Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T13:30:31.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

BioForms: 3-D printed mycelium wall panel systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2024

A response to the following question: Can we grow a building and why would we want to?

Natalie Alima*
Affiliation:
School of Architecture and Urban Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Natalie Alima; Email: alimanatalie@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BioForms integrates sacrificial formworks, agent-based computational algorithms and biological growth in the generation of biodegradable internal wall panel systems. These wall panel systems are intended to minimize material waste, utilize local botany and generate a symbiosis between the artificially made and the naturally grown. This is achieved by utilizing local waste as a structural compressive core, mycelium as the binder, and recycled pellets as the architectural skin. Leveraging mycelium’s structural, acoustic and thermal properties, this exploration delves into unique methods of incorporating fungi and waste into architectural construction. The motivations for this research stem from the need to address the building industry’s contribution to climate change, by considering the lifecycle of our materials. BioForms aims to retrofit existing buildings by replacing foam insulation and MDF (medium-density fiberboard) wall panels with biodegradable and recyclable 3D-printed skins embedded with a mycelium core. Analysing mycelium’s reaction to BioForms I, the second iteration, BioForms II, evolves in design complexity and materiality. BioForms II explored robotically fabricated wood-based polylactic acid plastic (PLA) composite materials. Within the second iteration of this research stream, mycelia was both embedded within the compressed fabricated skins and on the external surface. Whilst BioForms explored the generation of biodegradable wall panel systems, the broader aims of this research is aimed at infiltrating biological matter into human-occupied spaces, completely omitting the use of synthetic building materials within the construction industry and advancing the architects relationship to nature in the generation of form.

Information

Type
Results
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Prototype 01: Mycelium growing inside recycled PETG skins.

Figure 1

Figure 2. An algorithm based on swarm intelligence was developed to array components across the surface, generating a reptile scale-like texture.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Fibre hemp ropes laced within grooves prefabricated within the scaffold for additional tensile strength.

Figure 3

Figure 4. The final fabricated wall panel system, 3-D printed from the Kuka KR150 robot.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Mycelium growing inside the wall panel system.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Mycelium growing inside the two-metre high wall panel system.

Figure 6

Figure 7. A catalogue of intricate, textured surfaces computationally designed to simultaneously encourage mycelium growth and expose my architectural aesthetic, utilizing an algorithm based on cellular growth.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Mycelium growing inside the 3-D printed wooden wall panel system.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Mycelium growing throughout the 3-D printed wooden skins exposing contrasting biological patterns of growth.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Mycelium bursting through the 3-D printing framework, asserting its own agency within the generated form.

Author comment: BioForms — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: BioForms — R0/PR2

Comments

This paper reports on a very interesting architectural project. It includes Bioforms I, where a mass of mycelium was grown in a 3D printed shell made from PETG, and and second iteration, Bioforms II, which used a 3D printed PLA/wood composite shell.

The paper beautifully captures the growth of the experiments. However, I think the paper would benefit from a more systematic report on methods and findings.

For example: "To overcome the organism’s tensile deficit, a methodology was developed by which external passageways were computationally designed to house fibre composites and provide additional tensile strength." - The paper doesn't describe measurements of tensile strength before or after, or to what extent the intervention improved this, or even the methodology itself. This omission severely limits the contribution of the paper. It's not clear from reading this paper what the authors intend to contribute, as the methods they use are not described in a repeatable way.

Beyond describing a workflow at a high level, there is little implication for design that is included in this paper, and no discussion of implications that other designers can build upon. One such point is the decision to allow the mushroom to produce fruit. Typically, projects such as these allow the growth of mycelium network and arrest the development of the fungus, as it changes structural the properties. A discussion on this, and other decisions made in the process, would have been very interesting to read.

In light of these comments I am recommending that the paper in its current form be rejected, as changes would be beyond major revisions.

Other notes:

Major Concerns

- There are several in-text citations that are missing from the reference list.

- There are several references that need to be included, for example in Sec. 2, the SensiLab/RMIT Building 515 project is referred to with no citation to other material.

- In Sec 2 on p5, the author refers to the figures by "as demonstrated in the images" - figures in this paper are not used to support specific parts of of text, and are not all referred to in the document. This would help the reader follow the process of prototyping and growing. As it is now, it is difficult to understand how figures connect to the text.

- The footnote in Sec. 3 is interesting in itself, and could be integrated into the text.

- The "BioEnclosures" project is also mentioned for the first time in Sec. 3 on page 7. This needs to be introduced much earlier, as it is confusing to have an additional project introduced here. If these are not separate projects, the writing needs editing for consistency.

