Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 3 (1): 10-22
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Universidad Autónoma de Baja California ISSN 2594-1925
Volumen 9 (2): e448. Abril-Junio, 2026. https://doi.org/10.37636/recit.v9n2e448
ISSN: 2594-1925
1
1
Research article
Structural analysis of generative design applied to ergonomic plantar
orthoses
Análisis estructural del diseño generativo aplicado a órtesis plantares ergonómicas
Christian Enrique Nava-Alcantar1, Agustín Vidal-Lesso2, Marco Antonio Martínez-Bocanegra3, Luis
Ángel Ortiz-Lango4, Juan Carlos García-Valadez4, Sergio Alonso Romero5, Israel Miguel-Andrés4
1Posgrado PICYT, Centro de Innovación Aplicada en Tecnologías Competitivas, León 37545, Guanajuato, México.
2Mechanical Engineering Department, Universidad de Guanajuato, Salamanca, 36885, Guanajuato, México.
3TecNM: Instituto Tecnológico Superior del Sur de Guanajuato, Uriangato, 38982, Guanajuato, México.
4Laboratorio Nacional CONAHCYT en Biomecánica del Cuerpo Humano, CIATEC, León, 37545, Guanajuato, México.
5Dirección de Investigación y Soluciones Tecnológicas, CIATEC, León, 37545, Guanajuato, México.
Corresponding author: Israel Miguel-Andrés; Laboratorio Nacional CONAHCYT en Biomecánica del Cuerpo Humano, CIATEC, León,
37545, Guanajuato, México; imiguel@ciatec.mx; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9433-7864.
Received: March 9, 2026 Accepted: May 19, 2026 Published: May 22, 2026
Abstract. - Plantar orthoses are devices designed to provide support and correct the biomechanics of the foot. Generative
design offers ample potential for personalization; however, the analysis of its structural behavior continues to be a significant
challenge. This research aims to evaluate the structural optimization of orthoses designed by generative design compared to
traditional models. An analysis of 33 middle-aged adult men classified as normal weight, with an average weight of 65.32 ±
6.79 kg, was performed using a baropodometric database. An optimized orthosis was designed by parametric modeling to
evaluate its mechanical response in static standing conditions, using the finite element method with the TPU A95 material. The
results indicated that the trabecular structures produced by generative design absorb more energy (0.3876 J) than a
bilaminated orthosis made with EVA A40 and A15 materials (0.0362 J). The levels of deformation obtained (maximum principal
strain = 1.34%, equivalent elastic strain = 2.14%) indicate that the composition of the generative model works well within the
elastic regime, ensuring structural integrity. However, the low strain and strain energy values suggest relatively rigid behavior,
which can limit the shock absorption capacity. The main contribution of this work is to demonstrate how generative design can
be integrated into methodologies for designing plantar orthotics. It explores the potential benefits of this approach and
examines how generative design parameters influence mechanical responses. This research provides a technical foundation
for optimizing ergonomic orthoses through generative design and structural modeling. The findings emphasize the potential of
generative design in creating optimized orthoses and highlight the significance of design parameters on the outcomes achieved.
This insight is valuable for future applications of generative design in the field of ergonomics.
Keywords: Finite element analysis; Generative design; Ergonomics; Elastomeric materials.
Resumen. - Las órtesis plantares son dispositivos diseñados para proporcionar soporte y corregir la biomecánica del pie. El
diseño generativo ofrece un gran potencial para la personalización; sin embargo, el análisis de su comportamiento estructural
continúa siendo un desafío significativo. Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar la optimización estructural de órtesis
diseñadas mediante diseño generativo en comparación con los modelos tradicionales. Se realizó un análisis de 33 hombres
adultos de mediana edad clasificados como normopeso, con un peso promedio de 65.32 ± 6.79 kg a partir de una base de datos
de baropodometría. Se diseñó mediante modelado paramétrico una órtesis optimizada para evaluar su respuesta mecánica en
condiciones de bipedestación estática, utilizando el método de elementos finitos con el material TPU A95. Los resultados
indicaron que las estructuras trabeculares producidas mediante diseño generativo absorben más energía (0.3876 J) que una
órtesis bilaminada confeccionada con materiales EVA A40 y A15 (0.0362 J). Los niveles de deformación obtenidos
(deformación principal máxima = 1.34%, deformación elástica equivalente = 2.14%) indican que la composición del modelo
generativo funciona bien dentro del régimen elástico, asegurando la integridad estructural. Sin embargo, los bajos valores de
deformación y energía de deformación sugieren un comportamiento relativamente rígido, lo que puede restringir la capacidad
de absorción de impactos. La principal contribución de este estudio es demostrar cómo el diseño generativo puede integrarse
en metodologías para diseñar órtesis plantares. Explora los posibles beneficios de este enfoque y examina cómo los parámetros
generativos del diseño influyen en las respuestas mecánicas. Esta investigación proporciona una base técnica para optimizar
las órtesis ergonómicas mediante modelado estructural y diseño generativo. Los hallazgos subrayan el potencial del diseño
generativo para crear órtesis optimizadas y destacan la importancia de los parámetros de diseño en los resultados alcanzados.
Esta información es valiosa para futuras aplicaciones del diseño generativo en el campo de la ergonomía.
Palabras clave: Análisis de elementos finitos; Diseño generativo; Ergonomía; Materiales elastoméricos.
ISSN: 2594-1925
2
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
1. Introduction
The human foot is designed for load absorption and to provide stability to the body; however, increased
body weight can lead to musculoskeletal alterations in the foot [1], [2], [3]. Several studies have
associated body mass index (BMI) with increased plantar pressure, a larger contact area, and abnormal
load redistribution in the plantar area, which directly influence the onset of pain and fatigue [4], [5],
[6], [7].
To mitigate the adverse effects of these weight conditions, plantar orthoses are used to support, align,
or redistribute the pressure of the foot, improving the function of the foot, treating pathologies with
materials such as Ethyl-Vinyl-Acetate (EVA) in varying degrees of rigidity that can be prefabricated
or customized to the needs of the patient [8], [9], [10]. However, the design of these orthoses is still
based on solid geometries that have limitations in their mechanical capabilities [11], [12], [13].
Additive manufacturing has enabled the incorporation of advanced structures with adjustable
mechanical properties, thereby improving plantar pressure distribution [14], [15], [16], [17].
Among the wide range of structural optimization techniques in human ergonomics, the application of
generative design has great potential to meet patients' needs; however, it also faces certain challenges,
including structural behavior, one of the most prominent [18], [19]. This research aims to investigate
structural optimization through the application of generative design in plantar foot orthoses compared
to traditional orthoses to design optimized orthoses from statistical data from a sample of
baropodometric data and characterization of materials to analyze their structural behavior under static
standing loads by finite element analysis
2. Background
The effect of optimized structures applied in plantar orthoses on load distribution has been
investigated, demonstrating their potential to withstand areas of high pressure and energy absorption,
including optimization methods and generative structures [20], [21], [22]. Generative design is an AI-
assisted process where goals and constraints are defined to automatically explore and generate multiple
optimized design solutions, producing biomimetic organic shapes [23], [24]. Generative design is
based on four main algorithmic processes: shape synthesis to explore geometries and structures,
surface optimization to determine optimal configurations, topological optimization to minimize
weight while maintaining strength, and trabecular structures to generate complex geometries inspired
by trabecular patterns [25], [26], [27]. In Hüseyin Özsoy’s review [28], it is mentioned that ergonomics
is one of the main approaches to generative design. Urquhart et al. [29] report that generative design
focused on human factors, ergonomics, anatomy, and functionality is essential for applying discrete
data and design intelligence in real case studies. Specifically, Schneider et al. [30] investigated the
application of generative design in plantar orthoses; the study highlights the potential to optimize
orthotic design that improves patient comfort and mobility and the impact of boundary conditions on
structure generation.
For the design of plantar foot orthoses, various anthropometric factors adjusted to the patient's needs
are taken into account [31]. Among these factors, one of the most closely related to the distribution of
plantar pressure is the areas of support of the foot [32]. This metric quantifies what percentage of the
total load is distributed in certain areas. Generally, the plantar area is divided into three parts: forefoot,
ISSN: 2594-1925
3
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
midfoot, and hindfoot. These areas are the ones that support the individual's body weight. It has been
reported that weight is the main factor for the increase in plantar pressure in critical areas such as the
forefoot and hindfoot [33], [34]. Ramos-Frutos et al. [35] reported that when people are in static
standing, the hindfoot presents more pressure (55.64 ± 18.80%) than the forefoot (45.18 ± 19.50%) in
the Mexican population.
For the manufacture of these orthoses, EVA material is usually used because it is a lightweight,
flexible, durable material and offers good cushioning and support. Bilaminated orthoses of two degrees
of EVA hardness are usually manufactured; high hardness grades serve as structural support and
impact absorption, while lower hardness grades are used for plantar pressure redistribution [36].
However, these materials can only be applied to machinable solid geometries, which have limited
capacity. With the incorporation of optimized structures, additive manufacturing has enabled the use
of materials such as thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) for structural support and shock absorption,
owing to its high resistance to wear and abrasion. TPU offers high cushioning, ergonomic support,
and durability [37], [38].
3. Methodology
As shown in Figure 1, a methodology was developed for the parametric modeling of an optimized
orthosis with a generative design with anthropometric-based data from a representative sample of
middle-aged adults classified as normal weight and the mechanical properties of characterized
materials, finally analyzing their mechanical behavior through finite element analysis.
Figure 1. Workflow diagram of the study.
ISSN: 2594-1925
4
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
3.1 Procedure
From a baropodometric database, an analysis of 33 middle-aged adult men classified as normal weight
was carried out, with an average weight of 65.32 ± 6.79 kg and a BMI of 22.68 ± 1.82 kg/m2. The data
were taken directly from the FreeStep® software (version 1.6.009, Sensormedica®, Guidonia
Montecelio, Rome, Italy). Once the data were obtained, an average body load of 640.78 N was
calculated for the total sample. The right foot was selected for the orthosis design due to its functional
predominance. According to the analysis carried out, it is determined that the right foot supports 46.70
± 7.80% of the body weight of the sample, the forefoot supports 40.64 ± 17.85%, while the hindfoot
supports 59.36 ± 17.85% of the load of the right foot.
3.2 Materials characterization
Material characterization was carried out on an Instron® 8872 universal testing machine (Instron®,
Norwood, Massachusetts, USA) by tensile testing in accordance with ASTM D412-16 with type C
specimens, applicable to thermoset rubbers and thermoplastic elastomers, commonly used to evaluate
both EVA and TPU under tension [39], [40]. This choice is considering the trabecular nature of the
generative design; the internal components of the geometry are subjected to complex stress states,
including local stress and flexural forces. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the elongation capacity
and strength of the base material under these conditions.
The tensile properties of two EVA hardness levels were evaluated: A40 (medium hardness) and A15
(soft hardness). EVA A15 exhibited low stiffness and reduced tensile strength, while EVA A40
demonstrated significantly higher rigidity, tensile strength, and elongation capacity, as shown in
Figure 2. Both materials showed high flexibility and ductility, consistent with prior literature [41],
[42].
Figure 2. ASTM D412-16 Type C EVA specimens in different hardness grades. a) A40. b) A15. c) Stress-strain diagram.
ISSN: 2594-1925
5
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
TPU A95 was characterized; its tensile properties exhibit ductile and elastomeric behavior, as shown
in Figure 3. It demonstrates high deformation capacity prior to fracture and a stable load response,
indicating good resistance to tension and impact, consistent with literature trends [43], [44].
Figure 3. a) ASTM D412-16 Type C specimen of TPU A95. b) Stress-strain diagram.
The data obtained from the stress tests served as input data for the definition of materials and their
properties for numerical simulation, simplified as a linear elastic material. The properties of the
materials are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Tensile mechanical properties of the characterized materials.
Material
Poisson’s ratio
Young's modulus
(MPa)
Yield tensile
strength (MPa)
Ultimate tensile
strength (MPa)
EVA A15
0.48
0.60
0.002
0.648
EVA A40
0.48
2.20
0.020
2.768
TPU A95
0.40
9.70
3.694
8.002
3.3 Generative design of the orthosis
To establish a base geometry with which the generative design can be integrated, Autodesk® Fusion
360 software (version 2.0, Autodesk® Inc., San Rafael, California, USA) was utilized to model a
bilaminated flat orthosis measuring 270 mm in length, 78 mm in width, and 10 mm in thickness. This
design consists of 8 mm of EVA A40 for structural support and a 2 mm surface layer of EVA A15,
intended for structural analysis purposes without considering the morphology of the foot, as shown in
Figure 4.
ISSN: 2594-1925
6
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
Figure 4. Bilaminated EVA orthosis. a) Lateral view. b) Isometric view.
A generative design study was carried out in which boundary conditions were established based on
the inputs obtained from the database to define the loads distributed along the contact surface of the
orthosis. According to Perry [45] in her Gait Analysis book and Schneider et al. [46], in their previous
work on generative design applied to plantar orthoses, it is mentioned that shear forces should be
considered within the parameters of the generative study. This is relevant, as the application of vertical
loads on a single axis would lead to the creation of straight structures, designed exclusively to
withstand vertical compression. Therefore, it was assigned a percentage of the total load to the forces
on the horizontal axis; the assigned load values correspond to each area of the contact surface. These
values were calculated according to the percentages of load distribution of the average right foot from
the sample; the values are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Loads corresponding to the boundary conditions of the analysis.
