There used to be an old wives\u2019 tale that standing on bare concrete for too long caused varicose and spider veins.\u00a0 In the 60\u2019s, that idea was largely supplanted by the hippie movement that believed standing shoeless on bare concrete allowed the body to become more grounded.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, it seems that the once-held hippie belief has permeated into the world of electrostatic discharge (ESD) prevention.\u00a0 But nothing could be further from the truth. Because while bare, unsealed concrete floors that are allowed to \u2018breathe\u2019 have anti-static tendencies<\/em>, they are definitely NOT grounded.<\/p>\n While the lower expense of a bare concrete floor makes it appear like a desirable remedy, there are several reasons it is not classified as a true ESD flooring solution.<\/p>\n First there\u2019s that word \u2013 tendencies. Bare concrete floors tend<\/em> to be anti-static, but they are not reliably so. That\u2019s because anti-static characteristics are not inherent in concrete like they are in a carbon-filled material or a poured ESD epoxy.<\/p>\n To further complicate the issue, the measure of how<\/em> anti-static concrete is, is dependent on many variables \u2013 the most significant of which is its permeability to moisture<\/strong>. If you\u2019ve explored our website at all, that should immediately raise a red flag. \u00a0In an earlier post<\/a><\/strong>, we talked about why moisture is the #1 enemy to your ESD flooring.<\/p>\n If that doesn\u2019t scare you away, we discussed in this post<\/strong><\/a> about how anti-static is not an adequate measure for ESD flooring. To summarize, the term \u201canti-static\u201d\u00a0refers to a material that resists generating a charge. And bare, sealed concrete does do that \u2013 most of the time. But over the past 30 years or so, ANSI and the ESD Association made the effort to remove the term from their professional industry standards because it was so overused and misunderstood.<\/p>\n Those standards are discussed in this post<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n And for good measure, we discuss in another post<\/strong> the dangers of cutting corners to save money when building your ESD Protection Area (EPA). Some up front expenses are definitely worth the long-term benefits.<\/p>\n So, let\u2019s assume that the concrete floor you\u2019ve just installed is as anti-static as it can get. You can walk across it to any other part of the room and there will be no static buildup, aka triboelectric effect.<\/p>\n But what happens when the CEO comes down to inspect the area, and as he\u2019s walked from his office to the EPA area, he\u2019s built up a static charge. It\u2019s on his body, on his clothes; we know that even the slightest movement in a conductive area builds a charge that can damage sensitive electronics.<\/p>\n When he hits that concrete floor, the charge doesn\u2019t just disappear. It stays with him<\/em>. Because while concrete has the tendency to avoid building up a static charge, it does nothing <\/em><\/strong>to dissipate an existing charge. And this is the biggest problem with the use of concrete as an ESD floor. It cannot act as a ground.<\/p>\n The CEO touches a circuit board, it gets the electrostatic discharge, ruining it \u2013 and he blames you. And then you have to install a true ESD floor<\/a> anyways. Why not just do it right the first time?<\/p>\nNothing to Cling To<\/strong><\/h3>\n
A Shift in Standards<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Fully Charged<\/strong><\/h3>\n