- On Page 9, the process leads to internal gap sizes to encourage mycelium growth, textured grooves, internal pathways etc, it would be beneficial to the research community for you to include some of these details in this paper. What dimensions worked for this project? Is the 40mm referred to in the conclusion this dimension?

- There is some disconnect between the abstract and the paper. There is a very limited description of the analysis of the "mycelium's reaction to Bioforms I" that informed Bioforms II - even though this is a qualitative paper, the documentation of a rigorous process is lacking.

- The introduction is much more focused on the technical and performance aspects of mycelium panels, but the paper doesn't engage with the performance of what was grown.

Minor Concerns

- p10 "BioFoorms II" on the last line

- inconsistent formatting of reference list

- some proofreading for grammar is requred

Presentation

Overall score 1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
1 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
1 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
2 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
4 out of 5

Review: BioForms — R0/PR3

Comments

General

Reference images in the text.

Check the paper for consistency in writing specific things, such as 3D-printing, use of quotes etc.

Check the paper for the use of Punctuation marks. I had a feeling that some commas were missing.

Abstract

“Utilising local waste as the structural compressive core, mycelium as the binder, recycled pellets as an architectural skin, and bio-resin for additional tensile strength; BioForms explores novel techniques in which fungi and waste may be applied to architectural construction.” - this sentence feels grammatically incorrect. Maybe sth like that?

Change "Utilising" to "By utilizing" for a smoother introductory phrase.

Removed the semicolon after "tensile strength" and replaced it with a comma for better flow.

Misspelling of “field”: “Within the felid of biodesign..”

“The first iteration of this research stream BioForms I, designed skins are robotically fabricated from recycled polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) plastic with a mycelium imbedded core, leveraging its structural, acoustic and thermal properties. “ Something is weird with this sentence. Maybe divide it into two? “The first iteration of this research stream BioForms I. The designed skins are robotically fabricated from recycled polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) plastic with a mycelium imbedded core, leveraging its structural, acoustic and thermal properties.

Missing coma before BioFroms II: “Analysing mycelium’s reaction to BioForms I, the second iteration , BioForms II, ” evolves…

Introduction

Write CO2, SiO2 with with subscript 2.

“The hazardous effects of materials such as glass, concrete, and plastics not only consume energy but limit natural resources and pollute our air, land and water” feels like the hazardous effect consume energy, not the materials. Try restructuring the sentence.

Misspelling acoustic: “Additionally to the material’s fire retardant and acrostic properties,...”

Inconsistency, sometimes there’s dot after K, and sometime not: “(0.032–0.044W/m.K.), mineral wool (0.032– 0.044W/m.K), expanded polystyrene (0.036W/m.K) and extruded polystyrene (0.029–0.036W/m.K)” Remove the dot.

Inconsistency in companies names writing, using quotes: ‘Mogu’, Ecocative Studio

“The motivations for this research therefore stem from the need to address the building industry’s contribution to global warming,” better say climate change instead of global warming.

I don’t understand this sentence “This references Kevin Kelly’s vision that buildings should be living elements that grow, adapt, heal and evolve. (Kelly, 1994)” Something is weird with structuring it.

2. BioForms I Technical workflow

“With the rise of machines and access to technology in our orbit, robotic “ > with the developments in the space industry, the phrase “in our orbit” may be misleading, suggesting space applications.

It feels weird to use the first-person form: “Through observation, I monitored the growth and..” I would suggest not mixing passive and active voice and focusing on one, in this case, I’d choose passive, such as “Through observation, the growth and the reaction were monitored…”

Lack of consistency in writing. Sometimes it’s 3-D printed, and sometimes 3D-printed.

What do you mean by “the scales’ form and texture” ?

I am not sure about this sentence “To overcome the organism’s tensile deficit…” Can an organism have a tensile strength? Or the structure that the organism forms?

Conclusions:

“ Team members included Natalie Alima, Roland Snooks, Hesam Mohammed and Dasong Wang. “ That’s not the paper's conclusion. It should be rather in Acknowledgements (or co-authors).

Presentation

Overall score 1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
3 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
1 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
1 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
2 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
4 out of 5

Decision: BioForms — R0/PR4

Comments

Review 1 needs to be addressed before publication - option here to publish via Community.

Author comment: BioForms — R1/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: BioForms — R1/PR7

Comments

Accept as reviews have already taken place and revisions are suitable.