IICL

SUPPLEMENT
ON
CONTAINER
INSPECTION AND REPAIR:
GRAY AREAS

Prepared by: IICL Technical Committee

Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd. A. Sowry (Chairman)

Carlisle Leasing International, LLC F. Loiacono
Container Applications International, Inc. D. Jardine
CronosContainersLimited J.Kirby
Flexi-VanLeasing,Inc. M.Merezio
Florens Container Services (U.S.) Ltd. J. Lau
GESeaCoSRL B.Brassington
Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd. J. Figueira
TransamericaLeasingInc. G.Danback
Triton Container International Ltd. P. Ouborg
H. Heacox
XTRAInternational,Ltd. G.Macmillan

IICL Gray Areas Supplement Subcommittee

XTRAInternational,Ltd. R.Price(Chairman)
Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd. J. Figueira
Triton Container International Ltd. H. Heacox

IICL
Engineer M.
Arrow
Editor Rae
L.

FIRST EDITION, 1999

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER LESSORS, LTD.

BEDFORD, NY 10506, USA
SUPPLEMENT ON This manual explains and clarifies areas of container inspection and repair
CONTAINER INSPECTION known as “gray areas”. However, because any inspection andrepair
AND REPAIR: GRAY AREAS operation depends largely upon the skill of human beings, the machinery
employed (if any), the conditions under which the inspection or repair is
performed and many other variables whose significance may not be
apparent, the Institute and its members and personnel cannot and do not
assume any liability for damage to persons or property or other
consequences of any procedures referred to herein or of any omissions
relating to repairs, practices and procedures.

CREDITS IICL gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Triton Container International’s

Paul Raitano, who took many of the photographs used in this manual.
Thanks also to Interport Maintenance of Newark, New Jersey, for making
their depot and equipment available for IICL’s photographic session.

GA/99-1 Copyright 1999 © by Institute of International Container Lessors, Ltd. All rights reserved. No
portion of this document may be copied, reproduced, stored in a computer or other retrieval
system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written consent of the
Institute.
 CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION/1
1.1 General.........................................................................................................1
1.2 Resolving Gray-Area Categories.....................................................................1

SECTION 2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES REGARDING GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS/2

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................2
2.2 Damage vs. Wea r ........................................................................................2
2.3 Abusive or Improper Actio n ..........................................................................3

SECTION 3 GRAY-AREA INSPECTION CRITERIA/4

3.1 Plank Floors (Solid and Laminated)––Cracks and Splits..................................4
3.2 Plank Floors (Solid and Laminated)––Broken.................................................4
3.3 Laminated Plank Floors––Delamination ........................................................4
3.4 Plywood Floors––Delamination, Rolling Shear, Broken Flooring
and Combination Defects.......................................................................5
3.5 Cleaning .......................................................................................................6
3.6 Interior––Scratches and Other Abrasions.......................................................7
3.7 Doors––Gasket Seal Watertightness...............................................................8
3.8 Frame Components and Panels––Metal Loss Due to Corrosion .....................8
3.9 Panels and Other Components––Correction of Previous
Improper Repairs....................................................................................9
3.10 Allocating Correction of Improper Repairs and Unacceptable
Pre-Existing Conditions...........................................................................9

SECTION 4 COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS/11

Photo 4.1 Split Plank/11

Photo 4.2 Floor Impact/11
Photo 4.3 Floor Finger Crack/11
Photo 4.4 Floor Delamination (Wear)/12
Photo 4.5 Floor Delamination (Damage)/12
Photo 4.6 Numerous Scratches on Corrugations/13
Photo 4.7 Individual Deep Scratches on Corrugations/13

Photo
Photo 4.8
4.9 Normal-Use
Cut Scratches (Wear)/13
Gasket/14
Photo 4.10 Use of Inspector’s Hammer to Test Corrosion/14
Photo 4.11 Corroded Area Holed by Inspector’s Hammer/14
Photo 4.12 Surface Corrosion (Example #1)/15
Photo 4.13 Surface Corrosion (Example #2)/15
Photo 4.14 Good Panel Straightening/16
Photo 4.15 Acceptable Panel Straightening/16
(COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS, CONTINUED)

