HOLISM, BIOMIMICRY AND SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING · PDF filethe context of sustainable...

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Proceedings of IMECE2005 2005 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition

Orlando, FL, USA, November 5-11, 2005

IMECE2005-81343

HOLISM, BIOMIMICRY AND SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

John Reap Systems Realization Laboratory

The George W. Woodruff School Of Mechanical Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

USA

Dayna Baumeister Biomimicry Guild

P.O. Box 575 Helena, MT 59624

USA

Bert Bras Systems Realization Laboratory

The George W. Woodruff School Of Mechanical Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0405

USA

ABSTRACT

Socially beneficial, profitable products that restore or at least leave the environment undamaged (i.e. sustainable products) remain an elusive goal. Emulation of the inherently sustainable living world through biomimetic design potentially offers one approach to creating sustainable or, at least, less unsustainable products. In this article, one learns, however, that current approaches to biomimicry do not necessarily lead to such ends. Examination of research and practice reveals a reductive mindset that limits biomimicry’s applicability within the context of sustainable engineering. To remove this limitation, this article proposes a holistic view of biomimicry that goes beyond imitation of a few features of a particular organism. A holistic view of biomimicry involves incorporation of life’s general characteristics in design and application of these characteristics across multiple spatial, temporal and organizational scales of engineering influence. The article initiates the development of holistic biomimicry as a guiding framework for designers interested in utilizing biomimicry’s potential as a sustainable design tool.

Keywords: sustainable engineering, sustainable design, biologically inspired, bioemulation, bionic, green design, environmentally conscious design 1. Introduction

Biomimicry literally means the imitation of life. Combination of the Greek roots bios, life, and mimikos, imitation, gives rise to the term. Vogel notes that humanity looked to duplication, imitation and general inspiration by nature to guide innovation in the past [1]. He states that (1) a perception of nature’s “superiority,” (2) an affinity for nature, and (3) promises of financial, military or health advantages

motivated previous turns to the living world in search of innovation. From architecture through bio-robotics to material science and chemistry, the mimicry of life provided and continues to provide novel insights into engineering problems [2]. Bone structure influenced the design of Eiffel’s tower [2]. A mid-rise building with a ventilation system inspired by a termite mound maintains a “uniformly cool” interior while saving 90% of the cost of a comparable conventionally conditioned building [3]. Mammals, reptiles, insects and other organisms inspired over 30 years of robotics research on manipulators, grasping devices and locomotion [4]. Deflection of bird wings inspired the Wright Flyer’s control system [1]. Leading edge “scallop” geometry found on Humpback whale fins delays stall, increases lift and reduces drag in wind tunnel tests of idealized fin models [5]. Burs provided the model for Velcro TM. The potential of producing industrial materials with properties such as spider silk and mollusk nacre continues to interest the material science community [6].

The previous set of biomimetic technologies (flight controls, bio-robotics, ventilation systems, etc.) and potential technologies (fin geometry, nacre materials, etc.) improve performance. The engineered world, some argue, might benefit from nature’s guidance concerning the environment as well [7, 8]. This article considers the use of biomimicry as an approach to sustainable engineering, specifically its environmental component. Through it, the reader is given an opportunity to contemplate biomimicry as an approach that maintains competitive advantage through innovation while guiding engineers toward environmentally benign designs.


2. Reductionism in Biomimicry Biomimetic inquiry in engineering views biomimicry as a

tool for solving particular problems in the conceptual and embodiment phases of design (See Figure 1).

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

Figure 1: Design Process Adapted from Pahl and Beitz [9]

with Usual Application of Biomimicry

This view also guides research in fields with biomimetic areas of study such as robotics and materials. For example, in robotics, one finds a focus on sensors, propulsion methods and manipulators that imitate those of organisms [10]. Investigators attempt to model and imitate the chemosensory capabilities of lobsters and the taste sense of human tongues [10, 11]. One example of a kinematical sensor emulates length and velocity detection in muscles [12]. A device meant to mimic the bone conduction mechanics believed responsible for the sensation of food crispness also exists [13]. In propulsive mechanisms and manipulators, one finds robots with tuna and cockroach kinematics [10, 14]. In material science and engineering, there is strong interest in biopolymers, biomineralization and self-assembly. Examples of research include work on sound adsorbing biopolymers and hydrogels with potential applications as living tissue scaffolds [15, 16]. In efforts to understand and replicate nature’s multilayer biomineralized composites such as teeth and shells, researchers explore the deposition of thin films of calcium carbonate [17]. Others explore means of forming biomineralized material morphologies using calcite [18]. Huie provides a review of successful self-assembly efforts in nanotechnology focusing on electrostatic, chemical and biologically assisted nano-scale material creation and modification [19].

