more visible in Egypt. Cairo and Alexandria were also visibly more congested than the cities in the Netherlands, possibly due to geography moreso than anything else. The Nile river is a source of resources, energy, and life that civilization has built itself around.

Egypt, in general, is a more old-fashioned and conservative country than the Netherlands with a large amount of architecture dating back for centuries. There is a much smaller occurrence of electrical vehicles and alternative fuel options for energy use as well compared to the Netherlands. The mesh of old and modern methods of transportation is clearly evident in Cairo, where one can witness someone transporting produce on a horse drawn cart and large trucks transporting similar goods within close vicinity of each other.

One aspect of civilization that the Netherlands and Egypt feature the greatest chasm between is the architecture of both nations. Egypt's beautiful architecture features dome ceilings and other passive methods of cooling due to high temperatures. The architecture also dates back further in history than most places in the world and features many ornate and ostentatious displays that further accent the social milieu of Egypt and the Islamic culture. The mosques feature beautiful edifices and stone facades and many buildings show several spires that protrude from their respective footprints. More modern Egyptian architecture can be viewed in Cairo and Alexandria as well, but the dominant view of urban architecture that is evident is the use of single air conditioning units for each window of residential dwellings. Many apartment and residential structures feature balconies and air conditioning units for each apartment unit. The architecture in Egypt is much more vibrant and colorful than the majority of buildings that were witnessed in the Netherlands. Egypt's brilliantly colored buildings seem to reflect the festive leanings of the culture and are far removed from the drab, postmodernist architecture of many of the buildings in Rotterdam, for example.

Overall, Egypt is a nation that is determining a route towards sustainability and although Egypt does not yet have many of the advancements that the Netherlands features as far as sustainable design is concerned, Egypt has a long track record of sustainable architectural activity as evidenced in its history and approach to sustainability from a completely different practical standpoint, similar to the Netherlands.

In visiting these two countries, it's clear that sustainable design is not a new and innovative method for guiding the creation of new infrastructure in large cities. The Netherlands and Egypt have been implementing sustainable practices for generations and there respective pushes toward “greener” infrastructure vacillate between innovation and the perpetuation of tried and true methods implemented long ago. Both cultures are rich in the creation of innovative engineering and design throughout their respective histories and it is important to determine which of the characteristics of these places best mirror that of American cities, Birmingham, Alabama in the case of this study away opportunity, and apply each nation's respective methods of sustainable design to our own. It is clear that the most advanced and convoluted technologies do not always make for a better and more efficient experience. Sometimes, more traditional methods of infrastructure, such as the cobblestone roads in Amsterdam or the dome ceilings in Cairo, make for a more agile and malleable infrastructure that can evolve with the ever-changing tides of human behavior.

For this reason, both cultures are especially good case studies for the need for infrastructure management and sustainability. Birmingham would benefit best from paying attention to the shortcomings of each culture, where sustainability is concerned, and focusing on what not to do as well as focusing on a broader approach to sustainability that ignores ideology and embraces a more holistic frame of thought. I, personally, experienced the myopic thought processes of the usual dialogue that concerns sustainability in Birmingham while in the Netherlands. These processes, as presented by our own group, ignored social and cultural instabilities in Birmingham and focused on more abstract and ideological “solutions” to sustainability which included solutions that made no sense for our own problems, such as the desire to start cheese farms or other niche groups in Birmingham. This obviously does not solve or contribute to solutions for some of Birmingham's most pressing problems. Birmingham would benefit from a bottom-up approach to sustainable design by including the concerns and thoughts of Birmingham's public and, as mentioned earlier, applying a more holistic approach to sustainability. The Netherlands and Egypt both have issues with their respective infrastructures that prevent further innovations in sustainable design in the short term, such as the ubiquitous congestion and pollution issues in Egypt's larger cities and the waning innovations in clean energy production that the Netherlands is currently experiencing. If Birmingham can learn from the shortcomings and the triumphs that both Egypt and the Netherlands have both experienced, then Birmingham would be more poised for success.