Production Playbook: How Carbon and Arkema DLS Resins Support Vivobarefoot Adjustable Lattice 3D Products

This guide explains how industrial teams can use Carbon and Arkema DLS elastomeric resins to make adjustable lattice 3D products with tuned cushioning, support and energy return. Start by mapping customer body geometry, then select lattice unit cells, validate material response, and move small-batch models such as Vivobarefoot sandals toward repeatable digital manufacturing.

Why adjustable lattice 3D products matter beyond product demos

The production case is simple: geometry can become the variable that absorbs design change, instead of tooling. Carbon is developing elastomeric resins for its Digital Light Synthesis technology, and it relies on Arkema experience with UV-curable specialty materials. The combined material and manufacturing strengths support adjustable lattice structures for consumer products such as footwear and sporting equipment, where cushioning, support and energy return can be tuned in the same part.

That matters for athletic footwear, fashion and lifestyle applications because custom designs and made-to-order products can move closer to real demand. Vivobarefoot is the clearest signal in this space: a 3D-printed sandal based on foot scans can reduce inventory and material waste while giving one person a different fit than another.

The relationship is more than a brochure link. Arkema said in 2019 that it took part in a Carbon growth funding round with a US$20 million investment, a step that points to a longer industrial task: aligning resin chemistry, process windows and design software so that lattice parts do not remain laboratory curiosities.

What teams must prove before a line accepts adjustable lattice parts

A pilot should treat three proofs as gates, not marketing labels. First, the material must behave like an elastomer under the product's loads, not just flex on a test bench. Second, the lattice must be selectable against a load map, because the same unit cell may feel acceptable on a soft midsole but unreliable on a support rail. Third, the printing route must produce repeatable parts after washing, post-cure and aging.

• Material proof: Carbon presents EPU 40 as an elastomeric 3D printing material with tear strength, energy return and elongation in one profile, a useful proxy for footwear-like durability requirements.
• Geometry proof: Carbon has reported to 3D Printing Industry in 2021 that its Design Engine could generate lattices in about 18 seconds on average, while reducing material use by 57 percent and printing time by 54 percent. Those figures are not a universal promise, but they set a benchmark that teams should test in their own part files.
• Process proof: DLS needs resin handling, optical calibration, support-free build control and post-process discipline. The factory should record lot variation, temperature exposure, wash time and cure profile before claiming scale.

Step-by-step workflow from customer body scan to adjustable lattice part

Use the following sequence as a practical checklist. It keeps the Carbon and Arkema material story tied to shop-floor decisions.

1. Choose a narrow product family. Start with one SKU, such as a Vivobarefoot-style 3D sandal or sports-pad insert, not an entire catalog.
2. Define a load map. Break the body surface into zones for heel impact, arch support, toe flex, side loading and heat or moisture exposure.
3. Capture scan data with a quality gate. Record scan success rate, re-scan time, operator steps and the minimum geometry needed for CAD.
4. Translate the load map into lattice targets. Decide which zones need softness, rebound, stiffness or tear resistance, then search or generate conformal lattices around those targets.
5. Run build simulations and small builds. Use the same resin lot for design iterations where possible; otherwise the team cannot tell whether a change came from geometry or chemistry.
6. Test as an assembly, not a cube. For footwear, check cycling, wash, sweat, dust and skin-contact standards early; for sporting equipment, check impact, abrasion and low-temperature response.
7. Convert fit data into inventory policy. The value of made-to-order is not only comfort; it is lower finished-goods stock and less wasted material when demand is uncertain.

Vivobarefoot as a production reality check

Vivobarefoot shows that scan-to-print needs a staged industrial plan, not a single product launch. Media reports say the first VivoBiome Tabi Gen 01 sandal, launched in 2025, was sold in a limited run and built from customer foot scans. Reporting on the later Tabi Gen 02 says the project moved toward Carbon DLS for higher material precision and a lighter build, with each sandal at about 91 grams and a very thin 2 mm sole.

That progression is useful because it matches the master thesis: the point is not to print a fancy shape, but to use 3D body data and tunable lattice geometry to make individualized products at a lower risk of overproduction. It also exposes the practical limit: retail scanning, part finishing and local production capacity must be solved before a made-to-order promise becomes a delivery promise.

Common mistakes to avoid when scaling DLS lattice products

• Treating every lattice as interchangeable. A cushioning lattice and a support lattice may use the same resin but need different failure limits.
• Letting software output replace physical validation. Carbon reports fast lattice generation, but teams still need coupons, prototypes and wear tests.
• Ignoring resin lot and cure variation. If material batches are not traceable, a factory cannot diagnose why one batch tears and another springs back.
• Building the whole product from a single scan source. Footwear needs clean topology, but the scan device, calibration and data pipeline are part of manufacturing.
• Assuming customization equals margin. Personalization can cut inventory, but it can also add labor, data errors and returns if the fit is only slightly off.

A practical scorecard for industrial teams

Decision area	What to measure	Benchmark from public sources	Action if the metric fails
Lattice design time	CAD time, iterations, material use	18 seconds for lattice generation, 57 percent less material, 54 percent less print time in Carbon's 2021 report	Narrow part library before scaling
Material behavior	Tear strength, energy return, elongation	EPU 40 page positions Carbon material around these three properties	Run side-by-side resin lot tests
Fit and scan	Re-scan rate, data quality, order lead time	Vivobarefoot scan-to-print sandals use individual foot scans	Add scan quality gates and staff training
Inventory effect	Units held, returns, material waste	Master case says custom sandals can reduce inventory and material waste	Start with limited made-to-order releases

Action recommendations for managers, engineers and supply teams

• Run a 30-day feasibility pilot: three load zones, two lattice families, one resin lot, twenty builds, and one customer wear test.
• Write a specification that links body zones to material response, not just product mood or marketing language.
• Keep Carbon, Arkema, equipment parameters and software settings in one traceability record; isolated vendor pages hide the real bottleneck.
• Plan for service after sale: fit review, reprint route, warranty and returns must be included in the cost model.
• Scale by use case, not geography. A single scan kiosk can support a pilot; a network needs data governance, firmware control and parts logistics.

FAQ: What industrial buyers should know

What does the Carbon and Arkema combination bring to adjustable lattice 3D products?

Carbon supplies the Digital Light Synthesis route and a growing set of elastomeric resins, while Arkema contributes specialty UV-curable material experience. Together they make it easier to tune cushioning, support and energy return inside lattice parts for footwear and sporting goods.

Can lattice structures replace foam in consumer products?

Sometimes, but only after testing the stress-strain band, fatigue life, moisture response and surface wear. Lattice tunability is attractive because many cells can mimic a broader comfort range than fixed foam, yet a real product may need both rebound and damping.

Is the Vivobarefoot example a Carbon-only product story?

Not in a simple way. The master article uses Vivobarefoot's 3D-printed sandal as a scan-to-print example. Later reports say Tabi Gen 02 shifted toward Carbon DLS, while the first Tabi version was a limited scan-to-print product. The useful lesson is the sequence: scan, tune geometry, then qualify the print process.

What should a factory measure first?

Measure scan quality, lattice generation time, build success rate, post-cure consistency and the number of returned or reworked units. Those five metrics convert the material story into a production decision.

Reference notes

Arkema-Carbon 2019 funding and partnership information: Arkema news page.

Carbon material property context: Carbon EPU 40 material page.

Design Engine lattice speed and material/time savings: 3D Printing Industry interview.

Vivobarefoot scan-to-print launch: VoxelMatters report.

Tabi Gen 02 process and weight details: 3D Printing Industry report.