A common thread weaves through these examples of biomimicry. In each case, researchers mimic particular biological technologies: taste sensation, fish locomotion, self-assembly, etc. As a result, biomimicry in engineering research and practice tends toward reductionism. In multiple domains, applied scientists and engineers work diligently to mimic a few

features or functions of particular organisms or biological processes. They focus on particular technologies or elements of technologies at particular scales, seeking to transfer biological “technology” from the living world to the design table. Such an approach to biomimicry adds to the knowledge in specific domains while providing valuable new technologies. This reductive mindset holds important ramifications for biomimicry’s application to sustainable engineering. By narrowing the scope of inquiry, it threatens to limit biomimicry’s applicability to sustainable design.

3. Biomimicry: Green by Default? Environmental assessment of existing biomimetic products

reveals some practical consequences of the reductive mindset. This section briefly investigates the relationship between simple imitation and green design, by testing the common sense position that imitation of the living world is not by default environmentally superior. Three biomimetic products were chosen and environmentally assessed in relation to competing non-biomimetic products. Simplicity, functional equivalence of non-biomimetic competitors and data availability contributed to selection. A biomimicry database provides the first two products (Stomatex TM and MemBrain TM) while the third (barbed wire) is drawn from a careful review of biomimetic inventions [1, 20].

3.1 Comparison Overview The goal of this comparative assessment is to provide a

rough, initial understanding of how biomimetic products compare to conventional competitors from “cradle to grave.” To the best of our knowledge, the assessment covers the important phases of the life cycle for these simple products. This first approximation is made to discern whether or not broad and strong correlations between biomimicry and environmental performance exist.

In each case, major contributing environmental impact factors fall within the scope of the assessed life cycle, but given its coarseness, claims to fine or even moderate levels of detail are not made. Upstream activities such as material extraction and improvement fall within the bounds of this exercise. The scope excludes final manufacturing / assembly because these phases appear to contribute little to the impact. The assessment accounts for distribution and end of life disposition, but the use phase receives less scrutiny because the selected products consume little if any materials and energy while in use.

Each rough assessment considers defining aspects of production, distribution, use and end of life for the compared products. All comparisons assume a uniform 805 km transportation distance for the distribution phase. This assumption is justified by the focus on the biomimetic character of the product, not on the distribution system that delivers it. SimaPro software calculates impact estimates using the data for each case in units of points (Pt) and mili-points (mPt) [21]. One point represents one thousandth of an average European’s environmental load [22]. Therefore, higher point scores indicate more severe environmental impacts. These impacts encompass human health effects, environmental damage and resource depletion.

3.2 Compared Products Stomatex TM, “a breathable fabric,” insulates and

ventilates the skin of those wearing this polychloroprene fabric using pore geometry inspired by plant stomata (leaf pores).


Athletic garments and extreme weather wear (cold and / or wet) are primary applications. Perforated polychloroprene is a competing non-biomimetic fabric in water sport garments.

In the second comparison, MemBrain TM, a porous nylon sheet, is compared with a polyethylene sheet commonly used as a vapor retarding covering. Vapor retarding coverings control water vapor flow across wall sub-surfaces [23]. The porous nylon sheet promotes drying in building cavities by varying permeability in response to relative humidity. It mimics the ability of natural surfaces to vary permeability.

Barbed wire fences and rail and post fences are often used to impede the movement of cattle. Barbed wire imitates the thorny branches and stems of some plants – Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera) in particular [1]. The final comparison pits biomimetic barbed wire against a post and rail fence of comparable length.

3.3 Assessment Data and Critical Assumptions Table 1 contains life cycle inventory data for the three

comparisons as well as key factors considered in the environmental assessments. In addition to tabulated information, a number of assumptions were required to complete and expedite this order-of-magnitude assessment. In the first comparison, a lack of polychloroprene life cycle impact data forces substitution of related butadiene rubber in the impact analysis. Uncertainty about thermally comparable thicknesses and hole spacing for perforated neoprene required investigation of multiple thicknesses and hole arrangements. In the second comparison, primary sheet production is considered, but secondary material processing and installation are ignored due to lack of data. In the final comparison, one support post lifetime serves as the lifetime for both fence types. To simplify assessment, Fence rails are assumed to decay at the same rate as the fence posts, and neither rails nor posts receive treatments or coatings. Wire and fence remnants remain in the field.

3.4 Impact Comparison and Summary Comparison results presented in Table 2 support the

previously mentioned common sense perspective of biomimicry and green design. Mimicking a pore or thorn may boost conventional performance, but environmental performance of biomimetic products fairs no better and potentially worse than that of non-biomimetic competitors, given this assessment’s uncertainties and assumptions. It reveals one of the practical consequences of the reductive mindset found in the academic literature.

Table 1: Life Cycle Data for the Three Comparisons

Comparison 1 Stomatex TM Perforated Neoprene Functional

Unit 1 cm2

Upstream Activities

• Polychloroprene • 2 mm thick

• Polychloroprene • Thickness • Holes per unit area

(3-5 holes per side of a 1 cm2 area investigated)

• Hole geometry Comparison 2 MemBrain TM Polyethylene Sheet

Functional Unit 1 cm2

Upstream Activities

• Nylon-6 • 0.05 mm thick

• LDPE • 0.10 mm thick

End of Life (Comp. 1 & 2)

• 100% Landfill • 100% Landfill

Comparison 3 Barbed Wire Post and Rail Fence Functional

Unit 1 fence length (2.64 m) measured from post center

to post center

Upstream Activities

• Al metal • Wire 1.1 g/cm • 2 Posts (10.2 cm

sq. section, 1.83 m)

• Oregon Pine • 3 Rails (5.08 cm x

10.2 cm x 2.54 m) • 2 Posts (10.2 cm

sq. section, 1.83 m)

Distribution (All)

• 40 t truck • 805 km

Use (All) Nil Nil

End of Life (Comp. 3)

100% Fill in Place 100% Fill in Place

Table 2: Numerical Impact Results from SimaPro (grayscale indicates environmental superiority)

Products Upstream Activities

(Pt)

Distribution (Pt)

End of Life (Pt)

Total Impact

(Pt) Stomatex

TM 2.44x10-5 4.33x10-7 1.66x10-7 2.50x10-5

P. Polychl. 2.27-7.95x10-5

4.03-14.1x10-7

1.55-5.41x10-7

2.33-8.14x10-5

MemBrain TM 5.14x10-6 4.93x10-8 1.89x10-8 5.21x10-6

Polyethyl. Sheet 3.53x10-6 1.34x10-7 3.14x10-8 3.70x10-6

Barbed Wire Fence 3.51 0.0682 ~0 3.58

Post and Rail Fence 7.49 0.17 0.00 7.66

4. Scale Matters Another consequence appears when one considers spatial

and temporal scales, as well. Consider the hierarchy in Figure 2. Engineering design and manufacturing directly and indirectly influence each level of the presented hierarchy.


System

Ecosystem

Product

Assembly

Material

System

Ecosystem

Product

Assembly

Material

ComponentBiomaterials

Biomimetic Sensors, Actuators

Biorobotics

Industrial Ecology

Figure 2: Hierarchy of Scales Subject to Engineering

Influence

As revealed by the previous discussion and examples, current biomimetic activities focus on particular levels of the hierarchy. A recent National Science Foundation workshop on simulation in engineering highlighted the importance of multi-scale modeling for addressing engineering’s environmental aspects [24]. Such an approach involves the integration of multiple scale-specific models (See Figure 3).

System

Ecosystem

Product

Component

Assembly

Material

System

Ecosystem

Product

Component

Assembly

Material

Figure 3: Hierarchy of Scales with Scale-Specific Models

These analysis models reveal part, assembly or system behavior and help identify the variables controlled by designers. However, building an analysis model is only part of the effort in design. One must establish goals, set bounds and develop methods of searching the design space. If one’s overarching goal is sustainability, where would one look for an

appropriate set of these things? Where could one find a set of appropriate goals, bounds and search strategies that inform activities on the multiple scales at which engineering exerts influence? An existing sustainable system is a logical choice. For the environmental component of sustainability, this existing system is the biosphere. Holistic biomimicry of a different kind than the previously discussed reductive approach might provide the required guidance.

5. Holistic Biomimicry The remainder of this article devotes itself to exploration

of this different type of biomimicry. This holistic biomimicry holds the potential to offer environmental guidance over the multiple scales influenced by engineering.

