Wolf G.

Dill
CENELEC/CEN-Consultant
for the ATEX field
wolf.dill@atex-consultant.eu

03 November 2006

ATEX_WG/06/2/10
Re: European Standard EN 1755:2000, Trucks, and Static Electricity

In September 2006, my attention was drawn to information on electrostatic discharges related to the
hydraulic system of a forklift truck.
As this truck was CE-marked with reference to EU-Directives including Directive 94/9/EC, the
question arose, if the application of the harmonised CEN-standard EN 1755:2000 provides sufficient
protection against that potential ignition source.
In the following, I have tried to give some comments, which might be suitable to discuss that question.

The technical aspect:

Moving liquids may generate electrostatic charges. This is a well-known effect and a well-known
potential ignition source. The first paper about the general problem, which I could find, was published
in 1964:
H. J. Groß, G. Schön: Zündgefahren durch elektrostatische Aufladung beim Strömen von Kraftstoffen
durch Filter. (Ignition hazards by electrostatic charging during flow of gasoline through filters): Erdöl
u. Kohle. Erdgas-Petrochemie 17 (1964), S. 279 – 282

In CENELEC TR 50404:2003 - which in fact is applied frequently like a standard for the conformity
assessment of ATEX equipment - the charge generating process by specific filter arrangements is
addressed in detail:
5.4.8 Filters, water separators, strainers, microfilters or water separators produce very high charge
densities (5 000 µC/m3 or more as opposed to about 10 µC/m3 in pipe flow) and special precautions
are required to allow those excessive charge levels to be safely dissipated.

In EN 1755, this potential ignition source is not mentioned clearly.

In 5.2.4 and 5.4.3, the standard requires for category 2 trucks that plastic parts, which are accessible
from the outside, have to be conductive or limited to certain values of surface size.
These clauses may have been written mainly to avoid electrostatic charges built up by external friction
(rubbing, cleaning). However, application to all plastic materials, which are exposed to the potentially
explosive atmosphere, would at least reduce the electrostatic risk related to plastic tanks and filter
enclosures of the hydraulic system.

To my impression the discharges created by the hydraulic system, which were described in the
confidential reports I had access to , are rare incidents.

3 November 2006 Page 1 of 2

 Wolf G. Dill
CENELEC/CEN-Consultant
for the ATEX field

Further investigations could provide a substantial information about the question, if this potential
ignition source could exist “in the event of rare incidents relating to equipment” (Equipment cate-
gory 1) or “in the event of frequently occurring disturbances or equipment faults, which normally have
to be taken into account” (Equipment category 2).

The legal aspect

Simple application of a harmonised standard is not sufficient to provide presumption of conformity
with a Directive.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturer (this term includes converting companies) to check, if all
Essential Requirements of the Directive are met, regardless of any compliance with standards.
By the wording of Annex ZA a manufacturer could get the impression that EN 1755 covers all
Essential Requirements drawn up by Directive 94/9/EC, which are applicable to trucks. Nowadays
normally, the Annex ZA (ZB, ZC) gives more details.
In principle, every piece of equipment, which is CE-marked with reference to Directive 94/9/EC,
should undergo a systematic ignition risk assessment. This is an obligation to manufacturers and
notified bodies, which is implicitly required by the Directive, as lined out in 3.7.5 of the ATEX
Guidelines, second edition.

The standardisation aspect

Annex ZA of EN 1755, which is not completely in line with the latest prescriptions for Annexes Z
concerning presumption of conformity, indicates coverage for 5 Directives without giving any specific
information about the extent of covered Essential Requirements.
A review of EN 1755 showed that the specific potential ignition source related to the hydraulic sys-
tems and filters is not clearly mentioned. To close these gaps EN 1755 should be updated.
For the time being, the electrostatic risks, which are not clearly included in EN 1755, can be dealt with
by application of specific clauses of EN 13463-1 and CLC TR 50404.

Conclusion
An update of the harmonised edition of EN 1755 should be started.

(Wolf Dill)

3 November 2006 Page 2 of 2