Photo 4.16 Borderline-Quality Panel Straightening/16

Photo 4.17 Poor-Quality Panel Straightening (Example #1)/17
Photo 4.18 Poor-Quality Panel Straightening (Example #2)/17
Photo 4.19 Poor-Quality Panel Straightening (Example #2)/18
Photo 4.20 Roof Panel Insert with Different Corrugation Profile at end/18
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
For nearly 25 years, IICL has provided the container industry with published
criteria for determining whether specific damage to containers requires repair.
The latest version of these criteria, the Guide for Container Equipment
Inspection, Fifth Edition, commonly called “IICL-5” by the industry, was issued
in 1996 with the International Chamber of Shipping.
It has become evident over the past three years that a few areas need
further clarification. In some cases, it may be difficult to determine if repair is
required or to distinguish clearly between “damage” or “wear” conditions.
As the number of defects requiring repair has decreased under IICL-5, these
ambiguous conditions, known in the industry as “gray areas,” have constituted
an increasing share of disputes between parties on repair estimates. In order
to minimize such disputes, IICL has sought to define the principal gray areas
and resolve them into repairworthiness and damage/wear categories. These
principal gray areas include:
• Plank floors: Cracks, splits, breaks and delamination
• Plywood floors: Delamination and rolling-shear failure, breaks, cracks in
veneers
• Interior surfaces: Scratching and damage to markings
• Doors: Watertightness of gaskets
• Frame: Loss of metal due to corrosion
• Panels: Unacceptable previous attempts at straightening

1.2 Resolving Gray-Area Categories

This Supplement clarifies which of the conditions above require repair. In
addition, repairworthy conditions have been categorized as either damage or
wear to the extent practicable (non-repairworthy conditions have not been
categorized). Even though a condition may not require repair under the IICL
criteria described in this Supplement, owners may wish to have such a
condition corrected on the basis of their own policies and their contractual
agreements with customers.
As photographs are useful in resolving gray-area disputes, 20 color photo-
graphs have been included in the Supplement. Since this manual resolves
issues left open in IICL-5, its contents may ultimately be incorporated into a
future edition of the Inspection Guide and possibly other manuals.

1 1999
July
SECTION 2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
REGARDING GRAY-AREA
CONDITIONS

2.1 Introduction
In order to enable parties to assign responsibility more easily, the Supplement
will categorize repairworthy conditions ( i.e., conditions that require repair) as
“wear” or “damage”. Thus, for each gray-area condition, the Supplement will
recommend:
• First, whether the condition requires repair
• Second, if the condition does require repair, whether it is to be considered
as damage or wear (“allocation”).
Where appropriate, each condition will include a definition, an inspection
criterion, the apparent cause of the damage or wear, and recommendations
on allocation to damage or wear categories. Definition and cause of the
defect are critically important to the proper allocation of repairworthy defects.

2.2 Damage vs. Wear

IICL-5 defines “damage” as defects caused by “a single event or a series of
single events,” while “wear” is defined as defects caused by “continuous
deterioration ... occurring under normal-use conditions.” IICL recognizes that
there are situations where it is difficult to distinguish a large number of
damage-causing “single events” from wear due to “continuous deterioration.”
When it is impossible to make such a distinction, the inspector should
consider whether the defect is caused by “abusive or improper action” that
subjects the container to conditions for which it was not designed. Examples
of such abusive or improper action include:
• Movement by improperly secured “aggressive” cargo, such as scrap metals
which may cause scratches on interior walls
• Loading of corrosive chemicals or noxious materials
• Overloading, causing floor damage
If the defect appears to be due (at least in part) to the container having
been subjected to one or more instances of abusive or improper action for
which it was not designed (such as those listed above), the defect should be
characterized as damage. This assumes that there are no manufacturing
defects that would shorten the life of the affected components under normal
use.
On the other hand, if the defect doesnot appear to have been the result of
an abusive or improper action and is not apparently the result of a single
event or a series of single events (the traditional IICL definition of damage),
the defect should be classified as wear. Wear also includes defects due to
inferior materials or related manufacturing defects which could not have been
the result of abusive or improper action by the user.

2 1999
July
 Signs of abuse (e.g. impact and overloading) are indications of damage,
while a breakdown in the condition of components without such signs
indicates wear.
Section 3 of this Supplement provides specific, concrete examples of
instances of damage and wear, followed in Section 4 by photographs of these
conditions.

2.3 Abusive or Improper Action

The inclusion of “abusive or improper action” as an additional determinant of
damage and wear conditions, as described above, is meant to assist in
allocating repairworthy conditions to the appropriate categories of damage
and wear. Please note that the use of“abusive or improper action”
supplements the definitions included in IICL-5 and does not replace them. In
clarifying and categorizing gray areas, IICL considered the possibility that a
container might have limited future utility if repairs of certain defects were
not performed. IICL also recognized that the cause of repairworthy defects is
sometimes open to reasonable doubt.

3 1999
July
SECTION 3 GRAY-AREA INSPECTION
CRITERIA

3.1 Plank Floors (Solid and Laminated)––Cracks and Splits

3.1.1 Definition: A crack or split in a solid or laminated plank is a longitudinal

separation of the wood along a grain line. (This does not include a
longitudinal separation in a glue line of a laminated plank.)

3.1.2 Inspection criterion: Cracks and splits in plank flooring require repair only if
they leak light or result in loose pieces of flooring.

3.1.3 Apparent cause: Cracks and splits can be caused by impact, overloading or
the natural aging of the wood.

3.1.4 Allocation: Cracks and splits are considered damage when accompanied by
signs of impact ( e.g. dents or gouges) or overloading ( e.g. underlying
crossmembers permanently bowed downward). If those signs are not present,
cracks and splits are considered wear.

3.1.5 Photo 4.1 shows a split plank. In this example, there is no sign of impact or
overloading. Therefore, this is a wear item. However, repair is only necessary
if the plank leaks light or is loose.

3.2 Plank Floors (Solid and Laminated)––Broken

3.2.1 Definition: A broken plank is a transverse or oblique separation in the wood

across grain and/or glue lines.

3.2.2 Inspection criterion: Broken planks always require repair.

3.2.3 Apparent cause: Broken planks are always caused by either impact or
overloading or both.

3.2.4 Allocation: Broken planks are always considered damage.

3.3 Laminated P lank F loors––Delamination

3.3.1 Definition: Delamination is a failure in (a) glue line(s) of a laminated plank.

3.3.2 Inspection criterion: Same as for cracks and splits, i.e., they require repair
only if they leak light or result in loose pieces of flooring.

4 1999
July
3.3.3 Apparent cause: Laminated-plank delamination is a breakdown in adhesion of
the glue line(s).

