Natural Structures: Strategies For Geometric and Morphological Optimization

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/50838824
Natural structures: Strategies for geometric and morphological optimization
Conference Paper · September 2009

Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
7 2,946
2 authors:
Agustin Perez-Garcia Fernando Gómez-Martínez

Universitat Politècnica de València Universitat Politècnica de València
33 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Heuristic and non heuristic Structural Optimization View project
Structural Information Modelling (SIM) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Gómez-Martínez on 04 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2009, Valencia
Evolution and Trends in Design, Analysis and Construction of Shell and Spatial Structures
28 September – 2 October 2009, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain
Alberto DOMINGO and Carlos LAZARO (eds.)
Natural structures: strategies for geometric and

morphological optimization
Agustín PÉREZ GARCÍA*, Fernando GÓMEZ MARTÍNEZa
*
PhD in Architecture, Professor and Chairman,
Departamento de Mecánica de los Medios Continuos y Teoría de Estructuras,
ETS de Arquitectura, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain,
[email protected]
a
Architect, scholarship holder of Dep. Mec. de los Medios Continuos y Tª. de Estructuras
Abstract
For centuries, architects and engineers have been searching the most efficient structural
arrangements for their projects. Some of them have founded their proposals on the principle
of biomimesis. The aim of their approach was to check how useful were –for structural
purposes– some geometrical patterns displayed by Nature on organic or inorganic bodies.
Nature develops its structures in order to reach always optimal energetic solutions on a long
term basis. The most usual arrangements are: pneus, shells, trees, webs and skeletons. All
of them are controlled by four main factors: nature of forces, global form, local design and
quality of material. Additional parameters, like pattern or material lightening, sometimes
changes substantially the resulting geometry, and also some other general features as
flexibility, integration, continuity, or self-straining are surrounding in most examples.
This paper presents the achieved results on this topic by relevant authors of diverse fields:
from the drawings of micro-organisms by the naturalist Häckel and the descriptive studies
of the biologist Thompson, through the topological analysis of the patterns by the engineer
Wester, the studies of natural lightweight structures by the architect F. Otto, to the final
applications to light mega-structures by the engineers R. Le Ricolais or Buckminster Fuller
Keywords: biomimetics, natural structures, efficiency, topological patterns, lightening,
pneus, shells, trees, webs, skeletons
1. Introduction
Always man has taken inspiration and knowledge from Nature, in many different issues:
Art, Philosophy, Technology, Physics, Politics, Medicine, and of course Architecture and
Engineering. But specifically in the field of structures, surprisingly someone can find that
this link has been produced very late in comparison with other issues: it has not been until
the 20th century when engineers and architects have been able to develop those extremely
efficient lightweight structures that we can admire in Nature.
893
In a general sense, we can distinguish four load-bearing mechanisms (Figure 1):

1. Massive (masonry: walls, arches, vaults, domes): Compression, stability, weight, rigidity.
2. Beam-and-column system: Bending, some flexibility.
3. Lightened skeletons: Division of compression and tension, flexibility.
4. Active-form surfaces: Load-bearing by morphology, curvature, folding.
Figure 1: Load-bearing mechanisms (massive, beam-and-column, skeletons and surfaces)
Until 20th century, the only possible prototype for man-made structures was the first one,
which is not found in Nature (except caverns). Only some kind of lightening wood
construction or tensile tents are such close examples. However, with the development of
new materials as steel or reinforced concrete, it finally became possible to achieve the other
three structural prototypes (Jordá [12]).
Also in these first decades some studies of natural bodies appeared: Art forms of Nature
(Häckel [8][9][10]), where the naturalist Häckel showed pictures of microorganism, which
incited also the artistic style of “Art Nouveau”; and On growth and form, where the
biologist D’Arcy Thompson explained animal forms as funiculars of forces.
This combination of knowledge about structures in Nature and the possibility of
constructing new structural prototypes made architects and engineers turn back their eyes to
Nature to learn about optimal morphology, extreme lightening, functional integration and
efficiency. It is not a coincidence that the first triangulated dome was constructed in Jena in
1919, the same city where 15 years before was edited Art Forms of Nature (Figure 2)
Figure 2: Pictures of radiolarians (E. Häckel) and Planetarium in Jena (C. Zeiss)
2. Biomimesis
The term “biomimesis” involve using ideas from Nature for further technology; artificial
systems that copy some function from natural ones (Vincent [31]) This idea should be
carefully taken: it presupposes that man can take the “answers” of Nature in order to solve
894
the “questions” of the engineering, which is not always a direct way. This is called the
problem of the “technology transfer”, and a specific theory has been developed: the TRIZ
(Altshuller, [1]). This theory argues that the most basic and abstract property you make it,
is more portable. In the case of structures for architecture or engineering, the possibility of
extrapolation should be carefully studied attending to:
- The load case: a lot of nano-arrangements work in zero-gravity medium, as water; or
have to load-bear live changing loads.
- The scale, size, kind of loads and proportion between structure’s weight and whole
load: not in every situation a pattern can be directly scaled, it must be done adapting
the sections (Aroca [2]) (Figure 3).
- The freedom of movements that we need or must avoid: natural structures are normally
designed for having much more kinematical freedom that man-made ones, which do
not need larger movements or deformations.
Figure 3: Natural adapted structures through growth
3. Efficiency
The practice of biomimesis presupposes that Nature is energetically the most efficient
“machine”, much more than human technology. Let us think about the meaning and links
between efficiency, functionality and economy.
Nature evolves by “natural selection”, a trial-and-error mechanism which has had a lot of
time to improve its designs. “Maximum diversity with minimum inventory” (Pearce, [27]).
The result is a “conceptual design which is extremely appropriate in its morphology, well
adapted to the surroundings, structurally and functionally optimized, and has a refined
appearance, all in one single configuration” (Wester [32]). Does this means energetic
efficiency? Yes, broadly. For Nature, “economy” is directly related to saving material,
because the “manpower” and the “runtime” are virtually infinite. That is why Nature
emphasizes in optimal form-finding, which is related to the formal concept of “continuity”.
However, these two factors are extremely important for efficiency in man-made structures:
until technological development is high enough to produce difficult forms without effort,
the economic way to construct is by repeating relatively simple and geometrical forms.
Also we cannot forget that the optimal energetic balance in Nature is produced in each step
of the evolution, i.e., in some situations it is “cheaper” not to remove an unprofitable
element but keep it as “rubbish”. For that reason it becomes necessary to examine patterns
keeping in mind that idea.
895
4. Structural prototypes in Nature

In the subsequent lines, we go through the five prototypes of structural arrangements in
Nature: pneus, shells, trees, webs and skeletons (Arslan [3]). We analyze them studying
their structural mechanisms, signalizing some particular features and offering some
possibilities of extrapolation. All are lightweight structures: active-form ones (pneus, shells
and webs), lightweight column (trees) and lightened skeleton (skeletons). Thus, we can
assure that Nature pursues the objective of “zero weight, infinite span” (Le Ricolais [14])
4.1. Pneus
The pneumatic structures are the most efficient ones in terms of span/weight. A pneu
“consists of a ductile tensed envelope, internally pressurized by a fluid and surrounded by a
medium” (Otto [18]). So they are self-stabilized element, and because of this dependency of
the internal pressure made by a fluid, the result is a very adaptable structure which can
easily change its form to accommodate to the surrounding geometry. In Nature, they can
clearly be seen in mist droplets, soap bubbles, worms, jellyfish, bacteria… (Figure 5)
Figure 5: pneumatic mechanism and pneus in Nature
4.1.1. Pneumatical growth

The key of the issue is that the cell itself is a pneu: a flexible stressed envelope (membrane)
enveloping a filling. The growth is produced by cell divisions which re-locate themselves
strategically, so it can be assured that growth is the result of a pneumatic behavior. And in
most cases, final structures are only the solidification of pneus: eggs, bones, skeletons,
shells, also webs. This point helps to understand the origin of some patterns in other
arrangements. All these reflections made Frei Otto say that “at the beginning was the
pneu”, “all is pneu” or “the pneu is the basis of living Nature” (Otto [18]).
Also this new point of view made possible to explain in terms of structural mechanisms the
“Thompson’s transformations”. D’Arcy Thompson analyzes the form differences between
species like a distortion of a hypothetical grid. Then, Otto considers that this phenomenon
is a consequence of a pneumatic non-homogeneous growth (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Thompson’s transformations and Otto’s reading
As the pneu system is the responsible of the growth, also the definitive form is influenced:
the bodies keep the “funicular” arrangement that the loads produced in the flexible pneu.
896
This is a very high technological process of optimal form-finding. Also for this generation
of the final form it is usual to combine the pneu base with other structural elements like
fiber meshes, membranes, which helps to model it (Schaur [29]) (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Restriction in pneus by other structural elements as webs
4.1.2. Combination of pneus

Another important quality of the pneu model of living objects is the way they combine
themselves producing optimal grids with least-energy behavior. This is the principle of the
“closest packing”: optimal ways of join solids in the plane or in the space, and is one of the
most common geometric phenomena in Nature (Pearce [26]) (Figure 8). As a consequence
of the packing of elements some geometrical patterns appear, composed by regular or
quasi-regular polyhedron. This is the “regular division of the plane/space” (Figure 9). All of
these arrangements obviously are structural and energetically efficient; other quality to
study and extrapolate of this phenomena is the kinematical behavior of the ensemble (4.2)
Figure 8: Closest packing and examples in Nature
Figure 9: Geometrical arrangements that make regular division of the space (Carvajal)
4.1.3. Tensegrity in pneus

Finally, it is interesting to zoom to the pneumatic cell again. In a closer approximation this
system of exterior mobile envelope linked to an interior nucleus has been explained also as
a tensegrity system (self-assembly structure composed of compression and tension elements
in which load-bearing capacity comes from pre-stressing of the ensemble). Thus,
cytoskeleton of cells is a framework of interconnected microtubules (compression) and
filaments (tension). (Figure 11). The efficiency of the arrangement lies in the possibility of
changing its shape easily and adapting to the exterior surfaces and constrains only by auto-
897
modifying the pre-stressing value so every tension changes and also the global form (Ingber
[11]). Thus, we can assure that pneus and tensegrity travel across the scales in Nature.
Figure 11: Cytoskeleton of a cell and tensegrity model
4.2. Shells
Both shells and tents are active-form structures (they have got load-bearing capacity by
their spatial configuration, working in an axial regime). While tents are flexible and only in
tension, shells are rigid and have got normally tension and compression. In Nature we can
distinguish clearly two types of shells: continuous ones, without lightening holes; and
discontinuous ones, with some pattern of lightening
4.2.1. Continuous shells
They are located mainly in exterior protections of mollusks, aquatic or terrestrial. In
general, they have to load-bear continuous pressures (more important in water) and impact
forces (more important in earth). Usually these kind of shells are double-curved ones with
successive thin elements for stiffness gaining (Figure 12)
Figure 12: Ribs in Nautilus, Thatcheria and bivalve shell (Le Ricolais)
Another important strategy for stiffening the ensemble is by folding the membranes to gain
inertia. Depending on the different geometrical relations between lines and points in the
folding pattern (tetravalent or senary), it will have more or less degree of mobility (Delarue
[6]) (Figure 13). Going further, these folding patterns can be used for obtain real
movements, generating deployable structures. In Nature this strategy is visible in some
leaves (Vincent [31]), and some experiments have been done in an attempt to apply these
features to man-made structures (Lim [15]) (Figure 14)
Figure 13: Different folding patterns (Delarue) and folded seashell
898
Figure 14: Extrapolation of the geometry of the beech leaf to a deployable roof (Lim)
Sometimes shells work in a different way, as in the case of the sea urchin shell. This
structure is apparently a folded shell reinforced by spicules. But some experiments have
demonstrated that actually it is not an axial-work shell but an ensemble of multiple semi-
articulated plates with bending work (Figure 15). In this case, pure plate action is more
efficient than pure lattice action because it allows growth in a more natural way without
interfering each other, in a very elegant solution (Wester [32]). Some other proposals have
been studied, as a pneumatic behavior (Philippi [28]), but they have not be proved.
Figure 15: Structural model of a sea urchin, toothed hinges between plates, growth
4.2.2. Discontinuous shells

They can be observed mainly in exoskeletons of microorganisms as radiolarians, which do
not need a closed protection membrane but a soft veil for substances exchange; also they
moves in a zero-gravity medium. Thus, they are extremely lightened, and a lot of different
patterns can be found: closed/opened, round/plane, regular/irregular mesh, single/multiple
layer, grids of triangles, rectangles, pentagons, hexagons… (Otto [21]) (Figure 16).
Certainly, the graphic investigation of Häckel had a quick effect in engineers and architects,
who started to be interested in the applications of these soft arrangements for covering great
spaces with very lightweight structures. That is the case of Buckminster Fuller, who
utilized those geodesic geometries for his domes and also to develop an interesting research
about an alternative geometry theory, based in the triangle and tetrahedron as the basis for
reaching “synergy”: the quality of an ensemble which is more efficient than the addition of
the part’s efficiency (Baldwin [4]) (Figure 17).
The engineer Le Ricolais was always interested in the structures composed by “opposite
elements” which work together creating a very efficient ensemble (Figure 18). He suddenly
was fascinated with the complex and complementary structure of the radiolarian: a
compressed core protected by successive layers of triangulated scaffolding (globally
compressed but locally both compressed and tensed), linked by compressed spicules and
surrounded by a tensioned minimum-surface membrane, in a way that potential energy is
equilibrated. Topologically it is “isomorphic” (opposites), “enantiomorphic” (opposites are
images), “automorphic” (hierarchy) and “bimorphic” (equilibrium) (Le Ricolais [14]).
899
Figure 16: Different examples of radiolarians and diatoms
Figure 17: Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome and the concept of “synergy”
Figure 18: Pheodaria (Häckel) and some “bimorphic” experiments by Le Ricolais
In the same line of morphological and topological investigation on patterns, Wester has
studied the concept of “dualism” between pure-lattice and pure-plate action in trivalent
configurations of some radiolarians and echinoderms (Wester [32] [33]). While in
radiolarians the lattice work is prevalent, in echinoderms is the opposite: in this case it is
more difficult for Nature to develop complex nodes and to concentrate loads than to spread
loads and to load-bear by bending plates connected in shear lines. Also sometimes the two
structural configurations appear together (Figure 19), compensating reciprocally.
Moreover, it is important to remark that almost all these arrangements are nearly isostatic,
i.e. kinematically neutral. Low redundancy is efficient because it implies a low
900
consumption of material, but specially because isostatic structures do not get secondarily
stressed as a result of changes in this configuration (growth), and also they are more
flexible to avoid loads (they oppose low resistance to the forces and simply go along with
them). This feature can be a good inspiration for certain flexible man-made structures.
Figure 19: Lattice-plate dual structures and some examples of dualism in Nature
4.3. Trees
Tree-like structures always have been extrapolated to man-made structures as branched
columns of stone, wood and later steel or concrete. Nothing new to add in this field, so we
particularize in some other intrinsic properties related to their pneu origin and growth.
Again, growth is based in the multiplication of pneumatic cells which harden later. Trees
are composed broadly by a solid core surrounded by a cork protection layer, and the
growing cells are located between them. This pneumatic layer plays several benign roles
when its internal filling expands (Otto [18]) (Figure 20):
- It compresses laterally the core column confining it, so its compression strength gets
increased and the risk of buckling decreases hugely
- It helps to make straight the growth alignment of the core, solving some imperfections.
- It increases the transverse and longitudinal tension of the membrane, which is “fixed”
to the core in the top, generating such a pre-stress phenomenon in the piece that helps
enormously in the bending action against the wind (Fournier et al. [7]).
- In oblique branches, the gravity action places more pneumatic material under the core,
so its expansion raises the branch, causing a movement against the natural deformation.
- It is modeled by the wind, adopting an elliptical section when it harden, so the final
configuration has more inertia where needed.
- When it hardens, this young material starts to bend from zero, so the linear state of
tension and deformation becomes a brook one and it never gets maximum values
Figure 20: Pneu phenomena in living trees
901
4.4. Webs
These structures belong to the tensioned active-form prototype, like tents. They are
constructed with materials which only work in tension regime, so the shape is determined
by the anchorages and loads. But the main difference between them is that webs can easily
adapt their shape when those conditions changes, while tents would “wrinkle”. As in 4.2.2.,
