pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18090 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💻 cs.RO · cond-mat.mtrl-sci· cond-mat.soft· physics.app-ph

Muscle-inspired magnetic actuators that push, pull, crawl, and grasp

Muhammad Bilal Khan , Florian Hofmann , Kilian Sch\"afer , Matthias Lutzi , Oliver Gutfleisch This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.softphysics.app-ph
keywords magnetic actuatorslaser powder bed fusionsoft roboticsadditive manufacturingmagnetic compositesflexural hingesthermoplastic polyurethane
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tuning laser energy during 3D printing of magnetic composites creates actuators that contract, crawl, and grasp under moderate fields.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a manufacturing technique for muscle-inspired magnetic actuators from a thermoplastic polyurethane and permanent magnet particle composite using laser powder bed fusion. Adjusting the laser energy scale between 1.0 and 3.0 increases tensile strength from 0.28 to 0.99 MPa while keeping 30-45 percent elongation and magnetic response intact. This control allows creation of 0.5 mm thick flexural hinges that bend and fold reversibly without damage. The resulting elongated actuators contract to lift 50 g loads and enable crawling on textured surfaces, while expandable versions grasp objects and anchor loads under 300-500 mT fields, all sustaining at least 50 cycles.

Core claim

By tuning the laser-energy scale between 1.0 and 3.0 in laser powder bed fusion of a TPU/MQP-S composite, both mechanical stiffness and magnetic response are precisely controlled, raising tensile strength from 0.28 to 0.99 MPa while retaining 30-45 percent elongation at break. This enables 0.5 mm-thick flexural hinges that reversibly bend and fold under moderate magnetic fields. The process produces an elongated actuator of 1.57 g that contracts under 500 mT to lift 50 g and crawl with frictional feet at up to 100 percent success, plus an expandable actuator that opens and closes under 300 mT to grasp objects and anchor 50 g suspended loads, with performance maintained over at least 50 full-

What carries the argument

Laser-energy-scale tuning during LPBF of TPU and Nd2Fe14B composite to simultaneously set tensile strength from 0.28 to 0.99 MPa and retained magnetization, forming durable 0.5 mm flexural hinges that deform under magnetic fields.

Load-bearing premise

The LPBF process can be tuned to achieve the reported mechanical properties and magnetization without damaging the Nd2Fe14B particles or polymer matrix, and the actuators will maintain performance over repeated cycles beyond the described lab tests.

What would settle it

A direct measurement showing whether the 0.5 mm hinges survive more than 50 bending cycles under 300-500 mT fields without cracking or loss of contraction force below the level needed to lift 50 g would confirm or refute the durability and tunability claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18090 by Florian Hofmann, Kilian Sch\"afer, Matthias Lutzi, Muhammad Bilal Khan, Oliver Gutfleisch.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Material morphology, fabrication, and tunability of 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Characterization and performance of elongated muscle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Functional magnetic composites capable of large deformation, load bearing, and multifunctional motion are essential for next-generation adaptive soft robots. Here, we present muscle-inspired magnetic actuators (MMA), additively manufactured from a thermoplastic/permanent magnet polyurethane/Nd2Fe14B (TPU/MQP-S) composite using laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). By tuning the laser-energy scale between 1.0 and 3.0, both mechanical stiffness and magnetic response are precisely controlled: the tensile strength increases from 0.28 to 0.99 MPa while maintaining 30-45% elongation at break. This process enables the creation of 0.5 mm-thick flexural hinges, which reversibly bend and fold under moderate magnetic fields without damage. Two actuator types are reported showing the system versatility. The elongated actuator with self-weight of 1.57 g, magnetized in its contracted state, achieves linear contraction under a 500 mT field, lifting 50 g (32x its own weight) and sustaining performance over at least 50 cycles. Equipped with anisotropic frictional feet, it supports movement of a magnetic crawling robot that achieves up to 100% locomotion success on textured substrates. The expandable actuator exhibits reversible opening and closing under a 300 mT field, reliably grasping and releasing different objects, including soft berries and rigid 3D printed geometries. It can also anchor in a tube while holding suspended 50 g loads. This work demonstrates a LPBF-based strategy to program both stiffness and magnetization within a single material system, enabling remotely driven, reconfigurable, and fatigue-resistant soft actuators. The approach opens new possibilities for force controlled, multifunctional magnetic soft robots for adaptive gripping, locomotion, and minimally invasive manipulation of biomedical tools.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents muscle-inspired magnetic actuators (MMAs) fabricated from a TPU/Nd2Fe14B composite via laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). By tuning the laser-energy scale from 1.0 to 3.0, the authors report simultaneous control of mechanical properties (tensile strength rising from 0.28 to 0.99 MPa while retaining 30-45% elongation at break) and magnetic response, enabling 0.5 mm flexural hinges. Two designs are demonstrated: an elongated actuator (1.57 g) that contracts under 500 mT to lift 50 g (32× self-weight) over 50 cycles and achieves 100% locomotion success when equipped with frictional feet; and an expandable actuator that grasps objects under 300 mT and anchors 50 g loads in tubes.

Significance. If the experimental claims are substantiated, the work offers a scalable LPBF route to program both stiffness and magnetization within a single composite, which could enable more versatile, remotely actuated soft robots for locomotion, grasping, and biomedical manipulation. The fatigue resistance and load-bearing demonstrations (50 cycles, 32× lift) would represent a practical advance over many existing magnetic soft actuators.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results sections: The claim that laser-energy scale tuning 'precisely controls' magnetic response (enabling 500 mT contraction and 300 mT grasping) lacks supporting post-print magnetic characterization. No VSM data, hysteresis loops, or remanence values versus energy scale are reported to confirm that Nd2Fe14B particles retain usable magnetization after LPBF, despite melt-pool temperatures likely exceeding the ~310 °C Curie point. This directly undermines the central assertion of dual mechanical-magnetic control.
  2. [Experimental Results] Experimental Results: Performance numbers (50 g lift, 50 cycles, 100% locomotion success) are stated without error bars, trial counts, statistical details, or comparisons to untuned composites or non-magnetized controls. This prevents evaluation of whether the reported outcomes reliably stem from the claimed tuning process rather than variability in fabrication or testing conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The term 'moderate magnetic fields' is used alongside specific values (500 mT, 300 mT); standardize terminology for clarity.
  2. [Methods/Results] Methods/Results: Expand on how the anisotropic frictional feet are integrated and how the magnetization direction is set in the contracted state to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the presentation of our results on dual mechanical-magnetic control via LPBF tuning. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional data and statistical details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results sections: The claim that laser-energy scale tuning 'precisely controls' magnetic response (enabling 500 mT contraction and 300 mT grasping) lacks supporting post-print magnetic characterization. No VSM data, hysteresis loops, or remanence values versus energy scale are reported to confirm that Nd2Fe14B particles retain usable magnetization after LPBF, despite melt-pool temperatures likely exceeding the ~310 °C Curie point. This directly undermines the central assertion of dual mechanical-magnetic control.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The manuscript shows dual control through the measured changes in tensile properties with laser-energy scale and the distinct actuation thresholds (500 mT for contraction, 300 mT for grasping) that result from those changes. However, we acknowledge that direct post-print magnetic characterization (VSM, hysteresis, remanence vs. energy scale) is absent. In the revised manuscript we will add VSM data for samples printed across the 1.0–3.0 energy-scale range to quantify retained magnetization and address the Curie-point concern, including discussion of rapid cooling rates and matrix encapsulation that appear to preserve particle magnetization. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental Results] Experimental Results: Performance numbers (50 g lift, 50 cycles, 100% locomotion success) are stated without error bars, trial counts, statistical details, or comparisons to untuned composites or non-magnetized controls. This prevents evaluation of whether the reported outcomes reliably stem from the claimed tuning process rather than variability in fabrication or testing conditions.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation would benefit from explicit statistical reporting. In the revision we will add error bars to all quantitative performance data, state the number of trials (minimum n = 5 per condition), and include control comparisons (non-magnetized TPU and untuned composite specimens) to demonstrate that the reported lifting, cycling, and locomotion results arise from the magnetic tuning rather than fabrication variability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental demonstration with direct measurements only

full rationale

The paper is a pure experimental report on LPBF fabrication of TPU/Nd2Fe14B composites. It states process parameters (laser-energy scale 1.0–3.0), reports measured outcomes (tensile strength 0.28→0.99 MPa, 30–45% elongation, actuation under 300–500 mT fields, cycle life), and shows functional prototypes. No equations, no fitted models, no predictions derived from prior results, and no self-citation chains that substitute for evidence. All claims reduce to physical fabrication and testing data rather than any definitional or statistical equivalence between inputs and outputs. The derivation chain is therefore empty; the work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No theoretical free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the work is an engineering demonstration relying on experimental control of laser energy and standard material properties.

free parameters (1)
  • laser-energy scale = 1.0-3.0
    Experimental control parameter tuned between 1.0 and 3.0 to adjust tensile strength and magnetic response.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5645 in / 1384 out tokens · 51145 ms · 2026-05-10T04:18:56.479799+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ebrahimi et al., ‘Magnetic Actuation Methods in Bio/Soft Robotics’, Adv

    N. Ebrahimi et al., ‘Magnetic Actuation Methods in Bio/Soft Robotics’, Adv. Funct. Mater., vol. 31, no. 11, p. 2005137, 2021, doi: 10.1002/adfm.202005137

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.202005137 2021

  2. [2]

    G. M. Whitesides, ‘Soft Robotics’, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., vol. 57, no. 16, pp. 4258– 4273, 2018, doi: 10.1002/anie.201800907

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.201800907 2018

  3. [3]

    Kotak, S

    P. Kotak, S. Maxson, T. Weerakkody, V. Cichella, and C. Lamuta, ‘Octopus-Inspired Muscular Hydrostats Powered By Twisted and Coiled Artificial Muscles’, Soft Robot., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 432–443, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1089/soro.2023.0069

    work page doi:10.1089/soro.2023.0069 2024

  4. [4]

    E. S. Oliveros-Mata, R. Xu, L. Guo, and D. Makarov, ‘Magnetically aware actuating composites: Sensing features as inspiration for the next step in advanced magnetic soft robotics’, Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 20, no. 6, p. 060501, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.060501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.060501 2023

  5. [5]

    I. H. Kim et al., ‘Human-muscle-inspired single fibre actuator with reversible percolation’, Nat. Nanotechnol., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1198–1205, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41565-022-01220-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41565-022-01220-2 2022

  6. [6]

    Seong et al., ‘Multifunctional Magnetic Muscles for Soft Robotics’, Nat

    M. Seong et al., ‘Multifunctional Magnetic Muscles for Soft Robotics’, Nat. Commun., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 7929, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52347-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52347-w 2024

  7. [7]

    H. Yang, G. Wei, L. Ren, L. Yan, and D. Caldwell, ‘Compliant actuators that mimic biological muscle performance with applications in a highly biomimetic robotic arm’, Adv. Bionics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–18, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.abs.2024.12.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.abs.2024.12.001 2025

  8. [8]

    Yang et al., ‘Muscle-inspired soft robots based on bilateral dielectric elastomer actuators’, Microsyst

    Y. Yang et al., ‘Muscle-inspired soft robots based on bilateral dielectric elastomer actuators’, Microsyst. Nanoeng., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 124, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41378- 023-00592-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41378- 2023

  9. [9]

    K. E. Peyer, L. Zhang, and B. J. Nelson, ‘Bio-inspired magnetic swimming microrobots for biomedical applications’, Nanoscale, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1259–1272, 2013, doi: 10.1039/C2NR32554C

    work page doi:10.1039/c2nr32554c 2013

  10. [10]

    Kirillova and L

    A. Kirillova and L. Ionov, ‘Shape-changing polymers for biomedical applications’, J. Mater. Chem. B, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1597–1624, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1039/C8TB02579G

    work page doi:10.1039/c8tb02579g 2019

  11. [11]

    D. Liu, R. Guo, B. Wang, J. Hu, and Y. Lu, ‘Magnetic Micro/Nanorobots: A New Age in Biomedicines’, Adv. Intell. Syst., vol. 4, no. 12, p. 2200208, 2022, doi: 10.1002/aisy.202200208

    work page doi:10.1002/aisy.202200208 2022

  12. [12]

    Kim and X

    Y. Kim and X. Zhao, ‘Magnetic Soft Materials and Robots’, Chem. Rev., vol. 122, no. 5, pp. 5317–5364, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00481

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00481 2022

  13. [13]

    Cianchetti, C

    M. Cianchetti, C. Laschi, A. Menciassi, and P. Dario, ‘Biomedical applications of soft robotics’, Nat. Rev. Mater., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 143–153, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41578- 018-0022-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578- 2018

  14. [14]

    Jiryaei and A

    Z. Jiryaei and A. S. Jafarpisheh, ‘The usefulness of assistive soft robotics in the rehabilitation of patients with hand impairment: A systematic review’, J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther., vol. 39, pp. 398–409, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.02.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.02.025 2024

  15. [15]

    Morris, R

    L. Morris, R. S. Diteesawat, N. Rahman, A. Turton, M. Cramp, and J. Rossiter, ‘The- state-of-the-art of soft robotics to assist mobility: a review of physiotherapist and patient identified limitations of current lower-limb exoskeletons and the potential soft-robotic solutions’, J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 18, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s...

    work page doi:10.1186/s12984-022-01122-3 2023

  16. [16]

    Pramanik, R

    R. Pramanik, R. W. C. P. Verstappen, and P. R. Onck, ‘Nature-inspired miniaturized magnetic soft robotic swimmers’, Appl. Phys. Rev., vol. 11, no. 2, p. 021312, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1063/5.0189185

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0189185 2024

  17. [17]

    Wu et al., ‘Selective Laser Sintering-Based 4D Printing of Magnetism-Responsive Grippers’, ACS Appl

    H. Wu et al., ‘Selective Laser Sintering-Based 4D Printing of Magnetism-Responsive Grippers’, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 12679–12688, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acsami.0c17429

    work page doi:10.1021/acsami.0c17429 2021

  18. [18]

    M. Y. Khalid, Z. U. Arif, A. Tariq, M. Hossain, K. Ahmed Khan, and R. Umer, ‘3D printing of magneto-active smart materials for advanced actuators and soft robotics applications’, Eur. Polym. J., vol. 205, p. 112718, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112718

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112718 2024

  19. [19]

    M. S. Xavier et al., ‘Soft Pneumatic Actuators: A Review of Design, Fabrication, Modeling, Sensing, Control and Applications’, IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 59442–59485, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179589

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2022.3179589 2022

  20. [20]

    Chou and B

    C.-P. Chou and B. Hannaford, ‘Measurement and modeling of McKibben pneumatic artificial muscles’, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 90–102, Feb. 1996, doi: 10.1109/70.481753

    work page doi:10.1109/70.481753 1996

  21. [21]

    Tondu, ‘Modelling of the McKibben artificial muscle: A review’, J

    B. Tondu, ‘Modelling of the McKibben artificial muscle: A review’, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 225–253, Feb. 2012, doi: 10.1177/1045389X11435435

    work page doi:10.1177/1045389x11435435 2012

  22. [22]

    Ochoa, E

    O. Ochoa, E. Méndez, R. Perez-Santiago, E. Cuan-Urquizo, X. Yamile Sandoval- Castro, and A. González, ‘Reconfigurable soft pneumatic actuators with metamaterial reinforcements: Tunable stiffness and deformation modes’, Mater. Des., vol. 250, p. 113649, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2025.113649

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2025.113649 2025

  23. [23]

    D. C. Y. Wong, M. Li, S. Kang, L. Luo, and H. Yu, ‘Reconfigurable, Transformable Soft Pneumatic Actuator with Tunable Three-Dimensional Deformations for Dexterous Soft Robotics Applications’, Soft Robot., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 228–241, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1089/soro.2023.0072

    work page doi:10.1089/soro.2023.0072 2025

  24. [24]

    S. Wu, G. L. Baker, J. Yin, and Y. Zhu, ‘Fast Thermal Actuators for Soft Robotics’, Soft Robot., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1031–1039, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1089/soro.2021.0080

    work page doi:10.1089/soro.2021.0080 2022

  25. [25]

    S. Kim, J. Kang, S. Yoo, and Y. Cha, ‘Spring toy-inspired soft robots with electrohydraulic actuators’, Sci. Rep., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 20011, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71018-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71018-w 2024

  26. [26]

    Tan et al., ‘Underwater Crawling Robot With Hydraulic Soft Actuators’, Front

    Q. Tan et al., ‘Underwater Crawling Robot With Hydraulic Soft Actuators’, Front. Robot. AI, vol. 8, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.688697

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.688697 2021

  27. [27]

    W. Hu, G. Z. Lum, M. Mastrangeli, and M. Sitti, ‘Small-scale soft-bodied robot with multimodal locomotion’, Nature, vol. 554, no. 7690, pp. 81–85, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1038/nature25443

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25443 2018

  28. [28]

    G. Z. Lum et al., ‘Shape-programmable magnetic soft matter’, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 113, no. 41, pp. E6007–E6015, Oct. 2016, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608193113

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1608193113 2016

  29. [29]

    Palagi and P

    S. Palagi and P. Fischer, ‘Bioinspired microrobots’, Nat. Rev. Mater., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 113–124, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41578-018-0016-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578-018-0016-9 2018

  30. [30]

    Ha et al., ‘Reconfigurable Magnetic Origami Actuators with On-Board Sensing for Guided Assembly’, Adv

    M. Ha et al., ‘Reconfigurable Magnetic Origami Actuators with On-Board Sensing for Guided Assembly’, Adv. Mater., vol. 33, no. 25, p. 2008751, 2021, doi: 10.1002/adma.202008751

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.202008751 2021

  31. [31]

    S. Wu, W. Hu, Q. Ze, M. Sitti, and R. Zhao, ‘Multifunctional magnetic soft composites: a review’, Multifunct. Mater., vol. 3, no. 4, p. 042003, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1088/2399- 7532/abcb0c

    work page doi:10.1088/2399- 2020

  32. [32]

    Y. Kim, H. Yuk, R. Zhao, S. A. Chester, and X. Zhao, ‘Printing ferromagnetic domains for untethered fast-transforming soft materials’, Nature, vol. 558, no. 7709, pp. 274– 279, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0185-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0185-0 2018

  33. [33]

    Ju et al., ‘Reconfigurable magnetic soft robots with multimodal locomotion’, Nano Energy, vol

    Y. Ju et al., ‘Reconfigurable magnetic soft robots with multimodal locomotion’, Nano Energy, vol. 87, p. 106169, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.nanoen.2021.106169

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nanoen.2021.106169 2021

  34. [34]

    Dong et al., ‘Untethered small-scale magnetic soft robot with programmable magnetization and integrated multifunctional modules’, Sci

    Y. Dong et al., ‘Untethered small-scale magnetic soft robot with programmable magnetization and integrated multifunctional modules’, Sci. Adv., vol. 8, no. 25, p. eabn8932, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abn8932