3.3.4 Allocation: Laminated-plank delamination is always considered wear.

3.4 Plywood Floors––Delamination, Rolling Shear, Broken Flooring and

Combination Defects

3.4.1 Definitions: Delamination of plywood is a failure of the adhesive in (a) glue

line(s) between laminates. Rolling-shear failure is a failure of the wood fibers
within the laminates themselves (not within the glue line[s]). Breakage or
broken plywood flooring is a separation in any direction through one or more
laminates that includes either the top or bottom surface veneer.
Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure may be indicated by one or more
of the following conditions:
• Signs of sponginess or “spring back” in the floor causing the floor to give
way underfoot and return when the foot is removed.
• The top veneer of the floor is loose and protruding above the floor screws.
• The floor sags perceptibly between crossmembers when unloaded or
subjected to normal operating loads.
• When tapped with a hammer between crossmembers, the floor makes a
“hollow” sound distinct from the normal “solid” sound of an intact floor.
A “surface veneer” is defined as the outermost laminate on either the top or
bottom surface of the plywood.
As a practical matter, it is not possible to detect differences between
instances of delamination and those of rolling-shear failure, unless the surface
veneer(s) are broken, without removal of the flooring (which is not done as a
normal part of inspection). Therefore, unless the surface veneer is broken,
delamination and rolling-shear failures will be treated the same.
Since plywood is composed of thin laminates whose grain patterns vary from
laminate to laminate, it is impractical to distinguish between cracks, splits and
breaks in plywood flooring. Therefore, all separations through one or more
laminates that include the top and bottom surface veneer(s) will be
considered “broken.”
A special type of break, called a “finger crack,” is a separation in a surface
veneer running transversely, combined with separations running longitudinally
at both ends of the transverse separation. Finger cracks are usually seen on
the bottom surface veneer and are indicative of tension failure in the wood.
Note that a finger crack could be damage under some circumstances and wear
under other circumstances. See Section 3.4.4 below for details.

3.4.2 Inspection criterion: Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure and broken

flooring always require repair.

3.4.3 Apparent cause: Delamination and rolling-shear failure may be caused by

accumulated forklift travel, impact, overloading, natural aging of the wood or
moisture ingress into the interior of the plywood ( e.g. from excessive steam-
cleaning). Broken flooring, including finger cracking, is caused by impact or
overloading.

3.4.4 Allocation: Since delamination and/or rolling-shear failure may occur in

5 1999
July
 hidden interior laminates of the wood, and not be readily apparent from the
surface, it may be difficult to determine the type of defect. As a practical
guide, the following combinations of defects are defined as damage or wear:
Any of the following combinations is to be considered damage:
• Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure with indication of either impact
(dents or gouges) or overloading (permanently bowed underlying
crossmembers) and with breakage (finger cracks or more severe breaks) of
an outer veneer.
• Breakage of an outer veneer,without delamination, rolling-shear failure or
indication of impact or overloading.
• Breakage of an outer veneer,without delamination or rolling-shear failure
but with an indication of impact or overloading. This condition is shown in
Photos 4.2 and 4.3. Photo 4.2 shows the area ofimpact on the floor
surface. Photo 4.3 shows a finger crack on the underside of the floor
directly below the impact shown in the previous photo.
Note that if the condition did show evidence of delamination and/or rolling-
shear failure but no evidence of impact or overloading, it would be
considered wear instead of damage (see second bullet under “wear” below).
Any of the following combinations is to be considered wear:
• Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure alone, without indication of either
impact or overloading and without breakage of an outer veneer. This
condition is shown in Photo 4.4.
• Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure, without indication of either
impact or overloading but with breakage of an outer veneer.
• Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure, with indication of either impact,
overloading or both but without breakage of an outer veneer.
The following table summarizes these conditions:

Evidence of
delimination Evidence of
and/or rolling impact or Breakage of an
shear overloading outer veneer Allocation
YES YES YES DAMAGE
NO NO YES DAMAGE
NO YES YES DAMAGE
YES NO NO WEAR
YES NO YES WEAR
YES YES NO WEAR

3.5 Cleaning
Defects inside containers repaired by cleaning are often considered gray
areas. Treatment of such defects is covered by the latest edition of the IICL
General Guide for Container Cleaning. Cleaning-related gray areas are not
considered in this document.

6 1999
July
3.6 Interior––Scratches and Other Abrasions
3.6.1 Definition and inspection criteria: All scratches and abrasions to the interior
walls of containers are the result of a single event or a series of single events,
which implies damage. Nevertheless, it is expected that minor scratches and
other abrasions will be made on the walls of containers during normal-use
loading and unloading, which implies wear. In order to resolve this dilemma,
supplementary criteria for determining damage and wear conditions are
provided below.
Conditions best regarded as damage based on the definitions below require
repair. Conditions best regarded as wear based on the definitions below do
not require repair according to these criteria, although an owner may choose
to repair them based on its own maintenance requirements.

•Note that: markings are required by international standard or regulation,

No interior
although an individual owner may require certain markings to be present
(and to be replaced if missing, loose or rendered illegible).
• Interior paint loosening or removal due to contamination, fire or contact
with foreign substances is not considered a scratch or abrasion and always
requires repair.
3.6.2 Allocation (damage): Deep scratches and abrasions with individual scratches
easily identifiable are considered to be damage. Such abrasions are often
deep enough to penetrate coatings down to base metal. The abrasions are
apparent not only on the standing corrugations (outboard when viewed from
the interior), but also on the recessed and side faces of corrugations. The total
accumulation of scratches and abrasions is usually higher than would be
expected on a typical container of the same type and age. Such damage
requires repair.

3.6.2.1 Apparentsuch
cargoes, cause: Loading
as scrap and unloading of one or a few especially aggressive
metal.
This condition is shown in Photos 4.6 and 4.7. Note the scratches present
on the recessed corrugations in Photo 4.6 and the deep scratches in Photo
4.7.
3.6.3 Allocation (wear): An accumulation of many small scratches and abrasions
with individual abrasions not readily identifiable are considered to be wear.
The majority of these abrasions are located on the standing faces of
corrugations (outboard when viewed from the interior) and on the formed
edges of such faces, not on the recessed and side faces. Such an
accumulation of scratches and abrasions is typical of most containers of the
same type and age. Such wear conditions do not require repair.
Abrasion which loosens, removes or makes illegible any interior marking
without any other damage as defined above is considered wear, and is also
not repairworthy according to these criteria.

3.6.3.1 Apparent
during cause:ofContact
carriage with cargo-loading
a large number equipment
of non-aggressive or the
general cargo itself
cargoes.
This condition is shown in Photo 4.8. Note the absence of significant
scratching in the recessed corrugations.

7 1999
July
3.7 Doors––Gasket Seal Watertightness
3.7.1 Definition: The definition of watertight depends on the gasket location:
• Vertical side gaskets and horizontal bottom gaskets: These gaskets are
considered to be watertight if they do not leak light when the doors are
closed and locked. There are no limits on physical damage to the gaskets;
they only need to meet the light-tight requirement.
• Horizontal top gaskets: These gaskets are considered to be watertight if
they do not leak light AND the outer lips of the gaskets are fully in place
and seated against the header. Cuts, splits and cracks are acceptable on the
outer lips, but pieces may not be missing.
3.7.2 Inspection criterion: A gasket seal that is watertight, as defined immediately
above, does not require repair. The bottom horizontal gasket in Photo 4.9
does not require repair if it is watertight, even though it has cuts.
3.8 Frame Components and Panels––Metal Loss Due to Corrosion
3.8.1 Definition: Metal loss due to corrosion is the partial or complete removal of
structural strength from metal due to oxidation. This is true even if the
material actually swells in thickness due to the oxidation, e.g. in the case of
crossmember corrosion covered by undercoating. The metal oxide will be
easily dislodged when tapped with a hammer.
“Surface corrosion” refers to oxidation which does not penetrate
throughout half of the thickness of a component.
These definitions do not apply to the surface patina formed when Corten
steel is exposed to repeated cycles of wetness and dryness. This patina does
not remove any structural strength from the parent metal, does not contribute
to metal loss and is not easily dislodged by light blows of an inspector’s
hammer. However, if Corten steel is oxidized dueto continuous, long-term
immersion in a moist medium ( e.g. standing water or wet mud), that oxidation
is not Corten patina, and is considered corrosion.
3.8.2 Inspection criteria and allocation: Corroded components whose structural
strength is in question should be tested by a short series of light blows from an
inspector’s hammer. (See the IICL Guide for Container Damage Measurement
for information on this hammer.) Correct use of the inspector’s hammer is
shown in Photo 4.10.
Components that permanently deform (e.g. that bend, dent or bow) or
become holed after being struck by light blows of the hammer require repair
and should be considered wear. An example of this condition is the corroded
area shown in Photo 4.11, which has become holed after being struck by the
hammer.
Components with surface corrosion and no other signs of damage should
not deform and do not require repair. The corroded areas in Photos 4.12 and
4.13 represent surface corrosion and will not be penetrated when subjected
to a hammer test. However, both of these conditions are “improperrepairs”,
since they were
occurred. not properly
The degree prepared
of corrosion doesand
notpainted
requirewhen
repairthe
byrepairs
itself, although
the condition still may be repairworthy depending on the owner’s policy on
correcting improper repairs of this type. (Consult the owner to determine
whether correction of this type of improper repair is necessary. See Section
3.9 for further information.)

