Authors : Vikas H. S.; Dr. Hanumantharaju H. G.; Sandeep P. R.; Dr. Aravinda J.; Basavaraju S.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5n73swae

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/mw3z3k97

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26feb736

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Prosthetic foot design plays a critical role in restoring mo- bility and quality of life for individuals with lower- limb ampu- tation, particularly in low-resource settings where affordability, durability, and functional reliability are essential. The Jaipur- Foot prosthesis is widely used due to its low cost and cultural adaptability; however, its long-term structural performance is strongly influenced by material selection. Traditional micro- cellular rubber (MCR), while offering flexibility and shock absorption, has been associated with excessive deformation and limited fatigue resistance under repetitive loading. Despite the increasing clinical adoption of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) as an alternative prosthetic material, a direct component-level numerical comparison between HDPE and MCR for Jaipur-Foot applications remains limited. In this study, a Jaipur-Foot–inspired three-dimensional model was developed using computer-aided design and evaluated through finite element analysis. Static structural analysis was performed under physiological load levels ranging from 600 N to 1200 N, followed by fatigue life estimation and topology optimization using ANSYS Mechanical. The results indicate that HDPE exhibits a more uniform stress distribution and controlled deformation compared to MCR across all loading conditions. Under a 1200 N load, the maximum equivalent stress remained below 9 × 105 Pa for HDPE, while fatigue life predictions showed a significantly higher endurance compared to MCR. Topology optimization further demonstrated the potential for material reduction with- out compromising structural safety. Overall, the findings suggest that HDPE offers improved structural reliability and fatigue performance over conventional MCR, highlighting its suitability as a biomaterial for durable and cost-effective Jaipur-Foot prosthetic applications.

Keywords : Jaipur Foot; High-Density Polyethylene; Mi-Crocellular Rubber; Finite Element Analysis; Fatigue Behavior; Biomaterials.

References :

1. P. K. Sethi, M. P. Udawat, S. C. Kasliwal, and R. Chandra, “Vulcan- ized rubber foot for lower limb amputees,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 125–136, 1978.
2. P. K. Sethi, “A rubber foot for amputees in underdeveloped countries,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Volume), vol. 54-B, no. 3, pp. 526–531, 1972.
3. A. P. Arya, A. Lees, H. C. Nirula, and L. Klenerman, “A biomechanical comparison of the SACH, Seattle, and Jaipur feet using ground reaction forces,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 37– 45, 1995.
4. J. S. Jensen and W. Raab, “Clinical field testing of vulcanized Jaipur rubber feet for transtibial amputees,” Prosthetics and Orthotics Interna- tional, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 367–378, 2007.
5. A. Bhargava, “Jaipur foot and Jaipur prosthesis: An overview,” In- dian Journal of Orthopaedics, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 5–10, 2019. DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho 259 18.
6. S. Rajkumar and K. S. Raghunathan, “Comparison on Jaipur, SACH and Madras foot,” International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and Technologies, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 187–192, 2010.
7. R. Magni and M. S. Crespo, “Prosthetic feet: State of the art and future trends,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1001–1016, 2016.
8. S. Kumar and P. Mishra, “Jaipur foot gait control through predictive con- trol strategies,” Biomedical Engineering Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 210– 219, 2014.
9. Y. Hu et al., “Biomechanical evaluation of prosthetic foot designs,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 2875–2882, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.06.012.
10. R. Mysore, A. Kumar, and S. Prasad, “Finite element analysis of pros- thetic foot structures,” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 45–52, 2016.
11. S. Nath, S. Bodhak, and B. Basu, “HDPE–Al2O3–HAp composites for biomedical applications: Processing and characterizations,” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials, vol. 83B, no. 1, pp. 114–125, 2007. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30824.
12. Y. Hu et al., “Mechanical characterization of high-density polyethylene for biomedical applications,” Materials Science and Engineering A, vol. 612, pp. 1–8, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2014.06.003.
13. A. N. Khan et al., “Fatigue behavior of high-density polyethylene,” Polymer Testing, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 870–876, 2010.
14. P. K. Sethi et al., “Mechanical properties of vulcanized rubber used in prosthetic feet,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 140–148, 1978.
15. R. Singh and A. Verma, “Fatigue performance of microcellular rubber in prosthetic applications,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 245–252, 2012.
16. R. Magni et al., “Comparative study of rubber and thermoplastic materials for prosthetic feet,” Journal of Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 311–320, 2016.
17. S. Patel and R. Desai, “Material selection criteria for prosthetic foot design,” International Journal of Prosthetics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 65–72, 2018.
18. L. Zhang et al., “Mechanical behavior of polymer-based prosthetic com- ponents,” Polymer Engineering and Science, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 1895– 1904, 2019.
19. D. Kumar and M. Rao, “Durability assessment of prosthetic foot materials,” Materials Performance, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 48–55, 2020.
20. J. S. Jensen et al., “Clinical field follow-up of high-density polyethylene Jaipur prosthetic technology,” Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 134–140, 2004.
21. A. H. Awad et al., “Mechanical and physical properties of high-density polyethylene,” Engineering Science, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 45–52, 2019. DOI: 10.11648/j.es.20190402.12.
22. R. Verma et al., “Advances in polymer-based prosthetic foot materials,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 1156, pp. 112–119, 2021.
23. P. Sharma and S. Iyer, “Fatigue life prediction of polymer components using finite element analysis,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 134, p. 106065, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106065.
24. M. Allen et al., “Topology optimization of prosthetic components for weight reduction,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2023.
25. R. Jain et al., “Performance evaluation of Jaipur foot prosthesis,” International Journal of Orthopaedics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 2016.
26. S. Rao and K. Mehta, “Finite element analysis of prosthetic foot under static and cyclic loads,” International Journal of Engineering Research, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 233–240, 2015.