New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Tiny, Shapeshifting Robots Could Aid Nanoscale Manufacturing

Centimeter-scale foldable buildings blocks may lead to industrial applications

This object flexes into numerous shapes.

Agustin Iniguez-Rabago and Johannes T. B. Overvelde AMOLF

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The sculpture-like objects in Bas Overvelde's laboratory at the Netherlands' Atomic and Molecular Physics (AMOLF) Institute are not as simple as they appear. Made of multiple prism-shaped building blocks, each face connected by flexible hinges, they can easily flip from shapes such as 3-D stars into cylinders, balls, and more.

Think of a classic slap bracelet, Overvelde says: a structure that has two stable positions, one straight and one curled up. But his lab's objects can fold along their many hinges to pop into dozens of predictable positions when pressure is applied. Beyond building a collection of these physical objects, Overvelde and his fellow researchers used computer simulations to explore even more complex assemblies of the building blocks, finding every potential shape many combinations can form. Some large virtual constructions reached more than 100 stable configurations. The study was detailed last December in Nature Communications.

By designing and simulating objects that fold into predictable shapes when pushed on, the researchers hope to make it easier to manufacture very tiny robots and materials with changeable structures. If such items can easily morph into specific, stable forms, fewer tools are needed to bend or assemble them. Plus, certain shapes and internal structures can add strength and make objects resilient: for instance, “bone has a microstructure that makes it lighter, but it stays stiff,” Overvelde says. “We try to do the same kinds of things with our materials.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This study explores the “centimeter scale” (roughly the size range of traditional paper origami made with human hands), but Overvelde notes such objects would work the same way if much larger or much smaller. For now the group is focusing on the basics: “We're not people who do ... manufacturing at small scale,” he says. “We try to come up with new concepts.”

These concepts have impressed some of Overvelde's peers in materials science. Itai Cohen, who leads similar research at Cornell University and was not involved in this study, says the new work is “a real tour de force” in its research and implications. “These are all devices that are done with [the equivalent of] cardboard and double-sided sticky tape—but the real question is, Could you start to make robotic systems?” Cohen adds. “In robotic systems, the number of configurations that you can go through dictates how much the robot is able to do, how many [light-diffracting] gratings you can make or chemical surfaces you can expose.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe