ONE-YEAR MATERIALS + FOOTWEAR STUDY

From material
to movement.

A pressure-guided lattice insole developed through custom elastomer research, parametric modeling, and a custom force–deformation testing device.

Explore the process ↓

Insole prototypes and lattice samples arranged on a table

01year of development

02material hardness levels

12lattice structures explored

01DIY force / deformation rig

01 / THE QUESTION

Can an insole respond differently to different parts of the foot?

A uniform foam block treats every region the same. I wanted to test whether a spatially tuned lattice could balance cushioning and support where the foot actually needs it.

PLANTAR PRESSURE / RESAMPLED MAPPROJECT IMAGE

Resampled plantar pressure map with coordinate axes and a numerical color scale

Observe

Red and orange regions concentrate around the heel and forefoot; the arch carries comparatively less load.

Translate

Convert the pressure field into regional design variables: lattice family, cell size, relative density, and material hardness.

Test

Compare structures mechanically before selecting a full insole configuration.

02 / THE MATERIAL

Before designing the lattice, I built the material.

A high-resilience elastomer, similar in feel to TPU, became the basis for every geometry experiment. The comparison uses two hardness levels: Shore A 85 and Shore A 95. Test records and material provenance will be added alongside the results.

Shoe sole and cut material samples on a laboratory bench

01 / Sample preparation

Compression testing of a material sample in the laboratory

02 / Compression test

Tensile testing of a material sample in the laboratory

03 / Tensile test

Tensile test records displayed on a laboratory computer

04 / Test records

Preparing materials at the laboratory bench

05 / Material preparation

Material specimen stretched between tensile testing grips

06 / Tensile testing

MATERIAL VARIABLE 01SHORE A 85

Lower hardness candidate for compliant, energy-absorbing regions.

MATERIAL VARIABLE 02SHORE A 95

Higher hardness candidate for stability and load-bearing regions.

Material decision

After testing both Shore A 85 and Shore A 95, I found that 85A was too soft for structural lattice tests. The following prototypes therefore use 95A as the main material.

Hardness is one material variable. Compression behavior and recovery need separate measurements; fatigue testing is a proposed next step.

02.1 / DIY INSTRUMENT

A small rig made the material measurable.

We tried using a force scale to record the load and observe how the structures deformed. We collected some data, but I felt that the numbers alone did not convey how the different structures would feel underfoot. I wanted to use my own body weight and feel their elasticity through direct contact with my feet. To me, this would make the differences more tangible.

CALIBRATION / TO DOCUMENTOUTPUT / FORCE + DISPLACEMENTSTATUS / PROTOTYPE

Lattice sample beneath an acrylic compression plate with a force sensor and digital display

01 / Compression test

A second lattice sample being compressed using the DIY force measurement device

02 / Compression test

03 / THE DESIGN SPACE

Twelve structures to compare.

I am comparing twelve lattice structures using 85A and 95A materials. These photographs document the physical samples. Select a photograph to view the original in detail.

04 / THE SYSTEM

Pressure becomes a rule for geometry.

I used Rhino + Grasshopper for form development and parametric control.

01Capture
pressure

02Divide into
regions

03Assign
lattice

04Print +
measure

TOOLS IN THE LOOP

nToplattice + field mapping

Rhinosurface + form

Grasshopperparametric logic

DIY RIGforce / deformation

Rhino and Grasshopper parametric region design — **Parametric region design**Grasshopper node graph / workflow

**3D-printed insole model 01**Physical prototype photograph

**3D-printed insole model 02**Physical prototype photograph

OBSERVATION / FIRST WEAR

Different regions, different responses.

This prototype combines several lattice structures across the insole, so each region has a different elastic response. Underfoot, the changing textures feel almost like a massage. The first wear test also revealed problems to solve: the hard perimeter edges feel sharp and may wear or detach over time, while the heel region can sink and leave an uncomfortable edge.

Close-up of lattice structures and hard perimeter edge — **Edge and lattice detail**Close-up inspection

Foot standing on the prototype insole — **Underfoot fit**Initial wear test

05 / THE REFLECTION

Design became a loop, not a single answer.

Because the perimeter frame in the previous design created problems, I redesigned the insole around a single lattice structure. Its density changes according to the plantar pressure map, creating stronger and softer support in different regions.

Single lattice density variation sample — **Single-structure density test**Variable support sample

nTop pressure-gradient lattice insole design overview — **Pressure-gradient lattice design**nTop density mapping

nTop lattice density transition detail — **Density transition detail**Ramp-driven lattice variation

TPMS-Gyroid insole print failure with collapsed internal spans — **TPMS-Gyroid print failure**Repeated FDM prints failed because large internal spans need support, but support is difficult to remove from a filled lattice.

Framed insole prototype that made the bottom too hard — **Framed prototype failure**The added perimeter made the bottom too hard, so I quickly removed the frame and changed direction.

Pressure-parameterized insole being worn for an initial comfort evaluation — **Successful structure, limited comfort**The structure printed successfully and provided pressure-informed support, but underfoot it felt close to a conventional silicone insole rather than unexpectedly comfortable.

After all these tests, one version still felt the most comfortable.

Sometimes technical complexity is not the goal. Returning to the basics—comfort, enough elasticity, and a feeling that the foot can spring back—may matter more.

Preferred insole version selected for its more comfortable elastic response — **Preferred comfort response**The most comfortable version became a reminder that simple, elastic feedback can matter more than technical complexity.

Updated insole design with elastic support added to the forefoot — **Forefoot support update**I added an elastic support structure to the front half of the foot. The updated version feels more comfortable underfoot.

Physical comparison of printed insole prototypes and lattice samples — **Printed prototype comparison**A side-by-side record of the printed insoles and lattice samples from the iteration process.

READING + CONTEXT

MakerBot Design Series: The Running Shoe — Core77, 2018 ↗

A related example of parametric lattice exploration and iterative prototyping.

From materialto movement.