Walk onto three automation projects in three different countries and you’ll probably find three different floor standards.
In the UK, the specification might reference TR34.
In Germany, it could be DIN.
In North America, ACI F-min.
Each has been developed to achieve the same goal: creating a floor that allows automation to operate safely and reliably.
But here’s the interesting part.
It’s becoming increasingly common for the same robot to be capable of operating on floors built to several of these recognised standards.
So, if one robot can work with multiple standards, how do we decide which one to use?
One robot. Multiple standards. Different costs.
Designing a floor to a tighter standard isn’t cheap.
Greater flatness often means:
- More surveying
- More grinding and remediation
- Longer construction programmes
- Higher installation costs
If a robot can successfully operate on several recognised standards, those additional costs may not always deliver additional value.
That raises an important question:-
Are we selecting the right standard for the application, or simply specifying the one we’re most familiar with?
It’s not about choosing the cheapest standard
This isn’t an argument for lowering standards.
Quite the opposite.
Some automation systems genuinely demand exceptionally tight tolerances, and the floor should absolutely be designed to achieve them.
But if a robot manufacturer confirms that its equipment performs equally well across several recognised standards, then the customer should have the opportunity to choose the most appropriate solution for their project.
That decision should be based on performance, programme and cost – not geography.
The robot should define the requirement
At Robot Floor, we believe the conversation should start with the robot itself.
What level of flatness does it actually require?
At what point does performance begin to reduce?
When does vibration become an issue?
When does wheel wear increase?
Those are engineering questions.
Once those limits are understood, the floor can be designed to meet them.
The robot should define the requirement
A question we’re often asked is:
“What happens if a warehouse uses robots from different manufacturers?”
The answer is actually quite straightforward.
Floor requirements should always be based on the operational demands of the robots using a particular area.
Where multiple robot types share the same operating area, the floor should simply be designed to satisfy the most demanding robot in that space.
It’s no different to designing a road network. You don’t build every road to motorway standards, but you do make sure each road is suitable for the vehicles using it.
The future should be performance-led
At Robot Floor, we’ve always believed the floor is part of the automation system.
But that doesn’t mean every automation project needs exactly the same floor.
The goal shouldn’t be to build the flattest floor possible.
It should be to build a floor that enables the robot to perform at its best throughout its operational life.
As warehouse automation continues to develop, perhaps it’s time for the conversation to move beyond simply meeting a standard.
Instead, let’s start designing floors around robot performance.
Because ultimately, the best standard isn’t necessarily the strictest one.
It’s the one that’s right for the application.