The authors walk through recent progress in materials, fabrication, actuation modes, durability, failure mechanisms, and control strategies. Throughout the article, the authors are clear on the fact that these actuators offer impressive performance, but lowering their operating voltage is essential if they’re going to be used safely and reliably in real-world devices.
Background
Soft robotics has gained momentum because rigid robots, despite sharper precision and tighter ties to AI, still come with real limitations. They’re often bulky, expensive, and not always ideal for physical interaction with people.
Several soft actuation methods exist, but each comes with trade-offs. Some are slow, others require external fields, and many depend on rigid pumps that undermine the point of being “soft.”
DEAs and DFAs manage to avoid many of these issues. They use electrostatic Maxwell stress to convert electrical energy directly into mechanical work, giving them a useful mix of speed, precision, large strain, and low power consumption. Their biggest drawback is voltage. Most systems operate in the kilovolt range, which complicates safety, packaging, and integration.
The review builds on this challenge by outlining how new materials, fabrication methods, and control strategies may push these devices closer to practical use.
Materials and Fabrication Methods
The authors began by breaking down recent developments in the materials used for DEAs.
They grouped dielectric elastomers into pure polymers, such as acrylates, silicones, and urethanes, and composite materials that incorporated different fillers. Many of the same trade-offs appeared across these materials.
For instance, increasing the dielectric constant often increased stiffness, while softening the material typically reduced electrical strength or stability. Because improving one property frequently came at the expense of another, overall actuator performance was often limited by whichever material characteristic fell short.
The review then turned to soft, stretchable electrodes.
Available options at the time ranged from carbon-based films and metal nanowires to liquid metals, ionic conductors, and hybrid systems. A consistent challenge was keeping these electrodes conductive while they underwent large deformations and repeated cycling.
DFAs brought their own considerations. These actuators used dielectric fluids sealed inside flexible shells, made from materials such as BOPP or silicone. The authors highlighted issues like the low dielectric constants of available fluids and the control difficulties caused by snap-through instability. Long-term reliability often depended on how well the fluid was sealed, since leakage or heat-seal degradation could quickly shorten device lifetime.
Fabrication techniques were evolving just as rapidly as the materials themselves. Manual, multi-step assembly remained important for prototyping, but newer automated approaches, including inkjet printing, extrusion-based fiber formation, 3D printing, and photolithography, offered more precision and better scalability.
Even with these advances, the authors noted several gaps, including the lack of unified material databases, continued difficulties in scaling manufacturing, and a growing need for sustainable or self-healing materials to improve recyclability and long-term durability.
Mechanisms and Failure
The review then shifted to how these actuators operated and where they most often failed.
DEAs produced a wide range of motions, including in-plane expansion, out-of-plane buckling, bending, linear strokes, and high-frequency vibration, because the applied electric field directly altered the elastomer’s shape. DFAs, by contrast, relied on a voltage-induced “zipping” effect that redistributed fluid within the shell, with electrode placement determining the exact actuation mode.
Actuator lifetime varied significantly depending on materials and design. Acrylate-based DEAs typically survived thousands to hundreds of thousands of cycles, while silicone-based versions often exceeded ten million due to their lower viscoelastic losses.
Common DEA failures included electrical breakdown, leakage, mechanical rupture, and electrode delamination. DFAs showed similarly wide performance ranges: rigid BOPP shells generally lasted around 20,000 cycles, whereas PDMS-based devices often operated beyond one million. Failures in DFAs usually stemmed from seal rupture, fluid leakage, or pull-in instability, although certain dielectric liquids provided partial self-healing benefits.
A recurring limitation the authors emphasized was the use of rigid pre-stretching frames in many DEA designs. These supports helped suppress electromechanical instability and increased achievable strain, but they also undermined the intrinsic softness of the systems and restricted the range of geometries that could be realized.
Control strategies ranged from simple open-loop operation to more advanced closed-loop systems with real-time feedback. Some approaches leveraged AI-based control to handle nonlinear behaviors.
Looking ahead, the authors pointed to opportunities in integrating soft sensor networks for real-time monitoring, developing control architectures that scaled effectively to large arrays, and shifting computation closer to the actuator itself. Wireless communication was highlighted as another important direction, since it could reduce wiring complexity and enable untethered, large-area actuator systems.
Applications and Outlook
Soft dielectric-based actuators demonstrated promising capabilities across a wide range of applications.
Artificial muscles made from stacked, rolled, or fiber-shaped DEAs achieved energy densities comparable to natural muscle and lifted substantial loads, while DFA-based muscles delivered high force and sometimes offered self-healing behavior. In biomimetic robotics, DEAs powered deep-sea–inspired swimming robots, insect-like flapping devices, and compact crawling systems that showed strong resilience and remote-controllable motion.
In haptic technologies, DEAs and DFAs enabled soft, wearable feedback through skin stretch or localized indentation, and DFA arrays supported high-force, large-displacement tactile rendering.
In adaptive optics, DEAs were used to tune light transmission and reflection for camouflage and adjustable lenses, while DFA lenses provided rapid focal changes. The review also highlighted emerging uses in shape-morphing displays and biomedical tools, including devices for facial restoration, targeted fluid delivery, and cardiac assistance.
Despite these advances, translating laboratory prototypes into practical systems required progress on several fronts. Materials needed to operate safely at lower voltages, manufacturing methods had to scale, and systems needed to ensure long-term biocompatibility. Wireless power delivery and coordinated control across large actuator arrays also represented important hurdles.
Addressing these challenges, the authors suggested, would determine how quickly soft dielectric actuators could move from experimental demonstrations to real-world technologies.
Conclusion
Overall, the review showed a field that was steadily advancing while confronting a clear set of engineering challenges.
Progress in materials, fabrication techniques, and control strategies pushed DEAs and DFAs toward more capable and reliable performance, and early work on self-healing materials and automated manufacturing further supported that momentum.
Even so, several hurdles remained central to future development: lowering operating voltages, removing rigid pre-stretching requirements, improving recyclability, and enabling distributed control across large actuator arrays.
The authors argued that continued progress in these areas would open new opportunities in biomimetic robots, haptic interfaces, adaptive optics, and biomedical devices, helping bring soft robotic systems closer to lifelike, safe, and efficient operation.
Journal Reference
Molla, M. H. O. R., Chen, J., & Xu, C. (2026). Advancing soft robotics: recent progress in dielectric elastomer and fluid actuators. Npj Robotics, 4(1). DOI:10.1038/s44182-026-00074-3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44182-026-00074-3
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.