Safety and Standards
ISO 13482: Safety for Personal Care Robots
The only published standard addressing robots that move freely among people. What its three robot types cover, the hazards it introduces, and the gap it leaves for industrial humanoids.
ISO 13482 is the only published standard that addresses robots operating freely among people rather than inside a defined workspace. It covers three types: mobile servant robots, physical assistant robots and person carrier robots. Its most useful contribution is naming hazards that industrial standards never had to consider, including falling over. Its limitation is decisive: it excludes robots used as industrial equipment.
What it covers
| Type | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Mobile servant robot | Moves to perform tasks for a person | Domestic and hospital transport robots |
| Physical assistant robot | Physically supports or augments a person | Exoskeletons, walking aids |
| Person carrier robot | Transports a person | Robotic wheelchairs and mobility devices |
All three share the property that makes them different from industrial robots: there is no fence, no defined safeguarded space, and the person is not a trained operator following a procedure. The standard is written around that reality.
The hazards it names
Its most valuable content is the hazard list, because several items simply do not appear in industrial robot standards.
- Falling over. Stability under external force, on slopes and during motion. Industrial arms are bolted down; a legged or tall mobile machine is not.
- Collision with a person who is not trained, may not be looking, may be elderly, a child, or unable to move quickly.
- Hazards from incorrect autonomous decisions, where the machine chooses an action rather than following a taught path.
- Hazards during charging, in an environment with untrained people present.
- Hazards from wear and long service life in a setting with no maintenance department.
- Contact hazards, with limits conceptually similar to those in collaborative robotics.
The figures the standard puts on record
Its quantitative content is thinner than an industrial standard's, and the areas it does quantify are the ones industrial documents leave open.
| Topic | ISO 13482 | ISO 10218:2025 | ISO 3691-4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contact force limits | Addressed qualitatively | Yes, full table | No |
| Stability against tipping | Yes | No | Partly, load stability |
| Stopping distance requirements | Yes | Yes, via measurement | Yes, via detection fields |
| Reduced speed value | No fixed value | 250 mm/s in manual mode | Speed within field |
| Autonomous decision hazards | Yes | No | No |
| Untrained user assumption | Yes | No, trained operator assumed | Partly |
| Falling over | Yes | No | No |
Read the bottom three rows across. Those are the three properties that define a free-roaming machine, and only one of the three standards addresses any of them, which is a precise statement of why the gap exists.
The gap it leaves
| Robot | Standard | Fit |
|---|---|---|
| Industrial arm in a cell | ISO 10218-1 and -2 | Good |
| Collaborative arm in a shared workspace | ISO 10218-2:2025 | Good |
| AGV or AMR in a warehouse | ISO 3691-4 | Good |
| Domestic or hospital service robot | ISO 13482 | Good |
| Exoskeleton for a worker | ISO 13482 | Reasonable |
| Humanoid moving totes in a factory | None | Falls between all of them |
| Legged inspection robot in a plant | None cleanly | Industrial use excludes ISO 13482 |
The last two rows are the live problem. A 60 kg to 75 kg walking machine working in a factory is industrial equipment, so the personal care standard does not apply, while ISO 10218 assumes a fixed base and a defined workspace and does not address falling. Deployments have proceeded through site-specific inspection of the installation rather than product certification, which permits that installation and does not transfer to another site.
Using it anyway
Even where the scope excludes your machine, the document is worth reading for the hazard analysis. A risk assessment for an industrial legged robot that borrows the stability, autonomous decision and untrained person hazards from ISO 13482, while applying ISO 10218 for the manipulator and ISO 3691-4 thinking for the mobile base, produces a far more complete picture than any one of them alone.
State clearly in the file which parts were used and why. An assessment that cites a standard outside its scope without explanation invites the question; one that explains it is using the hazard analysis rather than claiming conformity answers it in advance.
Frequently asked questions
What does ISO 13482 cover?
Personal care robots in three types: mobile servant robots, physical assistant robots such as exoskeletons, and person carrier robots such as robotic wheelchairs. It is the only published standard addressing robots that move freely among people.
Does it apply to industrial humanoids?
No. It explicitly excludes robots used as industrial equipment, so a humanoid moving totes in a factory falls outside it while also falling outside ISO 10218, which assumes a fixed base and a defined workspace.
What hazards does it add?
Falling over, collision with untrained people including children and the elderly, hazards from incorrect autonomous decisions, charging hazards in uncontrolled environments, and wear over a long service life without a maintenance department.
Can I use it for a robot outside its scope?
You can use its hazard analysis, and you cannot claim conformity. Borrowing the stability and autonomy hazards for a legged industrial robot produces a better assessment, provided the file states clearly what was borrowed and why.
What covers a legged inspection robot in a plant?
No standard cleanly. Industrial use excludes ISO 13482, ISO 10218 assumes a fixed base, and ISO 3691-4 assumes wheeled travel. Current practice combines all three plus site-specific inspection of the installation.
Sources
- ISO 13482, robots and robotic devices, safety requirements for personal care robotsInternational Organization for Standardization, scope, robot types and hazard list
- ISO 10218-1:2025, Robotics, Safety requirements, Part 1International Organization for Standardization, the industrial robot standard and its assumptions
- ISO 3691-4, safety requirements for driverless industrial trucksInternational Organization for Standardization, the mobile base framework