this ability to adapt by deforming is highly linked with the geometrical pattern.
Studying spider webs, we find that the most common pattern is the radial tetravalent plane
net, which is just stable (Wester [33]) (Figure 21a). However, as these webs are pre-stressed
to reach a plane configuration, when they are over-loaded they lose the pre-stressed and
adopt the corresponding funicular shape. Once more, efficiency means adaptability.
Spider webs have a higher efficiency (span/weight) than man-made nets, due to the quality
of the material but also because of the design of the nodes: spiders just join the threads and
wrap together with a softer one, while our nets are joined by metal brackets (Figure 21b)
Figure 21: Radial tetravalent plane net and node details
Related to the issue of optimal form-finding of nets, there is the concept of natural
“minimal surface” that is produced in soap membranes (Figure 22); this is only one of some
natural processes in which the forms are found in a self-shaping process (Burkhardt []). A
minimal surface is the smallest one within a boundary closed on itself; at every point the
sum of the radii is nil, and it has similar surface tensions in all directions. All these
properties make it optimal, so it is very useful to take directly the resultant shape of a
minimal surface in an experiment for tensile tents (Otto, [19]).
Figure 22: Minimal soap surfaces
4.5. Skeletons
Once more, man has always taken inspiration from animal skeletons: flying buttress, ribs,
columns, nerves… It is enough explained, so we focus in a different task. If we understand
skeletons as “lightened masses” (as Le Ricolais said: “The art of structure is where to put
the holes” (Le Ricolais [14]), we find that skeletons are not only the ones composed by
bones but also the tissue inside the bones: spongious trabecular tissue (Figure 23), which is
produced also by the solidification of pneumatic “hose” nets (Otto [22])
902
Figure 23: Trabecular human tissue and “hose nets”
The majority of the examples have a tetravalent 3-D grid, in which two of the directions
match clearly with the theoretical trajectory of forces, (Kummer [13]); and the other
direction stabilizes them (Figure 24). This kind of arrangement, seen as a pure-lattice
system, needs a fix boundary to be kinematically neutral, so it appears the “compacta”, a
stiffer tissue in the covering. But it is not enough to have a totally fixed boundary, so the
nodes take a little bending resistance, becoming semi-rigid (Wester [32]). The outcome is
an almost-isostatic pattern, flexible but stiff, lightened in an optimal way and stable to
torsion effects due to the irregular geometry (one of the biggest problem of our space
triangulated trusses).
Figure 24: Tissue of a femur and models of the trajectories of forces
As we have mentioned, the local design “fattens” the nodes, and “slims” bars for an optimal
load-bearing work. The most important concept in this case and in general when we talk
about natural structures is the continuity, which is the main strategy of Nature to reach
efficiency within a long time (see point 3). Continuity has been demonstrated to be
profitable by highly decreasing corner strains (Mattheck [16]) and has been applied to
experimental structures (Otto [20]) (Figure 25).
Figure 25: Natural continuity, modular experiment (Otto) and relationship between natural
continuous dome and man-made one
903
As it happens with minimal nets, the form-finding mechanism for this continuous lightened
patterns is a self-shape process related to “viscosity” (Otto [20]). These arrangements can
be obtained by separating two planes with a viscous material in between, forming lots of
fungi form columns when it hardens (Figure 26), in a so optimal way that the buckling
length is half reduced and also the punching is avoided. Thus we can observe that this
process looks like an “antifunicular” form-finding one: it seems that the shape obtained by
tensioning a deformable element is the optimal one to load-bear compression forces.
Finally, it is important to notice that in these skeletons, structure fulfills other functions,
like fluid channels (Mosseri [17]), what can inspire us to use hollow structural truss bars as
the pipage of buildings.
Figure 26: Viscous analogue (Otto)
5. Conclusion
Our aim was to find clues about the efficiency of natural structures that could be exploited
in man-made ones. After this little tour across natural structures, we are able to separate
these optimal properties in two groups: direct and indirect features.
The direct characteristics to be extrapolated are:
- General morphology of the arrangements attending to the optimal form-finding
process: the topological properties of the pattern, the economy of structural
elements or the direction of them.
- Local design strategies for anchorages, semi-rigid nodes, hinges…
- Geometrical solutions for a proper rank of mobility when needed
The indirect properties to inspire on are:
- Mechanisms for an optimal lightening
- The flexible way to avoid loads instead of bearing them
- The continuity in the design, keeping in mind the economy limits
- The integration of functions in the structure and with the rest of the arrangement
- The auto-regulation by self-straining processes
- The growth as a continuous process of self-adapting shape to the constrains
904
References
[1] Altshuller G. And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive
Problem Solving. 1994
[2] Aroca R., Form, size and proportion in the structural design, in Proceedings of the I
Encuentro Internacional de Estructuras Ligeras para Grandes Luces, Sevilla, 1992.
85-108
[3] Arslan S., Sorgue A. G., Similarities between “structures in Nature” and “man-made
structures”: biomimesis in architecture, in Design and Nature II: Comparing Design
in Nature with Science and Engineering (DESIGN AND NATURE 2004). M. W.
Collins & C. A. Brebbia, 2004. 45-54
[4] Baldwin J., BuckyWorks: Buckminster Fuller ideas for today. New York [etc.]: John
Wiley & Sons , 1996
[5] Burkhardt, B., The minimum surface and the tent, in IL 27: Natural building. Institute
for Lightweight Structures, University of Stuttgart, 1981. 142-144
[6] Delarue J-M., Generation of geodesic folding patterns, in Proceedings of the III
International Symposium of the Sonderforschungsbereich 230, Stuttgart, October4-
7,1994. 25-30
[7] Fournier M., Moulia B., Thibaut B., Growth, prestresses and regulation of movements
in living trees, in Proceedings of the III International Symposium of the
Sonderforschungsbereich 230, Stuttgart, October4-7,1994. Internationalen
Symposium Natürliche Konstruktionen (3º. 1994. Stuttgart). 157-162
[8] Häckel E., Art Forms of Nature. Anagrama, 1972
[9] Häckel E., Radiolarians (Rhizopoda Radiaria). A monography. Reimer, 1862
[10] Häckel E., Report on the scientific results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during
the years 1873-1876 Zoology, Volume XVIII. Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1887
[11] Ingber D., The Architecture of Life, in Scientific American, January 2008. 48-56
[12] Jordá C., The reinforced concrete and shell-prototype develop: the transformation of
the canon canon of the Modern Architecture, in Proceedings of the 4th National
Congress of History of Construction, Cádiz, 2005. Juan de Herrera, SEdHC,
Arquitectos de Cádiz, COAAT Cádiz, 2005. 633-641
[13] Kummer B., Trajectorial structures in the supporting apparatus; structural remodelling
due to functional adaptation, in IL 6: Biology and building. Institute for Lightweight
Structures, University of Stuttgart, 1973. 10-17
[14] Le Ricolais R., Visions and Paradox, Fundación Cultural COAM, 1997
[15] Lim J., Bio-structural analogues in architecture. BIS Publishers, 2009
[16] Mattheck C.,Sörensen J., Bethge K., A graphic way for notch shape optimization, in
Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering
(DESIGN AND NATURE 2006). C. A. Brebbia, 2006. 13-21
905
[17] Mosseri A., Structural design in Nature and in architecture, in Design and Nature II:
Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering (DESIGN AND NATURE
2004). M. W. Collins & C. A. Brebbia, 2004. 589-599
[18] Otto F., Growing and dividing pneus, in IL 19: Growing and dividing pneus. Institute
[19] Otto F., IL 18: Forming bubbles. Institute for Lightweight Structures, University of
Stuttgart, 1988.
[20] Otto F., IL 28: Diatoms I. Shells in Nature and technics. Institute for Lightweight
Structures, University of Stuttgart, 1985.
[21] Otto F., IL 33: Radiolaria. Shells in Nature and technics II. Institute for Lightweight
[22] Otto F., IL 35: Pneu and bone. Institute for Lightweight Structures, University of
Stuttgart, 1995.
[23] Otto F., IL 38: Diatoms II. Shells in Nature and technics III. Institute for Lightweight
[24] Otto F., Kullmann E., Braun T., Raccanello R., Fundamentals and classification – a
survey of spider net constructions, in IL 8: Nets in Nature and technics. Institute for
Lightweight Structures, University of Stuttgart, 1975. 304-318
[25] Otto F., Natural Construction – Lightweight in Architecture and Nature. The
Thompson’s Transformation, in Arcus, Architecture and Science, n. 2, 1985. 53-55
[26] Otto F., Thoughts on the tree growth, in IL 19: Growing and dividing pneus. Institute
[27] Pearce P., Structure in Nature is a strategy for design. Cambridge [etc.]: MIT Press,
1990
[28] Philippi U., The mechanical design of the sea urchin test – a response to a daily load
case, in Proceedings of the III International Symposium of the
Sonderforschungsbereich 230, Stuttgart, October4-7,1994. 185-190
[29] Schaur E., Building methods of living Nature, in IL 27: Natural building. Institute for
Lightweight Structures, University of Stuttgart, 1981. 132-135
[30] Vincent J., H Kobayashi, B Kresling). Procedures of the Royal Society of Londcon, B 265,
1998. 147-154
[31] Vincent J., Stealing ideas from Nature, in RSA Journal, August /September 1997, 36-43
[32] Wester T., Nature teaching structures, in International Journal of Space Structures,
Vol. 17, ns. 2 & 3, 2002. 135-147
[33] Wester T., Structural morphology and natural structures, in Proceedings of the III
International Symposium of the Sonderforschungsbereich 230, Stuttgart, October4-
7,1994. 137-142
906
View publication stats