In addition, the movement of both rotation and translation of the lower contact surface of the orthosis
was restricted. As can be seen in Figure 5, preserved volumes were defined in the direct contact areas
ISSN: 2594-1925
7
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
that act as a solid interface to ensure a uniform load distribution towards the internal trabecular
structure. Finally, a 6 mm-thick geometry core was established as the initial geometry for the
generation of generative structures. The criterion of maximizing stiffness was chosen to guarantee
structural support, a minimum safety factor of 2.0, and, as a manufacturing method, unrestricted was
chosen. The material defined for the study was the previously characterized TPU A95.
Figure 5. Boundary conditions for generative design study.
A plantar orthosis optimized under the parameters of the generative design of a single iteration was
obtained, as observed in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Orthosis (generative design). a) Lateral view. b) Isometric view. c) Top view (plane cut).
ISSN: 2594-1925
8
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
3.4 Numerical simulation
Finally, a static structural analysis was performed using the finite element method, both for the
bilaminated EVA orthosis and for the generative design orthosis for comparison. The same boundary
conditions used in the generative design study were defined, with the difference that only the
compressive forces exerted on the Z axis were considered, simulating standing loads, as shown in
Figure 7. These conditions were applied to both models. Additionally, a mesh sensitivity analysis was
performed, from which a second-order tetrahedral element mesh with an element size of 2 mm was
chosen for both models, with an error of less than 2%.
Figure 7. Boundary conditions for static structural study.
The mechanical behavior was interpreted using criteria based on deformation, displacement, and
energy, which allow the evaluation of effective stiffness, absorption capacity, and load distribution,
avoiding the use of classical failure criteria that are not representative of linear and nonlinear elastic
materials. The selection of the four variables analyzed is based on the need to evaluate the structural
performance of both EVA and TPU materials, which were considered as plastic materials. Maximum
principal strain and equivalent elastic strain were examined to observe the structural capacity of these
materials and their behavior within their yield strength. Likewise, total deformation was used to study
the overall geometric change of the device under load. Finally, energy absorption was chosen as a
parameter to quantify the efficiency of orthoses in load management.
4. Results
The finite element analysis allowed for the comparison of the mechanical behavior of the bilaminated
EVA orthosis and the TPU orthosis with generative design under the same load conditions. The
mechanical variables obtained by simulation were compared, evaluating absolute and relative
differences, as well as the performance ratios between materials, consistent with linear and nonlinear
elastic models.
ISSN: 2594-1925
9
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
4.1. Strain distribution
In the equivalent elastic strain, the orthosis with a generative design presented an average value of
2.14%, higher than that observed in the EVA orthosis with a value of 1.54%. This increase suggests
that TPU experiences greater total strain, reflecting more flexible material behavior and lower
effective structural stiffness. As shown in Figure 8a, a more homogeneous pattern, with moderate
deformations mainly in the forefoot and hindfoot regions, is observed, while in Figure 8b, the
deformation is heterogeneously distributed with concentrations located on the trabecular structures.
Regarding the maximum principal strain, the EVA orthosis exhibited an average principal strain of
3.75%, significantly exceeding the 1.34% observed in the generative design orthosis. These results
suggest more pronounced local strain concentrations, especially in the hindfoot, as shown in Figure
8c. Conversely, the trabecular structures in Figure 8d facilitate deformation redistribution, thereby
lowering the maximum strain between the deformed areas. These specific strain values suggest that
the trabecular structures operate strictly within the elastic regime of the TPU material, significantly
below its yield point. Consequently, this prevents any permanent plastic deformation. However,
analytically, these low strain levels also suggest a relatively rigid structural response.
Figure 8. Elastic strain. a) Equivalent strain in EVA orthosis. b) Equivalent strain in generative design orthosis. c)
Maximum principal strain in EVA orthosis. d) Maximum principal strain in generative design orthosis.
ISSN: 2594-1925
10
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
4.2. Structural deformation
The total deformation showed marked differences between both configurations; the EVA orthosis,
shown in Figure 9a, presented an average displacement of 0.0783 mm, suggesting a limited structural
response. The greatest displacements are concentrated in the hindfoot. This distribution suggests that
EVA acts as a more rigid structure, concentrating deformation in specific areas of support, consistent
with the use of EVA A40 as a structural support.
In contrast, the generative design orthosis showed in Figure 9b, an average total displacement of
1.1137 mm was observed, higher than that observed in EVA. This suggests a deformable behavior,
mainly associated with the intrinsic properties of TPU A95 and the structures generated in relation to
the properties of the material. A distributed deformation is observed, particularly in the hindfoot and
forefoot, where the trabecular structures allow greater displacements without abrupt concentrations.
The controlled magnitude of this deformation indicates that the orthosis preserves its geometry under
static loading without structural collapse. Unlike a solid volume where deformation concentrates at
the point of impact, the trabecular structure efficiently redistributes the load across its entire geometry,
maintaining functional stability while preventing localized stress areas.
Figure 9. Total deformation. a) EVA orthosis. b) Generative design orthosis.
4.3. Energy absorption
Finally, the EVA orthosis presented a total value of 0.0362 J, a value that suggests a limited elastic
energy storage capacity. Figure 10a shows a contained distribution with moderate values concentrated
ISSN: 2594-1925
11
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
mainly in the hindfoot region and, to a lesser extent in the forefoot. On the contrary, the orthosis with
a generative design presented a deformation energy of 0.3876 J, a value higher than that of EVA,
suggesting a high capacity to absorb and store mechanical energy without concentrating it at critical
points, if compared to its EVA counterpart. Figure 10b shows a distribution of strain energy along the
entire plantar surface, with elevated values in the forefoot and hindfoot over the trabecular structures,
showing a dissipation and redistribution of the load. This difference suggests that the generative design
surpasses the energy dissipation capabilities of solid EVA structures. While the traditional system
relies on limited material hysteresis, the optimized TPU network functions as a complex system of
interconnected beams that distribute stresses three-dimensionally.
Figure 10. Energy strain. a) EVA orthosis. b) Generative design orthosis.
5. Discussions
This study aimed to investigate structural optimization by applying generative design to plantar
orthoses and comparing them to traditional designs from a finite element analysis focus. The main
contribution of this work is to demonstrate how generative design can be incorporated into the
processes for designing plantar orthotics; the results suggest that generative design has significant
potential in the field of ergonomics. The implementation of generative design leads to more optimal
performance due to the inherent properties of the materials used and the topology of the structures.
In this study, areas of deformation were concentrated in the trabecular regions, which enhances the
distribution and redistribution of these deformations throughout the overall structure. In contrast, the
ISSN: 2594-1925
12
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
mechanical behavior of the bilaminated EVA orthosis demonstrates a limited structural response,
primarily serving as a stiffness support structure. This stiffness is beneficial for supporting
musculoskeletal structures and favoring alignment. Nevertheless, the mechanical behavior of the
orthosis designed with generative principles indicates a more deformable and flexible character. This
flexibility is advantageous for the anatomical adaptation of the foot and helps achieve a more uniform
load distribution. This characteristic is inherent to TPU, which has shown such behavior in various
studies, reflecting a more stable load distribution [38], [47], [48], [49].
A remarkable density of the trabecular structures was observed in the hindfoot, where just over 50%
of the load of the foot is concentrated. However, it is the combination of the structure with the
appropriate material that determines the global mechanical behavior of the orthosis. The generated
topology allows for greater design freedom and flexibility compared to other advanced structures, such
as lattices, auxetic, or triply periodic minimal surfaces (TPMS) structures. However, a comparative
analysis between different topologies is necessary to establish a benchmark of efficiency.
In comparison, the work of Schneider et al. [30], where the density of material generated was in the
forefoot; In this work, it was the area of the hindfoot where there was a greater concentration of
material generated. To consider where there are more materials, where greater loads are applied,
making the structure denser in that area. In this design, there are more dispersed structures in the
forefoot than in the rearfoot, a structure that is responsible for the absorption of energy from the load.
Finally, the results must be interpreted within the limitations of the numerical model, since both
materials were treated as linear elastic under the specific load conditions. Given the hyperelastic
behavior of EVA and TPU, in future work, they could opt for non-linear constitutive models, in
addition to incorporating dynamic analyses to more realistically evaluate the absorption and
dissipation of energy during walking and the interaction between orthoses and the foot. The results
presented should be considered preliminary. While these simulations offer detailed predictions of
mechanical behavior based on the properties of previously characterized materials, it is important to
note that they represent theoretical models. Therefore, these findings need to undergo future
experimental validation and subsequent experimental testing to confirm the correlation between
computational predictions and the actual performance of the orthosis under real-use conditions;
additionally, the possibility of manufacture prototypes to validate experimentally with test subjects to
evaluate their functionality in redistributing plantar pressure and their interaction with the foot,
considering the morphology of the foot in orthosis design, other materials, boundary conditions and
data from particular conditions such as overweight or obesity.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, applying generative design to plantar orthoses shows significant potential for
optimizing mechanical response and stress distribution compared to traditional designs. However, the
importance of these findings lies in their role as a preliminary design framework based solely on
computer simulations. The main limitation of this study is the absence of physical evidence; therefore,
the clinical applicability of these results depends on future research that involves the creation of
prototypes and their experimental validation with real test subjects. This is necessary to confirm the
structural integrity and ergonomic effectiveness predicted by the numerical models.
ISSN: 2594-1925
13
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
7. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the SECIHTI for supporting the postgraduate students involved in this
work.