5.1 Life’s Characteristics Life, the collection of processes that tamed and maintained

themselves on planet Earth’s once hostile surface passed a critical test for sustainability – time. The word “sustainable” literally means capable of enduring [25]. Life has endured for 3.85 billion years [26]. Biomimicry, if one returns to the roots of the word, is an effort to imitate life. It is easy, then, to understand the environmentally conscious engineer’s interest in biomimicry. Learning the methods by which biotic systems reached their environmentally sustainable state might allow the creation of sustainable products, processes and systems. However, results in Section 3 and the discussions in Sections 2 and 4 show that one cannot reliably move in this direction by reductive technology transfer alone. Instead, a more holistic approach appears necessary. Allen and Starr define holism as:

A descriptive and investigative strategy which seeks to find the smallest number of explanatory principles by paying careful attention to the emergent properties of the whole as opposed to the behaviors of the isolated parts…[27]

Taking the endurance of the biotic system as an emergent property, holistic biomimicry becomes the search for and application of explanatory principles within the context of engineering. The search involves careful observation of the biotic system to identify principles responsible for its inherent sustainability. Application involves the translation of these principles into concepts meaningful for engineers and the incorporation of these concepts in product, process, facility and other engineering design activities.

Table 3 contains a list of biological principles with descriptions and, in some cases, related engineering topics. The list is adapted from Benyus and Baumeister and represents an effort to formulate “conditions conducive to life” [28]. Each bears the label of a characteristic of life. At this time, we cannot be certain that these characteristics possess the explanatory power ascribed to a principle in Allen and Starr’s holism definition. Nor do we claim that the list is complete. The set in Table 3 serves as a starting point for the search for these principles and their translation into engineering concepts.


Table 3: Description of Life’s Characteristics and Relation to Engineering

# Characteristic Description Related Engineering Topic(s)

1 Life builds from the bottom-up

Bottom-up construction refers to life’s ability to assemble materials and structures by manipulating and organizing their individual fundamental building blocks. Building blocks such as proteins or ions in aqueous solutions typically are of much smaller scales than the final material or structure. Biological evidence for this exists in the workings of cells, in the hierarchical organization of organisms, and in ecosystem structure [29, 30].

Additive Manufacturing, Mass Customization

2 Life fits form to function

The fit of form to function refers to use of limited materials and metabolic energy to create only structures and execute only processes necessary for the functions required of an organism in a particular environment. Biological evidence for the fit of form to function exists on the protein, cellular and macroscopic levels in animals and plants [30-33].

General Design Theory [9]

3 Life depends on water

Dependence upon water emphasizes the dominance of aqueous chemistry (i.e. water as a solvent) in organisms. It also highlights the importance of water as a working fluid for transport phenomena and even as a structural material.

Green Chemistry, Fluid Mechanics

4

Life is cyclic (processes) and recycles (material resources)

Cycling of processes refers to changes in response to constraints such as the day-night cycle, seasons and longer term cycles such as drought. Recycling refers to the decomposition, redistribution and reuse of organic matter. Both are recognized as critical features of the biosphere [34].

Recycling, Remanufacturing, Design for Disassembly (DfD),

Industrial Ecology

5 Life is locally attuned and resourceful

Life is locally adapted. This characteristic highlights life’s ability to utilize materials and energy available within its range of influence, as well as to recognize local conditions. It recognizes that local shortfalls created evolutionary pressures that promoted the persistence of organisms with more efficient means of using local resources.

-

6 Life adapts and evolves

Adaptation and evolution allow organisms to exist within the constraints imposed by their respective environments. Adaptation refers to the behavioral and material changes organisms make within the period of a lifetime. For example, organisms learn to flee at the characteristic sound of a predator, and tree roots grow around rocks to reach moister soil. Evolution refers to slower, fundamental genetic changes occurring over the course of many generations. Both are recognized as hallmarks of life [35].

Control Systems Engineering, Robustness, Open Engineering

Systems

7

Life coexists within a cooperative framework

Coexistence within a cooperative framework refers to the diverse web of interactions that effect populations, facilitate resource transfers, ensure redundancy and generally maintain the biosphere. Industrial Ecology

5.2 Characteristics and the Design Process The engineering design process stands to benefit from

translation and application of life’s characteristics by acting as a guide during formulation of product requirements as well as encouraging further development of certain elements of design theory. For example, in Pahl and Beitz’s mechanical engineering design method, one finds a set of suggested headings for requirements lists [9]. The “recycling” and “safety” headings directly relate to environmental concerns, and as described, the “energy” and “material” headings relate to a lesser degree. A possible approach in engaging holistic biomimicry would be to augment this list and increase the detail of existing environmentally related headings with life’s characteristics. Though admittedly vague, the characteristics convey the importance of considering environmental design issues that influence multiple scales. They also contain inherent constraints that could help steer a designer away from environmentally detrimental solutions.

A number of design theory elements appear related to holistic biomimicry. Fitting form to function is in line with general, established good design practice [9]. Its emergence in nature potentially suggests that this design practice has environmental benefits. Waste reduction is one obvious

benefit. Occurrence of characteristics related to more specific design theory elements may reveal design approaches of strategic importance to environmental sustainability. For example, adaptation and evolution in nature suggest that design theory work on robustness and open engineering systems may possess value for environmental sustainability. Likewise, the mass customization aspects of building from the bottom-up such as modularity might also strategically influence the return phase of the life cycle discussed in the next section.

5.3 Characteristics and the Product Life Cycle Inspection of Table 3 reveals that many characteristics

apply to various product life cycle phases. Connecting them with appropriate phases is a step in applying the multi-scalar guidance potentially offered by this approach to biomimicry. Another step involves envisioning the concrete actions their use might encourage. Here, we tentatively take both of these steps.

Figure 4 represents an attempt to connect the listed characteristics of life to a generic product life cycle. The numbers in Figure 4 correspond with those in Table 3. One can view them as specifications for transforming the product life cycle into something possessing biotic features and potentially the emergent property of environmental sustainability.


5,6

Disposal

Mining Material Processing

Product Manufac. Distribution

Product Take-back

Material demanufac.

Energy Recovery

Use+

Service

Product demanufac.

Enviro.(air, sea,

land)

Manufacture

Demanufacture

1,3-7

4,7

Figure 4: Characteristics of Life in the Product Life Cycle (adapted from Bras [36])

In the extractive and manufacturing phase of the life cycle, most characteristics seem applicable to some degree:

• Bottom-up fabrication, • Dependence upon water (or wider use of aqueous

chemistry), • Cyclic activity and cycled flows, • Local attention and resourcefulness, • Adaptation and evolution, • Cooperative frameworks.

Advantages of extraction and manufacturing using bottom-up fabrication include reduced production waste and functionally tailored materials. Functionally tailored materials prevent waste by reducing the need for over-designed components, exemplifying the value of environmental guidelines such as life’s characteristics that coordinate activities on different scales. The biomineralization process illustrates one natural version of this. Organisms such as mollusks use biomineralization to build shells at sea temperature from internally manufactured proteins and readily available, non-toxic ions in seawater [8]. As noted in Section 2, microscale research in biomineralization is underway. Independent research in mesoscale (50-300 �m) functional tailoring utilizes traditional engineering materials requiring chemical or thermal processing [37, 38]. Integrating these two lines of research might lead to greater improvements in traditional and environmental performance than achieved by either in isolation.

Dependence on water (or a wider use of aqueous chemistry) implies a movement away from organic solvents. Where technically and economically feasible, it might also suggest a move toward water for lubrication and hydraulics [39, 40]. More broadly, consideration of aqueous chemistry and dependence on water is a call to contemplate the diversity of biological materials and structures assembled in its presence and of biological systems maintained by its circulation. It is a challenge to use this simple yet fundamental compound with similar diversity in industry.

Cycling in the manufacturing phase represents a call to reuse waste materials where possible. Existing industrial examples include the reconditioning and reuse of waste water in electro-chemical metal finishing and the repulping of “broke” and scrap in paper production.

Locally attuned and resourceful raw material acquisition and manufacturing implies customizing operations to utilize a locale’s resource surpluses while avoiding its environmental sensitivities. For example, one might use photovoltaic and / or solar thermal systems to power, heat and cool a facility in the United State’s desert southwest, but one would avoid placing a water intensive facility such as pulp and paper manufacturing in the same area.

Adaptation and evolution in manufacturing conjures images of flexible fabrication and assembly systems capable of reconfiguration to accommodate product modifications or even new products. Such systems would reduce the material inputs associated with retooling. This characteristic also suggests manufacturing systems with a degree of robustness to material inputs.

