Are 3D-Printed Machine Guards the Future of Industrial Safety?

Machine guarding has long been the industrial equivalent of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and then bolting it down for good measure. Standard guards, rigid in form, are often forced onto machines they were never truly meant for, which often results in a frustrating cycle of over-engineering, under-protecting and reworking what was “supposed to work the first time.” And in an environment where the margin for error is narrow, “close enough” is no longer sufficient. Worse yet, when guard design overlooks the employee, their frustration can lead to removing the guard and putting themselves at risk.

But what if the problem isn’t the guard itself but the way we’ve been told to think about it?

Additive manufacturing (AM) is transforming this process. Through its ability to support complex geometries, fast prototyping cycles and component-level customization, AM introduces new possibilities for guard design that are better suited to today’s machines and industrial environments. Rather than forcing standard components onto specialized equipment, engineers can now develop application-specific solutions that improve safety outcomes, reduce production delays and simplify compliance.

As industrial systems move toward Industry 4.0, the question is not whether AM is viable for machine guarding but whether traditional fabrication methods can keep up.

Limitations of Traditional Machine Guarding

Most conventional guards are built from the same predictable palette: sheet metal if strength is the goal, aluminum if weight’s a concern, polycarbonate if visibility matters or expanded metal for a very difficult application. The materials are familiar, reliable and easy to specify, but they haven’t changed much in decades. They’re shaped by subtractive processes: cut, bent, drilled, joined and coated. It’s a sequence, not a system. And every step depends on the last being precisely right.

Plastic guards follow a similar pattern, just with a different toolset. Thermoforming or injection molding handles the bulk of production. That works fine until the shape you need doesn’t match the mold you have. Then it’s back to redesign, back to tooling, back to the start, back to frustration.

The design lifecycle often plays out the same way. A risk is identified, a CAD file is created and the assumption is that it will work as intended. Sometimes it does. But when it doesn’t (because clearances were misjudged or a bracket blocks access, or the geometry clashes with a retrofit), corrections are rarely quick. Each change means rework. And rework means time.

In theory, it’s a straightforward process. In practice, it can be slow, rigid and prone to small mismatches that create bigger problems later on.

And the stakes? They’re higher than you think. According to the CDC, in 2022 alone, there were 5,846 work-related deaths across the U.S. Of those, 738 came from contact with equipment or machinery. It’s easy to treat design flaws as inconveniences. Until they aren’t. Until someone gets hurt and the root cause turns out to be a guard that didn’t quite do what it was supposed to or an employee removing it for the same reason.

Here are some of the most common ways conventional guards fall short:

Over- or under-engineering. Standardized guards are meant to serve many but often serve none well. They’re too large, too generic or else miss key requirements altogether. That leads to bulk where it’s not needed, weak spots where it matters most and a cycle of chasing adjustments that never quite solves the original issue.

Lack of adaptability. Machines evolve. Layouts shift. Components get upgraded. But the guard? It stays static. Once installed, a traditional guard can’t easily adapt to a new clearance requirement or relocated service panel. Modifying it usually means scrapping the old and starting from scratch, with all the time and cost that entails.

Design mismatches in the real world. CAD designs often assume ideal conditions. Fabrication introduces tolerances. Assembly adds surprises. The result: guards that don’t align, panels that block access, sightlines that disappear. Small issues compound, and what looks compliant in a model becomes a usability problem on the floor or maybe even an ergonomic issue.

Long lead times and high cost of change. Every change in a traditional guard, no matter how minor, carries weight. Fabrication shops have queues. Tooling isn’t fast to revise. One incorrect bend, one misplaced hole and the whole schedule moves. If injection molds are involved, multiply the delay and the expense.

Weak compliance in practice. A guard can be present, solidly built and even well-installed and then still fall short of compliance. OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.212 mandates that guards do their job without creating new risks in the process. That means operators must be able to see what they’re doing, reach what they need and perform tasks without removing or bypassing anything.

But when a guard blocks visibility, limits access or slows down routine work, it gets moved. Set aside. Worked around. And once that happens, the system is out of compliance even if the original design checked every box on paper. A guard that gets in the way isn’t protecting anyone and is just waiting to become part of the incident report.

Enter Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing changes where the design process begins. Instead of working around the constraints of stock material, tooling limitations and fixed shapes, engineers start with the form that actually fits the machine. The part isn’t carved from something larger. It’s built into exactly what it needs to be: nothing more, nothing less.

The design flexibility opens new possibilities. Guards that wrap around tight clearances, follow irregular machine surfaces or include built-in mounting features no longer require complicated workarounds. There’s no penalty for complexity. A compound curve, a channel for airflow or a recessed fastener location adds no extra time on the shop floor. The shape is defined digitally, not physically, and that changes what’s worth designing in the first place.

Guards can be designed for the specific machine and the environment it lives in. Machines that operate in high-heat environments, require chemical resistance or demand continuous visibility all introduce variables that standard metal or plastic guards aren’t designed to handle. With additive manufacturing, those needs can be addressed in the material selection and the form itself.

For example:

Surface textures can be added to reduce glare.
Structural ribs can be printed where strength is needed without thickening the entire wall.
Openings can be placed with exact spacing to allow ventilation while still containing moving parts.

The digital workflow shortens the cycle between idea and result. The traditional flow (design, submit, wait for fabrication, test, revise) is replaced by a loop that moves as fast as the next print.

Additive manufacturing process for machine guards

Every loop through this cycle produces a version that’s closer to the final solution. Because there’s no tooling to change and no queue at a fabrication shop, iteration happens without delay. A clearance issue spotted in the morning can be resolved and reprinted by the afternoon. Guards stop being fixed components and start acting like any other responsive part of the design.