8. Authorship acknowledgment
Christian Enrique Nava-Alcantar: Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, investigation,
and writing—original draft; Israel Miguel-Andrés: Supervision, visualization, and writing—review &
editing; Agustín Vidal-Lesso: Writing—review & editing, and technical consistency review; Marco
Antonio Martínez-Bocanegra: Writing—review & editing, visualization; Luis Ángel Ortiz-Lango:
Visualization, and writing—review & editing; Juan Carlos García-Valadez: Technical consistency
review; Sergio Alonso-Romero: Supervision, and writing—review & editing.
9. Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
References
[1] A. P. Hills, E. M. Hennig, M. McDonald, and O. Bar-Or, “Plantar pressure differences between obese and non-obese
adults: A biomechanical analysis,” International Journal of Obesity, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1674–1679, 2001, doi:
10.1038/sj.ijo.0801785.
[2] W. R. Ledoux and S. Telfer, Foot and ankle biomechanics. Elsevier, 2023. doi: 10.1016/C2017-0-03286-X.
[3] J. A. Ramos-Frutos, I. Miguel-Andrés, M. León-Rodríguez, L. A. Ortiz-Lango, S. L. Orozco-Villaseñor, and A. Vidal-
Lesso, “Type of feet in a Mexican population: Analysis of the footprint morphology and literature review,” Revista
Mexicana de Ingeniería Biomédica, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 6–15, May 2023, doi: 10.17488/RMIB.44.2.1.
[4] J. Anderson, A. E. Williams, and C. J. Nester, “Musculoskeletal disorders, foot health and footwear choice in
occupations involving prolonged standing,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 81, no. 3, p. 103079,
Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103079.
[5] K. J. Mickle, J. R. Steele, and B. J. Munro, “Does excess mass affect plantar pressure in young children?,” International
Journal of Pediatric Obesity, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 183–188, 2006, doi: 10.1080/17477160600881734.
[6] I. Miguel-Andrés, A. E. Rivera-Cisneros, J. J. Mayagoitia-Vázquez, S. L. Orozco-Villaseñor, and A. Rosas-Flores,
“Flatfoot index and areas with the highest prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in young athletes,” Fisioterapia,
vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 17–23, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ft.2019.08.002.
[7] I. Miguel-Andrés, J. J. J. Mayagoitia-Vázquez, S. L. L. Orozco-Villaseñor, M. León-Rodríguez, and D. Samayoa-
Ochoa, “Effect of the morphology of the soles of the feet on plantar pressure distribution in young athletes with different
foot types,” Fisioterapia, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 30–37, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ft.2020.07.003.
[8] P. Buckle, “Ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders: overview,” Occupational Medicine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 164–
167, May 2005, doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqi081.
[9] B. Y. S. Tsung, M. Zhang, A. F. T. Mak, and M. W. N. Wong, “Effectiveness of insoles on plantar pressure
redistribution,” The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 41, no. 6 A, pp. 767–774, 2004, doi:
10.1682/JRRD.2003.09.0139.
[10] P. Hernández-Gandarillas, S. L. Orozco-Villaseñor, J. de Jesús Mayagoitia-Vázquez, I. Miguel-Andrés, J. P. Herrera-
Rangel, and K. D. de la Cruz-Alvarado, “Results of the use of personalized insoles for the treatment of cavus foot and
comorbidities,” IFMBE Proceedings, vol. 75, pp. 921–932, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-30648-9_119.
[11] A. Rosas-Flores and I. Miguel‐Andrés, “Numerical simulation by finite elements for redistribution of plantar pressure
in sport insoles,” in Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Biomédica N°43, 2020, pp. 1–8. doi:
dx.doi.org/10.24254/CNIB.20.33.
ISSN: 2594-1925
14
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
[12] J. M. Gerrard, D. R. Bonanno, D. R. Bonanno, G. A. Whittaker, G. A. Whittaker, and K. B. Landorf, “Effect of different
orthotic materials on plantar pressures: A systematic review,” Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
1–11, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s13047-020-00401-3.
[13] K. Van Alsenoy, J. H. Ryu, and O. Girard, “The effect of EVA and TPU custom foot orthoses on running economy,
running mechanics, and comfort,” Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, vol. 1, no. September, pp. 1–10, 2019, doi:
10.3389/fspor.2019.00034.
[14] Y. F. Hudak et al., “A novel workflow to fabricate a patient-specific 3D printed accommodative foot orthosis with
personalized latticed metamaterial,” Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 104, no. November 2021, p. 103802, Jun.
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2022.103802.
[15] R. Collings, J. Freeman, J. M. Latour, and J. Paton, “Footwear and insole design features for offloading the diabetic at
risk foot—A systematic review and meta-analyses,” Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–18,
2021, doi: 10.1002/edm2.132.