A call for cooperative frameworks suggests a need for interaction with suppliers of recycled and refurbished materials and components or the use of another manufacturer’s waste products, as found in industrial ecology. As the description in Table 3 suggests, these interactions will likely take many forms and span multiple organizations and organizational scales. They include business arrangements such as those facilitating the continuing material and energy exchanges at the Kalundborg industrial symbiosis. They also include government interventions such as the European Union’s End of Life Vehicles (ELV), Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directives [41-43].

The most relevant characteristics applicable in the use phase include:

• Local attention and resourcefulness and • Adaptation and evolution.


These specifications call for capitalization of the unique features of a product’s region of distribution and of its use. Such features might include the utilization of locally abundant renewable energies or materials. Adaptation suggests a need for an unusual form of product robustness, one in which a product can substitute inputs or change mode of operation in a new environment.

In the inverse manufacturing phase, two of life’s characteristics particularly standout:

• Material Recycling and Cyclic Activity and • Coexistence within cooperative frameworks.

The preexistence of a recycling loop in the adapted diagram reinforces the importance of the material cycling requirement. Nature and inverse manufacturers both must adapt to changing seasons. Taken literally, inverse manufacturers might benefit from extra refurbishing and recycling capacity for certain seasonal products such as packaging material and flip-flops. Alternatively, the seasons might correspond to market shifts instead of the angle of the Earth’s surface relative to the sun. Instead of fall and spring, inverse manufacturers must prepare for the cathode ray tube season followed by the LCD screen season, for example. Cooperative arrangements mentioned for businesses involved in material extraction, processing and manufacturing apply equally for refurbishers, remanufacturers, recyclers and others involved in inverse manufacturing. The coexistence characteristic emphasizes the importance of establishing industrial ecosystems by developing various business relationships (industrial ecoparks, voluntary product take-back) and government interventions.

5.4 Characteristics in a Temporal and Spatial Context As Figure 2 in Section 4 illustrates, the scale of

engineering influence extends beyond that of the product life cycle. Holistic biomimicry should offer guidance beyond the life cycle because the biosphere is sustainable at these larger scales. Considering holistic biomimicry in this context raises a number of questions. Which characteristics apply at which scales? How might one apply them? The list in Table 3 does not provide these answers.

Figure 5 represents a first attempt to organize life’s characteristics by temporal and organization scales of applicability. It maps the living world’s approach to commensurate problems to comparable scales of engineering influence.

Sca

le o

f Org

aniz

atio

nal C

once

rn

Scale of Temporal Concern

X Products

One Manufacturer

Society

Manufacturing

Use

Disposal

Product Life CycleHuman

LifetimeCivilization

Span

X Manufacturers

Manufacturing Use DisposalSin

gle

Pro

duct

Life

Cyc

le

Creating Conditions Conducive to Life

5,6,7

43

12

Figure 5: Characteristics of Life and Scale of Influence

(adapted from Bras [36])

Starting in the extreme lower left of the diagram, one finds the fit of form to function. This characteristic influences the design phase, but it is included in this manufacturing oriented diagram to reinforce design’s strategic importance. Bottom-up manufacture is a quick, small scale activity influencing manufacturing, which dictates its position in the lower left corner of the diagram. Dependence upon water applies to manufacturing and product use. In manufacturing, it can take the form of quick, small scale reactions in water or larger scale uses such as cooling and hydraulics. These facts coupled with its potential applications in the use phase allow it to cover a greater range of organizational and temporal scales of concern than bottom-up manufacture. Injunctions to recycle apply to the recovery of products and longer term cycling of their constituent materials. Local utilization, adaptation and cooperation apply across multiple organizational and temporal scales. Some manufacturers might find themselves in regions better suited to making a particular product. For example, the water intensive manufacture of pulp and paper is not well suited for desert regions. The formation of industrial ecologies is an example of multi-manufacturer scale cooperation. Finally, the creation of conditions conducive to life is a long term activity requiring efforts ranging from manufacturing to society, which gives it frontiers at the left and top of the time / organization graph.

5.5 Envisioning a Holistically Biomimetic Product Here, reconception of one of the products assessed in

Section 3 brings the holistic biomimicry discussion full circle. This section reconceives Stomatex TM, the reductively biomimetic breathable fabric, using the characteristics of life presented in Table 3.

Reconception begins with design. The product’s specification would change to include a more holistically biomimetic design. Combining fit of form to function with mass customization, one might employ a design that allows variable geometry to achieve individual customer demands for insulation, ventilation and skin contact comfort. Meeting these requirements using variable thicknesses, stomata-like holes and material structure allows maintenance of uniformity in materials and processing.


