Bio-Digital Morphogenesis in Architecture: An Application On Digital - Botanic Architecture (D.B.A)

University of Alexandria
Faculty of Engineering
Architectural Engineering Department
BIO-DIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE
An Application on Digital - Botanic Architecture

(D.B.A)
A Thesis
Presented to the Graduate School

Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Of
Master of Science
In
Architectural Engineering
By
Mahmoud Mohamed Gomaa Ahmed
April 2015
University of Alexandria
Faculty of Engineering
Architectural Engineering Department
BIO-DIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS INARCHITECTURE
An Application on Digital - Botanic Architecture

(D.B.A)
Presented by
Mahmoud Mohamed Gomaa Ahmed
For The Degree of
Master of Science
In
Architectural Engineering
Examiners Committee: Approved
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdelall Ibrahim _______________

Professor of Architecture, Architectural Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
Prof. Dr. Yehia Mostafa Mohamed _______________

Professor of Architecture, Department of Architecture,
Faculty of Fine Arts, Alexandria University.
Prof. Dr. Mostafa Morsy El Araby _______________

Professor of Architecture, Architectural Engineering Department,
Vice Dean for Graduate Studies and Research:

Prof. Dr. Magdy Abdelazim Ahmed _______________
Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University
Advisors Committee: Approved
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdelall Ibrahim _______________

Professor of Architecture,
Architectural Engineering Department,
Dr. Samer Mohamed Adel El Sayary _______________

Lecturer,
Architectural Engineering Department,
"In the Name of ALLAH, Most Gracious, Most Merciful"
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE i
I. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Above all, I thank almighty God, the most merciful and compassionate, for
granting me the willingness and ability to accomplish this research.
It would not have been possible to write this thesis without the help and support
of the honorable people around me, to only some of whom it is possible to give particular
mention here.
It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and extreme patience
of my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdelall Ibrahim, not to mention his continuous
encouragement, intellectual advice and assistance in keeping my progress on schedule.
Likewise, my grateful thanks are extended to Dr. Samer El Sayary for his guidance and
support.
Indeed, I cannot find words to express my mere gratitude to my generous parents

and my brother for their unequivocal support throughout my entire life, as always, for which
my mere expression of thanks likewise does not suffice. I would also like to offer my special
thanks to my dear fiancé: Nourhan Muhammad Saad for her endless support and patience at
all times.
Last but not least, I am indebted to all my professors and colleagues in the
Department of Architecture for their endless support and academic guidance. Finally, I
consider it an honor to have precious friends who encourage me and provide me with
perpetual support.
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE ii
II. ABSTRACT
The big dream beyond using computers in different phases of architectural

design is to reach a complete digital design process. Successful endeavors, which gave
acceptable results and have been developed to be complete software, were in the phases of
programming, design development, drafting and visualization. Other phases of design
process; such as functional relationships, form finding and manufacturing; still have many
trials to reach complete software to aid in the knowledge-base design, scripted architecture
and the computer aided manufacturing, towards the big dream. By automating parts of the
design process, computers make it easier to develop designs through versioning and gradual
adjustment. These approaches to designing have been described as morphogenesis.
Morphogenesis differs between biology and architecture. They share some

similarities but also, they have differences. Despite the differences and difficulties, direct
collaborations between biology and architecture are necessary not only in the narrow context
of the present discussion but also because they can help to orient designing towards
biologically compatible outcomes. Another, equally exciting outcome of such collaborations
will be in further contributions towards creative inspiration.
Depending on the similarities between them, that would make collaboration

between them easier and open the way to assume a complete hybridization between them in
software in order to generate a biological plug-in into architectural software that would help
to start designing a building depending on a biological base and making use of their ability
to evolve and growth . After that there would be analysis of the biological base structure, for
example, to be used as a structure for the building. Finally the production will be different
volumes which are simulating the organic growth and these grown shapes can then be
engineered and detailed as architecture.
Keywords: Generative design – Morphogenesis - Algorithmic architecture – bio

design– bio digital architecture.
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE iii
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ i
II. ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... ii
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. iii
IV. LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... ix
V. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... xv
VI. LIST OF DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................... xvi
VII. ASSUMPTION ......................................................................................................... xvii
VIII. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... xvii
IX. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... xviii
A. Literature review ........................................................................................................... xviii

B. Application and conclusion ..........................................................................................xviii
X. THESIS STRUCTURE ............................................................................................... xix
Part -1- Generative Design and Algorithms.............................................. 1

CHAPTER -1- GENERATIVE DESIGN .......................................................................... 2
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Generative Design Definitions ........................................................................................ 3
1.3 Properties of Generative Design..................................................................................... 4
1.4 Differences between the Traditional Method of Design and Generative Design 4
1.5 Generative Design System in Architecture .................................................................. 6
1.5.1 Generative Design System Definition. ..........................................................................6
1.5.2 Historical Background of the Generative Design Systems. ........................................6
1.5.3 Generative Design Process ............................................................................................7
1.5.4 Categories of Generative Design Systems. ...................................................................8
1.5.5 Generative Systems Approaches ..................................................................................8
1.5.5.1 Algorithmic generative systems. .................................................................... 9
1.5.5.2 Parametric systems. .......................................................................................... 9
1.5.5.3 Formalisms ........................................................................................................ 9
1.5.5.3.1 L-systems................................................................................................ 9
1.5.5.3.2 Cellular automata systems.................................................................... 9
1.5.5.3.3 Fractal systems..................................................................................... 10
1.5.5.3.4 Shape grammars. ................................................................................. 10
1.6 Generative Model ............................................................................................................ 10
1.6.1 Categories of Generative Models. ...............................................................................10
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE iv
1.6.1.1 Grammatical transformative design models. .............................................. 11

1.6.1.2 Evolutionary design models.......................................................................... 11
1.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER - 2 - COMPUTATION AND PROGRAMMING ....................................... 14
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15

2.1.1 Differences between Computation and Computerization. .......................................16
2.1.2 Different Visions about Using Computers in the Design Process. ...........................17
2.1.3 Computational Design .................................................................................................19
2.1.3.1 Computational design techniques. ............................................................... 19
2.1.3.2 Characteristics of computational design techniques. ................................. 19
2.1.3.2.1 Geometry. ............................................................................................. 20
2.1.3.2.2 Composition. ........................................................................................ 20
2.1.3.2.3 Algorithmic thought. ........................................................................... 21
2.1.4 Differences between Conventional Design and Computational Design. .................22
2.2 Algorithms ......................................................................................................................... 22
2.2.1 The Origin of the Word Algorithm and Definitions. ................................................22
2.2.2 Expressing Algorithms. ...............................................................................................22
2.2.3 Algorithmic Design. .....................................................................................................23
2.2.3.1 Algorithmic design requirements. ................................................................ 23
2.2.3.1.1 Techniques. .......................................................................................... 23
2.2.3.1.2 Resources.............................................................................................. 23
2.2.4 Algorithm Problems. ...................................................................................................23
2.2.4.1 Algorithmic problems classification. ........................................................... 24
2.2.5 Problem Solving. ..........................................................................................................24
2.2.5.1 Types of problem solution ............................................................................ 25
2.2.5.1.1 Algorithmic solution. .......................................................................... 25
2.2.5.1.2 Heuristic solutions. .............................................................................. 25
2.2.5.2 Computers as a tool to solve problems. ....................................................... 25
2.2.5.3 Difficulties with problem solving. ............................................................... 26
2.2.6 Algorithms in Computational Design.........................................................................26
2.3 Programming .................................................................................................................... 26
2.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................26
2.3.2 Coding. ..........................................................................................................................27
2.3.3 Scripting........................................................................................................................27
2.3.4 Modeling Methods in Architecture. ...........................................................................28
2.3.5 Scripting Languages or Programming Languages. ..................................................29
2.3.5.1 Programming languages classification. ....................................................... 30
2.3.5.1.1 Visual Programming Languages (VPLs). ........................................ 30
2.3.5.1.2 Textual programming languages (TPLs).......................................... 31
2.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 32
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE v
Part-2- Bio Inspired Design and Morphogenesis ................................. 33

CHAPTER-3- BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN ........................................................................ 34
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 35

3.2 Definitions.......................................................................................................................... 35
3.2.1 Biology. .........................................................................................................................35
3.2.2 Architecture..................................................................................................................35
3.3 Integration between Architecture & Biology ............................................................ 36
3.3.1 Biological analogy in Architecture. ............................................................................36
3.3.2 Bio-Architecture...........................................................................................................36
3.4 Towards Sustainable Development ............................................................................. 37
3.4.1 Differences between the Conventional Design and the Integrated Approaches of
Design (Bio-Design) ..............................................................................................................37
3.4.1.1 Conventional design approach ...................................................................... 38
3.4.1.2 Integrative design approaches (Bio-design). .............................................. 38
3.5 Bio Design .......................................................................................................................... 39
3.5.1 Differences between Bio-Design and Bio-Mimicry. ..................................................40
3.5.1.1 Beyond bio-mimicry. ..................................................................................... 40
3.5.2.1 Nature ............................................................................................................... 41
3.5.2.1.1 History of nature in design. ................................................................ 41
3.5.2.1.2 How designers dealing with nature. .................................................. 42
3.5.2.1.3 Nature in bio-design. ........................................................................... 42
3.5.2.1.4 From the natural to the unnatural. ..................................................... 43
3.5.2.1.5 Properties of living structure.............................................................. 43
3.5.2.1.5.1 Organized complexity. ...................................................... 43
3.5.2.1.5.2 Metabolism. ............................................................................ 44
3.5.2.1.5.3 Replication. ............................................................................. 44
3.5.2.1.5.4 Adaptation............................................................................... 45
3.5.2.1.5.5 Intervention. ............................................................................ 45
3.5.2.1.5.6 Situatedness. ........................................................................... 45
3.5.2.1.5.7 Connectivity. .......................................................................... 46
3.5.2.2 Science. ............................................................................................................ 46
3.5.2.2.1 Science and biology. ........................................................................... 46
3.5.2.2.2 Importance of Science in bio- design and the integration between
nature and science. ............................................................................. 47
3.5.2.3 Creativity ......................................................................................................... 47
3.5.2.3.1 What is creativity? ............................................................................... 47
3.5.2.3.2 What is a creative approach? ............................................................. 48
3.5.2.3.3 Linking creativity and problem solving. .......................................... 48
3.5.2.3.4 Creative problem solving. .................................................................. 49
3.5.2.3.4.1 Main purposes or CPS process components. ..................... 49
3.5.2.3.4.2 CPS process stages ................................................................ 49
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE vi
3.5.3 Architecture and Biological processes. ......................................................................51

3.5.4 Outcomes of Bio-Design. .............................................................................................51
3.6 Cases Studies..................................................................................................................... 52
3.6.1 Example -1- Bridges of Meghalaya ............................................................................52
3.6.1.1 Description. ..................................................................................................... 52
3.6.1.1 Origination. ..................................................................................................... 52
3.6.2 Example -2- House of the Future................................................................................54
3.6.2.1 Description. ..................................................................................................... 54
3.6.2.2 Construction phase. ........................................................................................ 55
3.6.2.3 Development. .................................................................................................. 55
3.6.3 Example -3- Fab Tree Hab ..........................................................................................57
3.6.3.1 Description. ..................................................................................................... 57
3.6.3.2 Construction phase. ........................................................................................ 59
3.6.3.3 Innovation........................................................................................................ 60
3.6.4 Example -4- Dune.........................................................................................................60
3.6.4.1 Description. ..................................................................................................... 61
3.6.4.2 Inspiration................................................................................................ 62
3.6.4.2 Materials. ......................................................................................................... 64
3.6.5 Example -5- Filene's Eco Pods ....................................................................................64
3.6.5.1 Description .............................................................................................. 65
3.6.5.2 objectives and construction ..................................................................... 66
3.6.5.3 Components............................................................................................. 66
3.6.5.4 Composition Growth ...................................................................................... 67
3.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER -4- TOWARDS MORPHOGENESIS .......................................................... 70
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 71
4.2 Definitions of Morphogenesis........................................................................................ 72
4.3 Computational Models and Morphogenesis Types.................................................. 73
4.3.1 Proliferation .................................................................................................................73
4.4 Architecture & Biology .................................................................................................. 74
4.4.1 Morphogenesis in Architecture & Biology. ...............................................................74
4.5 Morphogenesis in Architecture (Digital Morphogenesis) ...................................... 75
4.5.1 Computational Architectures .....................................................................................76
4.5.1.1 Topological architecture ………………………………………...……..77
4.5.1.2 Isomorphic architecture ………………………………………………..79
4.5.1.3 Animate architecture. ..................................................................................... 80
4.5.1.4 Metamorphic architecture. ............................................................................ 80
4.5.1.5 Parametric architecture. ........................................................................... 81
4.5.1.6 Evolutionary architecture. ............................................................................. 81
4.5.2 Implications. .................................................................................................................82
4.5.2.1 Dynamics and the fields of forces. ............................................................... 82
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE vii
4.5.2.2 Emergence and the fields of indetermination. ............................................ 83

4.5.2.3 Mass customization. ....................................................................................... 83
4.6 Morphogenesis in Biology .............................................................................................. 84
4.6.1 Computational Models of Plant Morphogenesis. ......................................................85
4.6.2 Characteristics .............................................................................................................85
4.6.2.1 Focus and limitations. .................................................................................... 85
4.6.2.2 Multi-scale hierarchy. .................................................................................... 86
4.6.2.3 Dynamic structure. ......................................................................................... 87
4.6.2.4 Processual continuity. .................................................................................... 88
4.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 88
Part -3- Bio Digital Morphogenesis .............................................................. 91

CHAPTER -5- BIO-DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE........................................................ 92
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 93

5.1.1 Different Points of View of Architecture Dealing with Plants .................................94
5.2 Approaches to the Bio Digital Architecture .............................................................. 95
5.2.1 Virtual Reality ..............................................................................................................95
5.2.2 Live Architecture. ........................................................................................................95
5.2.3 Theory of Monads and Theory of Memes..................................................................95
5.2.3.1 Theory of meme-monad. ............................................................................... 96
5.2.4 Architecture Re-conceptualization .............................................................................96
5.3 Botanic Digital Architecture ......................................................................................... 97
5.3.1 Seeding Digital-Botanic Architecture. .......................................................................99
5.3.2 Sullivan's Concept for Development ........................................................................102
5.3.2.1 Efflorescence. ............................................................................................... 103
5.3.2.2 Applying growth and generation to architectural design. ....................... 103
5.3.2.3 Inspiration in architecture. .......................................................................... 104
5.3.2.4 Integration between Sullivan ideas and meme monad compounds ....... 104
5.3.2.4.1Example of collaboration .......................................................................... 105
5.4 Application ...................................................................................................................... 107
5.4.1 Hypothesis. .................................................................................................................107
5.4.2 Introduction for Examples ........................................................................................108
5.4.3 E-Trees & E-Plants. ...................................................................................................108
5.4.4 Examples .....................................................................................................................109
5.4.2.1 Example -1- E-Tree anatomy & morphology. .......................................... 109
5.4.2.2 Example -2- E-Tree column. ...................................................................... 111
5.4.2.3 Example -3- E-Tree branch and tendril morphology............................... 113
5.4.2.3.1 STL & SLS E-tree models. .............................................................. 113
5.4.2.4 Example -4- E-tree animation: Arizona tower ......................................... 114
5.4.2.5 Example -5- Self-shading tower for Los Angeles. ................................... 115
5.5 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 116
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE viii
5.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 117

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………...……….118
Using Programs ……………………………………………………………..…….……120
References ………………………………………………………………………………121
Appendix …………………………………………………………………….………….130
Xfrog Manual ......................................................................................................….....130
Summary ………………………………………………………………………………..146
‫……………… ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬...……………………………………………………...147
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE ix
IV. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Structure Thesis.................................................................................................. xix
Figure 2: Chapter (1) Structure. ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 3: Generative Design Elements. ................................................................................ 3
Figure 4: Generative Design Approach ................................................................................ 3
Figure 5: Traditional Design Loop ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 6: Generative Design Loop ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 7: Generative System Concept .................................................................................. 6
Figure 8: A System of Architectural Ornament According with a Philosophy of Man’s

Powers ..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 9: Generative Design Process .................................................................................... 7
Figure 10: Generative Systems Approaches ......................................................................... 8
Figure 11: Generative Model .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 12: Chapter (2) Structure ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 13: Algorithmic Process Done by Using A Computer ............................................ 15
Figure 14: The Computation Process ................................................................................. 15
Figure 15: Computational Design Techniques ................................................................... 20
Figure 16: Algorithmic Problems Classification ................................................................ 24
Figure 17: Three Different Types of Representation of Computational Design Concepts,

with Different Abstraction Levels ......................................................................... 28
Figure 18: Different Types of Programming Language ..................................................... 29
Figure 19: An Example VPL in Grasshopper Interface...................................................... 31
Figure 20: An Example of TPL in AutoCAD Interface ..................................................... 32
Figure 22: Integrated Design Approaches and Concepts of Sustainability ........................ 37
Figure 23: Conventional Design Process and How the Team Works ................................ 38
Figure 24: Integrated design process and how the team works .......................................... 38
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE x
Figure 25: Bio-Design Approach........................................................................................ 39
Figure 26: Bio-Design System............................................................................................ 41
Figure 27: Properties of Living Structure ........................................................................... 43
Figure 28: Noller's Symbolic Formula for Understanding Creativity ................................ 48
Figure 29: The Core Purposes or CPS Process Components ............................................. 50
Figure 30: The Core Purposes of CPS Process Components and Stages ........................... 50
Figure 31: Bridges of Meghalaya ....................................................................................... 52
Figure 32: As with All Living Structures, The Bridges Rely on A Healthy Environment for
Their Maintenance, Abundant clean air, water, and soil are essential .................. 53
Figure 33: The Bridges are Ever Changing in Form and They are Strengthened by The
Addition of Branch and Grass Clippings, Which Nourish The Roots................... 53
Figure 34: Over Time, Bridges are Shaped from The Roots of Several Trees. These Natural
Structures are Capable of Lasting for Hundreds of Years ................................... 53
Figure 35: House of the Future ........................................................................................... 54
Figure 36: Screw Bases of The Temporary Scaffold.......................................................... 55
Figure 37: Pre-Cultivated Plants in The Greenhouse ......................................................... 55
Figure 38: Assembly with The Crawler Crane ................................................................... 55
Figure 39: Connecting of Plants with Stainless Steel Screws ............................................ 55
Figure 40: Winter 2010 ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 41: Spring 2010 ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 42: Early Summer 2010........................................................................................... 56
Figure 43: Last Summer 2010 ............................................................................................ 56
Figure 44: Autumn 2010 ..................................................................................................... 56
Figure 45: Winter 2011 ....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 46: Summer 2011 .................................................................................................... 56
Figure 47: Autumn 2011 ..................................................................................................... 56
Figure 48: Spring 2011 ....................................................................................................... 56

BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xi
Figure 49: By Directing Their Growth, Trees and Woody Plants can be Integrated into Built
Structures. This Slow Construction Method Creates Living Architecture Integrated
with—and Enhancing—The Environment ............................................................ 57
Figure 50: Energy and Nnutrient Flows are Connected with The Natural Cycles of The
Surrounding Ecosystem, Thereby Harnessing Both Cool Air and Rainwater ...... 58
Figure 51: A variety of Plants Fill in The Gaps in The Façade, Encouraged By The Use of
Perforated Scaffolding Through Which Stems and Leaves Can Intertwine .......... 58
Figure 52: The process of Composing A House by Depending on Planting Trees ............ 59
Figure 53: The Final Predicted Product .............................................................................. 59
Figure 54: Structure Development Process ........................................................................ 59
Figure 55: How to Stop Desertification .............................................................................. 60
Figure 56: The Wind and Sand That Result in Expansion of The Desert, Threatening
Settlements and Arable Land, are Exploited in Biological Construction .............. 61
Figure 57: Sand Solidified by Bacteria and Shaped by The Wind Eventually Allows Water
to Accumulate and Forms A Barrier Against The Spread of The Desert .............. 61
Figure 58: A Dune Cross-Section with Rigid Chambers Where Precious Moisture and Soil
Might Be Preserved ............................................................................................... 62
Figure 59: The Shape of The Structure Here is Shown in A Tafoni Pattern—Characteristic
of Rock That Has Been Eroded by Wind or Moisture for Many Years ................ 62
Figure 60: Resisting The Spread of The Desert Becomes Ever More Difficult and Yet
Important as The Climate Warms. The Vast Savanna of The Sahel Belt is One of
Many Areas That are Currently Under Threat Source: (Myers W. , 2012) .......... 63
Figure 61: The Architect‘s Proposal Stemmed from An Examination of Extreme

Environments, Such As Desert, Ocean, and Tundra, Where Traditional Approaches
to Building are Simply Unfeasible ........................................................................ 63
Figure 62: Microbially Induced Cementation is A Natural Process That Can Be Observed
in Swamps and Lakes. It Is Not Harmful to Humans and Will Cease Once Available
Nutrients Have Been Depleted .............................................................................. 64
Figure 63: Filene's Eco Pods .............................................................................................. 64
Figure 64: Future Eco Bods ................................................................................................ 65
Figure 65: Full Set Drawings for the Module Pod ............................................................. 65
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xii
Figure 66: Grown Algae between Modules (Bioreactors) .................................................. 66
Figure 67: Eco-Pod Process ................................................................................................ 66
Figure 68: Robotic Armature (Powered by the Algae BioǦFuel) ....................................... 67
Figure 69: Different Deformations of Modules .................................................................. 67
Figure 70: Different between New Trend of Buildings and the Ordinary Buildings ......... 68
Figure 72: Generate from Algorithm to Structure - Exhibition Structure .......................... 71
Figure 73: Performance Building For the Oulu Music Video Festival; Competition Entry
and 3rd Prize for Ideas for Yard and Environmental Constructions Held by Kainuun
Etu Oy .................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 74: Cell Arrangements in Plant Tissues .................................................................. 73
Figure 75: Homeomorphic (Topologically Equivalent) Figures ........................................ 76
Figure 76: Homeomorphic (Topologically Equivalent) ..................................................... 77
Figure 77: Spatial Computing with Conformal Geometric Algebra .................................. 77
Figure 78: A Composite Curve Constructed from Tangent Circular Arcs and Straight Line
Segments ................................................................................................................ 78
Figure 79: Varying the Degree of A NURBS Curve Will Produce Different Shapes ........ 79
Figure 80: Isomorphic Surfaces .......................................................................................... 79
Figure 81: Animate Architecture: Lynn’s Port ................................................................... 80
Figure 82: Parametric Architecture: Marcos Novak‘s “Algorithmic spectaculars” .......... 81
Figure 83: Paramorph by Mark Burry ................................................................................ 81
Figure 84: Bernard’s Cache “Objectiles.” .......................................................................... 84
Figure 85: Conceptual Diagrams Based on Photomicrograph of Coleochaete Orbicularis 86
Figure 86: Biomechanical Model for Cell Expansion in Morphogenesis: Cell Wall Response
to Turgor Pressure Through A Viscous Yielding of The Cell Wall, Compensated at
The Same Time by Thickening to Maintain A Constant Cross-Section ............... 88
Figure 87: Chapter (5) Structure. ........................................................................................ 92
Figure 88: Photograph of Woven, Urban Walls in Peru’s Pueblos Nuevos ....................... 93
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xiii
Figure 89: Semper’s Braids ................................................................................................ 93
Figure 90: Semper‘s Vision of Architecture ....................................................................... 94
Figure 91: Dollens's Vision of Architecture ....................................................................... 94
Figure 92: Digital-Botanic Architecture ............................................................................. 98
Figure 94: X-frog Truss-Frame Grown from A Tree (Top Left) to Study Possible Structural
Articulations for A Building Frame and Columns ................................................ 99
Figure 95: Part of the A System of Architectural Ornament – Plate 2 ............................. 100
Figure 96: Tumble Truss Project Lexicon, Observational Biomimetics Leading to Physical
Models ................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 97: Growing with Digital Model ........................................................................... 101
Figure 98: Xfrog Grown Structural Truss Based on Physical Tumble Truss Model ....... 101
Figure 99: A Typical Seed with Two Cotyledons from Part of The A System of Architectural
Ornament – Plate 2 .............................................................................................. 102
Figure 100: Nietzscheian, Transformative Criteria .......................................................... 102
Figure 101: Applying Growth and Generation to Architectural Design .......................... 103
Figure 102: Collaboration between Sullivans' Ideas and Meme-Monad .......................... 104
Figure 103: X-frog Growth with Pod Dispersion; Inspired by Sullivan’s A System of
Architectural Ornament and His Merchant’s National Bank, Grinnell, Iowa ..... 105
Figure 104: Xfrog Growth Developed As A Tall Building Inspired by Sullivan’s A System
of Architectural Ornament and His Merchant’s National Bank .......................... 106
Figure 105: Hypothesis ..................................................................................................... 107
Figure 106: Using X-Frog to Generate A Plant ................................................................ 109
Figure 107: Converting This E Tree to Be A Building .................................................... 110
Figure 108: X-frog Grown Tree-Column ......................................................................... 111
Figure 109: STL Tree Branches Supporting Leaf Grown Floors ..................................... 112
Figure 110: E-Tree Branch & Tendril Morphology ......................................................... 113
Figure 111: E-Tree Animation: Arizona Tower ............................................................... 114
Figure 112: Self-Shading Tower for Los Angeles ............................................................ 115

BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xiv
Figure 113: Steps to Produce A Bio-Digital Building ...................................................... 116
Figure 114: Programs Timeline ........................................................................................ 116

BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xv
V. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Explanation
CAD Computer-Aided Design
CATIA Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive
Application
CA Cellular Automata
NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline
GD Generative Design
VPLs Visual Programming Languages
TPLs Textual Programming Languages
PL Programming Language
VBA Visual Basic for Application
IDE Interactive Development Environment
GUI Graphical User Interface
MEL Maya Embedded Language
WCED Western Cape Education Department
CPS Creative Problem Solving
CAM Computer-Aided Manufacturing
AAD Algorithms-Aided Design
SF Science Fiction
STL Standard Template Library
SLS Space Launch System
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xvi
VI. LIST OF DEFINITIONS
Term Definition
It is a design method in which the output – image, sound,
Generative Design architectural models, animation – is generated by a set of rules or
an Algorithm, normally by using a computer program.
It is a production system that does not specify the design artifact,
Generative Design
but instead specifies a higher-level specification that encodes the
System
making of the artifact, or the design procedure.
Algorithmic
They are the basic components in all generative system.
Generative Systems
Parametric Systems They are a part of the algorithmic system.
It is the procedure of calculating, i.e. determining something by
mathematical or logical methods.
Computation
It is about rationalization, reasoning, logic, algorithm, deduction,
induction, extrapolation, exploration, and estimation.
It is the act of entering, processing, or storing information in a
computer or a computer system.
Computerization
It is about automation, mechanization, digitization, and
conversion.
Computational It is an approach that operates mostly through the facilities of
Design mathematical thinking due to the calculation skills of computers.
It is a procedure for addressing a problem in a finite number of
Algorithm
steps using logical if-then else operations.
Biology It is the scientific study of life and living organisms, from one-
celled creatures to the most complex living organism of all the
human being.
Architecture A general term to describe buildings and other physical
structures.
It is the art and science of designing and building spaces which
Bio-Architecture
create, support and enhance life and living systems.
It is a concept used in a number of disciplines including biology,
Morphogenesis geology, crystallography, engineering, urban studies, art and
architecture.
Plant It is the formation of shape and structure by Co-ordination of cell
Morphogenesis shape, growth, and proliferation by mitosis.
Digital It is using digital media not as a representational tool for
Morphogenesis visualization but as a generative tool for the derivation of form
and its transformation.
Morphogenesis is often used in a broad sense to refer to many
aspects of development, but when used strictly it should mean the
Morphogenesis in molding of cells and tissues into definite shapes.
Biology It is the formation of shape and structure via a coordinated
process that involves changes in cell shapes, enlargement of cells
and proliferation by mitosis.
This code word for a process of life and growth; instills botanic
Efflorescence
transformation in both a physical and metaphorical sense.
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xvii
VII. ASSUMPTION
x Using of computers in different phases of architectural design not just for drafting
and visualization, but in other phases of design process; such as functional
relationships, form finding and industrial and manufacturing production.
x A Computer could be a generative tool which could be used in the design process by
depending on algorithmic approach for designing as there must be a synergetic
relationship between the human mind and the computer system. Such a synergy is
possible only through the use of algorithmic strategies that ensure a complementary
and dialectic relationship between the humans to realize, overcome and ultimately
surpass their own physical and mental limitations.
x Collaboration between biology and architecture in design would generate a bio-
design approach which could be useful for the environment.
x It has been discovered that, there is potential inherent between biology and
architecture so, that would help for collaboration between them. If they could be
collaborated, they also would be collaborated in software. Such hybridization in
software would generate architectural forms which could simulate organic growth in
order to confirm the ability of form to evolve.
x Starting design with a biological base would have its effect on the building form as
it would be related to its structure and generate different generations of forms
belonging to one family.
VIII. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

x The main aim of this research is to highlight the importance of using computer as a
generative tool in the design process depending on scripting and algorithmic
architecture approach of designing.
x Realizing a complete collaboration between biology and architecture in order to
generate a bio design approach of designing.
x Studying the differences between biological morphogenesis, digital morphogenesis
and their collaboration to generate a bio-digital architecture approach. That approach
differs from any other approach as it starts designing a building from a biological
base depending on the potential inherent exists between biology and architecture
which encourage for hybridization between them in software. That hybridization
could be realized by generating a biological plug-in software to be a part of an
architectural software. This plug-in would help the designers to deal with a biological
element through that plug-in by just opening the architectural software so, there
would be no need to open any biological software to export their files to be opened
by the architectural ones. After these form are being generated from that plug-in,
they would be engineered and detailed through the architectural softeware in order
to be implemented.
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xviii
x After analyzing the biological base, its structure should be studied in order to convert
it to be a building structure and generate different generations of forms belonged to
one family.
IX. METHODOLOGY
The research explores the bio digital design approach and the development of form
generation due to transformation in the structure inspired from a biological element.
x First, the research defines the meaning of the generative design and the role of the
computer as a part of the design process which could be named as morphogenesis ,
defining the algorithmic approach for designing as it would make connections
between the human mind and the computer system.
x Second, defining the collaboration between biology and architecture to generate the
bio design approach of designing by the collaboration of nature, science and
creativity, defining the differences between the biological morphogenesis and the
digital morphogenesis and the importance of studying them.
x Third, studying the bio digital architecture approach of designing as it would be
assumed that there are similarities between biology and architecture and these
similarities encourage to make a complete hybridization between biology and
architecture in software and that would help to start analyzing a biological base's
structure in order to generate more generations of forms belonged to one family.
A. Literature review
x Understanding the meaning of generative design and using of computers as a

generative tool of design.
x Understanding the meaning of algorithmic architecture and its role in writing
scripting and programming new software to generate designs.
x Understanding the meaning of bio design approach of designing which is the result
of the collaboration of biology and architecture.
x Understanding the differences between biological morphogenesis and digital
morphogenesis.
B. Application and conclusion
x Understanding the meaning of bio digital design approach of designing

x Finding the similarities between biology and architecture and assuming a trail of
hybridization between them in software in order to produce a plug-in of a biological
software to be a part of architectural program like a hybridization between (X-frog)
and (Maya, Rhino Ceros).
x Analyzing the structure of a biological element to be a structure of a building
x Discussing some different case studies.
x Conclusion
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xix
X. THESIS STRUCTURE
To achieve the above mentioned aims and objectives, several steps should be
followed including five chapters as follows:
Figure 1: Structure Thesis Source: (The Researcher, 2015)

BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE xx
BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE 1
Generative Design and Algorithms PART -1-

CHAPTER -1- GENERATIVE DESIGN
Figure 2: Chapter (1) Structure Source: (The Researcher, 2015)
“The Natural science is concerned with how things are . . . design on the other hand is
concerned with how things ought to be” (Simon, 1969)
Chapter 1: Generative Design

1.1 Introduction
Computational systems have emerged as a fundamental keystone in architectural

design during the last decades, marking the rise of a new area of study that engages with
design cognition, computation and generative principles in contemporary design practice
(Gero & Tyugu, 1994). Gero enlists two main areas in the development of computer aided
design: “the representation and production of the geometry and topology of designed
objects” and “the representation and use of knowledge to support or carry the synthesis of
designs”. While the first category relates to the general use off-the-shelf CAD tools that aim
to increase the efficiency or aim to automate design and drafting activities, the second has
given birth to novel generative approaches that regard computation as an aid to the design
process and to explore design ideas. Generative design systems allow the formation of
complex compositions, both formal and conceptual, through the implementation of a simple
set of operations and parameters. This new understanding marks the emergence of innovative
modes of design thinking. Here, the main challenge lies in the cultivation of computation as
a tool that complements the designer’s capabilities in the conceptualization and production
of design artifacts in the contemporary architectural agenda (Ahlquist & Menges, 2011).
1.2 Generative Design Definitions
It is a design method in which the output –

image, sound, architectural models, animation – is
generated by a set of rules or an Algorithm, normally
by using a computer program (Bohnacker, Gross,
Laub, & Lazzeroni, 2012).
Using a set of rules or an algorithm in order
to generate designs or what could be named as
architectural forms (Krish, 2011).
Generative design is to use your computer

as a design stakeholder to co-generate alternative
design solutions/ morphologies which are then chosen Figure 3: Generative Design Elements.
by the designers to suit their requirements. Generative Source: (Bohnacker, Gross, Laub, &
design is combined with computation through a Lazzeroni, 2012)
generative design system using mechanisms (Tang &
Chang, 2005).
Generative design is a design methodology that differs from other design
approaches insofar that during the design process the designer does not interact with
materials and products in a direct (“hands-on”) way but via a generative system (Fischer,
Ceccato, & Frazer, 2001).
Figure 4: Generative Design Approach Source: (Fischer, Ceccato, & Frazer, 2001)
Generative Design is a morphogenetic process using algorithms structured as

not-linear systems for endless unique and un-repeatable results performed by an idea-code,
as in Nature (Soddu & Colabella, 1995).
Generative design approaches have been emerged from the search for strategies
to facilitate the exploration of alternative solutions in design, using computers as variance
producing engines to navigate large solution spaces and to come up with unexpected
solutions. In generative design, algorithms are often used to produce an array of alternative
solutions based on predefined goals and constraints, which the designer then evaluates to
select the most appropriate or interesting. Design decisions that require a more context-based
understanding and judgment are typically left to be decided upon by designers (Negroponte,
1975).
1.3 Properties of Generative Design
Most generative design is based on parametric modeling. It is a fast method of

exploring design possibilities that is used in various design fields such as Art, Architecture,
Communication Design, and Product Design.
Typically, generative design has:
x A design schema that provides criteria requirements

x A means of creating variations
x A means of selecting desirable outcomes
Based on these characteristics, generative design environments provide

significant advantages for conceptual design as the emphasis is on exploration of
alternatives. However, one of the most significant advantages is that generative design
environments are dynamic and interactive, providing real-time visual feedbacks, as the
geometric and dimensional variations are manipulated (Guidera, 2011).
Some generative schemes use genetic algorithms to create variations. Some use
just random numbers. Generative design has been inspired by natural design processes,
whereby designs are developed as genetic variations through mutation and crossovers
(Guidera, 2011).
1.4 Differences between the Traditional Method of Design and Generative Design
Herbert, Lionel March, Yahuda E. Kalay, and many others, discussed the
concept of (generate-test) design loops. They defined design as a result composed by two
engines, one is involved with generation and the other is involved with evaluation.
In architecture studios, the traditional design process starts with collecting data
and investigating sites, build a concept of the design, and then analyze possibilities based on
an array of criteria which had been defined or received from clients. This process can be
loosely illustrated as shown below in a three-node diagram. One of the limitations in this
process appears in the number of solutions that the "design language" node can generate. It
is usually very few, if not one (El-khaldi, 2007).
Figure 5: Traditional Design Loop Source: (El-khaldi, 2007)
History is a great resource. It is easy to understand how phenomena mature or

decay, last or end, continue or break. Most architects like Durans, Sullivan, Le Corbusier
and others prescribed their processes. All of them externalized their design processes after
building a body of work, defining a certain style, and working by a set of architectural
elements for certain goals. As for computing, it is known how L systems or Cellular automata
and others were created for simulation. It was after phenomena were broken down to units,
relationships and behaviors. Generative systems can only be built after defining design
objectives, processes and relationships (El-khaldi, 2007).
The following illustration shows a possible diagram for integrating generative
systems in design. A fourth node, "generation", is placed between concept and evaluation.
The main gain behind integrating such systems within a process is the ability to test "many"
generated solutions and be able to compare between them. This allows for capturing more
possible design solutions for every conceptual design language. It is important to realize that
generative systems are specific context as they come after a formalized (defined) design
language (El-khaldi, 2007).
Figure 6: Generative Design Loop Source: (El-khaldi, 2007)

1.5 Generative Design System in Architecture
Design has a dual meaning. It simultaneously means the act of designing an

object (design as an activity), and the designed object as an end result of the design act
(design as an artifact). This distinction is central in generative design systems (Gursel, 2012).
Figure 7: Generative System Concept Source: (Bohnacker, Gross, Laub, & Lazzeroni, 2012)
1.5.1 Generative Design System Definition. A generative system is a

production system that does not specify the design artifact, but instead specifies a higher-
level specification that encodes the “making” of the artifact, or the design procedure.
Therefore, generative systems are said to precede formation over form, which indicates a
fundamental shift from the modeling of a designed “object” to modeling of the design’s
“logic” (Leach, 2009).
Generative design systems require the computational specification of the
principles of the formation of a design (artifact), which opens up a design space for the
exploration of design alternatives and variations. As such, generative systems suggest the
delegation of some design tasks and intelligence from the human designer to the generative
system, thereby claiming a degree of autonomy. However this does not mean that the
generative system now becomes the designer, but that the human designer externalizes and
encodes some of its working intelligence into the “generator” to carry out certain design
tasks or solve problems. These specifications can be rules, constraints, parametric
dependencies, genetic structures, case-bases etc. (Gursel, 2012).
1.5.2 Historical Background of the Generative Design Systems. Generative
logic is nothing but new to design and architecture. Mitchell traces the roots of generative
systems in general to philosophy, literature and musical composition, and architectural
generative systems in particular to Leonardo da Vinci (Mitchell, 1979). According to Hanna
and Barber, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand followed an analogue generative approach for the
creation of neo-classical architecture by applying different combinations of building
elements (Hanna & Barber, 2001).
Louis Sullivan’s plates that describe processes for reproducing floral
ornamentation based on geometrical constructs, and Le Corbusier’s Five Points of
Architecture in which he formalized his style are accounted as examples of analogue
generative systems before the use of computation in architecture (El-khaldi, 2007).
Figure 8: A System of Architectural Ornament According with a Philosophy of Man’s Powers
Source: (Morrison & Samuelson, 2001)
Peter Eisenman, used analogue transformational rules in architectural design

synthesis (Gandelsonas, 1982). Eisenman’s design concept operates on a system (a
language) that permits creative action, generating an infinite number of utterances and
making infinite use of finite means (Hays, 2000). Eisenman reflects this practice on the
design of a series of houses (House I - X), where he states that “the house is not an object in
the traditional sense - that is the end result of a process – but more accurately a record of a
process” (Eisenman, Gass, & Gutman, 1977). This emphasis on the process over the end
product, and the act of conceiving of architectural form suggests a generative principle as
the essential driver during architectural synthesis (Gursel, 2012).
1.5.3 Generative Design Process
Figure 9: Generative Design Process Source: (Bohnacker, Gross, Laub, & Lazzeroni, 2012)
The process of generative formation requires four elements: the start conditions
and parameters (input), a generative mechanism (rules, algorithms etc.), the act of generation
of the variants (output), and the selection of the best variant. The design artifact does not
materialize until the fourth step, therefore a generative system is considered as a production
system rather a representational construct. Moreover, “the generative role of new digital
techniques is accomplished through the designer’s simultaneous interpretation and
manipulation of a computational construct… The capacity of digital, computational
architectures to generate “new” designs is, therefore, highly dependent on the designer’s
perceptual and cognitive abilities, as continuous, dynamic processes ground the emergent
form” (Kolarevic, 2000).
1.5.4 Categories of Generative Design Systems. Generative systems can be
roughly classified into two categories: linguistic and biological (Shea, 2004).
A linguistic system is a grammar-based formalism where a set of compositional
rules (syntax) govern and shape the design (semantics). The computational implementation
of linguistic generative systems primarily manifests itself in shape grammars. Shape
grammars define and apply a set of modification rules on a starter object (a shape) in order
to generate new complex design. According to Knight, shape grammars are descriptive and
generative in a way that the modification rules both describe the forms of the generated
designs, and generate or compute designs (Knight & Stiny, 2001).
Biological generative design systems, on the other hand, adopt a different
generative strategy, which takes nature and complex living organisms as a precedent and
applies its principles in the derivation and transformation of architectural form (Hensel,
Menges, & Weinstock, 2010). Vincent further articulates on the emphasis placed on the
becoming of the form rather than the resulting form itself (Vincent, 2009). Natural
emergence, describing the ways in which complex natural systems evolve, self-organize and
grow, contribute to architectural knowledge creation towards the production of complex
architectural, and especially performative design (Weinstock, 2010). As such, a deeper
engagement with the nature is pursued, which investigates the ways in which the principles
of nature present useful concepts such as functional integration, performative capacity and
material resourcefulness (Ahlquist & Menges, 2011).
1.5.5 Generative Systems Approaches
Figure 10: Generative Systems Approaches Source: (The Researcher based on (Bohnacker, Gross,
Laub, & Lazzeroni, 2012), 2015)
1.5.5.1 Algorithmic generative systems. Algorithmic systems are the basic

components in all generative system. They are the most malleable when it comes to
customization because they don't impose a specific structure, or relationship, or
representation, or units' type or context. They only provide a working environment as
opposed to recipes to implement. For this reason, these systems are the most popular of all
systems among architects. In fact, designing with algorithms is not a totally new concept in
architecture. As many architects repackaged their design languages in algorithmic
descriptions for others to implement. Thinking in terms of algorithms is a mapping process
of design objectives onto step-by-step descriptions. Such a process helps designers
decompose context, understand relationships and devise methods to judge the utility of the
outcome (El-khaldi, 2007).
1.5.5.2 Parametric systems. Algorithmic systems are the basic component on
top of any other specific systems. Parametric systems are a part of the algorithmic system.
These are built around two concepts: Associativity and/or Inheritance by hierarchy.
Parametric systems in architecture are usually understood in the context of: A) Geometric
Modelers B) Animation packagers. Modelers like CATIA, Generative Components, or Solid
works can create geometry, structure data within hierarchies and create dependencies
through relationships (El-khaldi, 2007).
Animation packages like 3D Max, Cinema-4D and Maya offer a different type
of parametric systems where designers can relate elements to each other through dynamics
and inverse kinematics solvers. The fact is that the parametric system is capable of
associating elements with another one (El-khaldi, 2007).
1.5.5.3 Formalisms
1.5.5.3.1 L-systems. Parametric systems are a specific case of algorithmic
systems, (ones with associations). L-Systems are more specific algorithmic systems. These
are rule-based systems, which is defined as formalisms. Rules are usually presented as a left
side, arrow and a right side. For example (X→Y), this means find X and replace it by Y (El-
khaldi, 2007).
It is important to note that these formalisms were created to simulate very
specific phenomena as opposed to provide a working platform like Algorithmic or
Parametric systems. For example: L-systems were used to simulate botanic growth, Cellular
automata were created to simulate reproduction, Fractals were created to simulate self-
similarity in nature, and shape grammars were created to simulate human ability to see, or
compute visually (El-khaldi, 2007).
1.5.5.3.2 Cellular automata systems. L-systems are the first of the four
formalisms as it was the least flexible of all systems. Its symbols are limited to one type of
meaning, alphabets (El-khaldi, 2007).
Cellular Automata systems offer a richer environment for its symbols as they are
not limited to one type of meaning. A symbol in CA (cell) can refer to "Color" with its
variations (black, white, etc.), or size (with various numbers), location (in reference to many
axes), etc. or even different objects (El-khaldi, 2007).
1.5.5.3.3 Fractal systems. L-systems and Cellular Automata maintain the size of
their smallest units. Rules replace alphabets or cells without breaking them to smaller ones.
The concept of the "smallest unit" is not applicable to Fractal Systems for they are based on
mathematical models of recursion. Fractal algorithms will recursively fracture elements first,
and then replace them by new ones (El-khaldi, 2007).
1.5.5.3.4 Shape grammars. The previously discussed formalisms (L-systems,
Cellular Automata, and Fractals) recognized units as discrete in reference to their locations
(boundaries) assuming they have fixed identities throughout the computation process. In
Shape Grammars, units are recognized both by fixed and flexible definitions. The first relies
on "identity" (like other systems) where the second relies on "embedding" (intrinsic to shape
grammars). These systems were built to capture visual calculation processes in design. They
handle recognition through the human ability to see. Mapping such a concept to the world
of discrete units that computers understand requires very sophisticated algorithms. Ones that
can pick shapes wherever they may be. This fact limited the implementation of shape
grammars to analog processes performed by humans, or computer-automated ones working
with discrete units only (El-khaldi, 2007).
1.6 Generative Model
In generative design, algorithmic procedures are often used to produce arrays of

alternative solutions based on predefined goals and constraints, which the designer then
evaluates to select the most appropriate or interesting (Herr & Kvan, 2007).
This position is reiterated by Oxman, who stated that “the generative model is
the design of, and interaction with, complex mechanisms that deal with the emergence of
forms deriving from generative rules, relations and principles.” However, it was argued that
designer interactivity is a key component. It has been stated that “Interaction has a major
priority in this model” and added that “in order to employ generative techniques in design,
there is a need for an interactive module that provides control and choices for the designer
to guide the selection of desired solutions.” (Oxman, 2006).
1.6.1 Categories of Generative Models. There is a rich theoretical body of
research-related applications of generative models. Two main distinct current sub-
approaches are shape grammars and evolutionary models. Shape grammars are mathematical
expressions for computational mechanisms that drive shape generation processes through
transformational rules. Shape grammars are well-known in the design research literature.
Evolutionary form-generation techniques are based on evolutionary models of natural
generation that can be applied to generative processes in design. There was no examples of
compound models combining generative mechanisms in formation models; however, this
combination is theoretically possible (Stiny, Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars,
1980).
Elements and their individual letter symbols represent the basic components
of the model:
R = representation and formal content, G = generation, E = evaluation and P =
performance.
Boundaries and arrows represent interaction type between the designer and the
representational media as illustrated in the symbol schema below.
Links are represented by a line.
Lines and arrows explicate interrelation links
between the components of the model.
Implicit and cognitive links are represented by
dotted lines and explicated computational
links are represented by full lines (Oxman,
2006).
According to these symbols, that
model can be depicted as presented in. The
designer implicitly integrates performative
requirements, generative and evaluative
procedures while interacting directly with the
formal representation. E, P and G and their
linkages with the formal procedures illustrate
the implicit part of the cognitive behavior of
the designer (Oxman, 2006). Figure 11: Generative Model
Source: (Oxman, 2006)
1.6.1.1 Grammatical transformative design models. Shape grammar as a

generative mechanism based upon formal compositional rules is perhaps the most interesting
case to examine the problematic of a priori formal content in digital design. Currently, with
the change of design focus from spatial composition to tectonic and material qualities,
emergent properties of tectonic and morphological design content are becoming
incorporated with the mathematics of grammars. As such, shape grammars are presently
considered one of the potentially significant models of generation for digital design. The
type of interaction with the generative mechanism is a critical issue in designing a generative
system in digital design. Shea (2004) has demonstrated the potential of such an approach in
digital design generation. Grammar definitions here adapt a more abstract, less
compositional and more topological character. Computational system is based upon three-
dimensional, periodic spatial tiling and is an important contribution in the direction towards
more topological and less compositional grammars. It is based on computational
implementation of the mathematical description of the tiling material as a basic generative
grammar related to shape-grammar principles and is employed as a generative tool for design
(Oxman, 2006).
1.6.1.2 Evolutionary design models. In an evolutionary model of design, form

emergence is considered to be the result of an evolutionary process. Evolutionary techniques
have been part of a long research tradition exploring computational mechanisms of form
generation. Form generation is derived from an internal genetic coding that replaces
traditional interaction with the form itself. There also exists a significant body of theory
dealing with problems of emergence and the behavior of complex systems as related to
evolutionary models (Oxman, 2006).
Genetic algorithms have become a major tool in various research areas. John
Holland is the founder of the domain of genetic algorithms. These are parallel computational
representations of the processes of variation, recombination and selection on the basis of
fitness underlying most processes of evolution and adaptation (Holland, 1992). Genetic
algorithms were first employed in a problem-solving and optimization context in which
stated criteria and goals were defined and controlled by a fitness function. In this type of
automatic generative process there was no interactive consideration. However, in design the
provision of interactivity and the formulation and the type of interaction of a certain
generative mechanism are essential (Oxman, 2006).
1.7 Conclusion
After reviewing that chapter, it could be concluded that the generative design is
a new method of design which depends on computers which are used as a part of the
generative process as they are used as a generative tool for generating many verities of
solutions and that could be realized by writing the designer's idea in algorithms to produce
a code of any idea and that code contains some variables and that variables depends on the
type of the used approach which had been used to write down the idea in algorithms, that
approaches could be algorithmic, parametric or formalisms which divide into four types, L-
Systems, Cellular Automata systems, Fractal Systems, Shape Grammars. All of these
approaches have algorithmic base, by changing the value of these variables, a new solution
would be generated so that there would be a variety to out puts which would be evaluated
by the designer in order to reach the desirable one. If the output didn't meet the designer's
satisfaction, it would be easy for the designer to do some changes in the written algorithms
or in the value of the variables in order to generate all the optional solutions until the designer
choose one of them which realize the desirable one.
CHAPTER - 2 - COMPUTATION AND

PROGRAMMING
“Design = Calculating” (Stiny, 2012)

Chapter 2: Computation and Programming

2.1 Introduction
''Computer is stupid, but it is fast'' (Bohnacker, Gross, Laub, & Lazzeroni,

2012)
Figure 13: Algorithmic Process Done by Using A Computer

Source: (The Researcher based on (Bohnacker, Gross, Laub, & Lazzeroni, 2012), 2015)
A computer is a machine that transforms input data into output data. Thereby
data takes the form of a finite sequence of bits. Hence, data can be coded as a natural number
and the transformation f can be viewed as partial function on the set of natural numbers N
with output out ϵ N as result of a computation of the input in ϵ N that is f(in) = out (Kotnik,
2007).
Figure 14: The Computation Process Source: (Kotnik, 2007)
"Computers have come to stay; they are changing the world whether we like it
or not, and gradually they will find their way into the offices of architects and
the schools of architecture all over the world." (Sudbo, 1988).
This quote was extracted from a report of an international forum held in Zurich
in 1987, on 'architectural education and the information explosion'. It sets the background of
the general feeling concerning computers 'overture' in architectural practice and education.
There are several reasons to support such a view. Some are related to developments in
computers technology, whereas others are associated with our understanding of the
computer's role in design (Sudbo, 1988).
The computer, as a tool, is similar to an extension of the mind. Further, the

computer may be situated as the mind of other tools. It encourages a repetition and variation
that affects the making of many distinct things. This mind tool can be integrated into a critical
process between the designer, the visualization software, and the fabrication processes.
Certainly, the software programmer plays a growing role in the relationship of form
generation and direct translation to fabrication techniques (Klinger, 2001).
Computing technology has achieved in the last two decades a tremendous

advance; for example processing speed and circuit density which have been increased by the
order of magnitude. The software field has also progressed considerably, with new software
development tools, programming languages and methodologies. This new powerful
computing environment is packaged and made available to individual users in the form of
'Personal Computers', and to engineers or designers in the form of the new generation of
'Graphical Workstations' (Belhadj, 1989).
Developments in the field of computer modeling, computer graphics, and more

recently in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence provide the theoretical basis to
build fundamentally new tools to support the architectural design process, in particular for
design abstraction and evaluation (Schmitt, 1987).
For the past 10 years, emerging computational tools and techniques are having a
strong impact on architectural design. Since then, architects and students of architecture are
trying to embed digital methods into the design process, exploring new possibilities and
challenges occurring (Agkathidis, 2011).
Such development in using computers in the field of architecture imposed some

questions like;
x How computation changes both Architecture and its relation to the human subject?
x What computers do to Architecture?
x Which type of programming could be used?
All these questions would be answered during that chapter.
2.1.1 Differences between Computation and Computerization. Computation

is a term that differs from, but is often confused with, computerization. While computation
is the procedure of calculating, i.e. determining something by mathematical or logical
methods, computerization is the act of entering, processing, or storing information in a
computer or a computer system. Computerization is about automation, mechanization,
digitization, and conversion. Generally, it involves the digitization of entities or processes
that are preconceived, predetermined, and well defined. In contrast, computation is about the
exploration of indeterminate, vague, unclear, and often ill-defined processes; because of its
exploratory nature, computation aims at emulating or extending the human intellect. It is
about rationalization, reasoning, logic, algorithm, deduction, induction, extrapolation,
exploration, and estimation. In its manifold implications, it involves problem solving, mental
structures, cognition, simulation, and rule based intelligence, to name a few (Terzidis, 2006).
The dominant mode of utilizing computers in architecture today is that of

computerization; entities or processes that are already conceptualized in the designer’s mind
are entered, manipulated, or stored on a computer system. In contrast, computation or
computing, as a computer-based design tool, is generally limited. The problem with this
situation is that designers do not take advantage of the computational power of the computer.
Instead some venture into manipulations or criticisms of computer models as if they were
products of computation. While research and development of software involves extensive
computational techniques, mouse-based manipulations of 3D computer models are not
necessarily acts of computation. For instance, it appears, from the current discourse, that
mouse-based manipulations of control points on NURBS based surfaces are considered by
some theorists to be acts of computing (Cuff, 2001). While the mathematical concept and
software implementation of NURBS as surfaces is a product of applied numerical

computation, the rearrangement of their control points through commercial software is
simply an affine transformation, i.e. a translation (Terzidis, 2006).
2.1.2 Different Visions about Using Computers in the Design Process.
“At the birth of computer graphics, it was professed that this new instrument
could liberate us from the T square and that we could finally design and live in
doubly curved surfaces. I do not believe that the lack of “intestinal” architecture
comes from a lack of necessary tools” (Negroponte, 1975).
Negroponte explained that hard technology is a means to make architecture

softer; he envisioned that computers are machines and they are the way towards a more
human environment. He pointed to a new humanism, through partnership with problem-
worrying by depending on those machines which enabling architects to go beyond the
simplifications of the middle scale (the average man, statistics) and be responsive to the very
small and the very big simultaneously (Vardouli, 2011).
The primary obstacle towards this vision is the conflict which arises between the
metaphor-rich, human oriented capital architecture and the contextual computational
algebras which are yet incapable of having empathy to things important for people, like place
and meaning. The consideration of this difficult question is impeded by the fact that
computers actually have results (Vardouli, 2011).
“General feeling of discomfort passing through universities” (Negroponte,

1975)
He said that about a work whose rapid results do not leave time to reflect on the
human in design (i.e. how people and machines deal with the built environment) (Vardouli,
2011).
“The promises and the disappointments of computer-aided Design are indicative

of this tendency” (Bazjanac, 1975).
Vladimir Bazjanac witnesses himself having been carried away by the

emergence of a new technology promising of a new future for mankind, in and outside
architecture (Vardouli, 2011).
“Added to that is the excitement of getting into something really new, something
no architect of the past knew anything about. How could he not become a
believer? My early enthusiasm was really tremendous”
(Bazjanac, 1975)
Bazjanak located the source of his disbelief from the realms of architectural
practice. Coming in contact with the inertias of what was earlier referred to as the world’s
“messy realism”, he conjured that the change in the way of architecture is exercised
significantly less drastic than expected. In fact, he warned that the automation of the design
process can lead to regression instead of innovation through channeling the architect’s
thought into metaphors and formal models which are imposed by the technology (Vardouli,
2011).
“The main direction of work at the Royal College of Art’s Department of Design
Research is the use of computer simulation models of design processes and
design organizations in the evaluation of CAD systems. The development of these
computer models is based on empirical studies of a range of live design projects”
(Purcell, 1975).
Patrick Purcell Considered that is computer is as an alien medium, whose

incorporation in the design process has socio-anthropological implications which require
intensive research (Vardouli, 2011).
“The goal of design methodology should not be systems that can design better
than the humans (Make the creative leap) but rather systems that help humans
design better (Computer aided design)” (Milne, 1975).
Murray Milne called for a settling down from the initial enthusiasm with
computers in order to rethink about the implications of the computer in the design process,
both esoterically and externally. Asserting that design methodology had been the study of
methods, principles and rules for regulating the science and art of design, especially
architectural design (Vardouli, 2011).
“In asking how the computer might be applied to architectural design, we must,
therefore, ask ourselves what problems we know of in design that could be solved
by such an army of clerks” (Alexander, 1964).
Christopher Alexander considered that those computers couldn't design better

than human and they would be systems to help humans to design better (Vardouli, 2011).
“Lady Lovelace Objection” (Turing, 1950).
Alan Turing explained that machines couldn't be creative; this approach takes a
distance from Negroponte’s visions of machine intelligence and computer-designer
partnership and places them in the level of tools for tedious, unimaginative tasks, while the
human designer maintains the privilege of authorship and creativity (Vardouli, 2011).
The main points which emerge from these discussions could be condensed to the following:
x First, although computer aided design performs satisfactorily in controlled,

constructed problems and hypothetical questions in the lab, it fails when faced with
the complexities of the real world which cannot be reduced to descriptions that can
be processed by a machine.
x Second, the automation of the tedious stages of the design process impedes creative
thinking by obligating the architect to operate within the boundaries and the language
of the technology at hand
x Third, before computational tools have been made for architects it is needed to
understand the design process from a socio-anthropological and cognitive
perspective so as to allow for qualitative and not just quantitative changes in

architecture through the use of computers (Vardouli, 2011).
The battle seemed to be lost from the beginning; human and context responsive
computer aided architecture requires science fictional artificial intelligence in order to be
achieved, the morphogenetic potential of CAD is discarded as almost ludicrous and there is
a commonly shared skepticism around the possibility to automate aspects of the design
process in a productive way, which probably makes CAD resort to its most usual use today,
that of an architectural representation. However, the dynamics of computation had been
identified, carrying away the architects into “A new method and making them easily forget
the old” (Negroponte, 1975). Besides this skepticism, one can discern a powerful impact of
this new tool, which creates a de facto demand for digitization of architecture somewhere,
somehow (Vardouli, 2011).
2.1.3 Computational Design. Computational design is an approach that

operates mostly through the facilities of mathematical thinking due to the calculation skills
of computers. It requires a mode of thinking, based on well-defined steps, algorithms and
parameters, which are necessary for the design strategy to be developed at the initial phase
of design process (Çinici, Akipek, & Yazar, 2008).

2.1.3.1 Computational design techniques. For at least twenty years now,
emerging computational design and manufacturing techniques have entered the world of
architecture. Since the early days of “visionary” computational architectural project
proposals by Greg Lynn and NOX among others appeared, the debate about blob versus box,
the notion of form, the digital esthetics and the effects of such an architecture on the city has
been running. Technology moves fast, thus the early 3d modeling software such as 3d studio
max, alias wave-front and others, based on animation, are now more and more being replaced
by rhino and grasshopper, which make programming and parameterization of design models
easier than ever (Agkathidis, 2011).
Furthermore, digital fabrication techniques are becoming widely accessible and

affordable. Digitally fabrication buildings are no longer expensive, but often more affordable
and efficient than traditionally planned and produced buildings. At the same time, the
critique on such a design approach becomes louder: formalism, alienation to the city and the
user, loss of materiality are among the strongest arguments used against the emerging so
called parametric architectural examples. But there is something not easy to deny: emerging
design and production technologies are having a non-reversible impact on the evolution of
architectural production today and the coming future (Agkathidis, 2011).

2.1.3.2 Characteristics of computational design techniques. It should be
viewed that computational design is as part of a normal progression in which the designer
and the artifact are separated by an increasing number of levels of indirection, that in turn
introduce higher levels of expression and control. Opponents of this may question whether
introducing these levels of indirection is in fact progress, arguing that intuition and
spontaneity will be inhibited with the increased remoteness between the designer and
artifact. Happily these layers of indirection are not arranged linearly, but can be configured
to form a closed loop. The advent of digitally controlled fabrication means that the
geometrically aware and computationally enabled designer is as close to the materialization
as in the original craft process, but with precision and control and the ability to explore
variation which was previously unimaginable. The question now is: what are the
characteristics of computational design tools that facilitate this approach to design and what
are the corresponding abstractions which need to be internalized and perationalized by
designers? (Aish, 2005).
The essentially themes are:
• Geometry
• Composition
• Algorithmic thought
Figure 15: Computational Design Techniques Source: (The researcher based on (Aish, 2005), 2015)
2.1.3.2.1 Geometry. It is needed to start with a fundamental understanding of

geometric primitives: points, planes, coordinate systems, line arc, curves, surfaces and
solids. It is needed to understand what the order of a curve means, how curves and surfaces
are parameterized. It is needed to understand geometric operations on these primitives:
projection, intersection, union, difference, transformation. It is needed to use these primitives
and operations to define relationships. It is needed to understand the stability of these
geometric relationships under certain modifications and configurations (Aish, 2005).
With this understanding, there would be the opportunity to build the long chain
dependencies which would create interesting geometric configurations. What is important is
not the static configuration, but the way in which some change, for example to the location
of a key point or parameter, can create alternative configurations (Aish, 2005).
What becomes apparent is that the geometry of the artifact is not being designed, but
rather a control rig is being constructed, some geometry that would never be built or seen,
but which indirectly controlling what would be constructed and experienced. It was the
development of this sense of indirection or control through geometric dependency which is
being emerged as a key design skill. By building and exercising these systems of geometric
dependency it would be able to explore variation in design, indeed to explore the solution
space, and to discover and validate the configuration that would finally be constructed (Aish,
2005).
2.1.3.2.2 Composition. It is pretty rare to find a building which is a realized as a

single discrete object. Normally assemblies of components are being considered to be at
intermediate levels of aggregation and form identifiable sub-systems. While these
components may be pre-defined, or the subsystems may follow established industry

conventions, there are increasing opportunities for each design to use mass customization
and digital fabrication to define project specific components. The question then is: how could
the total building concept been broken down into sub-systems and components? What are
the conceptual or practical fault lines which might suggest this decomposition? There may
in fact be multiple decompositions, some to be used in the conceptual, form finding phase,
and others for realization and fabrications which, for example, might impose dimensions
constraints associated with different materials or fabrications processes. Certainly, that
developing and refining compositional strategies are a key aspect of design skills. There is a
tremendous advantage in using computational design tools which directly support the idea
of ‘composition’ and which allow these strategies to be developed and tested (Aish, 2005).
2.1.3.2.3 Algorithmic thought. At one level these is a desire to explore geometric

subtleties which go beyond what hand-eye coordination can deliver. At another level there
is a desire to apply ideas of consistency or controlled unpredictability over large data sets,
for example representing a building facade. Essentially this geometry cannot be drawn. It
has to be computed. If it is to be computed, then there has to be an algorithm. To be original
and to be in control, the designer has to understand, if not originate, his own algorithm, and
know how to drive it (i.e. know what are valid inputs and know how to interpret, verify and
validate the results and know the limits to the solution space) (Aish, 2005).
Does this mean that the designer of the future has to be a programmer? No, but
it might help. Certainly, developing an ability to think algorithmically will emerge as a key
design skill. But how can we encourage the development of these skills without demanding
that designers become programmers? A potentially fruitful approach is to introduce the
necessary logical formalism in very small doses. This has the important advantages for the
designer in that he can discover the value of embedding ‘logic’ in his design model in a
‘declarative’ form without having to completely master all the constructs normally
associated with a procedural programming language. But what is being learnt is not
expressed in some ‘cut-down’ over simplified syntax, but uses established programming
conventions, so that as the designer becomes more computationally expressive, he can build
on these initial steps (Aish, 2005).
Most importantly, algorithmic design does not imply that subjectivity is out of
the loop, or even that ‘hand-eye coordination’ is redundant. What has been facilitated is the
ability for the designer to embed his design logic within an interactive design system which
is driven by the designer’s hand and evaluated by the designer’s eye. This follows the
fundamental precept of design that of the combining intuition and precision into a single
process and with the results of that process integrated and embodied in the same artifact
(Aish, 2005).
At the foundation of computational design is the relationship between tools and

skills. It is should matching tools to the concepts around which designers want to build their
skills. The expectation is that geometric skills, compositional skills and algorithmic skills
will be the key to future design (Aish, 2005).
2.1.4 Differences between Conventional Design and Computational Design.

A comparison was made between conventional design and computational design, the latter
design approach has been differentiated as an indirect one, where the designer did not
directly draw the geometry, but has an indirect, more arguably and more powerful way of
controlling that geometry using computational design tools (Aish, 2005).
On the other hand, these levels of indirection could be seen as cognitive

obstacles, since the traditional design has been based on direct hand-eye coordination. This
led to think on design pedagogy, and its adaptation process to the contemporary approaches
in design. Studies on tools development seem to seize an intermediate level of computation,
where the geometric constructs of visual computation, are equally operative as script-based
algorithmic operations. In the perceptual level, it offers an instant visual platform of design
besides coding. The intermediate level of computation is an important attempt to ease
computation by making it more user-friendly even in it’s the highest level of use (Aish,
2005).
2.2 Algorithms
2.2.1 The Origin of the Word Algorithm and Definitions. The word Algorithm
is not Greek. Its origin is Arabic, based on a concept attributed to an 8th century Persian
mathematician named Al-Khwarizmi (Terzidis, 2006).
x An algorithm is a procedure for addressing a problem in a finite number of steps
using logical if-then else operations (Terzidis, 2006).
x An algorithm is a procedure to accomplish a specific task (Skiena, 2008).
x An algorithm is the idea behind any reasonable computer program (Skiena,

2008).
x An algorithmic problem is specified by describing the complete set of instances

it must work on and of its output after running on one of these instances (Skiena,
2008).
2.2.2 Expressing Algorithms. Reasoning about an algorithm is impossible

without a careful description of the sequence of steps to be performed.
The three most common forms of algorithmic notation are
(1) English
(2) Pseudo code
(3) A real programming language.
English is the most natural but least precise programming language, while Java
and C/C++ are precise but difficult to write and understand. Pseudo code is generally useful
because it represents a happy medium (Skiena, 2008).
The choice of which notation is best depends upon which method is most
comfortable. The ideas of an algorithm in English is being described, moving to a more
formal, programming-language-like pseudo code or even real code to clarify sufficiently
tricky details (Skiena, 2008).
Pseudo code is perhaps the most mysterious of the bunch, but it is best defined
as a programming language that never complains about syntax errors. All three methods are
useful because there is a natural tradeoff between greater ease of expression and precision
(Skiena, 2008).
2.2.3 Algorithmic Design. Algorithmic design enables the role of the designer
to shift from “architecture programming” to “programming architecture.” Rather than
investing in arrested conflicts, computational terms might be better exploited by this
alternative choice. For the first time perhaps, architectural design might be aligned with
neither formalism nor rationalism but with intelligent form and traceable creativity (Terzidis,
2006).
Algorithm design and analysis is not just theory, but an important tool to be
pulled out and used as needed (Skiena, 2008).
2.2.3.1 Algorithmic design requirements. The techniques of algorithm design

form one of the core practical technologies of computer science. Designing correct, efficient,
and implementable algorithms for real-world problems requires access to two distinct bodies
of knowledge:
x Techniques
x Resources
2.2.3.1.1 Techniques. Good algorithm designers understand several

fundamental algorithm design techniques, including data structures, dynamic programming,
depth-first search, backtracking, and heuristics. Perhaps the single most important design
technique is modeling which is the art of abstracting a messy real-world application into a
clean problem suitable for algorithmic attack (Skiena, 2008).
2.2.3.1.2 Resources. Good algorithm designers stand on the shoulders of giants.

Rather than laboring from scratch to produce a new algorithm for every task, they can figure
out what is known about a particular problem. Rather than re-implementing popular
algorithms from scratch, they seek existing implementations to serve as a starting point. They
are familiar with many classic algorithmic problems, which provide sufficient source
material to model most any application (Skiena, 2008).
2.2.4 Algorithm Problems. In practice, algorithm problems do not arise at the

beginning of a large project. Rather, they typically arise as sub-problems when it becomes
clear that the programmer does not know how to proceed or that the current solution is
inadequate (Skiena, 2008).
2.2.4.1 Algorithmic problems classification. The design techniques are very

important for other algorithmic problems. Skiena has classified the common algorithmic
problems arose in practice into the following types. It should be started with data structure
design, because one of the most dramatic algorithmic improvements via appropriate data
structures occurs in sorting. Selection sort is a simple-to-code algorithm that repeatedly
extracts the smallest remaining element from the unsorted part of the problem:
1. Data Structures 2. Numerical Problems

3. Combinatorial Problems 4. Graph Problems: Polynomial-Time
5. Graph Problems: Hard Problems 6. Computational Geometry
7. Set and String Problems 8. Algorithmic Resources
Figure 16: Algorithmic Problems Classification Source: (Skiena, 2008)
2.2.5 Problem Solving. People make decisions every day to solve problems that
affect their lives. The problems may be as unimportant as what to watch on television or as
important as choosing a new profession. If a bad decision is made, time and resources are
wasted, so it’s important that people know how to make decisions well (Sprankle &
Hubbard, 2012).
This is a catalog of algorithmic problems that arise commonly in practice. It

describes what is known about them and gives suggestions about how best to proceed if the
problem arises in your application (Skiena, 2008).
There are six steps to follow to ensure the best decision. These six steps in
problem solving include the following:
1. Identify the problem. The first step toward solving a problem is to identify the
problem. If the problem hasn't been identified, it cannot be solved.
2. Understand the problem. It must be understood what is involved in the problem

before continuing toward the solution. This includes understanding the knowledge
base of the person or machine for whom the problem are being solved. When working
with a computer, its knowledge base is the limited instructions which the computer
can understand them through the particular language or the application used to solve
the problem.
3. Identify alternative ways to solve the problem. This list should be as complete as
possible. It is wanted to talk to other people to find other solutions than those which
have been identified. Alternative solutions must be acceptable ones.
4. Select the best way to solve the problem from the list of alternative solutions. In
this step, it is needed to identify and evaluate the pros and cons of each possible
solution before selecting the best one. In order to do this, it is needed to select criteria
for the evaluation. These criteria will serve as the guidelines for evaluating each
solution.
5. List instructions that enable to solve the problem using the selected solution.
These numbered, step-by-step instructions must fall within the knowledge base set
up in step 2. No instruction can be used unless the individual or the machine can
understand it. This can be very limiting, especially when working with computers.
6. Evaluate the solution. To evaluate or test a solution means to check its result to see
if it is correct, and to see if it satisfies the needs of the person(s) with the problem. If
the result is either incorrect or unsatisfactory, then the problem solver must review
the list of instructions to see that they are correct or start the process all over again
(Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
2.2.5.1 Types of problem solution

2.2.5.1.1 Algorithmic solution. Problems do not always have straightforward
solutions. Some problems can be solved with a series of actions. These solutions are called
Algorithmic solutions. Once the alternatives have been eliminated, for example, and once
one has chosen the best among several methods of balancing the checkbook, the solution can
be reached by completing the actions in steps. These steps are called the Algorithm (Sprankle
& Hubbard, 2012).
2.2.5.1.2 Heuristic solutions. The solutions of other problems are not so

straightforward. These solutions require reasoning built on knowledge and experience, and
a process of trial and error. Solutions that cannot be reached through a direct set of steps are
called Heuristic Solutions (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
x The problem solver can use the six steps for both algorithmic and heuristic solutions.
However, in step 6, evaluating the solution, the correctness and appropriateness of
heuristic solutions are far less certain. It’s easy to tell if the completed checkbook
balance is correct and satisfactory, but it’s hard to tell if the chosen solution is the
best one. With heuristic solutions, the problem solver will often need to follow the
six steps more than once, carefully evaluating each possible solution before deciding
which is best.
x Furthermore, this same solution may not be correct and satisfactory at another time,
so the problem solver may have to reevaluate and resolve the same problem later.
The chosen solution that did well in January may do poorly in June. Most problems
require a combination of the two kinds of solutions (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
2.2.5.2 Computers as a tool to solve problems. Computers are built to deal with
algorithmic solutions, which are often difficult or very time consuming for humans. People
are better than computers at developing heuristic solutions. The difficulty of using computers
in solving problems lies in the programming (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
The field of computers that deals with heuristic types of problems is called
artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence enables a computer to do things like build its
own knowledge bank and speak in a human language. As a result, the computer’s problem-
solving abilities are similar to those of a human being. Artificial intelligence is an expanding
computer field, especially with the increased use of Robotics (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
Until computers can be built to think like humans, people will process most
heuristic solutions and computers will process many algorithmic solutions. Heuristic
problem solving can help to determine alternative solutions. However, for computer use,
they must be transformed into an algorithmic format (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
2.2.5.3 Difficulties with problem solving. The problem-solving process is not

easy. It takes practice and time to be perfect, but in the long run the process proves to be of
great benefit. When solving problems on the computer, one of the most difficult tasks for
the problem solver is writing the instructions. The computer is a tool that will perform only
tasks that the user can explain (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
The computer has a specific system of communication that programmers and

users must learn. This system demands that no step in the solution to a problem be left
unstated and that all steps be in the proper order. It is must assumed the computer knows
nothing except what it is told and think of it as an ignorant but efficient aid to problem
solving (Sprankle & Hubbard, 2012).
2.2.6 Algorithms in Computational Design. There are different levels of using

computational capabilities in custom computer aided architectural design tools. According
to that, the lowest level for the use of computation is computerized design, in which
computer algorithms are used only for drafting functions (Aish, 2005).
No or only limited computational power is used in this most common utilization.

Hence, custom CAD tools are examples of lowest algorithmic level in design, and the
parametric modeling skills are not capable enough. High level of parametric modeling skill
means using the computational power in a design process. This level requires the use of
explicit definitions, algorithms and thus a dynamic design computation strategy. The
question is the use of scripting and programming as computational design technology and
its pedagogical consequences. But it also brings the question of ‘Is designer becoming a
coder?’ as one of the most mind-busying concerns in the schools of architecture. Thus, one
of the most important aspects of computational design is the increasing number of levels of
indirection. These levels of indirection mean the introduction of higher levels of expression
and control (Aish, 2005).
2.3 Programming
2.3.1 Introduction. In the field of Generative Design (GD), Visual

Programming Languages (VPLs), such as Grasshopper, are becoming increasingly popular
compared to the traditional Textual Programming Languages (TPLs) provided by CAD
applications, such as Rhino Script. This reaction is explained by the relative obsolescence of
these TPLs and the faster learning curve of VPLs. However, modern TPLs offer a variety of
linguistic features designed to overcome the limitations of traditional TPLs, making them
hypothetical competitors to VPLs. It is reconsidered the role of TPLs in the design process
and a comparative study of VPLs and modern TPLs is presented. It is found that modern
TPLs can be more productive than VPLs, especially, for large scale and complex design
tasks (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes, 2012).
2.3.2 Coding. Throughout architecture history, coding has been a means of

expressing rules, constraints and systems that are relevant for the architectural design
process. Among other meanings (e.g., statutory, representation and production codes),
coding in architectural design can be understood as the representation of algorithmic
processes that express architectural concepts or solve architectural problems (Leitão, Santos,
& Lopes, 2012).
Even before the invention of digital computers, algorithms were applied and
incorporated in the design process (Coutinho, Costa, Duarte, & Kruger, 2011).
Computers popularized and extended the notion of coding in architecture by

simplifying the implementation and computation of algorithmic processes (Rocker, 2006).
As a result, increasingly more architects and designers are aware of digital applications and
programming techniques, and are adopting these methods as generative tools for the
derivation of form (Kolarevic, 2000). Even though the improvements of direct manipulation
in CAD applications led many to believe that programming was unnecessary, the work of
Maeda shows the exact opposite (Maeda & Antonelli, 1999).
2.3.3 Scripting. With scripting, computer programming becomes integral to the

digital design process. It provides unique opportunities for innovation, enabling the designer
to customize the software around their own predilections and modes of working. It liberates
the designer by automating many routine aspects and repetitive activities of the design
process, freeing-up the designer to spend more time on design thinking. Software that is
modified through scripting offers a range of speculations that are not possible using the
software only as the manufacturers intended it to be used. There are also significant
economic benefits to automating routines and coupling them with emerging digital
fabrication technologies, as time is saved at the front-end and new file-to-factory protocols
can be taken advantage of. Most significantly perhaps, scripting as a computing program
overlay enables the tool user (designer) to become the new tool maker (software engineer).
Though scripting is not new to design, it is only recently that it has started to be regarded as
integral to the designer's skill set rather than a technical specialty. Many designers are now
aware of its potential, but remain hesitant (Davis, Burry, & Burry, 2011).
The biggest disadvantage of using a scripting language is the need to follow its
syntax very strictly. Although most scripting environments, such as VBAIDE, highlight
mistakes and have debugging tools, such as flags and variable watches, certain syntax
mistakes are not automatically detected and can take too long to be found (Celani, 2012).
x Computational design methods allow automation of the design process and extension
of the standard features of CAD applications, thus transcending their limitations
(Killian, 2006).Therefore, CAD software shifts from a representation tool to a
medium for algorithmic computation, from which architecture can emerge (Terzidis,
2003). To apply computational methods, one must first translate the thought process
into a computer program by means of a Programming Language (PL) (Leitão, Santos,
& Lopes, 2012).
2.3.4 Modeling Methods in Architecture. Different methods can be used for

modeling architectural form. Mitchell categorized them in three types: iconic, analogue and
symbolic.
Iconic models are very literal. Typical examples of their use in architecture are
plans, elevations and scale models. These models involve scale (enlargements and
reductions) and projection (3D to 2D) transformations Mitchell emphasizes the role of this
type of model in the generative process; according to him, in iconic models “a particular
state of the system actually ‘looks like’ the potential solution which it represents”. By
looking at an iconic model it is able to foresee how a building will look like when ready
(Mitchell, 1978).
Figure 17: Three Different Types of Representation of Computational Design Concepts, with Different
Abstraction Levels Source: (Celani, 2012)
In analogue models, one set of properties is used to represent another analogous
set of properties of the item being designed. Analog representations allow easy manipulation
as Analogue generative systems often represent potential designs by settings of wheels, dials,
sliding columns, etc. The operations performed to change the state of the system (that is to
describe a new potential design) are thus mechanical, for example, the spinning of wheels,
setting dials, sliding columns alongside each other (Celani, 2012)
Symbolic models use symbols, such as words, numbers and mathematical

operators. In architecture, symbolic models are used mainly for simulations and evaluations
of structural, acoustical, lighting and thermal performance. Symbols are typically displayed
as mathematical formulae, tables, arrays and algorithms (Celani, 2012).
x The three representation methods described by Mitchell have different abstraction

levels: iconic representations are closer to reality while symbolic representations are
very abstract. Analogue representations are in between.
Computational design concepts can be represented in the three ways, with

different levels of abstraction. At a more concrete level, parametric relations can be specified
directly on iconic representations. This is possible, for example, in certain CAD software
that allows to visually specifying parametric relations between drawing entities directly on
the graphic screen, such as Micro Station and the latest versions of AutoCAD (Celani, 2012).
Visual programming languages use analogue representation, in which icons are

used to indirectly represent and manipulate drawing entities. Two examples of this type of
representation are Generative Component’s Symbolic Diagram and Grasshopper. These
environments allow to visually describing relations between entities, without the need to
write code. Textual programming languages use symbolic representations, such as text and
numbers, to describe and perform operations on drawing entities. Examples of this type of
representation are all CAD scripting languages, such as Rhino Script, Auto-Lisp and Visual
Basic for Application (VBA) (Celani, 2012).
2.3.5 Scripting Languages or Programming Languages. Scripting languages

are programming languages that allow control within a program. Differently from most
programming languages, they are interpreted by the software, and do not need to be
compiled. Scripting languages can vary a lot in terms of syntax and structure, depending on
the software for which they were developed (Celani, 2012).
A programming language is more than just a means for instructing a computer
to perform tasks: it is a formal medium for expressing ideas. Therefore, languages should
match the human thinking process, including the ability to combine simple ideas and abstract
complex ones. Languages conforming to these principles provide (1) primitive elements, (2)
combination mechanisms, and (3) abstraction mechanisms (Abelson & Sussman, 1996).
x Some examples of scripting languages for CAD are Rhino ceros, Rhino Script,
Maya´s MEL, and 3DMax´s MaxScript.
Figure 18: Different Types of Programming Languages Source: (Bohnacker, Gross, Laub, & Lazzeroni, 2012)
2.3.5.1 Programming languages classification. The most used programming

languages for Generative Design (GD), dividing them in two groups: Visual Programming
Languages (VPLs) and Textual Programming Languages (TPLs) (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes,
2012).
2.3.5.1.1 Visual Programming Languages (VPLs). Visual programming
languages or VPL’s, also called “diagrammatic programming”; allow users to create
programs by moving and putting together program elements graphically rather than by
typing code (Celani, 2012).
In a VPL, programs consist of iconic elements that can be interactively
manipulated according to some spatial grammar (Myers B. A., 1990).
VPLs are, at least, two-dimensional (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes, 2012).
Several studies comparing VPLs and TPLs show that there is no conclusive
evidence regarding their relative advantages. However, it is generally admitted that VPLs
are more productive and motivating for beginners (Menzies, 2002).
VPLs scripting only contains the elements that are relevant to the design task,
namely, input sliders, range components, functions that map over sequences of values, and
wires establishing dataflow between components (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes, 2012).
There are several advantages of using a modern VPL instead of an old TPL
(1) Less background knowledge.
(2) Presentation of all language elements in the Interactive Development
Environment (IDE).
(3) Immediate visual feedback, facilitating defect detection and adjustment of
input parameters, and allowing incremental/interactive development (Leitão,
Santos, & Lopes, 2012).
Nevertheless, VPLs also have problems
(1) VPL programs scale poorly with the complexity of the design task, for
example, as programs grow it becomes increasingly difficult to understand what
they do.
(2) The absence of (sophisticated) abstraction mechanisms forces users to rely
extensively on copy/paste, introducing redundancy.
In turn, redundancy leads to maintenance problems because modifications in

duplicated components must be manually propagated to all instances. These problems might
explain the small size and throwaway nature of the majority of visual programs when
compared to the size and longevity of textual programs (Park & Holt, 2010).
Although there are many VPL alternatives for GD, Grasshopper is the most used
one. This can be explained in part by the simplicity and attractiveness of its programming
model and Graphical User Interface (GUI). Moreover, there is a general perception among
designers that VPLs are more productive than TPLs. It is claimed that this perception is a
natural response to two problems:
(1) Traditional TPLs lack domain-specific concepts.

(2) They make it difficult for the user to define them (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes,
2012).
x Examples of those programming languages and their programs: c, Hyper-graph for

Maya, and Grasshopper for Rhinoceros3D.
Figure 19: An Example VPL in Grasshopper Interface. Source: (Celani, 2012)
2.3.5.1.2 Textual programming languages (TPLs). In a TPL, programs are a

linear sequence of characters. They are one dimensional. TPLs are considerably more
productive for dealing with large-scale and complex problems and, in fact, most languages
are TPLs and most programs are textual (Menzies, 2002).
Nevertheless, traditional TPLs require mastering a large set of concepts that, in
many cases, are just limitations of the language. In order to understand any written Script,
the reader must know:
(1) Function syntax
(2) Zero-based index arrays
(3) Array declaration
(4) Re dimension of non-statically sized arrays.
Additional knowledge is required to understand the complete example (Leitão,

Santos, & Lopes, 2012).
Most TPLs have additional drawbacks:
(1) The absence of a (good) IDE requires users to either remember the
functionality or read extensive documentation.
(2) An iterative write-compile-execute cycle results in non-interactive

development (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes, 2012).
x Examples of those programming languages and their programs: Rhino Script for
Rhinoceros3D, MEL for Maya, Haskell & Python in Visual Basic, and JavaScript,
Auto LISP, Racket and visual Scheme in CAD applications.
Figure 20: An Example of TPL in AutoCAD Interface Source: (Leitão, Santos, & Lopes, 2012)
2.4 Conclusion
After reviewing that chapter, it could be concluded that the computer has already
penetrated the design process and has become a part of it in the new architecture as it aims
to emulate or extend the human intellect so it helped to generate a computational design
approach which differs from the conventional design approach in depending on a computer
as a apart of the design process. There are some tools of the computational design which
facilitate that approach to design which need to be internalized and operationalized;
Geometry, Composition and Algorithmic Thought. There is an approach of design which
also depends on algorithmic thought which is called Algorithmic design. It enables the role
of the designer to be shifted from Architecture programming to Programming Architecture.
In order to depend on algorithms in architecture, it is important to have a background about
the field of programming either coding or scripting and that could be done by dealing with
any of the programming languages either VPLs or TPLs. It is found that modern TPLs can
be more productive than VPLs, especially, for large scale and complex design tasks.
PART-2- Bio Inspired Design and Morphogenesis

CHAPTER-3- BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN
‘From my designer’s perspective, I ask: Why can’t I design a building like a

tree? A building that makes oxygen, fixes nitrogen, sequesters carbon, distils
water, builds soil, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food,
creates microclimates, changes colors with the seasons and self-replicates.
This is using nature as a model and a mentor, not as an inconvenience.
It’s a delightful prospect…’
(Mcdonough & Braungart, 1998)
Chapter 3: Bio-Inspired Design

3.1 Introduction
‘It will be soft and hairy.’ (Dalí, 1922)
Design is not what it used to be. In schools and in studios, in corporations and in
political institutions, designers are using their skills to tackle issues that were previously out
of their bounds, from scientific visualization to interfaces, from sociological theories to
possible applications and consequences of nanotechnology. They do so by teaming up for
every case study with the right experts, who often seek designers’ help in order to connect
their theories with real people and the real world. In the late 1960s, Ettore Sottsass famously
declared that design ‘is a way of discussing society, politics, eroticism, food and even design.
At the end, it is a way of building up a possible figurative utopia or metaphor about life.
Design is indeed about life and, at a time of accelerated technological evolution and dramatic
political, environmental, demographic, and economical concerns, designers’ presence
guarantees that human beings are always kept at the center of the discussion (Myers W. ,
2012).
Over the past few decades, it has been experienced dramatic changes in some of
the most established dimensions of human life: time, space, matter and individuality. Today
our minds must be able to synthesize such transformations, whether they are working across
several time zones, traveling between satellite maps and nano-scale images, gleefully
drowning in information or acting fast in order to preserve a bit of down-time. It is very
important to focus on the ability of designers to grasp momentous advances in technology,
science and social mores, and to convert them into useful objects and systems (Myers W. ,
2012).
3.2 Definitions
3.2.1 Biology. The word biology is derived from the Greek words (bios) which
means (life) and (ologoy) which means (the study of) so it is defined as,
''It is the scientific study of life and living organisms, from one-celled creatures
to the most complex living organism of all the human being.'' (An organism is a living entity
consisting of one cell e.g. bacteria, or several cells e.g. animals, plants and fungi).
Biology includes the study of genes and cells that give living things their special
characteristics (Simpson & Weiner, 1989).
3.2.2 Architecture. Architecture (Latin architectura after the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων

– arkhitekton – from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason") is both the
process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other
physical structures. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often
perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified
with their surviving architectural achievements (Simpson & Weiner, 1989).
It is a general term to describe buildings and other physical structures (Simpson

& Weiner, 1989).
The art and science of designing buildings and (some) non-building structures
(Simpson & Weiner, 1989).
Architecture was the art which so disposes and adorns the edifices raised by men
... that the sight of them contributes to his mental health, power, and pleasure (Ruskin, 1849).
"You employ stone, wood, and concrete, and with these materials you build
houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you
touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: This is beautiful. That is
Architecture". (Corbusier, 1927)
"Architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together. There it begins.''
(Mies van der Rohe, 1959)
3.3 Integration between Architecture & Biology
Architecture being important organism has attracted much attention with the
usage "biology" in the early 19th century by "Lamarck". Generally, the only important
biological reality with regard to modern architecture was the relation between form and
function. As the functional analogies, the relationship between form and function means
"existence" (Bell, 2012). This fact that "form follows function" or" function follows the
form" was first brought up in biology and debated for more than half a century. And this
eased the propagation of biological analogies because the only way to compare architecture
and the city, from the body point of view, with a living creature is to rely on the relation
between form and function. The other expression, which has been borrowed from biology in
architecture causing discussion on form, shape and relation, is the word "organic" that can
be used in studies and researches about the structure and skeleton of animals and plants
(Pourjafar, Mahmoudinejad, & Ahadian, 2011).
3.3.1 Biological analogy in Architecture. The biological discussions interpret

the relations of small parts to the same organs that create a thing (Calinez, 1996). The
beginning of such biological analogies can be attributed to ―Wright" and "Sullivan". While
"Sullivan" first put forward these analogies, "Wright" created a kind of organic architecture
by designing non-symmetrical plans, creating movement, using the environment‘s materials,
and composing the architecture with the nature According to him, organic architecture has
to be devoid of useless and superfluous forms (Aguar & Aguar, 2003). A biological analogy
is one of the most fundamental bases of theoretical functionalism in modern architecture.
However, it has ever been formal and substantial who's every organ is compared with the
other, without paying attention to the soul and concept inside the organ (Pourjafar,
Mahmoudinejad, & Ahadian, 2011).
3.3.2 Bio-Architecture. Bio-architecture is the art and science of designing and

building spaces which create, support and enhance life and living systems (Htin & San,
2002).
Bio-Architecture is the principle ideas and key applications of organic

architecture, comparing built structures to forms and patterns found in nature. It includes an
exploration of local history, tradition, and cultural roots that have influenced organic
architecture. In the other hand, Bio-Architecture studies the natural principles of animal and
human constructions from several different perspectives, and presents a great part of the
knowledge that gives origin and shape to build form. Organic architecture offers a design
approach arising from natural principles, bringing us back to local history, tradition, and
cultural roots to give us built forms which are in harmony with nature (Mahmoudinejad,
2010).
3.4 Towards Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987).
The concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits
but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on
environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human
activities. But technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to
make way for a new era of economic growth (World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED), 1987).
Figure 22: Integrated Design Approaches and Concepts of Sustainability Source: (The Researcher adapted
from (Jenkin & Zari, 2009))
3.4.1 Differences between the Conventional Design and the Integrated

Approaches of Design (Bio-Design)
3.4.1.1 Conventional design approach. Architects put the idea of the building,
then it would be transformed into three dimensional building after that they give it to the
mechanical engineers, structural engineers, etc. All of them are working separately far from
the others (Tom, 2010).
Figure 23: Conventional Design Process and How the Team Works
Source: (High Performance by Integrative Design, 2010- video)
3.4.1.2 Integrative design approaches (Bio-design).
Figure 24: Integrated design process and how the team works
Source : (High Performance by Integrative Design, 2010- video)

Integrative design is could be summarized in four words and all start with the
letter (E): Everyone Engaging Everything Early (Tom, 2010).
It comes down to an isolating rhythm of research and analysis by individuals on
the team and then they come together for all hands team workshop to compare and look for
interactions from that analysis (Tom, 2010).
Go off again to more research and analysis and go back again to workshop. They
always look to keys into relationships between systems and systems components (Tom,
2010).
x One of those approaches to the integrative design is a bio inspired design.