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn8932 2022

  35. [35]

    R. Zhao, H. Dai, H. Yao, Y. Shi, and G. Zhou, ‘Shape programmable magnetic pixel soft robot’, Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 11, p. e11415, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11415

    work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11415 2022

  36. [36]

    C. Bi, M. Guix, B. V. Johnson, W. Jing, and D. J. Cappelleri, ‘Design of Microscale Magnetic Tumbling Robots for Locomotion in Multiple Environments and Complex Terrains’, Micromachines, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 68, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.3390/mi9020068

    work page doi:10.3390/mi9020068 2018

  37. [37]

    M. B. Akolpoglu et al., ‘Magnetically steerable bacterial microrobots moving in 3D biological matrices for stimuli-responsive cargo delivery’, Sci. Adv., vol. 8, no. 28, p. eabo6163, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abo6163

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo6163 2022

  38. [38]

    Alapan, A

    Y. Alapan, A. C. Karacakol, S. N. Guzelhan, I. Isik, and M. Sitti, ‘Reprogrammable shape morphing of magnetic soft machines’, Sci. Adv., vol. 6, no. 38, p. eabc6414, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc6414

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc6414 2020

  39. [39]

    L. Wang, Y. Chang, S. Wu, R. R. Zhao, and W. Chen, ‘Physics-aware differentiable design of magnetically actuated kirigami for shape morphing’, Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 8516, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44303-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44303-x 2023

  40. [40]

    E. B. Joyee and Y. Pan, ‘A Fully Three-Dimensional Printed Inchworm-Inspired Soft Robot with Magnetic Actuation’, Soft Robot., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 333–345, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1089/soro.2018.0082

    work page doi:10.1089/soro.2018.0082 2019

  41. [41]

    Hegde et al., ‘3D-Printed Mechano-Optic Force Sensor for Soft Robotic Gripper Enabled by Programmable Structural Metamaterials’, Adv

    C. Hegde et al., ‘3D-Printed Mechano-Optic Force Sensor for Soft Robotic Gripper Enabled by Programmable Structural Metamaterials’, Adv. Intell. Syst., vol. n/a, no. n/a, p. 2400057, doi: 10.1002/aisy.202400057

    work page doi:10.1002/aisy.202400057

  42. [42]

    R. L. Truby and J. A. Lewis, ‘Printing soft matter in three dimensions’, Nature, vol. 540, no. 7633, pp. 371–378, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1038/nature21003

    work page doi:10.1038/nature21003 2016

  43. [43]

    Q. Ge, H. J. Qi, and M. L. Dunn, ‘Active materials by four-dimension printing’, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 103, no. 13, p. 131901, Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1063/1.4819837

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4819837 2013

  44. [44]

    Simińska-Stanny et al., ‘4D printing of patterned multimaterial magnetic hydrogel actuators’, Addit

    J. Simińska-Stanny et al., ‘4D printing of patterned multimaterial magnetic hydrogel actuators’, Addit. Manuf., vol. 49, p. 102506, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.102506

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2021.102506 2022

  45. [45]

    Safe multi-agent reinforcement learning for multi-robot control.Artificial Intelligence, 319:103905, June 2023

    K. Schäfer et al., ‘Magneto-active composites with locally tailored stiffness produced by laser powder bed fusion’, Addit. Manuf., vol. 79, p. 103905, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2023.103905

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103905 2024

  46. [46]

    Schäfer, T

    K. Schäfer, T. Braun, S. Riegg, J. Musekamp, and O. Gutfleisch, ‘Polymer-bonded magnets produced by laser powder bed fusion: Influence of powder morphology, filler fraction and energy input on the magnetic and mechanical properties’, Mater. Res. Bull., vol. 158, p. 112051, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.materresbull.2022.112051

    work page doi:10.1016/j.materresbull.2022.112051 2023

  47. [47]