Such a design paves the way for functional tailoring through additive fabrication processes that use aqueous chemistry pathways. One essentially grows the material with smooth or holed surfaces as desired. Such changes facilitate customization, reduce waste and potentially require less energy and eliminate toxic inputs. Building from the bottom-up also permits changing the interior of the fabric surface to have a mesh consistency. This consistency satisfies the need for skin contact comfort without bonding a more traditional fabric to the inside, thereby increasing ease of recycling. Locally available energy such as solar, wind, hydro-electric and / or others would power the operation, and feedstock crops would supply initial carbon needs and future needs not met by recycling. Such local resourcefulness increases the use of renewable resources.

The facility would recycle off-quality and returned fabric, or it would contract with recyclers. The manufacturer and / or third party recyclers would collect athletic wear, wet suits and other products made from the fabric at end of life in accordance with “waste equals food” corporate agreements and governmental “take-back” regulations. This approach reduces demand for virgin materials. Alternatively, the material would be formulated to be biodegradable and entirely compatible with natural material cycles. It is anticipated that designs developed in light of holistic biomimicry’s a priori environmentally conscious design guidance would gain the benefit of significant, quantifiable reductions in environmental impacts.

6. Closure Traditionally, biomimicry in engineering focuses on the

transfer of “biological technologies” into the engineering domain. This reductive focus successfully achieves this end. Biomimicry interpreted more broadly, however, offers more than new technology. The living world stands as an intrinsically sustainable system worth emulating. It offers:

• Guidance for product, process and system design research based upon a model known to be sustainable and

• Coordination of environmentally conscious design and manufacturing activities across multiple spatial, temporal and organization scales.

This holistic approach to biomimicry in engineering attempts to identify the principles responsible for this inherent environmental sustainability and to translate them into concepts valuable to engineering. In the previous sections, we proposed holistic biomimicry as a sustainable engineering approach worth investigating and initiated its development by describing potential principles and relating them to engineering. With these steps, however tentative, we begin the journey toward biomimicry for sustainable engineering.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Eastman Kodak Inc. and Interface Inc. for past

support. We acknowledge Michael Muir for contributions to the presented impact assessments.

REFERENCES 1. Vogel, S., 1998, Cats' Paws and Catapults: Mechanical

Worlds of Nature and People. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.

2. Ball, P., 2001, "Life's lessons in design ". Nature. 409: p. 413-416.

3. Lefaivre, L., 2000, "Making a Midrise out of a Termite Hill". Architecture. 89(11): p. 89.

4. Waldron, K.J. 2000, "A Brief History of Biomimetic Robotics". in International Symposium on History of Machines and Mechanisms. Kluwar Academic Publishers, Cassino, Italy, 371-378.

5. Miklosovic, D.S., M.M. Murray, L.E. Howle, and F.E. Fish, 2004, "Leading-edge tubercles delay stall on humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) flippers". Physics of Fluids. 16(5): p. L39-L42.

6. Vincent, J., 1990, Structural Biomaterials. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

7. Beattie, A. and P.R. Ehrlich, 2001, Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity is Money in the Bank. New Haven: Yale University Press.

8. Benyus, J.M., 1997, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: HarperCollins.

9. Pahl, G. and W. Beitz, 1999, Engineering Design A Systematic Approach. Second ed., London: Springer-Verlag.

10. Webb, B. and T.R. Consi, eds. Biorobotics: Methods and Applications. 2001, AAAI Press: Menlo Park.

11. Toko, K., 2000, Biomimetic Sensor Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. Jaax, K.N. and B. Hannaford. 2004, "Mechatronic Design of an Actuated Biomimetic Length and Velocity Sensor". in Transactions on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 20, 390-398.

13. Makino, Y., N. Ono, S. Ando, F. Sano, and S. Toba. 2002, "Bond Conduction-like Acoustic Sensor System for Evaluating Crispness". in 41st Society of Instrumentation and Control Engineering Annual Conference. SICE, Osaka, Japan, 2163-2166.

14. Barrett, D.S., 1996, Propulsive Efficiency of a Flexible Hull Undersea Vehicle, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

15. Urry, D.W., J. Xu, W. Wang, L. Hayes, F. Prochazka, and T.M. Parker. 2003, "Development of Elastic Protein-Based Polymers as Materials for Acoustic Absorption". in Symposium on Materials Inspired by Biology. Materials Research Society, San Francisco, California, 774, 81-92.

16. Vojtova, L., N.J. Turro, and J.T. Koberstein. 2003, "ATRP Synthesis and Characterization of �,�-allyl-Terminated Macromonomers as Precursors for End-Linked Gels and Hydrogels". in Symposium on Materials Inspired by Biology. Materials Research Society, San Francisco, California, 774, 59-73.

17. Ajikumar, P.K., R. Lakshminarayanan, and V. Suresh. 2003, "Mimicking the Formation of Biomineral Composites through Deposition of Calcium Carbonate Thin-Films on Modified Fiber Net Templates". in Symposium on Materials Inspired by Biology. Materials Research Society, San Francisco, California, 774, 121-126.

18. Kim, Y.-y. and L.B. Gower. 2003, "Formation of Complex Non-Equilibrium Morphologies of Calcite via Biomimetic Processing". in Symposium on Materials Inspired by Biology. Materials Research Society, San Francisco, California, 774, 141-148.


19. Huie, J.C., 2003, "Guided molecular self-assembly: a review of recent efforts". Smart Materials and Structures. 12: p. 264-271.

20. Biolutions. 2005, The Biomimicry Guild LLC. 21. SimaPro. 2004, PRe Consultants: Amersfoot. 22. Eco-indicator 99 Manual for Designers: A damage

oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, S.P.a.t.E. Ministry of Housing, Editor. 2000, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. p. 1-49.

23. Merritt, F.S., 1979, Building Engineering and Systems Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

24. Belytschko, T., T.J.R. Hughes, J. Fish, and T. Oden, Simulation Based Engineering Science. 2004, National Science Foundation: Directorate of Engineering: Arlington, Virginia. p. 1-17.

25. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. 1993, Merriam-Webster Inc.: Springfield.

26. Gamlin, L. and G. Vines, eds. The Evolution of Life. 1987, Oxford University Press: New York.

27. Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr, 1982, Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

28. Benyus, J.M. and D. Baumeister, Principles of Life. 2004, Biomimicry Guild.

29. Bailey, J., J. Elphick, D. Elsom, L. Gamlin, T. Hare, E. Lawrence, R. Renner, S. Oldfield, C. Pellant, B. Walpole, and M. Walters, 1992, The Way Nature Works. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

30. Hoagland, M. and B. Dodson, 1998, The Way Life Works: The Science Lover's Illustrated Guide to How Life Grows, Develops, Reproduces and Gets Along. New Youk: Random House, Inc.

31. Alexander, R.M., 1994, Bones: The Unity of Form and Function. New York: Westview Press.

32. Hopson, J.L. and N.K. Wessells, 1990, Essentials of Biology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

33. Mattheck, C., 1998, Design in Nature: Learning from Trees. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

34. Begon, M., J.L. Harper, and C.R. Townsend, 1986, Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

35. Solomon, E.P., L.R. Berg, D.W. Martin, and C. Villee, 1993, Biology. 3rd ed., Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing.

36. Bras, B., 1997, "Incorporating Environmental Issues in Product Design and Realization". Industry and Environment. 20(1-2): p. 7-13.

37. Cochran, J.K., K.J. Lee, D. McDowell, T.H. Sanders, B. Church, J. Clark, B. Dempsey, K. Hurysz, T. McCoy, J. Nadler, R. Oh, W. Seay, B. Shapiro, and, Low Density Monolithic Metal Honeycombs by Thermal Chemical Processing, in 4th Conference on Aerospace Materials, Processes and Environmental Technology. 2000: Huntsville, AL.

38. Seepersad, C.C., B.M. Dempsey, J.K. Allen, F. Mistree, and D.L. McDowell, 2004, "Design of multifunctional honeycomb materials". AIAA Journal. 42(5): p. 1025-1033.

39. Murray, C.J., Water makes a comeback, in Design News. 1995. p. 81-86.

40. Scheffels, G., Developments in Water Hydraulics, in Hydraulics and Pneumatics. 1996. p. 33.

41. Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on End-of Life Vehicles, Official Journal of European Communities. p. L 269 / 234-242.

42. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Official Journal of the European Communities. p. L 37/19-23.

43. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Official Journal of the European Communities. p. L 37 / 24-38.

HOLISM, BIOMIMICRY AND SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING · PDF filethe context of sustainable...

Documents

Transcript of HOLISM, BIOMIMICRY AND SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING · PDF filethe context of sustainable...