This new approach is often a response to the growing urgency to build
and manufacture more sustainably in light of the climate crisis. This, in
turn, leads to unprecedented collaborations between designers and life
scientists, such as biologists who increasingly understand how organisms
function to the molecular level. That collaboration offers thrilling new
possibilities for design, art, and architecture. The recent proliferation of
such cross disciplinary activity is occurring in schools, labs and even in
garage work benches around the world (Myers W. , 2012).
3.5 Bio Design
“The biggest innovations of the twenty-first century will be the intersection of

biology and technology. A new era is beginning.” (Isaacson, 2011)
Bio Design featuring fabric grown from food waste, self-healing concrete, leaves
that glow in the dark and DNA that stores data which explores a future closer than we think
(Isaacson, 2011).
Figure 25: Bio-Design Approach Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
Bio-Design is the integration of design with biological systems, often to achieve

better ecological performance. In contrast to design that mimics nature or draws on biology
for inspiration, Bio-Design incorporates living organisms into design as building blocks,
material sources, energy generators, digital storage systems and air purifiers, just to name a
few possibilities. Bio-Design is both opportunistic and logical in recognizing the tremendous
power and potential utility of organisms and their natural interaction with larger and ever-
changing ecosystems around them. Bio-Design can also be a means of communication and
discovery, a way to provoke debate and explore the potential opportunities and dangers of
manipulating life, particularly through synthetic biology, for human purposes (Myers W. ,
2012).
Bio design is an emerging and often radical approach to design that draws on
biological tenets and even incorporates the use of living materials into structures, objects,
and tools. It goes further than other biology-inspired approaches to design and fabrication
(Myers W. , 2012).
3.5.1 Differences between Bio-Design and Bio-Mimicry. Bio-design goes

further than other biology-inspired approaches to design and fabrication. Unlike bio-
mimicry, cradle to cradle, and the popular but frustratingly vague ‘green design,’ bio-design
refers specifically to the incorporation of living organisms as essential components,
enhancing the function of the finished work. It goes beyond mimicry to integration,
dissolving boundaries and synthesizing new hybrid typologies. Bio-design also aims to
replace industrial or mechanical systems with biological processes (Myers W. , 2012).
3.5.1.1 Beyond bio-mimicry. Designers face an unprecedented urgency to alter

their methods and reprioritize their goals to address the accelerating degradation of the
environment. This new pressure which is intellectual and ethical is regulatory demanding
recognition of the fragility of nature and feelings of responsibility to preserve it for future
generations. Under such shifting and intensifying constraints, designers are beginning to go
beyond emulation to harness processes observed in the living world, where systems achieve
perfect economies of energy and materials. Within this pursuit, working to achieve enhanced
ecological performance through integration with natural systems, designers are turning to
biologists for their expertise and guidance (Myers W. , 2012).
This contrasts markedly with the design approach that characterized the 20th
century: the mechanization of functions in order to overpower, isolate, and control forces of
nature, usually by utilizing advances in chemistry and physics (Myers W., 2012).
The integration of life into design is not a magic bullet to solve these pressing
issues. Nor will it be free from harmful missteps, deliberate misuses, or controversy.
Dystopian visions of the future awash in bio-design gone awry are credible possibilities
(Myers W. , 2012).
Beyond growing structures with trees or integrating objects with algae

bioreactors, bio-design includes the use of synthetic biology and thereby invites the danger
of disrupting natural ecosystems. These technologies will be wielded by people who are the
same biased and frail creatures who designed the world into a desperate mess in the first
place. But the potential benefits, and the need to reform current practices toward an approach
more in tune with biological systems, far outweigh these risks. Ultimately, design’s embrace
of nature—even coupled with the inevitable hubris that we can redesign and outdo it—is
long overdue and the most promising way forward (Myers W. , 2012)
The focus of cross-disciplinary collaborations and their outcomes will, as

always, depend on societal priorities and an array of market signals. Today there is a notable
absence of the kind of regulation or system of incentives and disincentives that might lead
to the eventual design and creation of environmentally remedial or zero-carbon objects and
structures. The use of taxes and subsidies to spark such changes, for example, is still in its
infancy. While Germany and Norway have made early and effective steps with policies that
prioritize ecologically effective design, most of the industrialized world lags behind,
especially the United States, where even the legitimacy of the federal agency to protect the
environment is vulgarly challenged in political discourse (Myers W. , 2012).
3.5.2 Divisions. Bio design is Cross-

Pollination of
x Nature
x Science
x Creativity
3.5.2.1 Nature
''The Stone Age did not end because humans

ran out of stones. It ended because it was time
Figure 26: Bio-Design System
for a re-think about how we live.''
(McDonough, 2002). Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
3.5.2.1.1 History of nature in design. Although architecture has embodied a

variety of different designs and styles throughout the ages, the most successful buildings and
urban environments have an essential commonality with living forms, i.e. material properties
and an assembled nature. It is important, however, to distinguish between superficial
resemblance, which can lead to dysfunctional and inhuman buildings, and an approach based
upon a genuine understanding of life processes (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
The desire to follow nature, to adhere to its underlying forms in the pursuit of
harmony, can be traced back to antiquity, to the writings of Vitruvius, as well as to Goethe’s
work on morphology and the Romantic motion that certain truths were observable in nature
and unknowable to reason. The close examination and formal mimicry of nature by designers
reached a height in the late 19th century, in the Art Nouveau style in France and in its
iterations across Europe, coinciding with the work of naturalists and pioneers of biology,
like Ernst Haeckel, who meticulously described, named, and illustrated thousands of new
species. Shortly thereafter in On Growth and Form (1917), D’Arcy Thompson described
numerous links among biological form, physics, and mechanics, and highlighted how
optimization was frequently achieved in nature. This also coincided with the First World
War, and the rapid rise of mechanized industry as a dominant feature of economic, aesthetic,
and political life in Europe and the United States (Myers W. , 2012).
Interest in nature as a model or tool for design remained a consistent, if minor,

current in architecture of the early 20th century. This was particularly so in the work of
figures such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Alvar Aalto, and even Mies van der Rohe, for their
focus on integration of indoor and outdoor spaces, use of natural materials, expression of
structure, and consideration of architecture as a component of a larger whole, at least its
immediate built surroundings. The idea of emulating nature on a larger scale emerged
decades later in post-war Japan, articulated by the built and theoretical mega-structures of
the Metabolism movement that embraced impermanence, citing the fluctuations of nature as
a logical guiding principle for buildings and cities, which themselves undergo massive
transformations that can be considered in terms of cycles, including destruction and rebirth
(Myers W. , 2012).
Historically, building design evolved through the natural occurrences and

processes of the earth and the structural principles of the physical world. Imbued with a deep
understanding of human needs and activities, traditional methods of design and construction
revealed an honest (real) expression of the built environment. As human beings came to
master their natural environment, they began to extend their designs beyond the physical
limits imposed by form and materials. Seeking to advance their architectonic expressions,
master-builders raised their great cathedrals from the earth, reaching higher and higher
(Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
3.5.2.1.2 How designers dealing with nature. For centuries, artists and designers
have looked to nature for inspiration and for materials, but only recently have they become
able to incorporate living organisms or tissues into their work. This startling development at
the intersection of biology and design has created new aesthetic possibilities and helped to
address a growing urgency to build and manufacture ecologically. Bio Design is considered
to be a bio-integrated approach to sustainability which presents new innovations enabled by
biotechnology (Myers W. , 2012).
Designers initiate interactions between people and nature, mediating a

historically troubled relationship and creating opportunities to connect in new ways for
mutual benefit. Bio-design is an expression of this integration, of harnessing or altering
nature for human purposes, foretelling beauties and new functions for design yet also
warning of dangers (Myers W. , 2014).
3.5.2.1.3 Nature in bio-design. Designers initiate interactions between people

and nature, mediating a historically troubled relationship and creating opportunities to
connect in new ways for mutual benefit. Bio-design is an expression of this integration, of
harnessing or altering nature for human purposes, foretelling beauties and new functions for
design yet also warning of dangers (Myers W. , 2014).
This approach to working in partnership with biology contrasts with modern

conventions of subduing and exploiting the environment yet it also echoes traditional
techniques such as fermentation that are as ancient as civilization (Myers W. , 2014).
3.5.2.1.4 From the natural to the unnatural. Unable to transcend human

existence, yet still innately compelled by the need to overcome the limitations of the
materiality of building, the study of architecture began to develop independently of its
natural environment. Formalized within the condition of academic studies, architecture soon
became the intellectualized property of the University. This set into motion a process that
would ultimately render architecture as an artificial and abstract expression of man’s
disconnected philosophical and ideological ponderings (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
In an effort to better understand how architecture is fundamentally grounded in

the natural world, it is needed to delve further into biology. Curiously enough, many of the
twentieth century’s pioneering architects have been strongly influenced by the same
properties of living structure. Nevertheless, they only had a cursory understanding of the
scientific basis of this body of knowledge. As a result, the built applications did not fully
realize the intention. To make things worse, thoughtless imitation of such innovative
prototypes reduced these ideas to superficial expressions, which ultimately gave way to one
or more fashionable styles (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
3.5.2.1.5 Properties of living structure. Living structure is known to satisfy

several natural properties such as: organized-complexity (information storage); metabolism
(energy use); replication (self-reproduction); adaptation (the organism changes itself to
better profit from its environment); intervention (the organism changes its environment);
situatedness (embedded in the world through sensors); and connectivity (information
processing). In biological entities, all processes usually occur together, but theoretically,
these are separate concepts (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
Figure 27: Properties of Living Structure Source: (The Researcher based on (Salingaros & Masden, 2006), 2015)
3.5.2.1.5.1 Organized-complexity. Biological and

architectural order is being associated with the organization of
complexity, which represents the compression of information. An
ordered structure has to be complex, yet it is also ordered because it
has a large number of correlations that lead to an overall coherence
(Alexander, 2005). In architectural examples, correlations arise as -1-
visual symmetries and connections, which are easily perceived
(Salingaros & Masden, 2006). Life, whether biological, artificial, or
architectural, results from the physical concentration of information. Organized -
A noncomplex structure, on the other hand, requires little
mathematical information to create, leading to simplistic structures Complexity
without any internal differentiations. The world of rectangular
building blocks that characterizes industrial architecture and
urbanism is mathematically empty. Many architects perceive a
superficial “ordering” in this empty world because of alignment and lack of distracting
substructure. Seeking uniformity in this way, however, can be seen as a misreading of the
actualities of order (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
One particular insight of Stephen Wolfram is illuminating, because it

surprisingly links uniformity with randomness. Wolfram points out that, uniformity of
structure is not simple, but is instead the result of intentionally directed processes:
“But in nature uniformity often seems to be associated with quite complex

microscopic behavior. Most often what happens is that on a small scale a system
exhibits randomness, but on a larger scale this randomness averages out to leave
apparent uniformity ...” (Wolfram, 2001)
Here there is a perceptive statement of how uniformity arises from randomness

(i.e., disorganization). The implications for design are significant, since uniformity is thereby
linked not to simplicity or order, but to disorganization (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
3.5.2.1.5.2 Metabolism. Metabolism is a process by

which existing sources of order are absorbed, and disorder is shed,
so that the organism maintains its structural organization. In the case
of a developing organism, such as an embryo or young animal, the
entity metabolizes at the same time as it increases its organized- -2-
complexity until it reaches some optimal stable plateau. Towards the
end of the organism’s natural lifespan, metabolism fails to maintain Metabolism
its organized-complexity at the optimal plateau for different reasons,
which signals the onset of aging. Metabolism maintains the single
individual, whereas replication maintains the design (i.e., template
of structural information) after the individual dies (Salingaros &
Masden, 2006).
The act of weathering and repair, therefore, can make a building more alive. This
might shed some light on Japanese building tradition, in which some holy shrines are entirely
rebuilt in the exact manner every few decades. There develops a psychological bonding
between human beings and a structure that shows fractal patterns with weathering (but not
if it becomes ugly or falls apart). In this analogy, minimalist, non-weathering structures do
not metabolize. We are thus questioning the drive towards sleek building surfaces and
geometries that oppose natural processes, and suggest that older techniques that
accommodated the inevitable weathering are in fact more adaptive (Salingaros & Masden,
2006).
3.5.2.1.5.3 Replication. Replication is often considered

as the main characteristic of living structure. Organisms reproduce
by making copies of them. Nevertheless, it is possible to have a -3-
replicating structure that does not metabolize, as for example a virus
(Salingaros, 2004). It is also possible to have an entity that Replication
metabolizes but cannot replicate; there are examples in animals
such as mules, those exceptional typologies cannot propagate directly (Salingaros &
Masden, 2006).
The simplest non-metabolizing templates (viruses) replicate more readily than

animals with a higher complexity, because the latter’s investment in metabolic and
connective systems raises their organized-complexity (Salingaros, 2004). Among
metabolizing organisms, again those with a lower degree of organized-complexity (e.g.,

bacteria) replicate much more readily than higher animals, and are thus more abundant
3.5.2.1.5.4 Adaptation. There are several different types

of adaptation: an organism adapts to its environment by responding
on the short term, and also the genotype (i.e., its DNA) adapts in the
long term by evolving so as to better profit from existing or changing -4-
environmental situations. Short-term adaptation depends on
connectivity to the environment being situated. Long-term Adaptation
adaptation follows a Darwinian selection process that culls portions
of a population that are marginally worse adapted. Subsequently,
survivors breed to define a new population having more of the
positive adaptive trait (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
The reason that a non-adaptive architecture was able to develop is that the
selection process among buildings and architectural styles is not as direct as selection among
organisms (Salingaros, 2007). Selection in architecture is driven by forces external to the
natural process of adaptation, i.e. fashion, opinion, and politics (Salingaros & Masden,
2006).
3.5.2.1.5.5 Intervention. Another way that organisms

can act (when they are capable of doing so) is to change their
environment to the organism’s advantage. This is in some ways the
opposite of adaptation. Nevertheless, the interventive practices that
have survived evolutionary (natural) selection always appear as
combined adaptive/interventive applications. Animals build nests;
beavers build dams; a squid ejects ink to help it escape from a
predator; certain plants inject chemicals around them that prevent -5-
competing plants from growing; etc. Humans are champions at this:
we applied our intelligence for clothing, shelter, hunting, and Intervention
agriculture, which give us an unbeatable advantage over all other
animals (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
Traditional architecture and urbanism concisely

represent both adaptation and intervention. However, since about the
middle of the twentieth century human constructions have become
primarily intervention, with little or no attention paid to adaptation
3.5.2.1.5.6 Situatedness. A living organism is naturally

embedded in the world, interacting directly with it via direct sensory
mechanisms. External feedback from internal sensors dictates the -6-
organism’s behavior: recognition and pursuit of a food source;
recognition and reaction to an environmental threat; fight or flight Situatedness
when faced with an aggressor; etc. An organism is situated in its
environment, and is constantly sensing the state of the environment
(Brooks, 2002).
Situatedness depends upon the existence of sensory mechanisms that provide

information about the world, and those, in turn, require a connective framework. The
opposite of being situated is to exhibit behavior that is decided on the basis of abstract
descriptions. We are not aware of any lower organisms that can do this; it logically appears
to be a capability of animals with sufficient neural development for memory storage. An
organism cannot form and act on an internal representation of the world unless it has
sufficient capacity to store it as memory (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
3.5.2.1.5.7 Connectivity. In biology, correlations arise

as connective mechanisms. These include structural ones, such as
plant stems, animal bones, arteries, and ligaments; and - 7-
informational ones such as in hormonal fields, nerves, eyes, and
photosensitive surfaces on leaves. All of these are prime examples Connectivity
of organized-complexity, and each instance employs a complex
physical network to perform a connective task (Salingaros &
Masden, 2006).
An embryo develops by repeatedly splitting cells, so that its growth is obviously

bottom-up, guided by genetic instructions in the DNA. Nevertheless, Alexander argues that
embryonic development is impossible without a global control that keeps the growth from
getting out of hand (Alexander, 2005). Whether this is due to a process of iteration in which
each component helps to support and guide the development of other components, or to
hormonal fields, what is important is that a global communication occurs. Each component
(cell) of the embryo communicates chemically with the entire embryo existing at that time,
so that each cell checks its position and future growth. In this way, embryonic cells develop
either into muscle tissue or brain tissue, depending on their relative position at a particular
time in the process (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
A living system is one that acquires and actively uses information (Dyson, 2001).
Information transfer takes many different forms in biology. Hormonal and nervous systems
in animals are essential for interacting with the external world, and also for communicating
internally within the organism. Stored genetic information encodes templates that permit the
replication of individual cells, which replace worn-out cells in the body on a regular basis.
For example, all except brain cells are routinely replaced in a mammal. Inherited information
(across generations) is also stored in the brain, enabling all the instinctive behavior routines
that permit animals to function. As the evolutionary ladder is moved up, information and its
processing plays an increasingly central role in life. The higher mammals are capable of
learning, which is made possible by information storage mechanisms (Salingaros & Masden,
2006).
3.5.2.2 Science.
3.5.2.2.1 Science and biology. Over the past several decades, several industrial
revolutions took place including those in genomics, nanotechnology, and synthetic biology.
In the 1990s, scientists sequenced the human genome in hope of providing medical cures
through personalized medicine and DNA vaccines. However, genomic cures have yet to
materialize, mandating more focus on translational genomics. An infrastructure to support
nanotechnology is in place, and researchers are in various stages of product development
(Mayes, 2010).
(Biology is Technology) is the most comprehensive overview to date of the state

of the field of synthetic biology. Although Rob Carlson, a bioengineer and principal with
Biodesic, has formal academic training in physics, his fellowship with the Molecular
Sciences Institute and expertise on biotechnology make him uniquely qualified to analyze
the field’s potential and the challenges to its future development (Mayes, 2010).
A crucial step to ensuring the success of the field is the development of enabling
technologies. This includes fast, powerful, and cost efficient computers. In addition, DNA
sequencers and DNA synthesizers are necessary to identify genes and make synthetic DNA
sequences (Mayes, 2010).
3.5.2.2.2 Importance of Science in bio- design and the integration between

nature and science.
“Science... never solves a problem without creating ten more.”
(Shaw, 1950)
Biology stands out among the sciences for its frequent, accelerating and
fundamental progress in recent years. The first industrially useful genetically modified
organism was a bacterium made some thirty years ago to be a reliable and inexpensive
factory for insulin. Only nine years ago the human genome was mapped at significant
expense and effort over many years, and now a $1,000 genome sequencing technique
appears to be around the corner, certainly within two years. And just in the fall of 2012 it
was discovered that among the 98% of human DNA long thought to be “junk” left by our
evolutionary legacy are in fact numerous, essential switches that control gene behavior.
Meanwhile, the cost of genetic synthesis is falling rapidly, roughly following the
phenomenon described by Moore’s Law, which holds that the number of transistors on
integrated circuits doubles every two years, helping computers become continually cheaper
and more powerful (Myers W. , 2012).
3.5.2.3 Creativity
3.5.2.3.1 What is creativity?

''Creativity is a distinguishing characteristic of human excellence in every area
of behavior.'' (Torrance, 1970)
Creativity is a natural part of being human. It is not reserved for those people
with some sort of special gift. This suggests that creativity exists in all people (at different
levels and various styles). The challenge arises from learning how to understand and use the
creativity someone has. This belief is fundamental for those who are interested in identifying
what creativity is and understanding how it can be developed (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger,
2011).
Creativity was defined as novel associations that are useful (Gryskiewicz, 1987).
This definition came as a result of interviews and analysis of stories of creative performance
with approximately 400 managers in organizations. What it is liked about this definition is
that it is simple and has a built-in tension between something being novel and useful. The
novelty part of the definition appears to fit well with most people's perceptions of creativity.
However, the usefulness part of the definition often stimulates questions in people's minds
about whether something needs to be useful in order to be creative. It also raises questions
in general about who determines if something is novel or useful, and therefore, who
determines if creativity is present or not (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
Ruth Noller, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Creative Studies at

Buffalo State College, developed a symbolic equation for creativity. She suggested that
creativity is a function of an interpersonal attitude toward the beneficial and positive use of
creativity in combination with three factors: knowledge, imagination, and evaluation.
Children are often viewed as naturally strong in imagination. They often need help in
acquiring knowledge and expertise, as well as in understanding appropriate criteria for
evaluating ideas or behavior. In comparison, practicing professionals often are seen as
having a great deal of knowledge and evaluative strength but as needing help with
imagination (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
It might be learned a number of lessons from Noller's equation. One is that

Figure 28: Noller's Symbolic Formula for Understanding Creativity
Source: (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011)
creativity is a dynamic concept. It changes through our experience. Also, creativity always
occurs in some context or domain of knowledge. But, while expertise is important and
necessary, it is not sufficient for determining creativity. Finally, creativity involves a
dynamic balance between imagination and evaluation (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
3.5.2.3.2 What is a creative approach? An approach is a way of making change

happen. There are at least two different kinds of approaches to making change happen;
creative and non-creative. A creative approach implies that there is attempt to advance
toward an outcome that is new, unstructured, and open ended. These situations often involve
an ill-structured problem and unknown solutions. Although it is needed to use knowledge
and skills for evaluation, a creative approach requires to be engaged with imagination, as
well as intelligence, during approach because no ready-made answer exists. It also requires
taking a more comprehensive view and using the entire system of people, method, content,
and context in the approach (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
Using a creative approach also implies that there is a courageous attitude; one
that includes being open to new experiences, embracing ambiguity, and venturing into new
and unfamiliar territory. This attitude is often necessary because creative approaches are
about helping to move from a place with which is familiar to one that is different and
potentially unknown, and the results of these efforts are potentially uncertain (Isakson,
Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
3.5.2.3.3 Linking creativity and problem solving. Researchers have explored

links between creativity and problem solving before and have come up with a variety of
answers (Isaksen, 1995). For example, it was suggested that problem solving and creative
thinking were closely related. Creative thinking produced new outcomes, and problem
solving involved producing novel responses and outcomes to new situations. Problem
solving often has creative aspects, but creativity is not always problem solving (Guilford,
1977).
"Creative activity appears ... simply to be a special class of problem solving
activity characterized by novelty, unconventionality, persistence, and difficulty
in problem formulation" (Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1962)
Rather than keeping creativity separate from problem solving, that approach has
been to deliberately link the two. This approach is designed to apply both imagination and
intelligence, to generate as well as focus, to use logic and memory as well as emotion and
synthesis. The opportunity created by linking these two concepts is that there is a very
diverse collection of strategies, tools, and approaches, enabling to handle a wide variety of
challenges and opportunities (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
3.5.2.3.4 Creative problem solving. Creative problem solving was defined by

offering a definition of each of the three main words: creative, problem, and solving (Noller,
1979).
CPS equated with creative decision making, suggesting that
"First speculate on what 'might be' ..., sense and anticipate all conceivable
consequences or repercussions ... and choose and develop the best alternative
in full awareness" (Parnes, Noller, & Biondi, 1977)
CPS is a broadly applicable framework for organizing specific tools to help to

design and develop new and useful outcomes. The structure of CPS provides an organizing
system. Using the system involves applying productive thinking tools to understanding
problems and opportunities; generating many, varied, and unusual ideas; and evaluating,
developing, and implementing potential solutions. The system includes the framework of
components, stages, phases, and tools, as well as considering the involved people, the
situation or context, and the nature of the content or the desired outcomes. CPS enables
individuals and groups to recognize and act on opportunities, respond to challenges, and
overcome concerns (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
3.5.2.3.4.1 Main purposes or CPS process components. Three important steps

help to link the process effectively to the need (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
First, know what the need is and the best place to begin to address it. The need
may come from working on Appraising Tasks (particularly the Content element) or it may
be evident from general understanding of the task (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
Second, know the specific purposes fulfilled by each CPS component and stage
(Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
And third, link the task need to the most appropriate component or stage based
on the purpose it fulfills (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
It is easiest to begin developing a link between CPS and the needs by considering
the three process components. Each component and stage has a specific and unique purpose.
At the component level, CPS can help to gain clarity about the challenge, generate ideas, or
put ideas into action (using Understanding the Challenge, Generating Ideas, and Preparing
for Action, respectively) (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011).
3.5.2.3.4.2 CPS process stages. These

represent the three core purposes of the CPS
process components. When what component to use
is known, it will also be in a better position to
identify what stage or stages to use. Each stage also
has its own purpose that is linked to the component
purpose. For example, the Constructing
Opportunities stage helps to gain clarity about the
future. The Framing Problems stage helps to gain
clarity about the specific problems to address. The
Developing Solutions stage helps to transform
ideas into promising solutions. Finally, the Figure 29: The Core Purposes or CPS
Building Acceptance stage helps to transform ideas Process Components
into promising action (Isakson, Dorval, &
Treffinger, 2011). Source: (The researcher based on
(Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011),
2015)
Figure 30: The Core Purposes of CPS Process Components and Stages
Source: (The Researcher based on (Isakson, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2011), 2015)
3.5.3 Architecture and Biological Processes. Using science and technology

constructively and humanely it has been begun to sense the intimate connection between
living structure and architecture (Alexander, 2005). It is believed there is a direct analogy
that can be drawn between metabolism in biological entities, and the process of maintaining
complex structure (form) in non-biological ones. Buildings as non-natural artificial entities
require varying degrees of repair by human beings after being built (Salingaros & Masden,
2006).
Considering human dominance of the world, and the physiological dependence

on the physical structures built around, it could be assumed that there is an inherent necessity
for buildings to replicate (even though they are inanimate entities). Often the replication of
form is seen in the built environment considered as a predicate of place, i.e. through
indigenous localized forms. The replicating form is something that works within the limits
of the material systems available in a certain region, and responds to local climatic
conditions. So within a specific region very similar forms replicate and adapt to the
programmatic differences and varying site conditions (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
What are the forces that affect the survival of specific architectural templates?
For example, building glass-walled high-rise buildings in both hot and cold climates is
disastrous from an energy point of view. And yet, large rectangular buildings were
universally adopted as an early twentieth-century design typology. This and other industrial
examples are nonfunctional, but are copied from templates that have no relevance to human
needs. There is a contradiction here with biological replication (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
Non-adaptive forces in the built environment (dominant in a culture of

architectural media-hegemony) give form to replicating structures around the world.
Architectural and urban structures that simply replicate instead of growing out of very
explicit local needs follow the architect’s internal visual template that was developed
generically, and not adaptively. This seems to be the crucial disconnection. In deepening the
biological analogy, Freeman Dyson identifies metabolism with the emergence of proteins
(analogous to physical structure), and replication with the emergence of nucleic acids
(analogous to a reproducible design typology). It is hoped to identify connectivity with the
emergence of complex sensory organs and communicative pathways in biological structure.
Thus, connectivity is a much higher system function than either metabolism or replication,
and makes possible adaptation, intervention, and situatedness in organisms. The
architectural analogues of these properties are essential for a human built environment
Situatedness is necessary for several of the other properties to occur. An architect

who is not situated can respond neither to context, environment, nor the physicality of form.
The architecture that comes out of this precondition turns out to lack connectivity and thus
the ability to adapt (Salingaros & Masden, 2006).
3.5.4 Outcomes of Bio-Design. One important outcome of this new approach to

design has been the development of critical and narrative objects that blur the border between
art and design and which envision the effects of new technologies and scientific research on
human behavior and culture. But while Bio-Design does have enormous implications for the
future of human interaction, it most immediately demonstrates its potential when the
architect or designer taps into the expanding ocean of knowledge created by biologists and
working in collaboration with them, trying to solve some of the world’s most pressing design
problems (Myers W. , 2012).
3.6 Cases Studies
3.6.1 Example -1- Bridges of Meghalaya
Name Root Bridges of Meghalaya
Designers Numerous designers

Place Khasi tribe, India
Year 1500 – Ongoing
Concept Shaping and guiding biological processes is nothing new. These
natural structures continue to grow and can last for hundreds of years
Figure 31: Bridges of Meghalaya Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
3.6.1.1 Description. These bridges are found in northeastern Indian state of

Meghalaya, one of the wettest places on the planet, with up to 1,200 cm (470 in.) of rain
annually. In the Khasi and Jaintia hills, this rain creates numerous swift-flowing rivers that
are dangerous to cross and require bridges to afford basic mobility to the local people. In a
predominately agrarian economy made up of tribes that have lived in the area for centuries,
a natural and effective solution has been developed: bridges grown from the roots of rubber
trees (Myers W. , 2012).
3.6.1.1 Origination. Within these communities made up of tribes that have lived
in the area for centuries, a natural and effective solution has been developed: bridges grown
from the roots of rubber trees, shaped by people and strengthened over time. Without the
need for specialized training and equipment that other types of bioengineering require, The
Root Bridges of Meghalaya are coaxed from the natural growth of Ficus elastica—a rubber
tree within the banyan group of figs. These trees thrive on the slopes of hills and have strong
rooting systems (Myers W. , 2012).
Figure 32: As with All Living Structures, The Bridges Rely on A Healthy Environment for Their
Maintenance, Abundant clean air, water, and soil are essential. Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
Although precise dating is difficult, it is widely accepted that many are more
than 500 years old (Myers W. , 2012).
Sadly however, many of the region’s rivers have in recent years been
poisoned by the runoff from nearby illegal mines. If the disruption to local ecosystems
continues unabated, these ingenious works of design that are engineered to live
indefinitely may shrivel and die (Myers W. , 2012).
Figure 34: Over Time, Bridges are Shaped from Figure 33: The Bridges are Ever Changing in
The Roots of Several Trees. These Natural Form and They are Strengthened by The Addition
Structures are Capable of Lasting for Hundreds of of Branch and Grass Clippings, Which Nourish
Years. Source: (Myers W. , 2012) The Roots. Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
3.6.2 Example -2- House of the Future
Name Baubotanik Tower, Living Footbridge, House of the Future
Ferdinand Ludwig (Research Group Baubotanik, IGMA, University

Designers of Stuttgart), Neue Kunst am Ried, Cornelius Hackenbracht, Oliver
Storz, Daniel Schoenle
Place Germany
Date 2009
Concept A building method that makes use of the constructive intelligence of

trees
Type of Silver willow (Salix Alba), common osier (Salix viminalis) steel tubes
Material scaffold
3.6.2.1 Description. The art of designing constructions that are made using
living trees has been called ‘Baubotanik’ or ‘Building Botany’ by a group of architects at
the University Of Stuttgart, Germany. These demonstration projects explore engineering
with living plants to integrate architecture into its immediate environment. They also blend
research and application by uniting architects, engineers and natural scientists in an endeavor
to create a structure and test new possibilities (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 35: House of the Future Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
An important feature of these projects is the utilization of plants as load-bearing

systems, taking advantage of what the architects call the “constructive intelligence” of trees:
like human muscles, tree branches naturally strengthen in response to stress or increased
loads. At the same time, this practice exposes researchers to the bio-dynamics and
uncontrollability of natural growth. This lack of control inspires a form of architecture that
is characterized by accidental processes, hope and risk. The architects also take a critical
stance by embracing an “aesthetic of uncertainty” in the use of living materials (Myers W. ,

2014).
3.6.2.2 Construction phase. The whole construction is supported by a

temporary steel tube scaffold which is embedded in the ground on a screw base – a structure
which always can be removed again. The plant containers are constantly kept wet to ensure
the necessary water for the plants. On that condition, all plants will completely intergrow
with each other. Thereby it shall be examined how long it takes for the structure to get water
and nutrients out of the ground independently. Due to its experimental character the structure
is not designed as a publicly walkable facility. The zinc-coated steel-grating levels are
basically used for maintenance and care. The load capacity of the vegetable supporting
structure is at present difficult to prognosticate and shall be proved by weight tests (Myers
W. , 2014).
Figure 37: Connecting of Plants with Stainless Steel Figure 36: Assembly with The Crawler Crane
Screws Source: (Myers W. , 2014) Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
Figure 38: Screw Bases of The Temporary Scaffold Figure 39: Pre-Cultivated Plants in The Greenhouse
Source: (Myers W. , 2014) Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
3.6.2.3 Development. Traces are made out of two plants arranged in form of a
rhombus to create the plant structure. At their crossing points they are connected to the
horizontal arranged levels. In process of time, the plants merge together and join to a
vigorous connection with the levels. Thereby they develop a timber-framed supporting
structure. As soon as the living structure is stable enough to support the ingrown levels and
take over the loading capacity, the scaffold will be removed. Depending on many factors,
this process can not been predicted. It shall be studied at this structure. Therefore a period of
about 5 up to 10 years is expected. Then the plants will take up vertical forces and solely
through the combination with the horizontal arranged technical modules a stiffening
structure originates (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 43: Early Summer 2010 Figure 45: Spring 2010 Figure 44: Winter 2010
Source: (Myers W. , 2014) Source: (Myers W. , 2014) Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
Figure 42: Summer 2011 Figure 41: Autumn 2011 Figure 40: Spring 2011
Figure 48: Last Summer 2010 Figure 47: Autumn 2010 Figure 46: Winter 2011
3.6.3 Example -3- Fab Tree Hab
Name Fab Tree Hab, Terre form One
Designers Mitchell Joachim, Lara Greden, Javier Arbona

Place Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
Date 2005 – Ongoing
Concept Computer numerical controlled produced scaffolds, a variety of native
trees
Figure 49: By Directing Their Growth, Trees and Woody Plants can be Integrated into Built Structures. This
Slow Construction Method Creates Living Architecture Integrated with—and Enhancing—The Environment
Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
3.6.3.1 Description. This Concept suggests an alternative to the sterile, stand-
alone homes that are at odds with their immediate environment. It offers a method for
growing residential accommodation from native trees that remain living and integrated with
the ecosystem. Here, a growing structure is grafted into shape with prefabricated computer
numerical controlled reusable scaffolds. Depending on the weather conditions and location,
it should take approximately seven years to grow (Myers W. , 2012).
The creation of Fab Tree Hab relies heavily on ‘pleaching’, the ancient process
of tree shaping in which tree branches are woven together so that as they continue to grow
they form archways, lattices, or screens. The trunks of inosculating (self-grafting) trees, such
as elm, oak, and dogwood, form the load-bearing elements, while the branches provide a
continuous crisscross frame for the walls and roof. Interlaced throughout the exterior is a
dense protective layer of vines, which is interspersed with soil pockets that support growing
plants (Myers W. , 2012).
Figure 51: Energy and Nnutrient Flows are Connected with The Natural Cycles of The Surrounding
Ecosystem, Thereby Harnessing Both Cool Air and Rainwater Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
Figure 50: A variety of Plants Fill in The Gaps in The Façade, Encouraged By The Use of Perforated
Scaffolding Through Which Stems and Leaves Can Intertwine Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
Figure 52: The process of Composing A House by Depending on Planting Trees

3.6.3.2 Construction phase. During the slow process of construction, the trees
and plants are allowed to grow over a computer-designed removable plywood frame. Once
the living elements are interconnected and stable, the wood is removed and can be reused.
Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the designers undertook their
studies, has explored the potential of woody plants that grow quickly and develop an
interwoven root system that is soft enough to ‘train’ over a scaffold but then hardens to be
very durable. The inside walls would be made from conventional clay and plaster (Myers
W. , 2012).
The interdependency between architecture and the environment, the
underpins, the home is incentive to the preserve clean air, water, and soil (Myers W. , 2012).
Figure 54: The Final Predicted Product

Figure 53: Structure Development Process Source: (Myers W. , 2012)

Aliving structure is slowly grafted into shape with the help of prefabricated and
reusable scaffolding. Organic processes and time together become the essential construction
materials. Depending on the climate, it takes about 5 years of guided tree growth before the
house is functional (Myers W. , 2012).
3.6.3.3 Innovation. Technical demonstration and innovation is still required for

some components—principally the bio-plastic windows that can adapt to growth of the
house and the management of nutrient flows across the walls to ensure that the interior
remains dry and free from insects. The time required for it to be habitable is approximately
5 years—far longer than for a more ‘traditional’ construction, but its health and longevity
should be far greater. Above all, the ‘growth’ of such a home should be achievable for a
minimal price, requiring little labor or fabricated materials. The realization of these
structures will begin as an experiment but thereafter it is envisioned that the concept of
renewal will take on a new architectural form—one of interdependency between nature and
people (Myers W. , 2012).
3.6.4 Example -4- Dune
Name Three Invincible Cities: Sandra, Crystalia, Arachnia

Designers Ordinary Ltd., Magnus Larsson & Alex Kaiser
Place Architectural Association, London, UK / Magnus Larsson Studio,
London, UK
Date 2013
Concept These imaginative urban strategies utilize bacteria, crystal formation

and spider silk for structures
Figure 55: How to Stop Desertification Source: (Myers W. , 2014)