    M. B. Khan et al., ‘Bioinspired Design, Fabrication, and Wing Morphing of 3D-Printed Magnetic Butterflies’, Adv. Intell. Syst., vol. 7, no. 9, p. 2400620, 2025, doi: 10.1002/aisy.202400620

    work page doi:10.1002/aisy.202400620 2025

  48. [48]

    Schäfer et al., ‘Laser powder bed fusion of anisotropic Nd-Fe-B bonded magnets utilizing an in-situ mechanical alignment approach’, J

    K. Schäfer et al., ‘Laser powder bed fusion of anisotropic Nd-Fe-B bonded magnets utilizing an in-situ mechanical alignment approach’, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., vol. 583, p. 171064, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jmmm.2023.171064

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2023.171064 2023

  49. [49]

    Accessed: Nov

    ‘Laser Beam Melting’, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM. Accessed: Nov. 05, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/en/technologies/laser-beam-melting.html

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Ji et al., ‘3D printing of bioinspired topographically oriented surfaces with frictional anisotropy for directional driving’, Tribol

    Z. Ji et al., ‘3D printing of bioinspired topographically oriented surfaces with frictional anisotropy for directional driving’, Tribol. Int., vol. 132, pp. 99–107, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.triboint.2018.12.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2018.12.010 2019

  51. [51]

    H. T. Tramsen, S. N. Gorb, H. Zhang, P. Manoonpong, Z. Dai, and L. Heepe, ‘Inversion of friction anisotropy in a bio-inspired asymmetrically structured surface’, J. R. Soc. Interface, vol. 15, no. 138, p. 20170629, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0629

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0629 2018

  52. [52]

    C. A. Fuentes, G. Brughmans, L. Q. N. Tran, C. Dupont-Gillain, I. Verpoest, and A. W. Van Vuure, ‘Mechanical behaviour and practical adhesion at a bamboo composite interface: Physical adhesion and mechanical interlocking’, Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 109, pp. 40–47, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2015.01.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2015.01.013 2015

  53. [53]

    M. B. Khan et al., ‘iCrawl: An Inchworm-Inspired Crawling Robot’, IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 200655–200668, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3035871

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2020.3035871 2020

  54. [54]

    M. B. Khan, T. Chuthong, J. Homchanthanakul, and P. Manoonpong, ‘Electromagnetic Feet With Soft Toes for Adaptive, Versatile, and Stable Locomotion of an Inchworm- Inspired Pipe Crawling Robot’, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., vol. 10, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.842816

    work page doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.842816 2022

  55. [55]

    T. Feix, J. Romero, H.-B. Schmiedmayer, A. M. Dollar, and D. Kragic, ‘The GRASP Taxonomy of Human Grasp Types’, IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 66–77, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1109/THMS.2015.2470657

    work page doi:10.1109/thms.2015.2470657 2016

  56. [56]

    Gutfleisch, M

    O. Gutfleisch, M. A. Willard, E. Brück, C. H. Chen, S. G. Sankar, and J. P. Liu, ‘Magnetic Materials and Devices for the 21st Century: Stronger, Lighter, and More Energy Efficient’, Adv. Mater., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 821–842, 2011, doi: 10.1002/adma.201002180

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201002180 2011

  57. [57]

    Zolfagharian, M

    A. Zolfagharian, M. A. P. Mahmud, S. Gharaie, M. Bodaghi, A. Z. Kouzani, and A. Kaynak, ‘3D/4D-printed bending-type soft pneumatic actuators: fabrication, modelling, and control’, Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 373–402, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1080/17452759.2020.1795209

    work page doi:10.1080/17452759.2020.1795209 2020

  58. [58]

    J. L. Kricke et al., ‘4D printing of magneto-responsive polymer structures by masked stereolithography for miniaturised actuators’, Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 18, no. 1, p. e2251017, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/17452759.2023.2251017

    work page doi:10.1080/17452759.2023.2251017 2023