8 1999
July
 However, if a repairworthy component or portion of a component is
adjacent to a non-repairworthy but corroded component or portion, part or
all of the corroded component may have to be repaired in order to attach a
replacement properly to the component requiring repair.
3.9 Panels and Other Components––Correction of Previous I mproper Repairs
3.9.1 Correction of Poor-Quality Repairs
When a container is presented for inspection, a repair may have been made
since the previous inspection. Some of these repairs may be non-conforming,
or “improper”, as defined in the latest edition of the Guide for Container
Equipment Inspection. Owner’s discretion is the primary determinant of
whether such repairs should be corrected. Therefore, it is important to report
non-conforming repairs with poor workmanship or improper materials to the
owner in order to determine whether they require correction.
3.9.2 Correction of Improper Panel Straightening
Poorly-straightened panel damage should be reworked if any of the following
conditions exists:
• No attempt was made to restore the srcinal corrugated formed edges.
• No attempt was made to flatten the surfaces between the formed edges.
• There is a complete loss of the srcinal profile shape.
• Surface preparation and painting were done so poorly that corrosion has
occurred.
3.9.2.1 Photos 4.14 - 4.19 illustrate the various degrees of panel-straightening quality
(from good to very poor) that are typically seen in the field:
• Photo 4.14 shows a straightened front panel of good quality; rework of this
condition is not required.
• Photo 4.15 shows a lower degree of quality but still acceptable degree of
straightening, where a reasonable attempt was made to restore the
corrugation, although with many hammer marks. This repair should not
require rework, unless the owner declares otherwise.
• Photo 4.16 shows borderline conditions: numerous hammer marks, little or
no surface preparation/painting, and/or only a feeble attempt at restoring
the corrugation. Rework of these conditions depends on owner’s policies.
• Photos 4.17 - 4.19 show unacceptable conditions which require rework
(subject to owner’s policies): poor surface preparation and painting, poor
or no restoration of corrugation profile, paint mismatching, etc.
3.9.3 Correction of Different Corrugation Profiles on a Partial Roof Panel
Replacement
If a single corrugated roof panel is replaced with a panel having a different
corrugation, the panel repair is not considered “improper” and correction is
not necessary, provided that (1) structural integrity and watertightness are
maintained, (2) workmanship and material are of acceptable quality and (3)
ISO tolerances are not exceeded.

Photo 4.20profile
corrugation showsatan example
the of an
end. This insert
insert to anot
does roof panel
need to with a different
be repaired.
3.10 Allocating Correction of Improper Repairs and Unacceptable Pre-Existing
Conditions
Sometimes, it is difficult to determine whether an improper repair or other
pre-existing condition that needs to be repaired should be considered damage

9 1999
July
or wear. Owners and users should consider the following factors jointly in
making such a determination:
• Should the improper repair or other pre-existing condition be repaired? If
not, no further consideration is necessary. If the condition does require
repair, consider the next factor.
• Is the condition “pre-existing,” i.e., was the condition present prior to the
time that the last user took control of the unit? In order to determine
whether the condition is “pre-existing,” the following checklist of items
should be developed:
• Previous on-hire date (if leased) or date on which control was passed to
the previous user
• On-hire inspection or interchange report
• Party from whom the container was received by the last user (ex-factory,
ex-depot or directly interchanged)
• Degree of corrosion and likely age of the corroded condition
The allocation of repair costs made based on the above determination
should be done based on mutual agreement between owner and user as per
the contractual agreement between them.

10 1999
July
SECTION 4: PHOTOGRAPHS OF GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS
Photo 4.1 (to left) / Split plank. This is a wear item since
there is no sign of impact or overloading present. Repair
is not necessary unless the plank leaks light or is loose.

Photo 4.2 (below) / Impact (in circled area) on floor surface.

Since this is accompanied by the breakage of the underside
veneer (finger crack in Photo 4.3), this is considered damage.

Photo 4.3 / Finger crack (in circled area) on underside of floor, directly below the impact
shown in Photo 4.2. Since this is accompanied by a signof impact, this is considereddamage.

11 1999
July
Photo 4.4 / Delaminated plywood board, without indication of either impact or overloading
and without breakage of an outer veneer. This is a wear item.

Photo 4.5 / Wavy floor is a sign of delamination. Check for accompanying conditions (e.g.
sagging crossmembers under the wavy area) to determine whether this is a damage or wear
condition.

12 1999
July
 Photo 4.6 (to left) / Numerous scratches on recessed as well as
standing corrugations. This is a damage condition.

Photo 4.7 (below) / Individual deep scratches on corrugations.

This is a damage condition.

Photo 4.8 / Normal-use scratches on standing corrugations. Note the relative absence of
scratches on recessed corrugations. This is a wear condition.

13 1999
July
 Photo 4.9 (to left) / Bottom horizon-
tal gasket with cuts. This gasket does
not require repair as long as it is still
watertight.

Photo 4.10 (to right) / Use of the

inspector’s hammer: if the corroded
area shown permanently deforms or
becomes holed when struck by a
short series of light blows from the
hammer, repair is necessary. This
is a wear condition. If there is no
deformation or holing, no repair is
required.

Photo 4.11 (to left) / Corroded area

holed by the inspector’s hammer test.
This is a wear condition which must be
repaired.

14 1999
July
Photo 4.12 / Surface corrosion due to improper surface preparation and painting of a panel
patch (interior view). The degree of corrosion does not require repair by itself, although the
condition still may be repairworthy depending on the owner’s policy on correcting improper
repairs of this type.

Photo 4.13 / Surface corrosion due to improper surface preparation and painting of top side
rail and panel patch (exterior). The degree of corrosion does not require repair by itself,
although the condition still may be repairworthy depending on the owner’s policy on
correcting improper repairs of this type.

15 1999
July
Photo 4.14 / Good straightening of a front panel. Photo 4.15 / Acceptable panel straightening. De-
No rework required. spite many hammer marks, the corrugation profile
was reasonably restored; rework is not required.

Photo 4.16 / Borderline-quality panel straightening. Numerous hammer marks and only a
feeble attempt made to restore corrugation profile. The need to rework is dependent on
owner’s policies.
16 1999
July
 Photo 4.17 / Poor-quality panel straightening.
Only a feeble attempt made to restore corruga-
tion profile, using a large-headed hammer without
a corrugation dolly. There is significant stretching
of metal. No attempt at surface preparation has
been made. Rework subject to owner’s policies.

Photo 4.18 / Poor-quality panel straightening. No attempt made to restore corrugation pro-
file. Poor-quality painting and paint mismatch. Rework required (subject to owner’s policies).

17 1999
July
Photo 4.19 / Poor-quality panel straightening. Numerous hammer marks and no surface
preparation or painting. Rework required (subject to owner’s policies).

Photo 4.20 / Insert to a roof panel with a different corrugation profile at the end. No rework
required.

18 1999
July
Carlisle Leasing International LLC
Container Applications International, Inc.
Cronos Containers Limited
Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc.
Florens Container Services (U.S.) Ltd.
Interpool Limited
GE SeaCo SRL
Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd.
Trac Lease, Inc.
Transamerica Leasing Inc.
Triton Container International Ltd.
XTRA International