[16] A. K. Kundumani-Janarthanan and B. Vaidhyanathan, “Additive manufacturing of smart footwear components for
healthcare applications,” Micromachines, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 30, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.3390/mi16010030.
[17] Y. Sun et al., “3D printed sports shoe midsoles: Enhancing comfort and performance through finite element analysis
of negative Poisson’s ratio structures,” Materials and Design, vol. 245, no. September, p. 113292, 2024, doi:
10.1016/j.matdes.2024.113292.
[18] H. O. Demirel, M. H. Goldstein, X. Li, and Z. Sha, “Human-centered generative design framework: An early design
framework to support concept creation and evaluation,” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol.
40, no. 4, pp. 933–944, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2171489.
[19] P. R. Shrestha, D. Timalsina, S. Bista, B. P. Shrestha, and T. M. Shakya, “Generative design approach for product
development,” The 7th International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology, vol. 2397, no. 1,
2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0065031.
[20] L. Zoboli, D. Bianchi, C. Falcinelli, and A. Gizzi, “Improving the manufacturing of 3D printed insoles through a
combined experimental and topology optimization approach,” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, vol.
31, no. 30, pp. 12636–12650, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1080/15376494.2024.2326667.
[21] N. Ferro, S. Perotto, D. Bianchi, R. Ferrante, and M. Mannisi, “Design of cellular materials for multiscale topology
optimization: application to patient-specific orthopedic devices,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol.
65, no. 3, pp. 1–26, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00158-021-03163-z.
[22] M. Davia-Aracil, J. J. Hinojo-Pérez, A. Jimeno-Morenilla, and H. Mora-Mora, “3D printing of functional anatomical
insoles,” Computers in Industry, vol. 95, pp. 38–53, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2017.12.001.
[23] R. Jaisawal and V. Agrawal, “Generative design method – A state of art,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering, vol. 1104, no. 1, p. 012036, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/1104/1/012036.
[24] F. Buonamici, M. Carfagni, R. Furferi, Y. Volpe, and L. Governi, “Generative design: An explorative study,”
Computer-Aided Design and Applications, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 144–155, 2020, doi: 10.14733/cadaps.2021.144-155.
[25] Z. Wang, Z. Cao, F. Fan, and Y. Sun, “Shape optimization of free-form grid structures based on the sensitivity hybrid
multi-objective evolutionary algorithm,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 102538, Dec. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102538.
[26] O. Peckham, J. Raines, E. Bulsink, M. Goudswaard, J. Gopsill, and D. Barton, “Artificial intelligence in generative
design : A structured review of trends and opportunities in techniques and applications,” Designs, vol. 9, no. 4, 2025,
doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/designs9040079.
[27] J. Alcaide-Marzal, J. A. Diego-Mas, and G. Acosta-Zazueta, “A 3D shape generative method for aesthetic product
design,” Design Studies, vol. 66, pp. 144–176, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.003.
[28] H. Ö. Özsoy, “Enhancing industrial product aesthetics, ergonomics , and usability with artificial intelligence-driven
generative design,” Journal of Intelligent Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 141–155, 2025, doi:
10.38016/jista.1677535.
[29] L. Urquhart, A. Wodehouse, B. Loudon, and C. Fingland, “The application of generative algorithms in human-centered
product development,” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 7, 2022, doi: 10.3390/app12073682.
[30] J. Schneider, S. Essafi, A. Pilar, V. Puerta, A. P. Valerga Puerta, and D. Völz, “Comprehensive generative approach to
design insoles,” Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 555–558, Dec. 2024, doi:
10.1515/cdbme-2024-2136.
[31] J. T. M. Cheung and M. Zhang, “Parametric design of pressure-relieving foot orthosis using statistics-based finite
element method,” Medical Engineering and Physics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 269–277, 2008, doi:
ISSN: 2594-1925
15
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
10.1016/j.medengphy.2007.05.002.
[32] K. Surmen, F. Ortes, and Y. Z. Arslan, “Design and Production of Subject Specific Insole Using Reverse Engineering
and 3D Printing Technology,” International Journal of Engineering Science Intervention, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 11–15,
2016, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19729495
[33] C. Elias, A. Abraham, C. Asrat, T. Yakob, and D. Girma, “Prevalence of overweight/obesity and its association with
fast food consumption among adolescents in Southern Ethiopia, 2022: a community-based cross-sectional study,”
Frontiers in Nutrition, vol. 11, no. January, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1475116.
[34] K. Khalaf, D. M. Mohan, M. Al Hindi, A. H. Khandoker, and H. F. Jelinek, “Plantar pressure alterations associated
with increased BMI in young adults,” Gait & Posture, vol. 98, no. September, pp. 255–260, Oct. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.09.071.