Natural Structures: Strategies For Geometric and Morphological Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Structures: Strategies For Geometric and Morphological Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Structures: Strategies For Geometric and Morphological Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Natural structures: Strategies for geometric and morphological optimization

Conference Paper · September 2009

Agustin Perez-Garcia Fernando Gómez-Martínez

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Heuristic and non heuristic Structural Optimization View project

Structural Information Modelling (SIM) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Natural structures: strategies for geometric and

In a general sense, we can distinguish four load-bearing mechanisms (Figure 1):

Figure 1: Load-bearing mechanisms (massive, beam-and-column, skeletons and surfaces)

Figure 3: Natural adapted structures through growth

4. Structural prototypes in Nature

Figure 5: pneumatic mechanism and pneus in Nature

4.1.1. Pneumatical growth

Figure 6: Thompson’s transformations and Otto’s reading

Figure 7: Restriction in pneus by other structural elements as webs

4.1.2. Combination of pneus

Figure 8: Closest packing and examples in Nature

4.1.3. Tensegrity in pneus

Figure 11: Cytoskeleton of a cell and tensegrity model

Figure 13: Different folding patterns (Delarue) and folded seashell

4.2.2. Discontinuous shells

Figure 16: Different examples of radiolarians and diatoms

Figure 18: Pheodaria (Häckel) and some “bimorphic” experiments by Le Ricolais

Figure 20: Pneu phenomena in living trees

Figure 21: Radial tetravalent plane net and node details

Figure 22: Minimal soap surfaces

Figure 23: Trabecular human tissue and “hose nets”

Figure 24: Tissue of a femur and models of the trajectories of forces

Figure 26: Viscous analogue (Otto)

View publication stats

You might also like