Figure 56: The Wind and Sand That Result in Expansion of The Desert, Threatening Settlements and Arable
Land, are Exploited in Biological Construction Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
3.6.4.1 Description. This architect envisions building structures out of sand in

the Sahara and forming a 6,000 km (3728 mile) barrier to protect against the spread of the
desert. This speculative, audacious plan would harness the ability of a particular bacterium
to perform construction by naturally converting dunes into sandstone (based on work by
Jason De Jong’s team at the Soil Interactions Laboratory, University of California, Davis).
During the process, the stone would be shaped to collect moisture, protect trees, and shelter
thousands of people at relatively little cost (Myers W. , 2012).
The urgency of the

problem that this project attempts to
address cannot be overstated. A
United Nations study (Adeel, et al.,
2007) concludes that
‘Desertification has emerged as an
environmental crisis of global
proportions, currently affecting an
estimated 100 to 200 million
people, and threatening the lives
and livelihoods of a much larger
number.’ The displacement of
communities that is often generated
by the spread of the desert regularly
aggravates political instability in
several of the affected countries,
such as Sudan, Chad, and Nigeria
(Myers W. , 2012). Figure 57: Sand Solidified by Bacteria and Shaped by The Wind
Eventually Allows Water to Accumulate and Forms A Barrier
Against The Spread of The Desert Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
Figure 59: A Dune Cross-Section with Rigid Chambers Where Precious Moisture and Soil Might Be
Preserved Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
Figure 58: The Shape of The Structure Here is Shown in A Tafoni Pattern—Characteristic of Rock That Has
Been Eroded by Wind or Moisture for Many Years Source: (Myers W. , 2012)
3.6.4.2 Inspiration. Dune was inspired by the ongoing project in the same area
to plant trees and vegetation across a dozen countries in the region, the goal of which is to
protect the Sahel Belt—a stretch of dry savanna just south of the desert. Funds for this Great
Green Wall are still being raised, but there has been progress in Senegal, where some 500
km (311 miles) of trees have been planted (Myers W. , 2012).
Figure 60: Resisting The Spread of The Desert Becomes Ever More Difficult and Yet Important as The
Climate Warms. The Vast Savanna of The Sahel Belt is One of Many Areas That are Currently Under Threat
Figure 61: The Architect‘s Proposal Stemmed from An Examination of Extreme Environments, Such As
Desert, Ocean, and Tundra, Where Traditional Approaches to Building are Simply Unfeasible
3.6.4.3 Materials. Bacteria, water, urea, and calcium chloride would be injected
into the sand-scape and would— via a process called microbial-induced calcite
precipitation—produce calcite, a natural cement, that would cause the sand to solidify within
24 hours. By choosing where to apply the microorganism, the architect would have a degree
of control over the process, but the final form would be heavily influenced by the
environment. While the principal aim would be to produce a barrier against sand moved by
the wind, the structure’s formation would be augmented by wind action. Thus the design
elegantly harnesses the energy embodied in the problem to propose its solution (Myers W. ,
2012).
Figure 62: Microbially Induced Cementation is A Natural Process That Can Be Observed in Swamps and
Lakes. It Is Not Harmful to Humans and Will Cease Once Available Nutrients Have Been Depleted
3.6.5 Example -5- Filene's Eco Pods
Name Eco-pods: Pre-cycled Modular Bioreactor

Designers H◌weler
ِ + Yoon Architecture and Squared Design Lab
Place A stalled development in the center of Boston revived, United States
Date 2009
Concept By moveable modules
Figure 63: Future Eco Bods Source: (Myers W. , 2014)

Figure 64: Filene's Eco Pods Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
3.6.5.1 Description. This vision of adaptable architecture echoes proposals and

structures of the Metabolist architects and theorists in post-war Japan. They conceived of
urban growth as cycles in nature, undergoing periods of expansion, decline and rebirth
(Myers W. , 2014).
3.6.5.2 Objectives and construction. The objectives of this proposal are to

stimulate the local economy and ecology of downtown Boston through the integration of
energy production and architecture, while taking advantage of a stalled construction site
known as Filene’s Development (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 65: Full Set Drawings for the Module Pod Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
3.6.5.3 Components. EcoǦPod (Gen1) is a temporary vertical algae bioǦreactor

and new public Commons, built with custom prefabricated modules. The pods will serve as
bioǦfuel sources and as microǦincubators for flexible research and development programs.
The ability of these ‘pods’ to interlock and be moved around allows them to fill different
types of space. For example, they can be affixed to vacant buildings or lots, and any space
between them can be planted with productive gardens (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 66: Grown Algae between Modules (Bioreactors) Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
As an open and reconfigurable structure, the voids between pods form a network
of vertical public parks/botanical gardens housing unique plant speciesǦ a new Uncommon
for the Commons. MicroǦalgae is one of the most promising bioǦfuel crops of today, yielding
over thirty times more energy per acre than any other fuel crop. Unlike other crops, algae
can grow vertically and on nonǦarable land, is biodegradable, and may be the only viable
method by which we can produce enough automotive fuel to replace the world’s current
diesel usage (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 67: Eco-Pod Process Source: (Myers W. , 2014)

Algae farming use sugar and cellulose to create bioǦfuels and simultaneously
help to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions, since it replaces CO2 with Oxygen during
photosynthesis. While the bioǦreactor process is currently in an experimental phase, recent
advances in single step algae oil extraction and low energy high efficiency LEDs make the
algae bioǦreactor an extremely promising prospect on the renewable energy technology
horizon (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 68: Different Deformations of Modules Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
3.6.5.4 Composition growth. The central location of the EcoǦPod and the public
and visible nature of the research, allows the public to experience the algae growth and
energy production processes. As a productive botanical garden, it also functions as a pilot
project, a public information center and catalyst for ecological awareness. An onǦsite robotic
armature (powered by the algae bioǦfuel) is designed to reconfigure the modules to maximize
algae growth conditions and to accommodate evolving spatial and programmatic conditions
in realǦtime. The reconfigurable modular units allow the structure to transform to meet
changing programmatic and economic needs, while the continuous construction on the site
will broadcast a subtle semaphore of constructional activity and economic recovery. This is
anticipatory architecture, capable of generating a new microǦurbanism that is local, agile,
and carbon net positive (Myers W. , 2014).
Figure 69: Robotic Armature (Powered by the Algae BioǦFuel) Source: (Myers W. , 2014)
This proposal envisions the immediate deployment of a “crane ready” modular

temporary structure to house experimental and research based programs. Once funding is in
place for the original architectural proposal, the modules can be easily disassembled and
redistributed to other empty sites, testing new proposals, and developing initiatives with
other communities. Designed with flexibility and reconfigure ability in mind, the modularity
of the units anticipates future deployments on other sites. An instant architecture, designed
with an intention towards its afterlife(s), this is preǦcycled architecture. In our ongoing,
synergistic scenario, the growth of the algae propels, and is propelled by, technologicallyǦ
enabled developments that literally and metaphorically “grow the economy” (Myers W. ,
2014).
Figure 70: Different between New Trend of Buildings and the Ordinary Buildings
The architects propose prefabricated modules that can be used as incubators in

which to grow algae for bio-fuel. The ability of these ‘pods’ to interlock and be moved
around allows them to fill different types of space. For example, they can be affixed to vacant
buildings or lots, and any space between them can be planted with productive gardens
(Myers W. , 2014).
3.7 Conclusion
After reviewing this chapter, it could be concluded that design in not what is
used to be in schools and in studios, in corporation and in political institutions.
Environmental degradation which occurs in the whole world obligated designers to rethink
in their ways to design buildings and how their buildings harness the nature, so they should
deal with nature as a part of their design process in order to meet the needs of the present but
without compromising the ability of the future generations and that is called sustainable
development. Towards sustainability, new trends of design appeared. One of these new
trends is dealing with nature as a tool of design and depending on biological systems in
buildings that trend in design is called Bio- Inspired Design. Bio design could be generated
by a complete integration between nature, science and creativity. Nature is the master of all
designs and in that trend design of buildings starts by a biological base (biological organism).
Science is playing an important role in that trend as by new technology which had been
developed by scientists; let them be able to doing changes in the DNA of any biological
organisms do. Those changes opened the field to invent new materials by changing the
behavior of any other materials and then using these materials in a proper use to make full
use of their specialized characteristics. Third, creativity and its important role in dealing with
designing building as a way to solve problem so there would be a creative approach to solve
any problem with a scientific method. After that integration, there would be the relationship
between that integration and biological systems to generate bio-inspired design. Finally,
there would be some examples to explain how that integration could be realized and the
predicted out comes by depending on a bio- inspired trend in design.
CHAPTER -4- TOWARDS MORPHOGENESIS
Figure 71: Chapter (4) Structure Source : (The Researcher, 2015)
''When nature continues as architecture it means that natural forms, or more

correctly; their morphology, the metamorphoses caused by natural forces, etc,
are incorporated into our architectural idiom, parallel to Euclidean form
language, or even as replacement for it.''
(Pietilä, 1966)
Chapter 4: Towards Morphogenesis

4.1 Introduction
The field of architecture is going through a shift

where its basic principles are being challenged by the
changes that are happening around us. The
abundance of new techniques and technologies in
architectural design, as well as in fabrication and
construction, force us to rethink our design methods
and processes. The global changes that drive us
toward an ever-growing need for technology and
insulation in our buildings provide us with the
opportunity to search for new holistic solutions. But
new solutions cannot be made with obsolete tools. It
was stated that the direct emulation of the past is
fruitless, yet it should be learned from the lessons it
provides (Weinstock, 2008).
“Instead of trying to validate

conventional architectural thinking in a
different realm, our strategy today
should be to infiltrate architecture with
other media and disciplines to produce a
new crossbreed.” (Zellner, 2000). Figure 72: Generate from Algorithm to
Structure - Exhibition Structure
The Information Age, like the Industrial Source: (Österlund, 2010)
Age before it, is therefore not only challenging what it is being designed but also how it
could be design. The generative and creative potential of digital media is opening up new
emergent dimensions in architecture (Kolarevic, 2000).
“Architecture is recasting itself, becoming in part an experimental investigation

of topological geometries, partly a computational orchestration of robotic
material production and partly a generative, kinematic sculpting of space.”
(Zellner, 2000).
New architectural paradigms are forming with the help of the transition to digital
design; new tools help to find new sources of inspiration and solutions. Parametric design
software has already established itself and it is now common that designs incorporate
computer modeling. But these tools only mimic old design processes and do not themselves
any new possibilities or inspiration for design. It is stated that they offer the benefits of
computerization but not the over whelming opportunities of computing (Terzidis, 2006).
Digital infrastructures are being inscribed into cities and buildings, new forms
and methods of spatial organizations are being emerged (Mitchell W., 1995). Technological
architectures are being replaced by computational architectures of topological, non-
Euclidean geometric space, kinetic and dynamic systems, and genetic algorithms (Kolarevic,
2000).
Procedural, parametric and generative computer-supported techniques in

combination with mass customization and automated fabrication enable holistic
manipulation in silico and the subsequent production of increasingly complex architectural
arrangements (Roudavski, 2009).
4.2 Definitions of Morphogenesis
Morphogenesis is a concept used in a

number of disciplines including biology, geology,
crystallography, engineering, urban studies, art and
architecture. This variety of usages reflects
multiple understandings ranging from strictly
formal to poetic. The original usage was in the field
of biology and the first recorded instances occur in
the second half of the 19thcentury. An earlier, now
rare, term was morphogeny, with the foreign-
language equivalents being morphogenie (German,
1874) or morphogénie (French, 1862). Geology
was the next field to adopt the term in the 20th
century (Roudavski, 2009).
Morphogenesis is automating parts of

the design process; computers make it easier to
develop designs through versioning and gradual
adjustment (Roudavski, 2009).
Natural morphogenesis is a process of

evolutionary development and growth that causes
an organism to develop its shape through the
interaction of system-intrinsic capacities and
external environmental forces (Hensel & Menges,
2008).
Morphogenesis is one of the major

outstanding problems in the biological sciences. It
is concerned with the shapes tissues, organs and
entire organisms and the positions of the various
specialized cell types and the fundamental
question of how biological form and structure are
generated (İcmeli, 2014). Figure 73: Performance Building For the Oulu
Music Video Festival; Competition Entry and
Morphogenesis encompasses a broad 3rd Prize for Ideas for Yard and Environmental
Constructions Held by Kainuun Etu Oy
scope of biological processes. It concerns adult as
Source: (Österlund, 2010)
well as embryonic tissues, and includes an
understanding of the maintenance, degeneration, and regeneration of tissues and organs as
well as their formation. It also addresses the problem of biological form at many levels, from
the structure of individual cells, through the formation of multi-cellular arrays and tissues,
to the higher order assembly of tissues into organs and whole organisms. While related to
the field of developmental biology with its traditional emphasis on the control of gene
expression and the acquisition of cell fates, morphogenesis investigates how this regulation
of cell fates contributes to the form and structure of the organism and its component parts
(İçmeli, 2014).
4.3 Computational Models and Morphogenesis Types
Plant morphogenesis is the formation of shape and structure by Co-ordination of

cell shape, growth, and proliferation by mitosis. Computational and mathematical models
are used as a tool in biology field because of complex mechanism of morphogenetic growing
(Rudge & Haseloff, 2005).
Each cell has own parameters (contains morphogen levels, growth rate etc.) and
a boundary which define its limits. All the situations; state or transformation status is
determined in these parameters in mathematical formula. Architecture is used these
computational models as a generative tool in form-making process (Rudge & Haseloff,
2005).
Morphogenesis can be categorized in four according to their transformation

types which are;
x Proliferation
x Coordinated growth
x Cell lineage
x Cell position specification
(Rudge & Haseloff, 2005).
4.3.1 Proliferation
Figure 74: Cell Arrangements in Plant Tissues Source: (Rudge & Haseloff, 2005)
Simple cell colonies were generated from initial conditions of a single unit
square cell. All cells were grown at the same rate and divided when their volume doubled.
Cell growth was isotropic (İçmeli, 2014).
4.3.2 Coordinated Growth. There are several examples of processes in plants

in which a zone of proliferating cells is established within a mature or slowly growing region.
Growth was polar, and all cells divided on doubling their initial volume (Rudge & Haseloff,
2005).
4.3.3 Cell Lineage and Positional Information. The relative roles of cell
lineage or inheritance, and cell-cell signaling mechanisms and their interactions are
important in understanding plant development. The morphogen was used to trigger growth
and division in 1-dimension. This maintained an active cell at the end of a line of in active
cells, in a similar manner to a plant root or shoot meristem (İçmeli, 2014).
4.4 Architecture & Biology
While as disciplines, architecture and biology share some similarities like,
x Both deal with entities operating in context

x Both use computational models
The differences are in
x Goals, Epistemology, Knowledge Base, Methods, Discourse and

Institutional Organization are significant.
These differences are making communication and collaboration difficult.
Despite the differences and difficulties, direct collaborations between biology

and architecture are necessary not only in the narrow context of the present discussion but
also because they can help to orient designing towards ecologically compatible outcomes.
Another, equally exciting outcome of such collaborations will be in further contributions
towards creative inspiration (Roudavski, 2009).
Unlike scientists such as biologists (but not unlike biotechnologists and

bioengineers who are also designers), designers (including architects) focus not on the study
of the existing situations but on the consideration of possible futures. Working in complex
situations and typically looking for futures that cannot be derived from the past or from the
laws of nature, designers search the present for variables that can be modified. Variables
accessible (known, found) to a designer in a given situation add up to a design space
(MacArthur & Crist, 2003).Unconventional, lateral, associative moves are often necessary
to expand this space and to find in its innovative outcomes. As history and the recent
experimentation confirm, bio-inspiration can be a rich and rewarding source of such
innovation (Roudavski, 2009).
4.4.1 Morphogenesis in Architecture & Biology. In architecture,

morphogenesis often used as an inspiration for built form as a group of methods in digital
media. It works not also representational tools but also generative tool for derivation and
transformation of the form (Roudavski, 2009).
Understanding of morphogenesis in biology and architecture with comparing

them; helps to conceive similarities and differences for these fields. It indicates potentials
and advantages for the two research communities (Roudavski, 2009).
A better understanding of biological morphogenesis can usefully inform

architectural designing because
x Architectural designing aims to resolve challenges that have often

already been resolved by nature.
x Architectural designing increasingly seeks to incorporate concepts and
techniques, such as growth or adaptation that have parallels in nature.
x Architecture and biology share a common language because both
attempt to model growth and adaptation (or morphogenesis) in silico
(Roudavski, 2009).
In a reverse move, architecture and engineering can inform the studies in biology
because
x Components of organisms develop and specialize under the influence
of contextual conditions such as static and dynamic loads or the
availability of sun light.
x In biology as in architecture, computational modeling is becoming an
increasingly important tool for studying such influences.
x Architecture and engineering have developed computational tools for
evaluating and simulating complex physical performances (such as
distribution of loads, thermal performance or radiance values).
x Such tools are as yet unusual or unavailable in biology.
According to advocates of morphogenetic design, they not only focus on study

of the existing situation but the consideration of possibilities of nature. Morphogenetic
design has the capability to sustain various functions (Roudavski, 2009).
4.5 Morphogenesis in Architecture (Digital Morphogenesis)
In contemporary architectural design, digital media is increasingly being used

not as a representational tool for visualization but as a generative tool for the derivation of
form and its transformation and that is called with the digital morphogenesis. In a radical
departure from centuries old traditions and norms of architectural design, digitally-generated
forms are not designed or drawn as the conventional understanding of these terms would
have it, but they are calculated by the chosen generative computational method. Instead of
modeling an external form, designers articulate an internal generative logic, which then
produces, in an automatic fashion, a range of possibilities from which the designer could
choose an appropriate formal proposition for further development (Kolarevic & Malkawi,
2005).
The predictable relationships between design and representations are abandoned

in favor of computationally generated complexities. Models of design capable of consistent,
continual and dynamic transformation are replacing the static norms of conventional
processes. Complex curvilinear geometries are produced with the same ease as Euclidean
geometries of planar shapes and cylindrical, spherical or conical forms. The plan no longer
'generates' the design; sections attain a purely analytical role. Grids, repetitions and
symmetries lose their past raison d'être, as infinite variability becomes as feasible as
modularity, and as mass-customization presents alternatives to mass-production (Kolarevic
& Malkawi, 2005).
The digital generative processes are opening-up new territories for conceptual,
formal and tectonic exploration, articulating an architectural morphology focused on the
emergent and adaptive properties of form. The emphasis shifts from the 'making of form' to
the 'finding of form' which various digitally-based generative techniques seem to bring about
intentionally. In the realm of form, the stable is replaced by the variable, singularity by
multiplicity (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
4.5.1 Computational Architectures. Computational architectures refer to the

computationally based processes of form origination and transformations - the digital
morphogenesis. Several computational architectures are identified based on the underlying
concepts such as topological space (topological architecture), isomorphic surfaces
(isomorphic architecture), motion kinematics and dynamics (animate architecture), key
shape animation (metamorphic architecture), parametric design (parametric architecture),
and genetic algorithms (evolutionary architecture) (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
4.5.1.1 Topological architecture. Greg Lynn’s essay on “architectural

curvilinearity” is one of the first examples of the new topological approach to design that
moves away from the then dominant deconstructivist “logic of conflict and contradiction”
to develop a “more fluid logic of connectivity,” manifested by continuous, highly curvilinear
surfaces (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 75: Homeomorphic (Topologically Equivalent) Figures

Source: (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005)
The defining element of the topological architecture is its departure from the
Euclidean geometry of discrete volumes represented in Cartesian space, and the extensive
use of topological, “rubber-sheet” geometry of continuous curves and surfaces,
mathematically described as NURBS - Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline curves and surfaces.
In the topological space, geometry is represented not by implicit equations, but by parametric
functions, which describe a range of possibilities (Piegl & Tiller, 1997).
4.5.1.1.1 Topology. The notion of

topology has particular potentiality in
architecture, as emphasis shifts away from
particular forms of expression to relations that
exist between and within an existing site and
the proposed program. These
interdependences then become the structuring,
organizing principle for the generation and
transformation of form (Kolarevic & Malkawi,
2005).
4.5.1.1.2 Non-euclidian
geometries. Euclid's Elements proposed five
basic postulates of geometry, of which all were
considered self-evident except the fifth
postulate of ''parallelism'' which asserts that
two lines are parallel, i.e. non intersecting, if
there is a third line that intersects both Figure 76: Homeomorphic (Topologically
perpendicularly (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005). Equivalent)
Source: (Kolarevic, 2005)
Such a design is based on parameters and statistics, and enables a spatial

morphogenesis in a non-Euclidean 'environment'. Through the use of calculus-based tools,
architectural design may become more abstract and less representational, at least in
comparison to its traditional and standard types of predecessors (Lynn, 1999).
Figure 77: Spatial Computing with Conformal Geometric Algebra Source: (Rudge & Haseloff, 2005)
4.5.1.1.3 NURBS. NURBS are a digital equivalent of the drafting sp-lines used
to draw the complex curves in the cross-sections of ship hulls and airplane fuselages. Those
sp-lines were flexible strips made of plastic, wood or metal that would be bent to achieve a
desired smooth curve, with weights attached to them in order to maintain the given shape.
The term sp-line (the .S. in NURBS) actually has its origin in shipbuilding, where it was
used to refer to a piece of steamed wood shaped into a desired smooth curve and kept in
shape with clamps and pegs. Mathematicians borrowed the term in a direct analogy to
describe families of complex curves (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
The main reason for their widespread adoption is the ability of NURBS to
construct a broad range of geometric forms, from straight lines and Platonic solids to highly
complex, sculpted surfaces. From a computational point of view, NURBS provide for an
efficient data representation of geometric forms, using a minimum amount of data and
relatively few steps for shape computation, which is why most of today's digital modeling
programs rely on NURBS as a computational method for constructing complex surface
models and, in some modelers, even solid models (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 78: A Composite Curve Constructed from Tangent Circular Arcs and Straight Line Segments
The shape of a NURBS curve or surface is controlled by manipulating the

location of control points, weights, and knots. NURBS make the heterogeneous, yet coherent
forms of the topological space computationally possible. By changing the location of control
points, weights, and knots, any number of different curves and surfaces could be produced
(Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 79: Varying the Degree of A NURBS Curve Will Produce Different Shapes
4.5.1.2 Isomorphic architecture. Isomorphic surfaces represent another point
of departure from the Euclidean geometry and the Cartesian space. Blobs or meta-balls, as
isomorphic surfaces are sometimes called, are amorphous objects constructed as composite
assemblages of mutually inflecting parametric objects with internal forces of mass and
attraction. They exercise fields or regions of influence, which could be additive (positive) or
subtractive (negative). The geometry is constructed by computing a surface at which the
composite field has the same intensity - hence the name - isomorphic surfaces (Kolarevic &
Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 80: Isomorphic Surfaces Source: (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005)
Isomorphic surfaces open up yet another formal universe where forms may
undergo variations giving rise to new possibilities. Objects interact with each other instead
of just occupying space; they become connected through logic where the whole is always
open to variation as new blobs (fields of influence) are added or new relations made, creating
new possibilities. The surface boundary of the whole (the isomorphic surface) shifts or
moves as fields of influence vary in their location and intensity. In that way, objects begin
to operate in a dynamic rather than a static geography (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
4.5.1.3 Animate architecture. Greg Lynn was one of the first architects to
utilize animation software not as a medium of representation, but of form generation.
According to Lynn, the prevalent “cinematic model” of motion in architecture eliminates the
force and motion from the articulation of form and reintroduces them later, after the fact of
design, through concepts and techniques of “optical procession.” In contrast, animate design
is defined by the co-presence of motion and force at the moment of formal conception. Force,
as an initial condition, becomes the cause of both motion and particular inflections of a form.
According to Lynn, while motion implies movement and action, animation implies evolution
of a form and its shaping forces (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
In his projects, Lynn has utilized an entire repertoire of motion-based modeling

techniques, such as key-frame animation, forward and inverse kinematics, dynamics (force
fields) and particle emission. Kinematics is used in animation in its true mechanical
meaning: to study the motion of an object or a hierarchical system of objects without
consideration given to its mass or the forces acting on it. As motion is applied,
transformations are propagated downward the hierarchy in forward kinematics, and upward
through hierarchy in inverse kinematics. In some of Lynn’s projects, such as the House
Prototype in Long Island, skeletons with a global envelope are deformed using inverse
kinematics under the influence of various site induced forces (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 81: Animate Architecture: Lynn’s Port Source: (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005)
In contrast to kinematics, the dynamic simulation takes into consideration the

effects of forces on the motion of an object or a system of objects, especially of forces that
do not originate within the system itself. Physical properties of objects, such as mass
(density), elasticity, static and kinetic friction (or roughness), are defined. Forces of gravity,
wind, or vortex are applied, collision detection and obstacles (deflectors) are specified, and
dynamic simulation computed. Greg Lynn’s design of a protective roof and a lighting
scheme for the bus terminal in New York offers a very effective example of using particle
systems to visualize the gradient fields of “attraction” present on the site, created by the
forces associated with the movement and flow of pedestrians, cars, and buses on the site
4.5.1.4 Metamorphic architecture. Metamorphic generation of form includes

several techniques such as key-shape animation, deformations of the modeling space around
the model using a bounding box (lattice deformation), a sp-line curve, or one of the
coordinate system axis or planes, and path animation, which deforms an object as it moves
along a selected path (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
In key shape animation, changes in the geometry are recorded as key frames (key
shapes) and the software then computes the in-between states. In deformations of the
modeling space, object shapes conform to the changes in geometry of the modeling space
4.5.1.5 Parametric architecture. In parametric design, it is the parameters of a

particular design that are declared, not its shape. By assigning different values to the
parameters, different objects or configurations can be easily created. Equations can be used
to describe the relationships between objects, thus defining an associative geometry, i.e., the
“constituent geometry that is mutually linked” (Burry, 2000). That way, interdependencies
between objects can be established, and objects’ behavior under transformations defined. As
observed by Burry (1999), the ability to define, determine and reconfigure geometrical
relationships is of particular value (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 82: Parametric Architecture: Marcos Novak‘s “Algorithmic spectaculars”

Parametric design often entails a procedural, algorithmic description of

geometry. In algorithmic spectaculars, algorithmic explorations of “tectonic production”
using mathematical software, Marcos Novak had constructed mathematical models and
generative procedures that are constrained by numerous variables initially unrelated to any
pragmatic concerns. Each variable or process is a ‘slot’ into which an external influence can
be mapped, either statically or dynamically. In his explorations, Novak is concerned less
with the manipulation of objects and more with the manipulation of relations, fields, higher
dimensions, and eventually the curvature of space itself. The implication is that the
parametric design doesn’t necessarily predicate stable forms. As demonstrated by Burry, one
can devise a paramorph - an unstable spatial and topological description of form with stable
characteristics (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Figure 83: Paramorph by Mark Burry Source: (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005)
4.5.1.6 Evolutionary architecture. Evolutionary architecture proposes the

evolutionary model of nature as the generating process for architectural form (Frazer, 1995).
In this approach to design, architectural concepts are expressed as generative rules so that
their evolution and development can be accelerated and tested by the use of computer
models. Concepts are described in a genetic language which produces a code script of
instructions for form generation. Computer models are used to simulate the development of
prototypical forms which are then evaluated on the basis of their performance in a simulated
environment. Very large numbers of evolutionary steps can be generated in a short space of
time and the emergent forms are often unexpected (Frazer, 1995).
The key concept behind evolutionary architecture is the genetic algorithm which
is a class of highly parallel evolutionary, adaptive search procedures (Frazer, 1995). Their
key characteristic is ''a string-like structure'' equivalent to the chromosomes of nature, to
which the rules of reproduction, gene crossover, and mutation are applied. Various
parameters are encoded into the “a string-like structure” and their values changed during the
generative process. A number of similar forms, “pseudo-organisms,” are generated, which
are then selected from the generated populations based on predefined “fitness” criteria. The
selected “organisms,” and the corresponding parameter values, are then crossbred, with the
accompanying “gene crossovers” and “mutations”, thus passing beneficial and survival-
enhancing traits to new generations. Optimum solutions are obtained by small incremental
changes over several generations (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
In the process of genetic coding, the central issue is the modeling of the inner
logic rather than external form. Other equally important issues are the definition of often ill-
defined and conflicting criteria and how the defined criteria operate for the selection of the
“fittest”. Equally challenging is the issue of how the interaction of built form and its
environment are transcribed into the morphological and metabolic processes (Kolarevic &
Malkawi, 2005).
4.5.2 Implications. Digital morphogenesis in architecture links it to a number

of concepts including emergence, self-organization and form-finding (Hensel, Menges, &
Weinstock, 2004). Among the benefits of biologically inspired forms, their advocates list the
potential for structural benefits derived from redundancy and differentiation and the
capability to sustain multiple simultaneous functions (Weinstock, 2006). In contrast to
homogenized, open-plan interior spaces produced by modernist approaches, the
implementation of locally-sensitive differentiation, achieved through morphogenetic
responsiveness, can produce more flexible and environmentally sound architecture (Hensel
& Menges, 2008).
4.5.2.1 Dynamics and the fields of forces. Greg Lynn’s work on “animate
form” was very much inspired by D’Arcy Thompson “On Growth and Form”, in which
Thompson argues that the form in nature and the changes of form are due to the “action of
force.” With his work on using motion dynamics to generate architectural form, Lynn has
compellingly demonstrated what Nicholas Negroponte had only hinted at in his seminal
work from some thirty years ago, “The Architecture Machine,” also acknowledged in Lynn’s
writing (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Physical form, according to D’Arcy Thompson, is the resolution at one instant

of time of many forces that are governed by rates of change. In the urban context the
complexity of these forces often surpasses human comprehension. A machine, meanwhile,
could procreate forms that respond to many hereto un-manageable dynamics. Such a
colleague would not be an omen of professional retirement but rather a tickler of the
architect’s imagination, presenting alternatives of form possibly not visualized or not
visualizable by the human designer (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
Lynn argues that traditionally, in architecture, the abstract space of design is

conceived as an ideal neutral space of Cartesian coordinates, but that in other design fields,
design space is conceived as an environment of force and motion rather than as a neutral
vacuum. There was an argument that while physical form can be defined in terms of static
coordinates, the virtual force of the environment in which it is designed contributes to its
shape, thus making the forces present in the given context fundamental to the form making
in architecture. Lynn attributes to this position the significance of a paradigm shift from a
passive space of static coordinates to an active space of interactions, which was described as
a move from autonomous purity to contextual specificity. Instrumental to this conceptual
shift is the use of digital media, such as animation software, which were used as tools for
design rather than as devices for rendering, visualization, and imaging (Kolarevic &
Malkawi, 2005).
4.5.2.2 Emergence and the fields of indetermination. Topological space opens

up a universe where essentially curvilinear forms are not stable but may undergo variations;
giving rise to new possibilities, i.e., the emergent form. Designers can see forms as a result
of reactions to a context of “forces” or actions, as demonstrated by Lynn’s work (Kolarevic
& Malkawi, 2005).
There is, however, nothing automatic or deterministic in the definition of actions
and reactions; they implicitly create “fields of indetermination” from which unexpected and
genuinely new forms might emerge. The capacity of computational architectures to generate
“new” designs is therefore highly dependent on designer’s perceptual and cognitive abilities.
Their generative role is accomplished through the designer’s simultaneous interpretation and
manipulation of a computational construct (topological surface, isomorphic field, kinetic
skeleton, field of forces, parametric model, genetic algorithm, etc.) in a complex discourse
that is continuously reconstituting itself - a ‘self-reflexive’ discourse in which graphics
actively shape the designer’s thinking process (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005).
4.5.2.3 Mass customization. The numerically controlled production processes
of the past decade, which afforded the fabrication of non-standardized repetitive components
directly from digital data, introduced into architectural discourse the “mass-customization”
(Mitchell, 2000) and the new logics of seriality, i.e., the local variation and differentiation in
series. In process, building construction is being transformed into production of the
differentiated components and their assembly on site, instead of the conventional manual
techniques. This transformation of building design and construction into digitally driven
production processes was famously manifested in Frank Gehry’s buildings, with his
Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao being the most dramatic recent example (Kolarevic &
Malkawi, 2005).
In parametric design, objects are no longer designed but calculated, and that
allows the design of complex forms with surfaces of variable curvature that would be
difficult to be represented using traditional drawing methods, and laying the foundation for
a nonstandard mode of production. These objectiles are non-standard objects, mainly
furniture and paneling, which are procedurally calculated in Micro-station and industrially
produced with numerically controlled machines (Cache, 1995).
Figure 84: Bernard’s Cache “Objectiles.” Source: (Kolarevic & Malkawi, 2005)
It is the modification of parameters of design, often random, that allows the

manufacture of different shapes in the same series, thus making the mass-customization, i.e.,
the industrial production of unique objects possible (Cache, 1995). In other words, it is now
possible to produce “series-manufactured, mathematically coherent but differentiated
objects, as well as elaborate, precise and relatively cheap one-off components (Zellner,
2000). It was argued that in the process the “architecture is becoming like ‘firm ware, ’the
digital building of software space inscribed in the hardware of construction.” (Zellner, 2000).
4.6 Morphogenesis in Biology
In biology, the word morphogenesis is often used in a broad sense to refer to

many aspects of development, but when used strictly it should mean the molding of cells
and tissues into definite shapes (Waddington, 1956). In accordance with this strict definition,
botany understands morphogenesis as the formation of shape and structure via a coordinated
process that involves changes in cell shapes, enlargement of cells and proliferation by
mitosis (Rudge & Haseloff, 2005). Furthermore, in biology the word morphogenesis can be
used to refer either to
(I) The structural changes observed in tissues as an embryo develops.

(II) The underlying mechanisms responsible for the structural changes
(Cowin & Doty, 2007).
Both understandings can be of interest and inspiration for architects, despite the
fact that a literal importation of biological structures or processes into architectural design is
usually not feasible, meaningful or desirable (Roudavski, 2009).
Morphogenesis is one of several processes typical for living organisms. Apart

from morphogenesis, these processes include growth, repair, adaptation and aging.
Transferring knowledge of these processes into designing might be also productive,
especially in relationship to architectural structures with dynamic capacities (Roudavski,

2009).
Plant morphogenesis is a very complex process that involves many types of
control mechanisms. The study of these mechanisms via direct experimentation and reverse
engineering is very difficult and time consuming. Therefore, developmental biologists
increasingly experiment with mathematical and computational models that allow them to
simulate, understand and predict control mechanisms. This existing interest in computational
modeling can serve as a translating device between the relevant processes in biology and
architecture (Roudavski, 2009).
Biological morphogenesis is a difficult subject to study because it is very

complex and dynamic. In the comparatively recent era of molecular biology,
“morphogenesis, the deep developmental question that held the centre stage of
embryological thought for over two millennia, has been somewhat eclipsed” by the more
manageable studies of signaling, pattern formation, and gene control (Davies, 2005).
4.6.1 Computational Models of Plant Morphogenesis. The structural

organization of plants features units of various types and sizes, for example cells, tissues and
organs. Interactions between these entities combine into various regulatory mechanisms
(Dupuy, Mackenzie, Rudge, & Haseloff, 2008). Multiple conceptual descriptions of plant
organization can be attempted and a rigorous, formal description of such an organization is
a necessary prerequisite for the computational modeling of interactions between various
parts of a plant (Roudavski, 2009).
Contemporary biology employs computational modeling of its processes in

combination with experiments verifying the resulting hypotheses. Experimental verification
is necessary because “morphogenetic processes cannot be deduced from final form. The fact
that a mechanism works on a computer is not, however, itself strong evidence that it works
in life; usually, many possible mechanisms will produce the ‘correct’ result, and only
observation of the real embryo will indicate which is used” (Davies, 2005).
This danger of making misleading post-hoc conclusions in biology serves as a

reminder that architects, as non-specialists, should be particularly careful when claiming that
developmental processes in biology are precursors to their designs (Roudavski, 2009).
4.6.2 Characteristics
4.6.2.1 Focus and limitations. Biological morphogenesis takes multiple forms

that differ between kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera and species. This
diversity provides an overwhelming number of examples that is further multiplied by the co-
existence of alternative conceptual understandings. Computational modeling of
morphogenesis in biology is a recent approach. Consequently, and despite the natural
diversity, only a limited number of available working models is available. At the moment,
the existing models tackle simple organisms, often the ones used as models by many
biologists (Roudavski, 2009).
In botany, plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana and Coleochaete orbicularis are

commonly used to study generic processes because they are simple and already well
researched. Furthermore, Coleochaete orbicularis is a 2D species and the computational

modeling of its morphogenesis is geometrically less complex (Roudavski, 2009).
Given this situation, the biological examples were selected both for simple
pragmatic reasons as well as for their conceptual suitability:
x A pragmatic stance suggested the selection of models that were
sufficiently generic, publicly available and interesting for comparison.
x Conceptually, a comparison between architectural structures, that are

typically immobile, and plants that are also comparatively static seemed
less problematic than that with, for example, animals (Roudavski, 2009).
4.6.2.2 Multi-scale hierarchy. The structure of a plant had been formalized by

subdividing it into multiple scales. In their model, cell-walls are described at scale 1, cells
are objects described at scale 2 and tissues are described at scale 3. Entities at different scales
of description belong to the same plant and the relationships between them can be described
as a hierarchy: cells are made of walls; tissues are made of cells and so on (Dupuy,
Mackenzie, Rudge, & Haseloff, 2008).
Figure 85: Conceptual Diagrams Based on Photomicrograph of Coleochaete Orbicularis

Source: (Dupuy, Mackenzie, Rudge, & Haseloff, 2008)
x (A) Cellular architecture of plants can be conceptually subdivided into several scale
levels represented in this diagram by horizontal planes. This conceptual subdivision
helps to formalize the structure and functioning of plants.
x (B) The entities in each level of description establish interactions with other plant
constituents, and it is possible to determine a topological neighborhood for any
entity: a cell is related to its neighboring cells horizontally, it belongs to an organ in
a vertical upward relationship and to the walls that define its boundaries via a vertical
downward relationship.
x (C) The evolution of such properties is determined by autonomous inter-cell

functions and by the functions that determine interactions between entities in the
topological neighborhood.
x (D) Changes in the network of interactions are due to growth mechanisms and can
be broken down into birth and death operators: the division of a cell results from the
deletion of four walls and the creation of ten new walls (eight subdivisions from
previous walls plus the two new walls separating the newly created cell). Entities
associated with new walls are then defined through one inheritance function and
those associated with the two daughter cells through another (Dupuy, Mackenzie,
Rudge, & Haseloff, 2008).
Interactions between components in complex structures can be expressed as

horizontal and vertical relationships. Related components can exchange information. In
plants, signaling processes, for example those sustained by chemical transport, can influence
cell development, positioning, patterning and differentiation. In architecture, deeper
hierarchies of interconnected elements could support similar form-making effects
simultaneously supporting continuous automated development, local responsiveness and
targeted, non-destructive controlling (Roudavski, 2009).
4.6.2.3 Dynamic structure. Plants’ organizations are highly dynamic both in

terms of chemical transport between cells and the architectural dynamics of cell
development, growth and proliferation. In the architectural context, a functional analogue to
the dynamic transport of chemicals through cells could account for the adaptable properties
of cell congregations and the influence of this effect could be combined with other influences
on cell properties (Roudavski, 2009).
In addition to the dynamic diffusion of chemicals between cells, there is a model

which is responsible for dynamic structural changes in the system, for example those
occurring when cells divide or die (Dupuy, Mackenzie, Rudge, & Haseloff, 2008). That
model modifies the cellular structure through operations of creation and deletion. The
operation of creation is also responsible for the initiation of cell properties that are controlled
by the inheritance function able to account for such concepts as asymmetric division, lineage
and other mitotic events. In the architectural context, this capability would be able to support
generation of varied geometries in response to explicit instructions or local conditions
(Roudavski, 2009).
Another dynamic attribute of plant cells is the capability for expansion under
turgor pressure. The actual physics behavior of viscous plant cell-walls can be relevant in
architecture only in the application to similar materials. However, the general concept of an
expandable cell can further support the dynamic adaptability of the computational model
(Roudavski, 2009).
4.6.2.4 Processual continuity. As is true of all natural processes, biological

morphogenesis is continuous. Its processes occur at varying speeds but they never
completely halt. Once an organism develops into an adult specimen it continues changing
into its phenotype or, "the observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the
interaction of its genotype with the environment”. Furthermore, once the phenotype has been
established, there is further interaction with the genome for regeneration, repair and possible
further development (Cowin & Doty, 2007).
Figure 86: Biomechanical Model for Cell Expansion in Morphogenesis: Cell Wall Response to Turgor
Pressure Through A Viscous Yielding of The Cell Wall, Compensated at The Same Time by Thickening to
Maintain A Constant Cross-Section Source: (Dupuy, Mackenzie, Rudge, & Haseloff, 2008)
This processual continuity allows a high degree of individual adaptability. As

discussed above, greater continuity similar to the one characteristic of living organisms can
be beneficial to generative processes in architecture. It is even more interesting to consider
how this continuity could be extended beyond the confines of a single design so that
architects could both experiment with multiple architectural equivalents of genotypes and
extend adaptive capabilities into inhabitable places (Roudavski, 2009).
4.7 Conclusion
After reviewing that chapter, it could be concluded that the field of architecture
is going through a shift by depending on new techniques and the new technologies in
architectural designing. This could be done by depending on using the digital media not only
as representational tools for visualization but also as generative tools for the derivation of
form; this is what is called morphogenesis. Morphogenesis concept was used in numbers of
disciplines like biology, geology, crystallography, engineering, urban studies, art and
architecture. The original usage was in the field of biology so it had been discussed the
relation between biology and architecture and got the similarities and differences between
them and how it is easy to realize a complete integration between them in order to make full
use of them. How architects and biologists think, the way that architecture dealing with
problems and trying to solve them; however nature has already solved all problems. It was
found that all of them depend on computational models during studying.
When looking to the meaning of morphogenesis in architecture which also could

be called digital morphogenesis; it means to use digital media and in the design process and
dealing with variables through machines in order to get lots of alternative solutions for the
design problems with different forms. These types of forms differs between each other and
that depends on the trend used to get the form of the design as when using computers in the
design process in the field of architecture, it opened doors to generate more and more new
trends in architectural designing which could be called computational architecture like,
Topological architecture, Isomorphic architecture, Animate architectures, Metamorphic
architecture, Parametric architecture, Evolutionary architecture, performative architecture
and genetics. These new trends have their specifications and their way followed to design
and generate forms.
When looking to the meaning of morphogenesis in biology and specifically in

botany field, it means there would be a deal with many types of control mechanisms and
variables like growth, repair, adaptation and aging. To deal with those variables there should
be a computer system to computational models of plants to deal with during studying. These
variables help to generate more alternative of forms. Biological morphogenesis takes
multiple forms that differ between kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera and
species. This diversity provides an overwhelming number of examples that is further
multiplied by the co-existence of alternative conceptual understandings.
Finally, after studying those two types of morphogenesis in architecture and in

biology, it is a must to realize a complete integration between biology and architecture.
Despite the differences and difficulties, direct collaboration between them is necessary not
only in the narrow context of the present discussion but also because they can help to orient
designing towards compatible outcomes and towards creative inspiration. By realizing the
complete integration between architecture and biology and putting in mind that both of them
depends on computational models, so through the derivation of form process there would be
a complete integration also between digital morphogenesis and morphogenesis in biology
and that would open the doors to generate a new type of architectural design trends which
could be called bio-digital morphogenesis. This new trend aims to generate forms for designs
depending on digital media and also starting with a biological base even it could be of plants
or any organism.
Bio Digital Morphogenesis PART -3-

CHAPTER -5- BIO-DIGITAL ARCHITECTURE
“Natural spiraling & twirling (Genetic & Environmental) are growth strategies
conceptually understood & sometimes viewed across scales – cosmological to
quantum- from galaxies, ocean waves, trees, insect flight paths to shells, &
molecular orbits. Spirals are the universe's embedded locomotion.”
(Dollens, 2009)
Chapter 5: Bio Digital Architecture
5.1 Introduction
It is being associated with Sir Charles Sherrington’s more ornate and not
meaningless metaphor for thought that;
“The brain is an enchanted loom where millions of flashing shuttles weave a

dissolving pattern.” (Byatt, 2004)
In one of the most appealing

conjectures for the birth of architecture,
Gottfried Semper outlined a series of
hypothetical developments in which he
saw a fundamentally different order from
that of earlier theorists who claimed the
mere hut as architecture’s starting point.
Semper speculated that ancient technology
in the form of craft production like pottery,
weaving and knotting; held a key that then
opened the way to conceptual development Figure 88: Photograph of Woven, Urban Walls in
of a frame covered with woven walls and Peru’s Pueblos Nuevos
roof (Herrmann, 1984). Source: (Dollens, 2009)
Technology, as manifested in
weaving, brought forth the transformation
of plant fiber into rigid, semi-flexible, or
flexible rugs, mats, lattices (planar
geometric objects serving to clad matrices)
that could then be conceptualized as
partitions or walls. With the wall, the
potential division and subdivision of
otherwise abstract space, virtual space
became physical; and here, in the spatial
matrix, divided and articulated,
architecture began to breathe; a breath
filtered through botanical-technological
construction (Herrmann, 1984).
Semper saw weaving as an Figure 89: Semper’s Braids
architectural act, not as a metaphor. Source: (Dollens, 2009)
Additionally he saw knotting, lashing,
braiding, and banding as related crafts joinery pointing to complementary technological
developments where woven panels could be connected sequentially—tiled—to make spatial
partitions modular—a global practice continuing today, from the marshlands of Iraq to
spontaneous squatter cities around the world (Herrmann, 1984).
From this most organic and technological view of the birth of architecture,
sometimes, referencing Sempers' ideas in a historic vein and sometimes in a new context of
weaving & knotting information; sometimes, more metaphorically, looking to instances
where informational, scientific, and computational developments are leading to the
generation of new ideas that, in turn, power generative visions, technologies, or strategies
for architecture; for example, through biotechnology, algorithmic growth, or bio-mimetic
design (Herrmann, 1984).
5.1.1 Different Points of View of Architecture Dealing with Plants
x Semper’s vision of architecture pictured man manipulating plant matter

with analog technologies (Dollens, 2009)
Figure 90: Semper‘s Vision of Architecture Source: (The Researcher based on (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
x Dollens's view will include another look at plants with the benefit of
digital technologies from mimetic morphology to platonic forms sculpted
by induced evolutionary forces forming new types of digital and analog
cellular life and genetic-related geometries (Dollens, 2009).
Figure 91: Dollens's Vision of Architecture Source: (The Researcher based on (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
5.2 Approaches to the Bio Digital Architecture
5.2.1 Virtual Reality. If virtual reality has become a

pop cliché, it is needed to remember that its visualization and
rendering technologies as well as their generating computational
systems were among the first to cross mainline, analog perception
with demonstrations that other realities exist (ironically, still just -1-
a little beyond grasp), digitally guided realities, not merely Virtual Reality
computerized mechanical systems and labor-saving machines.
Still, cyberspace would remain a poor intellectual cousin to
Surrealism except for the fact that ultimately its “consensual
hallucination” can and will be rationalized, built, experienced,
and retooled as a conditioner for nano and bio-generated
architectures. Even if virtual place is now emerging from
cyberspace, its manifestation for architecture (outside the game world) is still on the horizon.
After all, being “everywhere and nowhere” (a claim made for cyberspace) currently ends you
up in something as exciting as spam land (Vidler, 2001).
Nevertheless, the idea of virtual place has deeply inflected, infected, and
influenced the thinking of a sufficient number of architects, artists, and theorists to push
spatial reality through new filters, to hybridize thoughts so that they begin to grow new forms
and that these new forms, structures, and materials can fuse with the promise of earlier VR
experiments that will, in fact, be grown physically and eventually be inhabitable. Currently,
such investigations are taking place in many areas; some that look to medical technologies,
game development, compression and algorithmic generation as well as to digital-analog
botanic growth. All the experimental work looks to generate ideas, theories, and (or)
structures lodged in the folds of digital visualization, computational botany, biology,
programming, medicine, physics, history, and philosophy. A couple of further notes will
open some of the folds and clarify some metaphors of this new view of a digital-botanic
architecture, permitting a deeper look into the inner folds. Most essential in this regard is a
working understanding of the terms meme, monad, and meme-monad in relation to, but
different from, mimetic and biomimetic, and they will be taken as they come (Vidler, 2001).
5.2.2 Live Architecture. The idea of live

architecture has existed for a long time. In the literature of
architecture, building and body as organism have been
identified, organized, and categorized together for centuries—a
trail of thought built, written, and published. This concept, -2-
though widely distorted by 17th- and 18th-century Cartesian Live Architecture
perspectives (when it was believed that the universe, excepting
the human soul, could be mechanically explained) ultimately
survived to infuse, insert, and/or infect a hybrid notion of
machine/ organism (Dollens, 2009).
Cartesian perspective slowly evolved by means of the thoughts and theories of

Leibniz, Darwin, Einstein, and Watson and Crick (and, of course, many others), splicing an
organic perspective back to the mechanical. Even so, It is speculated today, most people
consider architecture’s position unshakably mechanist, and it is only with effort that this
view can be contested by suggesting in its place an evolutionary pedigree by which
architecture is a kind of biologic organism and a potential, if mostly unacknowledged, near-
life or semi-life form to be investigated in the animating force-field and particle-universe
represented in quantum theory and demonstrated in physics, biochemistry, biotechnology,
cellular automata, and nanotechnology. It must be known at least that architecture is not inert
objects (Dollens, 2009).
5.2.3 Theory of Monads and Theory of Memes.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that there is an
entertainment for a conceptual possibility of architecture,
technology, and human thought being biologically linked and
that the link might be constituted through some undiscovered
properties that can be outlined and hybridized as an architectural -3-
metaphysics conceptualized with the aid of Leibniz’s theory of
Theory of Monads
monads, which provides a unit of universal perception and
mirroring knowledge yoked to Richard Dawkins’s theory of and Theory of
memes: ideas as live, contagious, transmissible units of Memes
perception, information, and culture that can be embedded in
architecture. Dawkins’s memes provide a hypothetical agent of
transmission akin to germ theory, at the same time that they
suggest that thoughts and representations of thoughts as cultural
units are infectious and potentially viral when seen in the light
of genetic, cultural inheritance (Dawkins, 1976).
5.2.3.1 Theory of meme-monad. Conceptually, the meme-monad begins to

foreground a mechanism for transmission and implantation of cultural memory that, when
contemplated in harmony with something like Luis Fernandez-Galiano’s brilliant concept of
architecture (Fire and Memory: On Architecture and Energy) as an entropic system (and
therefore molecularly alive), further suggests architecture’s potential as a kind of intelligence
or intelligence device (Galiano & Cariño, 2000).
5.2.4 Architecture Re-conceptualization
“The tenacious survival of urban schemes or

building typologies, the rare consistency of some
formal layouts, and the continued adherence to
certain construction solutions are evidence of the Architecture Re-
existence of a morphological memory: a memory conceptualization
that does not rest only in the heads of builders,
inhabitants, or spectators, but is present as well in
the architecture itself.” (Galiano & Cariño, 2000).
Fernandez-Galiano’s “morphological memory” is compatible with the use of

meme-monad and clearly hints at “architecture itself” being infectious. What is being driven
at is that architecture deserves to be re-conceptualized in a biologic frame, not merely in a
frame of materials, systems, and aesthetics. Through such a re-conceptualization, the notion
of a botanic or biologic architecture will no longer seem marginal (Dawkins, 2000).
In brief, architecture, reduced to the concept of a machine or object has lost

biologic connections that once adhered it to us and to nature as closely as shells, dens, nests,
and boroughs to the species that respectively inhabited them. This current architectural
disconnect fosters a false sense of humans as species-independent from building and
environment. In fact, architecture is part of an ecosystem and, more specifically, is a
symbiotic growth dependent on human intelligence and muscle (or its mechanical
replacement). To use another of Dawkins’s phrases, architecture is an “extended phenotype,”
which can be explained by Matt Ridley’s words: “The nest of a bird is just as much a product
of its genes as its wings are.” In this conceptual frame, architecture can be seen as evolving
biologically (at least mimetically) as evolving (Dawkins, 2000).
Even before Semper’s thesis, architecture had been divorced from the notion of
an organism. It hadn't been said that it stopped evolving mechanically or aesthetically, but
that the practice of making buildings has not kept pace with other cultural evolution
specifically, capitalistic and scientific evolution. Simply stated humans make buildings (our
nests) and animate them with mechanical systems and think of them as real estate; yet slowly,
as wetware and software are been evolved with the capacity to think, a sentient or semi-
sentient, self-assembling architecture could be contemplated, also infusing skyscraper nests
could be contemplated with the potential for thought or responsive environmental
intelligence. Equally slowly, but more and more conceivable as our mechanical systems
come to function like and resemble biological organisms, we can begin to appreciate
architecture as more than materially entropic, looking instead to architecture as systems
entropic, and seeing in the systems’ interdependent workings relationships similar to those
seen in organic nature, say in an air-cooled termite tower (Dawkins, 2000).
Without any over stress on a realm of science fiction (SF), there was a scant
public imaging of advanced architecture with this exceptional passage from William
Gibson’s Idoru: “You mean the nanotech buildings? . . . Virtually had failed to convey the
peculiarity of their apparent texture, a streamline organism. . . . The entire façade of one of
the new buildings seemed to ripple, to crawl slightly. . . . They slid apart, deliquesced, and
trickled away, down into the mazes of an older city.” Clearly, a seed of biological-
computational architecture growing in the dark of Tokyo nights filters into popular culture
through Gibson’s novel. So, growth of structures is not a totally foreign notion for general
contemplation (Dawkins, 2000).
5.3 Botanic Digital Architecture
As the 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century morphological study of plants evolved

along with the technology of the microscope’s improving optics, studies that ultimately
emerged as botany, modern biology, and microbiology, so too, these same sciences continue
to evolve in the 20th and 21st centuries, radically transformed by quantum mechanics and
the discovery of DNA/RNA. Each successive technological development in this historical
progress yielded science a deeper view into the process of living organisms and each
introduced a new direction and a wider conceptualization of botanic and biological life that
led, only recently, to the idea of biological products and genetic manufacturing determined,
not by evolution, but by laboratory manufacturing and boardroom decisions. The concept of
cellular development now includes the concept of cellular redevelopment and creative
mutation. Yet, such scientific transformations are not limited to the world of science, they
are rippling through the art world and popular media, creating and affecting the way of
thinking about nature and the way of producing culture. If man’s phenomenal success in
colonizing all parts of the globe is specifically owing to technology—sanitary or health,
heating or cooling, and transportation systems, etc. then it makes at least partial sense to look
to technology for evolving and correcting the seemingly uncorrectable mess that success has
caused. In a sense, to regrow or overgrow development (Dollens, 2009).
Furthermore, bio-mimetics, the scientific method of studying, for example,

plants, animals, minerals, shells, etc., for an understanding of a specific quality like hardness,
softness, reflectivity, self-assembly, etc. That can then be applied to industrial and design
production, applies directly to architecture and technology by teaching
x How to look to plants (and nature in general) in order to extrapolate a

desirable quality.
x How to use technology in order to realize that extrapolated property in
another form, scale, and/or material (Mattheck, 2004).
Figure 92: Digital-Botanic Architecture Source: (The Researcher based on (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
Possibly, a digital-botanic architecture may emerge, first, as a series of

biomaterials before those materials are synthesized as a building life-system. Importantly,
bio-mimetic investigation can be used to produce architectural and design prototypes where
morphological qualities of a plant, say leaf overlap, or asymmetric harmonic proportion
(Fibonacci phyllotaxis) can be applied to the shape and function of potential architectural
structures and surfaces while maintaining a linked consideration of the new material
properties intended to bring the structure into being as a bio-animate environmental
participant and sensor (Dollens, 2009).
Paralleling and sometimes intersecting this view to botany and technology as

sources of potential architecture stands computationally grown architecture, which translates
information through a coding process into potentially habitable spaces by means of genetic
algorithms, cellular automata, or artificial intelligence, all potentially realized through CAD/
CAM or AAD production or, eventually, nanotechnology. In what is becoming known as
genetic or evolutionary architecture, this process of design results in a formerly almost
unthinkable quality for architecture (but an indispensable quality for biologic life): self-
replication and the ability to evolve (Frazer, 1995).
while genetic or
evolutionary architecture (like
Gibson’s Nano-buildings)
seemingly has the ring of SF, it has
moved beyond dreams and at this
moment is slowly creating virtual
models and being theoretically
articulated so that resulting
structures, spaces, and prototypes
are as much a matter of time and
financial support as technological
advancements. So while many
aspects of a digital-botanic and a
computationally generated
architecture remain theoretical
today, there is no reason to doubt
that future technologies will grow
living cells (silicon and carbon) that
can be directed by genetic
architectural programming. Given
such a scenario, one will see the
melding of inorganic computation
with organic life, resolving and
producing a new vision of habitable
space (Frazer, 1995).
Figure 93: X-frog Truss-Frame Grown from A Tree (Top Left) to Study Possible Structural Articulations for
A Building Frame and Columns
Source: (The Researcher adapted from (Dollens, 2009), 2015)

5.3.1 Seeding Digital-Botanic Architecture.
''We must be clear that, when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as
in poetry.'' (Bohr, 1971)
Louis Sullivan’s A System of Architectural Ornament is analog, transcendentally

poetic, quasi-scientific, and ornamental. His System establishes a series of steps, a recipe and
formula—loosely, an algorithm—for the generation of geometric surface volumes and plant-
like growth as an initial push toward design development and, maybe, a seed of botanic
architecture. After evolving geometries or, as Sullivan says, the development of a blank
block through a series of mechanical manipulations, a progression of physical and
metaphorical steps had been outlined that lead toward the growth of ornamental botanic life
invading the “blank block” (Dollens, 2009).
Figure 94: Part of the A System of Architectural Ornament – Plate 2 Source: (The Researcher adapted from
(Dollens, 2009), 2015)
Figure 95: Tumble Truss Project Lexicon, Observational Biomimetics Leading to Physical Models
By discussing these first seven sketches for Plate 2, Manipulation of the Organic,
any of these forms may be changed into any of the others through a series of systematic
organic changes technically known as ‘morphology’. Sullivan articulates his experiments in
an attempt to develop his thesis into a hybrid textual/graphic hypothesis, suggesting that for
him architectural form has inherent “organic” real life, not merely metaphoric or ornamental
suggestion. He had, in fact, already laid groundwork for such suggestion when he began the
System with a little sketch of a germinating seed (Sullivan, 1967).
Figure 96: Growing with Digital Model Source: (The Researcher adapted from (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
Figure 97: Xfrog

Grown Structural
Truss Based on
Physical Tumble
Truss Model
Source: (The
Researcher adapted
from (Dollens,
2009), 2015)
5.3.2 Sullivan's Concept for Development
Figure 98: A Typical Seed with Two Cotyledons from Part of The A System of Architectural Ornament –
Plate 2 Source: (Dollens, 2009)
Above is drawn a diagram of a typical seed with two cotyledons. The cotyledons
are specialized rudimentary leaves containing a supply of nourishment sufficient for the
initial stage of the development of the germ (Sullivan, 1967).
The Germ is the real thing; the seat of identity. Within its delicate mechanism
lies the will to power: the function which is to seek and eventually to find its full expression
in form (Sullivan, 1967).
The seat of power and the will to live constitute the simple working idea upon
which all that follows is based—as to efflorescence.
Sullivan establishes growth, change, mutation, and will to power as his

Nietzscheian, transformative criteria for the development of architectural thought, which
then could be applied to ornament and may be also applied to architectural production. The
seed or seat of future identity/form that firstly developed in the graphic theory is literally a
polyline, a drawing of a graphic cell and then a series of polylines or cells containing and
expressing instructions much simpler but metaphorically similar to a gene’s encapsulation
of biological instructions. If expressing instructions through poetic transliteration and
interpretation as new codes, they can power, in Sullivan’s terms, impulse, growth, and
creativity in digital software (Dollens, 2009).
Figure 100: Nietzscheian, Transformative Criteria Source: (The Researcher based on

(Dollens, 2009), 2015)
Now, such instructions may be read as metaphorical equivalents of protein

instruction or, more prosaically, elements of a grammar and may then be translated,
rewritten, edited, and regrown in digital realms, in cellular automata, in artificial life, and in
algorithmic and textual programming (Dollens, 2009).
5.3.2.1 Efflorescence. Sullivan’s choice of efflorescence, this code word for a

process of life and growth, instills botanic transformation in both a physical and
metaphorical sense, while, in sum, the iconic drawing of a seed with two cotyledons
(dicotyledon). There is no doubt that there is an intention to create a transforming,
botanically-based growth system expressed in graphic icons and supplemented with text, a
grammar and lexicon with instructions which could be called as a system’s code. Sullivan
created a series of poetic, graphic and text algorithms constituting the metaphoric design,
which had been previously used in buildings, then redirected as drawn ornament whose
imbedded code sprouted this System; that system is now capable of sprouting, inspiring,
digital growth (Dollens, 2009).
5.3.2.2 Applying growth and generation to architectural design. A botanic

underpinning established, Sullivan then set out to describe and illustrate how growth and
generation may be applied to architectural design through the development of a series of
cellular drawings (genotypes), each linked to the preceding and each leading to the next, a
visual progression developing this geometric and botanic lexicon into a transformative
evolutionary process that could be artistically determined and transformed while
autonomously efflorescing (living), flowering through will to power expressed as an
architecturally extended phenotype. Furthermore, the three dicotyledon paragraphs hint (the
completed System vindicates) that form follows function, was, in Sullivan’s 1924 organic
theory, still a living, progressive principle by which the process of design links botanic as
well as biologic life with geometry (not merely reductive, spatially programmatic
requirements, such as a floor plans) (Dollens, 2009).
Figure 99: Applying Growth and Generation to Architectural Design Source: (The Researcher based on
(Dollens, 2009), 2015)
5.3.2.3 Inspiration in architecture. Sullivan, the architect-pioneer of the

skyscraper as well as the transcendental architectural theorist/poet, found inspiration in cell
morphology, plant and human anatomy, engineering, and science, and there might not be
any protest of the inspiration which has been sparked in the digital architecture (Dollens,
2009).
“. . . Architecture will be the emanation of what is going on inside of us at
present, the character and quality of our thoughts and our observations, and
above all, our reflections.” (Sullivan, 1967).
There was no protest of being associated with the experimental use of software
intended more for pastoral 3D generation of natural forms, such as oak trees, than as a tool
for investigating architectural space based on botanic growth (Dollens, 2009).
Nowadays it could be seen and thought of segments of the System as germinators

whose genetic expression reached one threshold in Sullivan’s lifetime and whose
unexpressed potential, like that in DNA, may continue to reveal itself in future growth and
morphosis. Sullivan’s System knots a developmental thread for articulating static graphics
as dynamic, serial genotypes that then articulate forms found in natural systems capable of
being woven as experimental, structurally generated, extended phenotypes (Dollens, 2009).
Beyond the craft metaphor employed by Semper, it must be acknowledged that

Sullivan’s weaving would integrate the loom with the warp and weft. The threading vines
curved from warp to weft infected geometry and botanically colonized this architecture,
blurring and conjoining cage-structure (the loom), walls and ornament (the thread and fabric)
as plant architecture (Dollens, 2009).
5.3.2.4 Integration between Sullivan ideas and meme monad compounds
Figure 100: Collaboration between Sullivans' Ideas and Meme-Monad Source: (The researcher based
on (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
With these observations in mind and cross-fertilizing them with the notion that
Sullivan’s ideas are alive, transmitted through meme-monad compounds, new ideas that lead
to designs and forms are being grown. In a sense which has been entered into a one-sided
collaboration with idea-seeds (meme-monads) embedded in Sullivan’s physical and
theoretical work that is, to an extent, infected by Sempers' thoughts about architectural
origins in organic craft and botanic materials. These reconstituted ideas are in turn organized
and interpreted through mechanisms postulated by Leibniz and Dawkins, which, when
joined, they could constitute a new metaphysical strain of information transference by
meme-monad, making Sullivan Semper ideas available for a kind of opportunistic,
infectious, genetic-idea mutation—a benign idea-virus. The infectious nature of memes has
allowed the replication and the transmission of Sullivanesque ideas, while the quantum-scale
qualities of universal perception and mirroring found in monads has kept them conceptually
and environmentally clear and available (Dollens, 2009).
5.3.2.4.1 Example of collaboration
Figure 101: X-frog Growth with Pod Dispersion; Inspired by Sullivan’s A System of Architectural Ornament
and His Merchant’s National Bank, Grinnell, Iowa
Figure 102: Xfrog Growth Developed As A Tall Building Inspired by Sullivan’s A System of Architectural
Ornament and His Merchant’s National Bank
Source: (The Researcher based on (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
Example clarifies that when collaboration is been realized between Sullivan

ideas which is symbolized in his Merchant’s National Bank and the meme-monad
compounds (seeding ideas) when starting from a seed of a plant and starting simulating
Sullivan's design in order to get a new growing design which is grown from a plant
depending of Sullivan's ideas of growth and generation when they are being applied to the
design through a transformative evolutionary process (The Researcher, 2015).
5.4 Application
5.4.1 Hypothesis. In the merger of botanic and digital production it has been
discovered potentials inherent in software such as X-frog when hybridized with other
software such as Rhino or Maya, etc. In such hybridized cases, digitally realized volumes
mimic or simulate organic growth; or, more interestingly, make possible the application of
growth simulation for volumetric shapes, and these grown shapes can then be engineered
and detailed as architecture.
Imbedded through this simulation of growth is cognitive and biological learning

growth of these thoughts manifesting themselves in the resulting sculptural and architectural
production. While relying on metaphor, it also had been trusted that the hypothesis of
growing forms and geometries from System-seeds, combined with information applied from
botanical observation and earlier Tumble Truss Project experiments.
Figure 103: Hypothesis Source: (The Researcher, 2015)

“The gene specifies how development occurs, and that in turn specifies how
behavior occurs. The spooky truth is dawning on scientists that they can regard
behavior as just an extreme form of development.” (Ridley, 2003)
This growth process has been chosen to be attempted with observational,
biomimetic botany. Yet the process is as fully open to other visualization methods or
information patterns where software integrates and fuses botanic information with
geometry—growing geometrics in place of branches, but able to algorithmically establish
sub-branching, budding, and flowering; for example, in simulated architectural growth
(Dollens, 2009).
Such procedures, establish the claim that Sullivan’s System harbors live, genetic
information. If so, then his drawings (and many other drawings by implication) are the
equivalent of Jurassic amber encasing DNA. So, if entertaining such a scenario, a mechanical
reproduction, such as an edition of A System of Architectural Ornament, carries Sullivan’s
genetic code-seed, implanted with his pencil in the original drawings, his genetic-graphic
imprint, transported through space and time, into new designs where it confers powers of
inheritance and morphing (in his sense) to new work, while equally insuring offspring
(Dollens, 2009).
This process as analogous to, or at least as an offshoot of, the concept that live,
cultural units of transmissible information—meme-monads—can be carried through history
and infect and/or bequeath, a gene-like system of cultural and physical transmission
(Dollens, 2009).
The hypothesis that architecture, as a living system of expression, is continuous;

that it is a biological, intellectual, and philosophical expression of its builders; and that tools
such as computers are today’s looms for digital, virtual weavings.
5.4.2 Introduction for Examples. There have been a series of experiments with
simulated digital trees, hybridized into architectural elements, illustrates botanic forms and
their morphological and mathematical attributes applied to design systems and structures.
Using this generative process demonstrates how the transference of some biological
properties, held in algorithmic notation, such as phyllotaxy, allometry, and phototropism,
may be inherited by architectural and design elements derived from plant simulations and
their corresponding biological math (Dollens, 2009).
5.4.3 E-Trees & E-Plants. It had been called the plant simulations eTrees to
distinguish between living trees and the models. The programs which had been used most
are Xfrog and Rhino. Xfrog is frequently used to computationally “grow”—simulate—
lifelike digital trees and flowers for films. It can produce forms based on botanic growth,
imparting to its 3D files selected attributes of living organisms—for example logarithmic
proportion, branching, gravitropism, sequencing, and spiraling. But its design-growth
parameters can also be tasked to generate original structures based on the organically derived
algorithms it uses to mimic, say, an oak or an elm. Or, Xfrog can substitute solids—spheres,
cubes, cones—for leaves, stems, or branches. Figuratively, such manipulation results in
generic species of digitally grown branch structures. For example, tree branching may be
transformed—computationally hybridized—to produce experimental forms with botanic
heritage (Dollens, 2009).
5.4.4 Examples
5.4.2.1 Example -1- E-Tree anatomy & morphology.
Figure 104: Using X-Frog to Generate a Plant

Figure 105: Converting This E Tree to Be a Building

5.4.2.2 Example -2- E-Tree column.

Following the lessons of Sullivan’s system but moving away from digital
mimesis, this project segment looks to generate a growth that could, in itself, become a basic
design element like one of Sullivan’s underlying blocks. A tree and a leaf were grown in
Xfrog. The tree was begun as a dual-rooted trunk, and then inverted to transform the roots
into branches (Dollens, 2009).
Figure 106: X-frog Grown Tree-Column Source: (The Researcher adapted from (Dollens, 2009),
2015)
Figure 107: STL Tree Branches Supporting Leaf Grown Floors

5.4.2.3 Example -3- E-Tree branch and tendril morphology
Figure 108: E-Tree Branch & Tendril Morphology Source: (The Researcher adapted from (Dollens, 2009), 2015)
5.4.2.3.1 STL & SLS E-tree models. Branch and tendril development are
evolving as multi-directional, flexing structural trusses that gradually erase the digital tree
trunks. Simultaneously, the branches sprout secondary growths based on flowers, leaves,
tendrils, and pods that are eventually reprogrammed as living or mechanical spaces for
prototype buildings (Dollens, 2009).
5.4.2.4 Example -4- E-tree animation: Arizona tower
An STL model of the Arizona Tower sprouts roots and branches at forking
nodes, from which, over scaled pods and cubes were reprogrammed into room like volumes.
Software-grown e-Tree programmed to grow branches into a self-supporting structure with
outstretched branch tips defining a point-cloud for later glass skin generation and, finally,
Para Cloud generated components derived from almond shells as 3D surface components
(Dollens, 2009).
Figure 109: E-Tree Animation: Arizona Tower

5.4.2.5 Example -5- Self-shading tower for Los Angeles.
As already seen, the E-tree which generating this tower’s cylinder is also a
component of other projects—a kind of spine whose structural code lends itself to multiple
design paths resulting in different kinds of structural leafing and branching forms. While
prominent in the developmental stages of the tower’s panels, the E-tree is eventually
repressed in favor of the load-bearing monocoque facade supporting the building and held
in compression and tension by the fifteen floor planes (Dollens, 2009).
Figure 110: Self-Shading Tower for Los Angeles

5.5 Recommendations
It would be recommended that, by depending on Louis Sullivan's system of

architecture ornament through the development of a blank block, there is a series of steps in
order to generate a bio-digital building.
1- Simulating Sullivan's system of development of a blank block.

2- Apply this system digitally, not by drafting manually, by applying the concept of
growth in a biological element.
3- Depending on X-Frog program in order to investigate (notice) the development of
the plant by changing the variables of the different parts of the plant.
4- Changing these values of the variables in order to produce new different generations
of one building family.
5- After this development of the plant, one of these generations would be chosen in
order to be applied in the building.
6- After being settled on one of them, it would be engineered and detailed in an
architectural program in order to be used in a building.
Figure 111: Steps to Produce A Bio-Digital Building Source: (The Researcher, 2015)
5.6 Conclusion
After reviewing this chapter, it could be concluded that Gottfried Semper saw
that weaving could be considered to be an architectural act not as a metaphor, as it is one of
the most appealing conjectures for the birth of architecture. Semper's vision of architecture
is that the architect could deal with the nature by analogy in order to design a building and
there are many different visions for architecture. One vision of those is for integrating
buildings and biological design includes inventing new architectural systems—thinking of
them as natural; thinking that architecture is part of nature. A parallel strategy fosters
collaborations between design, biology, and industry thereby encouraging designers to enter
industrial and manufacturing production in order to create new biomaterials.
When looking at biology and architecture it was found that they both has
potential inherent so by assuming that when collaboration is done between them in software
depending on those potential inherent in software such as between( x frog) as a biological
software and (Maya or Rhino ceros) as architectural software. By that hybridization there
would be digitally produced volumes that mimic or simulate organic growth in order to
realize self-replication in the form and confirming the ability to evolve.
Biology and technology will define buildings’ increasing ability to interact with
nature. Such buildings are likely to be nurtured, and their functions guided, from software,
computation, environmental sensors and actuators, and later from living systems. In this
scenario, software and scripting become interpretive tools for generating, analyzing, and
integrating design into nature.
But morphogenesis in architecture is understood as a group of methods that

employ digital media not as representational tools visualization but as generative tools for
the derivation of form and its transformation.
When looking at biology and architecture it was found that they both have
similar potential inherent so that encourage for collaboration between them. By assuming
that when collaboration is done between them in software depending on those potential
inherent in software such as between (x frog) as a biological software and (Maya or Rhino
ceros) as architectural software. By that hybridization there would be digitally produced
volumes that mimic or simulate organic growth in order to realize self-replication in the form
and confirming the ability to evolve.
When that hybridization is done that could produce a bio digital design approach
which aims to start designing depending on computers simulating a biological element
growth digitally and its structure in order to produce volumes that are able to be evolved,
could replicate itself and its structure concept would be the same structure for the building
then, these volumes would be engineered and detailed in order to use them in architecture.
By depending on computers as a generative system of design by analyzing the

structure of the biological element to be a structure of a building by analogy and that structure
depends on range of variables which could be changed by changing the value of these
variables to produce generations of one building family, that is called bio-digital
morphogenesis, that what is this research aims to reach.
Conclusion
This thesis has discussed a new approach of design which is called a bio digital
design. This approach is trying to solve thesis's problems which are; how to start a design
process from a biological base and how to apply one of plants' Fibonacci phyllotaxis to the
generated building in order to generate new trends of forms which are being generated
digitally.
By reviewing this thesis, it would be found that it consists of three main parts
which contains five chapters.
The first part consists of two chapters. It is discussing the generative design
approach and how could the design process be achieved through depending on a set of rules
or an algorithm in order to generate forms in the first chapter. Then, it could be concluded
that the computer would be a generative tool which depends on a generative system in order
to generate forms. What would make that easier is that computers are depending on
algorithms which the designers are required to translate their origin ideas to be written in a
set of rules. After that, there would be a code of each concept which has many variables that
could be changed by the designers to generate new different forms belong to one family.
In order to translate the designer's ideas to be written as a set of rules that has
been discussed in chapter two, in the first part. It has been concluded from that chapter that,
there is many programming languages and each one has its advantages and drawbacks. They
are being developed by time. A new type of them has been generated latterly which is called
visual programming language (VPLs). It consists of sliders and looks like a flowchart.
Dealing with that new type is easier than the old textual language. After that, it has become
important for the old textual language to be developed so, the modern one has been
generated. It has been proved that the modern textual programming languages are easier than
the visual ones.
After reviewing what has been concluded from those two chapters, there would
be a main conclusion of this first part. The main conclusion of that part is that depending on
a computer as a generative tool which depends on a programming language using algorithms
which are considered to be the main connector between the human mind and the computer
system so, computers has been become part and parcel of any design process.
The second part is discussing the main relationship between architecture and
biology. Starting with a new design approach which has been generated after the trend of
bio-mimicry has been developed. This new approach is being inspired from nature so it has
been called, bio inspired design approach. This new approach differs from bio-mimicry
approach as it is not cradle to cradle; it is related deeply to nature and depends on it in
everything not just simulating it like bio-mimicry. Bio inspired design approach considers a
human is a part of the design process and each decision in the design process should be taken
in order to benefit human and nature and not to harm each of them. Bio inspired approach of
design is considered to be a complete integration between nature, science and creativity. By

looking to nature, it is the main source of all designs. Depending on nature to solve all the
problems which are facing designers through the design process and all that problems have
been solved before by nature so that, there is no reason to rethink for solutions for problems
which has been solved. By looking to science, it is important to develop biological materials
and controlling their behavior in order to generate new biological materials. By looking to
creativity, it is playing an important role in the designer's way of thinking and the idea which
is being assumed to be realized in a building.
When it comes to the ability of generating forms and their transformation, there
must be computers in order to simulate models. Depending on the digital media in order to
generate forms is called morphogenesis. When it is used in architecture field, it is called
digital morphogenesis, but when it is used in the biological field, it is called biological
morphogenesis. What distinguishes the digital morphogenesis is that, its study of form
depends on different approaches like topology, non-Euclidian geometries or NURBS. When
studying biological morphogenesis, it depends on studying plant's life for example; their
variables are called Fibonacci phyllotaxis like growth, overlapping, hierarchy or dynamic
structure. Each one of them has its different variables and its way of dealing to realize full
use of it characteristics.
After reviewing what has been concluded from these two chapters. The main
conclusion of this second part is that the design process must be oriented to be biologically
as that would be very useful for nature. It became important to depend on a bio inspired
design approach as a new approach for designing. The forms which are being generated from
that approach are being distinguished with one of plant's Fibonacci phyllotaxis.
The third part is discussing the complete integration which is expected to be

realized between the first part which is specified for generative design and programming and
the second part which is specified for bio inspired design approach and morphogenesis.
Finally it has been concluded that using computers as a generative tool to

generate forms depending on a programming language, besides following a biological
approach of design through making full use of the similarities between architecture and
biology. They both deal with inputs and producing outputs, and both need a computer for
simulating models. When the designer follows the bio inspired design approach of designing,
a proto type is being produced, then, trying to apply one of plant's Fibonacci phyllotaxis in
the prototype. All these operations are being simulated by using a computer so that, there
would be variety of the outcomes but they all belong to one family. After selecting the
building, it would be engineered and detailed through an architectural program in order to
be implemented.
Using programs
There are three categories of programs which have been used during this
research
x 2D Architectural Drawings Programs

x Biological Simulation Programs
x Parametric Design Programs
In the first category, there are a lot of programs but, AUTOCAD is the one which
has been used in this research. AUTOCAD is an architectural program which is used in all
2D drawings like diagrams, analysis or any 2D architectural drawings.
In the second category, there are a lot of programs but, X-frog is the one which
has been used in this research. X-frog is a biological program which is used to express the
idea of branching system. Usually this program is being used in order to simulate the plants
life but, it has been used in a different way in this thesis as it is used to became a new
approach of designing buildings by starting form a biological object. By making
deformations on the biological element for example starting from a tree depending on the
available variables exist in that program like the length of the tree which indicates the tall of
the building, shape of the stem and its width and many variables that make deformation of
the tree shape easier. After finishing deformation and settled on the form, the role of
architectural drawings appeared by depending on the third category of programs.
In the third category, Rhino Ceros and 3ds Max is architectural programs which
are consider to be 3D parametric programs which are mainly used in 3d drawings to generate
forms. In this research these programs have been used to make detailed drawings for the
forms generated from X-frog program.
Figure 112: Programs Timeline Source: (The Researcher, 2015)

References
1. Abelson, H., & Sussman, G. J. (1996). Structure and interpretation of computer
programs. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
2. Adeel, Z., Safriel, U., Niemeijer, D., White, R., De Kalbermatten, G., Glantz, M., et
al. (2007). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis, a Report
of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC, USA: World Resources
Institute.
3. Agkathidis, A. (2011). Computational architecture - Digital designing tools and

manufacturing techniques. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, The Lebanese
American University .
4. Aguar, C., & Aguar, B. (2003). Wrightscapes: Frank Lloyd Wright‘s Landscape
Designs. New York: M Graw-Hill.
5. Ahlquist, S., & Menges, A. (2011). Computational Design Thinking. Computation

Design Thinking. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
6. Aish, R. (2005). From Intuition to Precision. Digital Design: The Quest for New
Paradigms (pp. 10-14). Portugal: eCAADe.
7. Alexander, C. (1964). A Much Asked Question about Computers and Design.

Architecture and the Computer. Boston: Boston Architectural Center.
8. Alexander, C. (2005). The Nature of Order. Berkeley, California: Routledge.
9. Bazjanac, V. (1975). The promises and the disappointments of computer-aided

design. In N. Negroponte, Reflections on Computer Aids to Design and Architecture
(pp. 17-26). New York: Petrocelli / Charter.
10. Belhadj, T. (1989). Computer Aided Architectural Evaluation and Design (A cost
Modeling Experiments). Un-published doctoral thesis, Faculty of Architectural
Studies, Department of Architecture . Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield.
11. Bell, S. (2012). Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. London: Routledge.
12. Bohnacker, H., Gross, B., Laub, J., & Lazzeroni, C. (2012). Generative Design:
Visualize, Program, and Create with Processing. Berlin: Princeton Architectural
Press .
13. Bohr, N. (1971). Physics and Beyond (World Perspectives). New York:
HarperCollins.
14. Brooks, R. A. (2002). Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. New York:
Pantheon Books.
15. Burry, M. (2000, January 21). Paramorph. Paperback, Hypersurface Architecture II

(Architectural Design) . London: Academy Press.
16. Byatt, A. S. (2004). Soul Searching. Guardian , 4.
17. Cache, B. (1995). Earth Moves. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Calinez, P. (1996). Diverse Aspiration in The Modern Architecture. Translated .

Tehran: Qatreh Publication.
19. Celani, E. (2012). CAD Scripting And Visual Programming Languages For
Implementing Computational Design Concepts: A Comparison From A Pedagogical
Point Of View. International journal of architectural computing .
20. Çinici, F. Y., Akipek, F. Ö., & Yazar, T. (2008). Computational Design (Parametric
Modeling and Architectural Education). Journal of The Faculty of Architecture at
Middle East Technical University , 16-23.
21. Corbusier, L. (1927). Towards A New Architecture. New York: Martino Fine Books.
22. Coutinho, F., Costa, E. C., Duarte, J. P., & Kruger, M. (2011). A computational
Interpretation of ”De Re Aedificatoria”: Translating Alberti’s Column System into
A Shape Grammar. Respecting Fragile Places (pp. 799-810). Ljubljana: ECAADE.
23. Cowin, S. C., & Doty, S. B. (2007). Tissue Mechanics. New York: Springer.
24. Cuff, D. (2001). Digital Pedagogy: One educator‘s thoughts on design software‘s
profound effects on design thinking and teaching. Architectural Record .
25. Dalí, S. (1922). Beauty Shall Be Edible or Nothing. Cabinet , Immaterial

Incorporated.
26. Davies, J. A. (2005). Mechanisms of Morphogenesis. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
27. Davis, D., Burry, J., & Burry, M. (2011). Untangling Parametric Schemata:
Enhancing Collaboration Through Modular Programming. In P. Leclercq, A.
Heylighen, & G. Martin, Designing Together - CAAD Futures (pp. 55-78). Liège:
Les Editions de l‟Université de Liège.
28. Dawkins, R. (2000). The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene. London:
Oxford University Press.
29. Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Dollens, D. (2009). Digital-Botanic Architecture. New Mexico: Lumen Books.

31. Dupuy, L., Mackenzie, J., Rudge, T., & Haseloff, J. (2008, July 11). A System for
Modelling Cell- Cell Interactions during Plant Morphogenesis. Annals of Botany ,
pp. 1255-1265.
32. Dyson, F. (2001, March 13). edge. Retrieved July 13, 2014, from www.edge.org:
www.edge.org/conversation/is-life-analog-or-digital
33. Eisenman, P. D., Gass, W., & Gutman, R. (1977, June 6). House VI (Frank
Residence) in Cornwall, Connecticut. Progressive Architecture , pp. 57-67.
34. El-khaldi, M. (2007). Mapping boundries of generative systems for design synthesis.
Unpublished Master of Science Thesis . Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT.
35. Fischer, T., Ceccato, C., & Frazer, J. (2001). Haptic Programming with Machine-
Readable Models. In M. Burry, M. Sambit, A. Dawson, & J. Rollo, The Proceedings
of Mathematics and Design. Geelong: School of Architecture and Building, School
of Computing & Mathematics, Deakin University : Mathematics & Design
Association.
36. Frazer, J. (1995). An Evolutionary Architecture: Themes VII. London: Architectural

Association.
37. Frazer, J. (1995). Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association .
38. Galiano, L. F., & Cariño, G. (2000). Fire and Memory: On Architecture and Energy.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
39. Gandelsonas, M. (1982). From Structure to Subject: The Formation of An

Architectural Language. In P. Eisenman, House X (pp. 6-29). New York: Rizzoli.
40. Gero, J., & Tyugu, E. (1994). Formal Design Methods for CAD. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
41. Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Predictable Creativity. In S. G. Isaksen, Frontiers of

creativity research: Beyond the basics. New York: Bearly Ltd.
42. Guidera, S. (2011). Conceptual Design Exploration in Architecture Using Parametric

Generative Computing : A case Study. Connecting Concepts in Sustainable Design
and Digital Fabrication: A Project-Based Learning Case Study (pp. 2728-2748).
Bowling Green: American Society for Engineering Education.
43. Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. New York: Creative Education
Foundation.
44. Gursel, İ. D. (2012). Creative Design Exploration By Parametric Generative Systems

In Architecture. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Middle East Technical
University , 207-224.
45. Hanna, R., & Barber, R. (2001). An Inquiry Into Computers in Design: Attitudes
Before-Attitudes After. Design Studies , 255-283.
46. Hays, K. M. (2000). Architecture theory since 1968. Cambridge: MIT Press.
47. Hensel, M., & Menges, A. (2008). Morpho-Ecologies (Towards an Inclusive

Discourse on Heterogeneous Architecture). Architectural Association , 20.
48. Hensel, M., Menges, A., & Weinstock, M. (2004). Emergence: Morphogenetic
Design Strategies. London: Academy Press.
49. Hensel, M., Menges, A., & Weinstock, M. (2010). Emergent technologies and
design: towards a biological paradigm for architecture. London: Routledge.
50. Herr, C. M., & Kvan, T. (2007). Adapting Cellular Automata to Support The
Architectural Design Process. Automation in Construction , 61 – 69.
51. Herrmann, W. (1984). Gottfried Semper: In Search of Architecture. Cambridge: MIT

Press.
52. Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory

Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence.
Cambridge: A Bradford Book.
53. Htin, M. Z., & San, D. T. (2002). Study on Bio-Architecture and Design Approach
for Houses in Upland Cool Climate Region of Myanmar (Shan State). Journal of The
Technological University, Thanlyin .
54. İcmeli, B. M. (2014). Digital Morphogenesis in Architectural Design. Design

Methodologies. İstanbul: ARCHDESIGN.
55. İçmeli, B. M. (2014). Digital Morphogenesis in Architectural Design. Contemporary

Disscutions and Design Methodologies. Istanbul: Dakam.
56. Isaacson, W. (2011). ISteve: The Book of Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.
57. Isaksen, S. G. (1995). CPS: Linking Creativity and Problem Solving. In G.

Kaufmann, T. Helstrup, & K. H. Teigen, Problem Solving and Cognitive Processes
(pp. 145-181). Bergen-Sandviken: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjorke AS.
58. Isakson, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2011). Creative Approaches to
Problem Solving A Framework for Innovation and Change. London: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
59. Jenkin, S., & Zari, M. P. (2009). Rethinking Our Built Environments: Towards A
Sustainable Future. Wellington: Ministry for The Environment.
60. Klinger, K. R. (2001). Making Digital Architecture: Historical, Formal and

Structural Implications of Computer Controlled Fabrication and Expressive Form.
Digital Design Media (pp. 239-244). Helsinki: ECAADE.
61. Knight, T., & Stiny, G. (2001). Classical and Non-Classical Computation.
Architectural Research Quarterly , 355-372.
62. Kolarevic, B. (2005). Architecture in The Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing.
New York: Taylor & Francis.
63. Kolarevic, B. (2000). Digital Architectures. Eternity, Infinity and Virtuality in

Architecture (pp. 251-256). Washington DC: ACADIA.
64. Kolarevic, B. (2000). Digital Morphogenesis and Computational Architectures.

Constructing The Digital Space (pp. 98-103). Rio de Janeiro: SIGRADI.
65. Kolarevic, B., & Malkawi, A. (2005). Performative Architecture: Beyond

Instrumentality. New York: Routledge.
66. Kotnik, T. (2007). Computer as Algorithmic Machine. Algorithmic Architecture.

Zurich: CAAD.
67. Krish, S. (2011). A Practical Generative Design Method. Computer-Aided Design ,

88-100.
68. Leach, N. (2009). Digital Morphogenesis. Architectural Design , 32-37.
69. Leitão, A., Santos, L., & Lopes, J. (2012). Programming Languages for Generative
Design: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Architectural Computing ,
139-162.
70. Lynn, G. (1999). Animate Form. New Jersey: Princeton Architectural Press.
71. MacArthur, J., & Crist, G. (2003). The Aesthetics of Public Space. Architecture
Australia , 46-64.
72. Maeda, J., & Antonelli, P. (1999). Design by Numbers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
73. Mahmoudinejad, H. (2010). Bio-Architecture. Tehran: Tehran Publication.
74. Mattheck, C. (2004). Design in Nature: Learning from Trees. Berlin: Springer.
75. Mayes, R. (2010). Book review: Robert Carlson‘s Biology is Technology: The
Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life. Journal of Evolution &
Technology , 55-59.
76. McDonough, W. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.
New York: North Point Press.
77. Mcdonough, W., & Braungart, M. (1998). The Next Industrial Revolution. The
Altantic .
78. Menzies, T. (2002). Evaluation Issues for Visual Programming Languages. In S. K.

Chang, Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering-Vol.2
Emerging Tecnologies (pp. 93-101). London: World Scientific Pub Co Inc.
79. Mies van der Rohe, L. (1959). Restraint in Design. Herald Tribune .
80. Milne, M. (1975). Whatever Became of Design Methodology. In N. Negroponte,

Reflections on Computer Aids to Design and Architecture (pp. 30-36). Michigan:
Petrocelli & Charter.
81. Mitchell, W. J. (2000). E-Topia. Cambridge: MIT Press.
82. Mitchell, W. J. (1978). The Theoretical Foundation of Computer-Aided

Architectural Design. Environment and Planning B Journal , 127-150.
83. Morrison, H., & Samuelson, T. J. (2001). Louis Sullivan: Prophet of Modern
Architecture. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
84. Myers, B. A. (1990). Taxonomies of Visual Programming and Program

Visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing , 97-123.
85. Myers, W. (2012). BioDesign. New York: Thames & Hudson, Ltd.
86. Myers, W. (2014). Exhibition on the Cross-Pollination of Nature, Science and

Creativity. Rotterdam: Het Nieuwe Instituut Museumpark.
87. Negroponte, N. (1975). Reflections on Computer Aids to Design and Architecture.

New York: Petrocelli & Charter.
88. Negroponte, N. (1975). The Architecture Machine: Toward a More Human

Environment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
89. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The Processes of Creative Thinking.
In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer, Contemporary Approaches to
Creative Thinking. A Symposium Held at The University of Colorado (pp. 63-119).
New York: Atherton.
90. Noller, R. B. (1979). Scratching The Surface of Creative Problem Solving: A Bird's
Eye View of CPS. New York: Buffalo.
91. Österlund, T. (2010). Methods for Morphogenesis and Ecology in Architecture -

Designing The Bothnian Bay Cultural Center. Unpublished, Diploma Work for
University of Oulu . Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu, Department of Architecture.
92. Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and Design in The First Digital Age. Design Studies ,
229-265.
93. Park, K., & Holt, N. (2010). Parametric Design Process of a Complex Building in
Practice Using Programmed Code as Master Model. International Journal of
Architectural Computing , 359-376.
94. Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Guide to Creative Action. In W.
A. Pasmore, The Socio-Technical Systems Perspective. New York: Wiley.
95. Piegl, L., & Tiller, W. (1997). The NURBS Book (Monographs in Visual
Communication). New York: Springer.
96. Pietilä, R. (1966). Kalevan kirkko. Finnish Architectural Review , 152-159.
97. Pourjafar, M. R., Mahmoudinejad, H., & Ahadian, O. (2011). Design with Nature in
Bio-Architecture Whit emphasis on the Hidden Rules of Natural Organism.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology .
98. Purcell, H. (1975). United Kingdom. In N. Negroponte, Reflections on Computer

Aids to Design and Architecture (pp. 207-223). New York: Petrocelli & Charter.
99. Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us.
New York: Harper Collins.
100. Rocker, I. M. (2006). When Code Matters. Architectural Design , 16-25.
101. Roudavski, S. (2009). Towards Morphogenesis in Architecture. International

Journal of Architectural Computing , 345-374.
102. Rudge, T., & Haseloff, J. (2005). A Computational Model of Cellular

Morphogenesis in Plants. Heidelberg: Springer.
103. Ruskin, J. (1849). The Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York: Dover
Publications.
104. Salingaros, N. A. (2007). A Theory of Architecture. Solingen: ISI Distributed

Titles.
105. Salingaros, N. A. (2004). Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction. Solingen:

ISI Distributed Titles.
106. Salingaros, N. A., & Masden, K. G. (2006). Architecture: Biological Form

and Artificial Intelligence. The Structurist , 54-61.
107. Schmitt, G. (1987). Expert Systems in Design Abstraction and Evaluation. In

Y. E. Kalay, Principles of Computer-Aided Design: Computability of Design (pp.
213-244). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
108. Shaw, G. B. (1950). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved april 24, 2014, from

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes:
http://www.brainyquote.com/citation/quotes/quotes/g/georgebern107633.html?ct=
George+Bernard+Shaw
109. Shea, K. (2004). Directed randomness. In N. Leach, D. Turnbull, & C.

Williams, Digital Tectonics (pp. 10-23). London: Academy Press.
110. Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
111. Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary. London:
Oxford University Press.
112. Skiena, S. S. (2008). Algorithm Design Manual. London: Springer.
113. Soddu, C., & Colabella, E. (1995). Recreating The City‘s Identity with A
Morphogenetic Urban Design. Making the Cities Livable. Freiburg: Freiburg-im-
Breisgau.
114. Sprankle, M., & Hubbard, J. (2012). Problem Solving and Programming
Concepts. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
115. Stiny, G. (2012). An Open Conversation About Design And Calculating.

Dosya Computational Design , 6-11.
116. Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars. Environment

and Planning B: Planning and Design , 343-351.
117. Sudbo, B. (1988). "Reports Zurich '87": Architectural Education and The
Information Explosion. Zurich: The European Association for Architectural
Education.
118. Sullivan, L. H. (1967). A system of Architectural Ornament According with

A Philosophy of Man's Powers. New York: The Eakins Press.
119. Tang, P.-Y., & Chang, T.-W. (2005). Mutating 3D Generative Form with Co-
Evolve Approach. Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (pp. 266-
271). New Delhi: CAAD.
120. Terzidis, K. (2006). Algorithmic Architecture. Oxford: Routledge.
121. Terzidis, K. (2003). Expressive Form: A conceptual Approach to

Computational Design. New York: Routledge.
122. Tom, K. (Director). (2010). High Performance by Integrative Design

[Motion Picture].
123. Torrance, E. P. (1970). Encouraging Creativity in The Classroom. Dubuque:

Wm: Brown Co.
124. Turing, A. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind , 433-460.
125. Vardouli, T. (2011). The Digital Liminal (Learning from the Computational
Transition in Architecture). Rethinking the Human in Technology Driven
Architecture (pp. 539-549). Chania: European Network of Heads of Schools of
Architecture & European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE).
126. Vidler, A. (2001). Warped Space: Art, Architecture, and Anxiety in Modern
Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
127. Vincent, J. (2009). Biomimetic Patterns in Architectural Design.

