Advertisement

Is Biologically Inspired Design Domain Independent?

  • Ashok K. GoelEmail author
  • Christian Tuchez
  • William Hancock
  • Keith Frazer
Conference paper

Abstract

Current theories of biologically inspired design assume that the design processes are domain independent. But is this assumption true? Design Study Library (DSL) is a digital library of eighty-three cases of biologically inspired design collected from a senior-level interdisciplinary class at Georgia Tech over 2006–2013. We describe a preliminary analysis of the DSL case studies. We posit that the assumption about the domain independence is questionable. In particular, some of the parameters in the domains of physiology and sensing appear to be different from the more common domains of mechanics and materials.

Keywords

Digital Library Mechanical Device Pedagogical Technique Problem Decomposition Georgia Tech 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the developers of the Design Study Library, including Gongbo Zhang, Bryan Wiltgen, Swaroop Vattam, and Yuqi Zhang. We are especially grateful to Professor Jeannette Yen, the primary instructor of the Georgia Tech ME/ISyE/MSE/BME/BIOL 4740 class from 2006 through 2013.

References

  1. Altshuller G (1984) Creativity as an exact science: the theory of the solution of inventive problems. translated by Anthony Williams. Gordon & Breach, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Cohen Y (ed) (2011) Biomimetics: nature-based innovation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister D, Tocke R, Dwyer J, Ritter S, Benyus J (2012) Biomimicry resource handbook. Biomimicry 3.8, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  4. Benyus J (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. William Morrow, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhushan B (2009) Biomimetics: lessons from nature—an overview. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367(1893):1445–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonser R, Vincent J (2007) Technology trajectories, innovation, and the growth of biomimetics. Proc Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 221(10):1177–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B, Nataraju B (2005) A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. AIEDAM 19:113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran B (1990) Design problem solving: a task analysis. AI Mag 11(4):59–71Google Scholar
  9. Chandrasekaran B, Josephson J, Benjamins V (1999) What are ontologies and why do we need them? IEEE Intell Syst 14(1):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Deldin JM, Shuknecht M (2014) The AskNature database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In: Goel A, McAdams D, Stone R (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Dym C, Brown DC (2012) Engineering design: representation and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eastman C, Newstetter W, McCracken M (eds) (2001) Design knowing and learning: design cognition in education. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. French M (1985) Conceptual design for engineers, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. French M (1994) Invention and evolution: design in nature and engineering, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gebeshuber IC, Gruber P, Drack M (2009) A gaze into the crystal ball: biomimetics in the year 2059. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 223(12):2899–2918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goel A (1997) Design, analogy and creativity. IEEE Intell Syst 12(3):62–70MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Goel A (2013a) Biologically inspired design: a new program for computational sustainability. IEEE Intell Syst 28(3):80–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goel A (2013b) A 30-year case study and 15 principles: implications of an artificial intelligence methodology for functional modeling. AI EDAM 27(3):203–215Google Scholar
  20. Goel A, McAdams D, Stone R (eds) (2014) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Goel A, Creeden B, Kumble M, Salunke S, Shetty A, Wiltgen B (2015a) Using watson for enhancing human-computer co-creativity. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2015 fall symposium on cognitive assistance, Arlington, VA, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  22. Goel A, Zhang G, Wiltgen B, Zhang Y, Vattam S, Yen J (2015b) On the benefits of digital libraries of case studies of analogical design: documentation, access, analysis and learning. AIEDAM 29(2):215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kannengiesser U, Gero J (2015) Is designing independent of domain? Comparing models of engineering, software and service design. Res Eng Des 26(3):253–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lepora N, Verschure P, Prescott T (2013) The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspir Biomim 8(1)Google Scholar
  25. Nagel J (2013) A Thesarus for biologically inspired design. In: Goel, McAdams & Stone (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and toolsGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagel J, Stone R (2010) A computational approach to biologically inspired design. AIEDAM 26(2):161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shu L, Ueda K, Chiu I, Cheong H (2011) Biologically inspired design. Keynote Paper. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 60(2)Google Scholar
  28. Simon H (1996) Sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010). An integrated model of designing. ASME J Comput Inf JCISE 10(3)Google Scholar
  30. Turner J (2007) The Tinkerer’s accomplice: how design emerges from life itself. Harvard University Press, MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner J, Soar R (2008) Beyond biomimicry: what termites can tell us about realizing the living building. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on industrialized intelligent construction, pp 221–237Google Scholar
  32. Vattam S, Helms M, Goel A (2007) Biologically inspired innovation in engineering design: a cognitive study. Technical Report, GIT-GVU-07-07Google Scholar
  33. Vermass P (2013) The coexistence of engineering meanings of function: four responses and their methodological implications. AIEDAM 27:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vincent J, Man D (2002) Systematic technology transfer from biology to engineering. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 360(1791):159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vincent J, Bogatyreva O, Bogatyrev N, Bowyer A, Pahl A (2006) Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J R Soc Interface 3:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vogel S (2000) Cat’s paws and catapults: mechanical worlds of nature and people. W.W. Norton and Company, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  37. von Gleich A, Pade C, Petschow U, Pissarskoi E (2010) Potentials and trends in biomimetics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weiler C, Goel A (2015) From mitochondria to water harvesting: a case study in biologically inspired design. IEEE Potentials 34(2):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yen J, Weissburg M, Helms M, Goel A (2011) Biologically inspired design: a tool for interdisciplinary education. In: Bar-Cohen Y (ed) Biomimetics: nature-based innovation. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  40. Yen J, Helms M, Goel A, Tovey C, Weissburg M (2014) Adaptive evolution of teaching practices in biologically inspired design. In: Goel A, McAdams D, Stone R (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashok K. Goel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Tuchez
    • 1
  • William Hancock
    • 1
  • Keith Frazer
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations