Table of Contents
"Our robot meets industry safety standards" is one of the most common lines in a vendor pitch — and one of the least specific. There are two standards that actually matter for mobile warehouse and industrial robots, and understanding what each one does (and doesn't) cover is the difference between a real safety commitment and a marketing line.
Why This Matters Before You Sign a Contract
Safety standards for mobile robots are almost always self-certified by the manufacturer, backed by a documented risk assessment and testing program — not issued by an independent certifying body the way, say, UL listing works for a piece of electrical equipment. That doesn't make the standards meaningless; it means the specific standard a vendor cites, and the documentation behind it, is worth asking about directly rather than taking "safety certified" at face value.
ANSI/RIA R15.08, Explained
ANSI/RIA R15.08 is the American National Standards Institute / Robotic Industries Association standard written specifically for industrial mobile robots (IMRs) — the category that covers AMRs like the ones deployed in warehouses today. It's split into two parts:
- Part 1 (the robot itself): requirements for the robot's design — how it detects obstacles, how it limits speed near people, what happens when a sensor fails, and how the manufacturer documents the underlying risk assessment.
- Part 2 (the robot as deployed): requirements for how the robot behaves once it's integrated into your specific facility — interaction zones with pedestrians, coexistence with other equipment like forklifts, and site-specific risk assessment that the integrator (not just the manufacturer) is responsible for.
That second part matters more than most buyers realize: a robot that's compliant on paper from the manufacturer still needs a site-specific safety review when it's actually deployed in your building, which is part of what a facility assessment is for.
ISO 3691-4, Explained
ISO 3691-4 is the international standard covering driverless industrial trucks, a category that includes AMRs and AGVs. It's more commonly referenced by vendors selling globally, or by facilities with international safety-compliance requirements, and it covers substantially similar ground to ANSI/RIA R15.08 — safe speeds, obstacle detection, emergency stop behavior, and stability requirements.
Many platforms reference both standards, since a robot built to satisfy one is generally close to satisfying the other. If a vendor cites only one, it's usually a function of which market they built the product for first, not a meaningful safety gap.
How the Two Standards Relate
| ANSI/RIA R15.08 | ISO 3691-4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | United States (ANSI / RIA) | International (ISO) |
| Scope | Industrial mobile robots specifically | Driverless industrial trucks (AMRs + AGVs) |
| Structure | Two parts — robot design, then site deployment | Single integrated standard |
| Who checks it | Manufacturer self-certification backed by documented risk assessment, in both cases | |
What These Standards Do Not Cover
Both standards are about a robot safely sharing physical space with people and equipment — collision avoidance, safe speeds, emergency stops. Neither has anything to do with whether a robot can safely operate in a hazardous atmosphere. That's a completely separate classification:
Questions to Ask a Vendor
- Which specific standard does your robot comply with — ANSI/RIA R15.08, ISO 3691-4, both, or neither?
- Is that self-certified, or has it been reviewed by a third party?
- Who is responsible for the Part 2 site-specific risk assessment once the robot is deployed in our facility — you, or us?
- Is the robot rated for any hazardous-area classification, or does it rely on a mitigation strategy (like automatic shutdown) instead?
- Can you provide the actual risk-assessment documentation, not just a marketing statement?
How Actel Approaches This
We tell customers plainly when a platform's public safety documentation has a gap — for example, several of the platforms we integrate document real obstacle-avoidance engineering in detail but don't publish a named third-party safety certification, and none of the inspection or security robots we deploy are rated for Zone 1 hazardous areas without a mitigation strategy layered on top. That's covered in detail in each platform's own technical resources section, and it's part of every facility assessment before a contract is signed — not something you find out after go-live.
See the full technical specifications for each platform we integrate on their individual pages — Dexory, Corvus One, Locus Robotics, Boston Dynamics Spot, Ghost Robotics Vision 60, and Asylon — or contact us to discuss your facility's specific compliance requirements.