Architectural Design , 74-81.
128. Waddington, C. H. (1956). Principles of Embryology. London: Allen and

Unwin.
129. Weinstock, M. (2008). Introduction. In M. Hensel, & A. Menges, Morpho -

Ecologies (Towards an Inclusive Discourse on Heterogeneous Architecture) (p. 12).
London: AA Publications.
130. Weinstock, M. (2006). Self-Organisation and The Structural Dynamics of

Plants. Architectural Design , 26-33.
131. Weinstock, M. (2010). The Architecture of Emergence: The Evolution of

Form in Nature and Civilization. Oxford: Wiley & Sons.
132. Wolfram, S. (2001). A New Kind of Science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.
133. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our

Common Future, Share The World's Resources. Oslo: WCED.
134. Zellner, P. (2000). Hybrid Space: New Forms in Digital Architecture. New
York: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Appendix
X-frog | Reference Manual
Interface
The main X-frog interface is divided up into six sub windows;
1) The Hierarchy Editor

2) The Model view window
3) The Parameter editor
4) Libraries window
5) The Animation editor
6) The Animation Control
1-The hierarchy Editor

The “Hierarchy Editor” is the place where the
structure of the model is being created. The structure is set up
by linking different components to the model hierarchy.
Title Bar. The title bar of the “Hierarchy Editor”

displays its name and allows the editor to be extracted from the
main window.
Show Components radio button. It displays the

icons of the different components in the “Hierarchy Editor”.
Show Primitives radio button. It displays the

icons of the primitives that are assigned to the components in
the “Hierarchy Editor” window.
Editing Space. In the “Editing Space” the actual model hierarchy is built by
creating and linking components. The “Editing Space” provides scroll bars view large
hierarchies.
Link pull down menu. Allows to change the type of link connecting two
components. Every component that is linked to the hierarchy will use the link type specified
in the pull down menu. If this link type is not available with the current components the
default link type of the parent component will be applied. The default link type of the Link
pull down menu is multiple. The “Link” pull down menu has the same functionality as the
“Set Link Type” command in the “Edit” menu.
Link types. The model hierarchy is set by linking components together. Thus
the structure of a model is determined by which components are connected and how they are
connected. The link type specifies the way in which components are connected. There are
two different link types in X-frog, the “Simple” link and the “Multiple” link.
Each of the different components in X-frog provides structural information on

how to place geometry in space. Every component generates one or more origins where this
geometry is created. For example, a “Simple” component generates only one origin and a
”Tree” component creates several of them used to multiply branches. In every origin it is
possible either to create geometry (primitives) or to connect a new component.

Connecting one component to a second with a simple link will connect the new
component to the last origin that is generated by the previous component. This means when
you connect one “Horn” to a second the new component will be created on top of the first
one. Connecting the two components with a “Multiple” link will create the new component
in every origin generated by the first component. In the “Horn” example the second “Horn”
will be connected to the first like ribs.
The choice between “Simple” and “Multiple” link is not available with every
component. The “Simple” component provides only the simple link and there are others,
like the “PhiBall” component, that only provide the “Multiple” link. With the two basic link
types it is possible to turn the re-use function on or off. As Xfrog models can be very complex
– just imagining a big tree with thousands of branches and leafs –the re-use function is being
introduced.
ReUse check box. It switches the re-use function of the selected link on and off.
The “ReUse” check box has the same functionality as the “Re-Use Link” command in the
“Edit” menu. When using a multiplier component such as the “Horn” in the previous
example, a high number of subsequent components (the ribs) may be created. With the re-
use function turned on, only one rib is calculated and then copied to the other origins. In this
case all ribs look exactly the same. Turning the re-use function on allows to drastically
reduce the amount of polygons in the model and, to speed up calculation time.
In some cases it is desirable that the multiplied instances look different. In a

tree model, all branches are wanted to look different; it is wanted to scale them according
to their location on the trunk etc. In this case it is necessary to turn the re-use function off
and allow every instance to have its own parameters.
Copy button. It copies the selected component. The “Copy” button has the same
functionality as the “Copy Component” command in the “Edit” menu.

CopyAll button. It Copies the selected component and all subsequent
components. The “CopyAll” button has the same functionality as the “Copy Component And
Children” command in the “Edit” menu.

Hide button. It Hides the selected component and all subsequent components.
The “Hide” button has the same functionality as the “Hide” command in the “Edit” menu.
Components that are hidden in the “Hierarchy Editor” are also removed from the model
exported with one of the “Export” or “Export Sequence” functions.
Group button. It combines the selected component and all subsequent

components in a group. The “Group” button has the same functionality as the “Group”
command in the “Edit” menu.
Delete button. It deletes the selected component. Components can also be

deleted by pressing the “Delete” key. The “Delete” button has the same functionality as the
“Delete Component” command in the “Edit” menu.
2- Libraries Window
The “Libraries” window gives access to all constructive elements in Xfrog. It
provides two tabs: the “Components” tab and the “Primitives” tab. By switching between
these tabs, it has either direct access to all available components or to all available primitives.
To create a new component, the component should be dragged from the “Libraries” window
into the “Hierarchy Editor”. To assign a new primitive to a component, drag the primitive
from the “Libraries” window onto the component.
Xfrog provides on one hand the normal geometrical primitives such as cube,
sphere etc. and, on the other hand it provides components that define how the geometry is
structured in space. All geometry is bound to components. This means that when it is
wanted to create just a single sphere, firstly it has to define how the sphere is organized in
space. This could be done by linking a component to that model hierarchy and then
assigning the desired primitive to the component. The sphere for example is made by
creating a “Simple” component and assigning the “Sphere” primitive to it.
3-Model View Window

In the center of the interface, it is found the “Model View” window. This is the
window where the graphical output of X-frog is displayed and where the model could be
viewed.
Navigation
The following are the possibilities for interactive navigation in the “Model
View”.

Rotation. It can be achieved by holding down the left mouse button and drag to rotate
the view. The center of the rotation is the origin of the global coordinate system.

Shift. Hold down the right mouse button and drag to shift the view sideways.
Dolly. Hold down both mouse button and drag to dolly in and out.
Menu Bar. The menu located in the upper part of the “Model View” window provides
functions to control how the model is displayed in the “Model View” window. It provides
the topics “Shading”, “Display”, “Background” and “Camera”.
x Wireframe Displays the triangle mesh of the model as a wireframe. The wireframe
can be combined with a shaded display.
x Shading Displays the model flat shaded.
x Gouraud Displays the model with smooth shading.

Display Menu
x Show/Hide Vertices. Switches the display of the vertex points of all primitives on
and off. The vertex points are the corner points of the triangles your model consists
of.
x Show/Hide Normals. Switches the display of the Normals of all surfaces in your
model on and off. The Normals are vectors defining which direction the surface will
reflect light.
x Show/Hide Local Axis. Switches the display of the axis of the local coordinate
system of all objects in your model on and off. Every component has its individual
coordinate system which is relative to the orientation of the component in the global
coordinate system.
x Show/Hide World Axis. Switches the display of the axis of the global coordinate
system on and off.
x Show/Hide Splines. Switches the display of the vector along which point list
primitives are multiplied on and off.
x Show/Hide Attractors. Switches the display of all “Attractor” primitives in your
model on and off.
x Show/Hide Textures. Switches the display of all textures used in your model on
and off.
x Edit Background Color. Opens a color editor window to specify the background
color of the “Model View” window.
Camera
x Store View. Saves the current view.

x Recall View. Recalls a previously saved view.
x Reset View. Resets the view to the parameters specified in the “Camera”.
x Fit To Window. Dollies the view so that the entire model is displayed in the “Model
View" window.
x Lock X Axis. Constrains the rotation to the X Axis. This can be useful to prevent
unintentional changes of the interactive camera in other directions than the desired
one. The locking function works as a toggle switch.
x Lock Y Axis. Constrains the rotation to the Y Axis. The locking function works as
a toggle switch.
x Lock Z Axis. Constrains the rotation to the Z Axis. The locking function works as a
toggle switch.
4- Parameter Editor Window

The “Parameter Editor” window gives access to all parameters of the different
components. It is context sensitive and displays always the parameters of the selected
component. If no component is selected the window is empty.
Normally the “Parameter Editor” provides four tabs except for the “Simple”
component and the “Camera”).
The first one is named according

to the selected component type and contains
all parameters that are specific to this
component.
The second to fourth tabs are

common to all components. The second tab is
called “Basic” and contains basic parameters
such as placement in 3D space etc.
The third tab is called

“Primitive” and contains all parameters
concerning the primitive assigned to the
component.
The fourth tab is called

“Material” and contains all parameters
concerning color and texture assigned to the
component.

Controls
The “Parameter Editor” window provides several different controls to specify
values.
Text fields
Text fields are used to type in text or numbers. Place the cursor in a text field
and it changes to a text cursor. Type in the value and press the return key to confirm the
settings. If not confirmed the settings are not applied.
Sliders
Sliders are used to specify a numeric value. The value can either be set by
clicking into the slider field and dragging or by typing them into the text field left from the
slider field. The range of the slider is indicated by the two numbers above the slider ends. It
can be changed by double clicking one of the numbers. The number turns into a text field
allowing you to type in the new value. Pressing the return key confirms the settings and
removes the text field.
Double sliders
Double sliders are used to specify a range value. They are used with multiplier
components and allow to successively changing the multiplied instances. If for example it is
wanted to multiply several boxes with decreasing size, define a scaling factor is used for the
first box with the upper slider and a scaling factor for the last box. The intermediate values
are interpolated and produce an evenly decreasing size of your boxes.
A mathematical function that is used to calculate the intermediate values could

be assigned. The function can be selected from the pull down menu left from the double
slider. The menu offers a number of predefined functions and, also allows specifying the
functions by selecting “custom...” from the menu.
Pull Down Menus
Pull down menus are used to

select from a choice of predefined
possibilities. Click the menu field to make
a list of available options appear. Select
the desired option.
Radio Buttons
Radio buttons are used to exclusively switch between several options. Click the
corresponding button to turn the desired option on and all others off.
Graph Editors
x Graph editors are used to specify

values depending on two variables. They are only used in the “Tree” component where
it is necessary to specify a certain value for a specific location.
x The X-axis of the graph editor is referring to the length of a branch or trunk and the Y-
axis is referring to the value that is specified. The settings are changed by dragging the
points defining the graph.
x The graph editor in the “Parameter Editor” window is only for rough editing. Clicking
the “Edit” button left from the graph editor open a separate window where the graph can
be edited more precisely.
x Here one or more points can be selected by clicking (for multiple selection shift-
clicking) them and move them
around by dragging them.
x Points could be added to the graph
by double clicking at the location
where it is wanted to insert a point.
x Points are deleted by selecting them

and pressing the backspace key. To
deselect points click somewhere in
the window.
x Points can be inserted and removed

by adjusting the “Resolution” slider
at the bottom of the window.
Spline Editor
Some components like the “Tree” component provide spline editors for certain
parameters. The curvature of a tree’s trunk can be defined by a spline. Toggling the “Spline”
option in the “Tree” component’s parameters to “on” brings up a button called “Points”.
Clicking this button opens the spline editor window.
x The navigation inside the “Spline Editor” is the same like in the “Model View”
window: Left mouse-button for rotation, right mouse-button for translation and both
mouse-buttons for zooming.
x The editing process of the spline is the almost same as in the “Graph Editor”: Points
can be selected by clicking them and moved by dragging the selected point. It is
possible to select several points at a time by shift-clicking them. New points can be
added by double-clicking onto the spline. Points can be deleted by selecting the
point(s) to be deleted and then pressing the backspace-button.
x In the bottom area of the Spline Editor window are three button labeled “View X”,
“View Y” and “View Z” which allow constraining the view to the corresponding
axis.
Material Parameters
The “Material” tab contains all parameters
concerning color and texture. Colors and textures can
either be inherited from the parent component or they can
be assigned explicitly for a component. By default colors
and textures are inherited and passed through the whole
hierarchy. This is done as long as no other color or texture
is defined in a subsequent component.
Name
Indicates the name of the selected component.
The name can be changed in the text field.
Color
Provides two radio buttons to switch between
color inheritance and local color definition. If “Color” is
set to “inherited”, the component will use the color
definition made in one of the parent components. If
“Color” is set to “set”, several controls to define the color
are displayed.
Name
Provides a text field where a name can be specified for the color. This is useful
when the model is being exported in order to recognize the color and indicate shaders after
importing it into other modeling software.

Alpha
Provides a slider to specify the degree of transparency of the component. The
limits of the slider are fixed to the range from 0 to 1.
Diffuse
Allows to specify a color for the diffuse part of the light reflected by the
component. The color is shown in a preview field. Left from the preview field is an “Edit”
button that opens a color editor to specify the color.
Ambient
Allows to specify a color for the ambient light that illuminates the component.
The color is shown in a preview field. Left from the preview field is an “Edit” button that
opens a color editor to specify the color.
Specular
Allows to specify a color for the part of the light reflected by the highlights of
the component. The color is shown in a preview field. Left from the preview field is an
“Edit” button that opens a color editor to specify the color.
Emission
Allows to specify a color for the light emitted by the component. The color is
shown in a preview field. Left from the preview field is an “Edit” button that opens a color
editor to specify the color.
Texture
Provides two radio buttons to switch between texture inheritance and local
texture definition. If “Texture” is set to “inherited”, the component will use the texture
defined in one of the parent components. If “Texture” is set to “set”, several controls to
assign and control the texture for the component are displayed.

Name
Provides a text field where a name can be specified for the texture. This is useful
when the model is being exported in order to recognize the texture after importing it into
other modeling software.

FileName
Provides a text field to specify the name of the image which to be assigned as a
texture to the selected component. Clicking the “Browse” button left from the text field
opens a dialog box where the image file could be selected to be assigned. Xfrog supports
PNG files and RGB files that can contain alpha channels.
Shift U
Provides a slider to specify a value to shift the texture in direction of the U-axis.
Textures have an individual coordinate system with the U-axis and the V-axis referring to
the flat image. This allows to easily displace textures independently from the coordinate
system of the model.
Shift V
Provides a slider to specify a value to shift the texture in direction of the V-axis.

Scale U
Provides a slider to specify a value to scale the texture in direction of the U-axis.
Scale V
Provides a slider to specify a value to scale the texture in direction of the V-axis.
Mapping
Provides a pull down menu to specify the way in which the texture is applied to
the model. In “none” mode the texture is mapped onto the surface of the object and scaled
so that it fits exactly on the surface. In “linear” mode the texture is repeated on the object’s
surface as often as it fits onto it. The texture is not scaled. In “reflection” mode the texture
is projected onto the object’s surface and scaled to fit onto it. In this mode the texture stays
fixed to the environment of the object and is reflected by the object as if it had a mirroring
surface. When the object is turned in space the texture does not turn with it but remains in
its initial position.

Color Editor
Clicking the “Edit” button in the “Material > Color” section opens the “Color
Editor”. The editor provides several controls to define a color.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Clicking into the rainbow color field or into one of the fields containing plain
color allows to select a color. The brightness of the selected color can be adjusted with the
gradient slider at the right side of the editor window. The selected color is displayed in the
preview field at the bottom of the editor window.
A color can be specified by typing either the RGB values or the HSB values
into the fields below the rainbow color field. The color that is visible in the preview field
can be added to the list of custom colors by clicking the “Add To Custom Colors” button.
Clicking the “OK” button assigns the color to your model.
5- Animation Editor Window

The “Animation Editor” window is the place where adding life to the Xfrog
models. It is possible to animate nearly every parameter of Xfrog models. The only
properties that cannot be animated are material parameters such as colors and textures.
The “Animation Editor” window and the “Animation Control” window are
tightly connected as the “Animation Control” window provides all the controls to edit and
view the animation sequence that is built in the “Animation Editor” window.
The “Animation Editor” consists of the timeline and the animation track. The
timeline provides a timeslider (the little black triangle) that can be moved back and forth to
view the animation and to access different times. The animation track contains the keyframes
of the animation.
The timeline ranges between 0 and 1. This timeframe can be subdivided into a
variable amount of frames. By default the amount is set to 100 frames. To speed up the
animation you have to specify a smaller amount whereas a higher amount will slow it down.
The amount of frames is set in the “Animation Control” window which is described below.
The amount of frames also influences the number of images or models that are
exported when one of the “Export Sequence” functions is being selected in the “File Menu”.
A value of 100 frames will produce 100 images or models, while a value of e.g. 50 frames
will produce 50 images/models throughout the animation sequence. In both cases the whole
animation sequence is exported but with bigger or smaller intervals. The timeline indicates
the frames with tickmarks.
The limits of the animation sequence can be changed by moving the startand
end-marks of the timeline. Thus it is possible e.g. to export only a part of the entire sequence.
Left from the animation track are two check-boxes

called “Edit” and “Cam”. Checking the “Edit” option makes the
track editable, unchecking it prevents editing.
Checking the “Cam” option displays the camera

positions that have been keyed, unchecking it, switches to the
interactive camera display.
6- Animation Control Window

The “Animation Control” window provides all means that are necessary to
control animation like playing the animation, setting keyframes, determining the speed etc.
Keyframe Section
New button
Creates a new keyframe at the current position of the timeslider.
Cpy button
Duplicates the selected keyframe.
Del button
Deletes the selected keyframe.
Cam button
Stores the position of the interactive camera in the currently selected keyframe.
Playback Section
Rewind button
Moves the timeslider to the beginning of the animation sequence.
Step-back button
Moves the timeslider one frame back.
Play-reverse button
Plays the animation in reversed order.
Play button
Plays the animation.
Step-forward button
Moves the timeslider one frame forward.
Fast-forward button
Moves the timeslider to the end of the aniamtion sequence.
Time Section
Frm field
Displays the number of the frame at the current position of the timeslider. Typing
a number into this field moves the timeslider to the corresponding position.
Frms field
Displays the amount of frames the animation sequence contains. The amount of
frames determines the speed of the animation. The higher the value the slower and smoother
the animation is. This value also determines the number of images or models that are
exported when choosing the “Export Sequence” command.

Loop pull-down menu
Determines if the animation is played back in a continuous loop which starts
always at the beginning of the animation and plays to the end; if the animation swings
continuously back and forth from the beginning to the end and from the end to the beginning;
or if the animation is played only once from the beginning to the end.

Time field
Displays the time value of the current position of the timeslider. Typing a
number into this field moves the timeslider to the corresponding position. The time value
will always be a number between 0 and 1.
Summary
Design is the way of building up a possible figurative utopia or metaphor about
life, it is indeed about life and environment is part of life, so that designs should be biological,
their forms could be inspired from any biological element, all technical systems could be
biological systems, forms could be distinguished by the most important advantages of nature
which are growth and adaptation.
Bio design goes further than other biology-inspired approaches to design and
fabrication. Unlike bio-mimicry, cradle to cradle, and the popular but frustratingly vague
'green design,' bio-design refers specially to the incorporation of living organisms as
essential components, enhancing the function of the finished work. It goes beyond mimicry
to integration, dissolving boundaries and synthesizing new hybrid typologies.
Bio-design is a complete integration between 1. Nature as a source of all designs
and had already solved all challenges that face designers during the design process so there
is no need to search for solutions for that challenges. 2. Science which had a great effect with
the new technology used in buildings and the revolution of using new materials and the
science of genetics which enable doing modifications in the material behavior to realize the
wanted specifications. 3. Creativity which had a great effect in the design process and in the
final product like, when depending on nature in the design process that would give the design
more flexibility in form as the designs would had the advantages of nature growth and
adaptation which would distinguish them than any other design.
Besides that, using computers in different phases of architectural design to reach
a complete digital design process is a big dream. After using computers in architecture as a
representative tool and just for implementation, they must be used as a design tool in order
to create a generative system which helps in architecture designing as they are needed to
manage and express the increasing complexity of factors and variables that determine the
design process. There must be a synergetic relationship between the human mind and the
computer system and such synergy is possible only through the use of algorithmic strategies
that ensure a complementary and dialectic relationship between the human to realize,
overcome and ultimately surpass their own physical and mental limitation.
By automating parts of the design process, computers make it easier to develop
designs through versioning and gradual adjustment. These approaches to designing have
been described as morphogenesis.
Studying morphogenesis in biology and architecture as they share some
similarities like: (both deal with entities operating in context and both use computational
models), the differences in goals, epistemology, knowledge base, methods and institutional
organization are significant. Despite the differences and difficulties, direct collaborations
between biology and architecture are necessary not only in the narrow context of the present
discussion but also because they can help to orient designing towards biologically
compatible outcomes. Another, equally exciting outcome of such collaborations will be in
further contributions towards creative inspiration.
Depending on computers in the bio design process is called biological
morphogenesis as it concerns with studying 1) components of organisms develop and
specialize under the influence of contextual conditions such as static and dynamic loads or
the availability of sun light. 2) Evaluating and simulating complex physical performances.
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬

‫‪BIODIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE‬‬ ‫‪148‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻄﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ‪ .‬ﺇﻟﻘﺎء ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻁﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻟﻜﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ‪ ,‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻭﻓﺌﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ) ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨ ﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺃﺭﺍء ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﻅﻴﻔﻪ ﻭﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻔﻴﺪ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﻤﺎ )‪ (Computation & Computerization‬ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺛﻢ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻣﻪ ﻭﺃﺭﺍء ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺆﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻘﻆ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺧﻮﺍﺹ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﻭﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻁﺮﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺈﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ ﻭﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻁﺮﻕ ﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﻣﺠﺔ ﻭﻁﺮﻗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻧﻮﺍﻋﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺳﻮﺍء ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﺔ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺼﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻳﺎﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻰ ﻭﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻭﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻻ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻅﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻰ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﺍﻣﺔ ‪,‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﺛﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻛﻰ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﺮﺽ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺮﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﺘﻨﺤﻴﻬﺎ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ‪ ,‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜ ﻞ ﻭﺃﻧﻮﺍﻋﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻰ ‪ ,‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﻅﻬﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﺧﺮ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻧﺸﺄﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺎء ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﺿﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻡ ﺍﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻻ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎء ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺿﻰ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻮﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻹﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻺﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓﺯ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺯﺭﻉ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺭﻗﻤﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺩ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺛﻢ ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺪﻋﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻠﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺛﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺟﺎء ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻄﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ‪ .‬ﺇﻟﻘﺎء ﺍﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻁﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻟﻜﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻔﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ‪ ,‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻭﻓﺌﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺗﺸﺮﺡ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨ ﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺃﺭﺍء ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻮﻅﻴﻔﻪ ﻭﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻔﻴﺪ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﻤﺎ )‪ (Computation & Computerization‬ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺛﻢ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻣﻪ ﻭﺃﺭﺍء ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺆﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻘﻆ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺧﻮﺍﺹ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﻭﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻁﺮﻗﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺈﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ ﻭﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻁﺮﻕ ﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﻣﺠﺔ ﻭﻁﺮﻗﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻧﻮﺍﻋﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺳﻮﺍء ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﺔ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺼﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻳﺎﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﺮ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﺌﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻰ ﻭﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻭﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻻ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻅﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻰ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﺍﻣﺔ ‪,‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﺛﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻛﻰ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﺮﺽ‬
‫ﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻢ ﻣﻊ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺮﺟﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻮﺿﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﺘﻨﺤﻴﻬﺎ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻯ‪ ,‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜ ﻞ ﻭﺃﻧﻮﺍﻋﻪ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﺩﻓﻊ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻰ ‪ ,‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﻅﻬﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﺧﺮ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻧﺸﺄﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺎء ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﺿﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻡ ﺍﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻻ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎء ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺿﻰ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻮﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻹﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻺﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓﺯ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺯﺭﻉ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺭﻗﻤﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺩ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﺛﻢ ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺪﻋﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻠﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺛﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻤﻠﺨﺺ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺟﺎء ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻮﻅﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻛﺄﺩﺍﺓ ﺍﻅﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺄﺩﺍﺓ ﻣﻮﻟﺪﺓ ﻹﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺗﺤﻮﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻣﺎ ﺝ ﻛﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﺎﺫﺍ ﻓﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﺍﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻬﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺜﻼ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺽ ﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ )‪ (X-Frog‬ﻛﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻣﻤﺜﻞ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﻣﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ) ‪Maya‬‬
‫‪ (– Rhino Ceros‬ﻛﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﻣﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺴﻬﻞ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺗﺤﺎﻛﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻯ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺳﻴﺆﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻅﻬﻮﺭ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻛﻴﻔ ﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪء ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻣﺤﺎﻛﻴﺎ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻯ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺭﻗﻤﻰ ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺑﻪ ﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﺠﺴﻤﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﻧﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﻟﻠﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻤﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻨﺪﺳﻴﺎ ﻭﺗﻔﺼﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻮﻅﻴﻔﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻛﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﻟﻠﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺠﻌﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎﻅﺮ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻁﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻰ ﻗﻴﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﺟﻴﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻓﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ( ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ‬
‫‪ x‬ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﺯ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻛﺄﺩﺍﺓ ﻣﻮﻟﺪﺓ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪ x‬ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪ x‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻹﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺭﻗﻤﻰ ﺣﻴﻮﻯ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻯ‬
‫ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻯ ﻣ ﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﺧﺮ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻩ ﻳﺸﺠﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﻹﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻐﺮﺓ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻣﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﺳﻴﺠﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺳﻬﻮﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻴﺔ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ‪,‬ﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻨﺪﻣﺞ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺣﻴﻮﻯ ﻣﺜﻞ )‪ (X-Frog‬ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ)‪.(Maya – Rhino Ceros‬‬
‫‪ x‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﺱ ﺟﻴﺪﺍ ﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻠﻪ ﻟﻜﻰ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺋﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺛﻼﺙ ﺃﺟﺰﺍء ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻰ ﻟﻠﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻩ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻧﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻁﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪء ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻛﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﻜﺘﻤﻞ ﺗﻮﻅﻴﻔﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻟﻠﻮﺣﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺭﻗﻤﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻛﺎﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﻳﺄﺗﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺯ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺳﻮﺍء ﻛﺄﺩﺍﺓ ﻟﻺﻅﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻗﺤﺎﻣﻪ ﻛﺠﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻁﺮﺡ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺧﻮﺍﺻﻪ ﻭﻣﻤﻴﺰﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻫﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﺆﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﺭﻣﺰ ﻣﻤﻴﺰ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺨﺘﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﻫﻰ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻓﻰ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺅﻫﺎ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺣﻴﻮﻯ ﻭ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻰ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﺣﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺓ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﻴﻮﻯ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻰ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻰ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﻤﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻ ﻭﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻧﺠﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻅﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻣﺘﻔﺮﺩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻳﺒﻌﺪ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻯ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﺣﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﺍﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻣﺤﺎﻛﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍ ﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻏﺎﻣﺾ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﻬﻰ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻛﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﻤﺎ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻗﺐ ﻭﺗﻮﻟﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻤﺎﻁ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻄﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺗﺎﻡ ﺑﻴﻦ )ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ( ﻛﻤﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻰ ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻟﻺﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺍﺟﻬﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺑﺤﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﻴﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮء ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻺﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻫﻮ)ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ( ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺳﻊ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﻓﺘﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﻭﺳﻠﻮﻛﻬﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﻠﺨﻮﺍﺹ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻏﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩﺯ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮﺓ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻹﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﻫﻮ )ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ( ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻟﻪ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻯ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﺮﻭﻧﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻰ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﻤﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﺘﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺍﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﺑﺄﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﺣﻠﻢ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻳﺮﺍﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻛﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ,‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻛﺄﺩﺍﺓ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﻬﻢ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﻌﺎﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻯ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮء ﻹﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻮﻏﺎﺭﻳﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﺐ ﻭﺗﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺃﺟﺰﺍء ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺗﺪﺍﺭ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺠﻰ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑـ )ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻧﻬﻢ ﻳﺤﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﻛﻼﻫﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺗﺪﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻛﻢ ﻭﻛﻼﻫﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻷﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻻ ﻏﻨﻰ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﺐ‬
‫ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﻤﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻫﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﺭﺍﻹﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻋﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺒﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻯ ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻀﻮء ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺗﻔﻴﻴﻢ ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻛﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻭﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻘﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺴﻢ ﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﻮﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫‪..............................‬‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ‪ /‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻝ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‬

‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫‪.............................‬‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﺳﺎﻣﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬

‫ﻣﺪﺭﺱ ﺑﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ‬

‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺟﻤﻌﻪ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻭﺍﻓﻘﻭﻥ‬ ‫ﻟﺟﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻣﻧﺎﻗﺷﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺣﻛﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬

‫‪......................‬‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ‪ /‬ﻣﺣﻣﺩ ﻋﺑﺩﺍﻟﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﺭﺍﻫﻳﻡ‬
‫‪......................‬‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ‪ /‬ﻳﺣﻳﻲ ﻣﺻﻁﻔﻰ ﻣﺣﻣﺩ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻴﻠﺔ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫‪......................‬‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ‪ /‬ﻣﺻﻁﻔﻰ ﻣﺭﺳﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺑﻰ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻳﻝ ﺍﻟﻛﻠﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺑﺣﻭﺙ‬
‫‪......................‬‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ‪.‬ﻣﺟﺩﻯ ﻋﺑﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻅﻳﻡ ﺍﺣﻣﺩ ﺳﻠﻳﻣﺎﻥ‬

‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻳﺔ‬

‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎ ًء ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ً ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺟﻤﻌﻪ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺇﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪2015‬‬

Bio-Digital Morphogenesis in Architecture: An Application On Digital - Botanic Architecture (D.B.A)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bio-Digital Morphogenesis in Architecture: An Application On Digital - Botanic Architecture (D.B.A)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

University of Alexandria

BIO-DIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS IN ARCHITECTURE

An Application on Digital - Botanic Architecture

Presented to the Graduate School

BIO-DIGITAL MORPHOGENESIS INARCHITECTURE

An Application on Digital - Botanic Architecture

Examiners Committee: Approved

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdelall Ibrahim _______________

Prof. Dr. Yehia Mostafa Mohamed _______________

Prof. Dr. Mostafa Morsy El Araby _______________

Vice Dean for Graduate Studies and Research:

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdelall Ibrahim _______________

Dr. Samer Mohamed Adel El Sayary _______________

Indeed, I cannot find words to express my mere gratitude to my generous parents

The big dream beyond using computers in different phases of architectural

Morphogenesis differs between biology and architecture. They share some

Depending on the similarities between them, that would make collaboration

Keywords: Generative design – Morphogenesis - Algorithmic architecture – bio

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Literature review ........................................................................................................... xviii

Part -1- Generative Design and Algorithms.............................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.6.1.1 Grammatical transformative design models. .............................................. 11

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15

Part-2- Bio Inspired Design and Morphogenesis ................................. 33

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 35

3.5.3 Architecture and Biological processes. ......................................................................51

4.5.2.2 Emergence and the fields of indetermination. ............................................ 83

Part -3- Bio Digital Morphogenesis .............................................................. 91

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 93

5.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 117

IV. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2: Chapter (1) Structure. ............................................................................................ 2

Figure 3: Generative Design Elements. ................................................................................ 3

Figure 4: Generative Design Approach ................................................................................ 3

Figure 5: Traditional Design Loop ....................................................................................... 5

Figure 6: Generative Design Loop ....................................................................................... 5

Figure 7: Generative System Concept .................................................................................. 6

Figure 8: A System of Architectural Ornament According with a Philosophy of Man’s

Figure 9: Generative Design Process .................................................................................... 7

Figure 10: Generative Systems Approaches ......................................................................... 8

Figure 11: Generative Model .............................................................................................. 11

Figure 12: Chapter (2) Structure ......................................................................................... 14

Figure 13: Algorithmic Process Done by Using A Computer ............................................ 15

Figure 14: The Computation Process ................................................................................. 15

Figure 15: Computational Design Techniques ................................................................... 20

Figure 16: Algorithmic Problems Classification ................................................................ 24

Figure 17: Three Different Types of Representation of Computational Design Concepts,

Figure 18: Different Types of Programming Language ..................................................... 29

Figure 19: An Example VPL in Grasshopper Interface...................................................... 31

Figure 20: An Example of TPL in AutoCAD Interface ..................................................... 32

Figure 21: Chapter (3) Structure ......................................................................................... 34

Figure 22: Integrated Design Approaches and Concepts of Sustainability ........................ 37

Figure 25: Bio-Design Approach........................................................................................ 39

Figure 26: Bio-Design System............................................................................................ 41

Figure 27: Properties of Living Structure ........................................................................... 43

Figure 28: Noller's Symbolic Formula for Understanding Creativity ................................ 48

Figure 29: The Core Purposes or CPS Process Components ............................................. 50

Figure 31: Bridges of Meghalaya ....................................................................................... 52

Figure 35: House of the Future ........................................................................................... 54

Figure 36: Screw Bases of The Temporary Scaffold.......................................................... 55

Figure 37: Pre-Cultivated Plants in The Greenhouse ......................................................... 55

Figure 38: Assembly with The Crawler Crane ................................................................... 55