Rapid Prototyping, Functional Testing and Cost Efficiency Gains

Once the design leaves the screen and becomes a part that can be held, measured and tested, that’s where theory ends. Traditional workflows slow down here. Additive manufacturing changes what happens in that space between idea and outcome.

Prototypes aren’t just placeholders anymore. They’re proof.

With AM, engineers can test parts where they matter most: on the machine, in the environment and under real constraints. A guard that fits in CAD might not clear a fastener head. A panel that swings open, in theory, might hit a rail no one noticed. These aren’t issues solved by software. They’re found in the field and they need physical parts to surface.

What gets tested isn’t just fit but also functionality.

Designs can be evaluated for:

Clearance around moving assemblies
Operator visibility during use or maintenance
Ease of installation without tool conflicts
Ventilation or fluid runoff where exposure is expected

None of that needs to wait for the final material. Test parts can be printed in low-cost polymers, revised and reprinted without delay. Once the geometry is locked, material selection can shift to what the application demands—whether that’s chemical resistance, heat deflection or compliance with specific standards.

And that ability to wait? It saves money.

It means materials aren’t wasted on unfinished designs. It means changes don’t trigger retooling or supplier negotiations. It means late-stage problems don’t become early-stage failures that surface only during inspection.

Cost savings show up in places that don’t appear on a quote sheet.

Fewer change orders
Shorter downtime between revisions
Reduced scrap from test runs
Lower labor hours from rework
Less friction between design and operations teams
Fewer injuries due to user-design mismatch

This isn’t about making the guard cheaper, but getting the right guard in place, sooner, with fewer steps and less risk of needing to undo it later.

When Not to Use AM

There are specific cases where traditional fabrication methods still outperform AM, especially when consistency, regulatory certainty or cost per unit is the primary concern.

High-volume production introduces limits. If the same guard needs to be produced in large quantities, additive loses its edge. The per-part cost doesn’t scale down the same way as molded or stamped components. Injection molding, in particular, becomes more cost-efficient once the upfront tooling investment is spread across hundreds or thousands of parts.

Not all geometries need complexity. Some guards are simple by design. A flat steel screen, a standard panel with bolt holes or a basic box enclosure might not benefit from additive’s design flexibility. In these cases, subtractive methods are faster and already optimized. Simplicity doesn’t need disruption.

Material properties can be a constraint. While AM polymers continue to improve, not all printed materials offer the mechanical performance, impact resistance or thermal tolerance required in industrial environments. In heavy-duty applications (high-impact zones, high heat exposure or abrasive contact) conventional materials may still offer greater reliability.

Regulatory clarity can also favor tradition. When a guard is built from known materials like powder-coated steel or extruded aluminum and formed using familiar processes such as welding or CNC machining, the path to compliance is typically clearer.

OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.212 requires guards to be strong enough to prevent contact, firmly secured and not create additional hazards. In electrical or control panel environments, NFPA 79 governs construction requirements. Where functional safety systems are in play, ANSI B11.19-2019 outlines expectations for risk reduction and verification.

Traditional materials often come with pre-established compliance documentation, such as third-party data sheets, certifications and performance history, all of which reduce the burden on the engineer to prove equivalence or safety. Additive processes, by contrast, may require custom validation, testing and explanation, especially if the material or method lacks precedent in safety-critical applications.

How to Ensure Printed Guards Still Meet Safety Standards?

1. Material selection needs to be intentional.

AM parts can be made from a wide range of polymers, but not all of them are suitable for safety-critical applications. Some degrade under UV. Others soften at lower temperatures. If a guard is meant to serve in a high-risk zone, the chosen material should already be tested for:

Flame resistance, such as UL 94 ratings
Mechanical strength, particularly under impact or repeated stress
Chemical resistance, including exposure to lubricants, solvents or coolants
Thermal stability, based on operating environment conditions

2. Design validation must go beyond CAD

Safety isn’t confirmed at the modeling stage. It’s proven through testing. That may include:

Impact or load testing to simulate real-world use
Exposure trials for temperature, humidity and corrosive agents
Fit and access checks on the actual machine, including sharp edges

3. Documentation matters

Compliance reviewers will want more than assumptions. They expect:

Material certificates
Print process records
Inspection and test documentation
Evidence of quality control during and after production

4. Review applicable standards early

Apart from OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.212, the General Duty Clause may also apply, particularly when hazards aren’t explicitly addressed by a specific standard. Substituting a conventional guard with a printed one doesn’t remove the obligation to demonstrate that it provides equivalent protection.

The burden of proof rests with the manufacturer. That may involve documenting impact resistance, heat tolerance or chemical exposure performance. It may require printed part inspection criteria, testing protocols and traceable material records. These elements are easier to integrate at the design stage than to retrofit once the part is installed.

Comparison of additive vs. traditional manufacturing for machine guards.

A Safer Workplace, by Design

Safety has never been a one-size-fits-all challenge, and it shouldn’t be treated like one. Additive manufacturing doesn’t just make machine guarding easier. Instead, it makes it smarter, faster and more aligned with the actual needs on the ground.

By shifting the mindset from “how do we make this guard fit?” to “how do we design the right guard from the start?” engineers are empowered to create solutions that serve both safety and operations without compromise. We’re not replacing traditional methods entirely; we’re just finally giving engineers another option that serves both safety and operations without getting in the way.

In the end, the goal is to have protection that works, day in and day out, without slowing the team down or becoming part of the problem. And if additive manufacturing helps us get there more quickly, more effectively and more creatively—why not print the future?