[35] J. A. Ramos-Frutos et al., “Effect of foot type on plantar pressure distribution in healthy mexicans: Static and dynamic
pressure analysis,” Physiologia, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 29, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/physiologia5030029.
[36] A. Healy, D. Dunning, and N. Chockalingam, “Effect of insole material on plantar pressure,” Footwear Science, vol.
3, no. sup1, pp. S69–S70, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1080/19424280.2011.575804.
[37] M. C. Iacob, D. Popescu, C. Stochioiu, F. Baciu, and A. Hadar, “Compressive behavior of thermoplastic polyurethane
with an active agent foaming for 3D-printed customized comfort insoles,” Polymer Testing, vol. 137, no. January, p.
108517, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.108517.
[38] P. Baranowski, A. Kapusta, P. Płatek, and M. Sarzyński, “Influence of 3D-printed cellular shoe soles on plantar
pressure during running − Experimental and numerical studies,” Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 44,
no. 4, pp. 858–873, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.bbe.2024.11.004.
[39] F. Hashim, I. Surya, A. Rusli, and H. Ismail, “Microstructure-properties of dynamically vulcanized mengkuang leaf
fibre/ethylene vinyl acetate/natural rubber thermoplastic elastomer composites,” BioResources, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.
6036–6055, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.15376/biores.17.4.6036-6055.
[40] J. Xiao and Y. Gao, “The manufacture of 3D printing of medical grade TPU,” Progress in Additive Manufacturing,
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 117–123, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s40964-017-0023-1.
[41] I. Bianchi, A. Forcellese, M. Simoncini, and A. Vita, “Mechanical characterization and sustainability assessment of
recycled EVA for footwears,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 126, no. 7–8, pp.
3149–3160, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00170-023-11332-1.
[42] G. Mariotti and L. Vannozzi, “Fabrication, characterization, and properties of poly (ethylene-co-vinyl acetate)
composite thin films doped with piezoelectric nanofillers,” Nanomaterials, vol. 9, no. 8, 2019, doi:
10.3390/nano9081182.
[43] V. Marco, G. Massimo, and G. Manuela, “Additive manufacturing of flexible thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU):
enhancing the material elongation through process optimisation,” Progress in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 2877–2891, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s40964-024-00790-y.
[44] Y. H. Lee et al., “Effect of hot pressing/melt mixing on the properties of thermoplastic polyurethane,” Macromolecular
Research, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 616–622, 2009, doi: 10.1007/BF03218918.
[45] J. Perry and J. Burnfield, Gait analysis, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Slack Incorporated, 2010. doi: 10.1201/9781003525592.
[46] J. Schneider and D. Völz, “Advancing diabetic foot care: Incorporating horizontal shear forces in orthopaedic insoles
through generative design,” Gerontechnology, vol. 23, no. s, pp. 1–1, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.4017/gt.2024.23.s.978.pp.
[47] T. P. Simarmata, M. Martawidjaja, C. Harito, and C. C. L. Tobing, “Three-dimensional printed auxetic insole orthotics
for flat foot patients with quality function development/theory of inventive problem solving/analytical hierarchy
process methods,” Designs, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 15, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/designs9010015.
[48] F. Claybrook, M. I. Mohammed, D. Southee, F. R. Claybrook, M. Mohammed, and D. J. Southee, “Investigation of
additive manufactured Split-P TPMS elastomeric structures for diabetic foot insoles,” Transactions on Additive
Manufacturing Meets Medicine, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2022, doi: 10.18416/AMMM.2022.2209664.
[49] R. Kumar and S. K. Sarangi, “3D Printed customized diabetic foot insoles with architecture designed lattice structures
– a case study,” Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 015019, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1088/2057-
1976/ad1732.
ISSN: 2594-1925
16
Revista de Ciencias Tecnológicas (RECIT). Volumen 9 (2): e448.
Derechos de Autor (c) 2026 Christian Enrique Nava-Alcantar, Agustín Vidal-Lesso, Marco Antonio Martínez-Bocanegra,
Luis Ángel Ortiz-Lango, Juan Carlos García-Valadez, Sergio Alonso Romero, Israel Miguel-Andrés
Este texto está protegido por una licencia Creative Commons 4.0.
Usted es libre para compartir —copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato — y adaptar el documento —
remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material— para cualquier propósito, incluso para fines comerciales, siempre que
cumpla la condición de:
Atribución: Usted debe dar crédito a la obra original de manera adecuada, proporcionar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se
han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que tiene el apoyo del
licenciante o lo recibe por el uso que hace de la obra.
Resumen de licencia - Texto completo de la licencia