supplement on container inspection and repair gray areas, 2nd edition (published 2003)

8/10/2019 Supplement on Container Inspection and Repair Gray Areas, 2nd Edition (Published 2003)

1/23

IICLSUPPLEMENTON

CONTAINERINSPECTION AND REPAIR:GRAY AREAS

Prepared by: IICL Technical Committee

Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd. A. Sowry (Chairman)Carlisle Leasing International, LLC F. LoiaconoContainer Applications International, Inc. D. JardineCronos Containers Limited J. KirbyFlexi-Van Leasing, Inc. M. MerezioFlorens Container Services (U.S.) Ltd. J. LauGE SeaCo SRL B. BrassingtonTextainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd. J. FigueiraTransamerica Leasing Inc. G. DanbackTriton Container International Ltd. P. Ouborg

H. HeacoxXTRA International, Ltd. G. Macmillan

IICL Gray Areas Supplement Subcommittee

XTRA International, Ltd. R. Price (Chairman)Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd. J. FigueiraTriton Container International Ltd. H. Heacox

IICL Engineer M. ArrowEditor L. Rae

FIRST EDITION, 1999

INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER LESSORS, LTD.BEDFORD, NY 10506, USA


2/23

SUPPLEMENT ONCONTAINER INSPECTIONAND REPAIR: GRAY AREAS

This manual explains and clarifies areas of container inspection and repairknown as gray areas. However, because any inspection and repairoperation depends largely upon the skill of human beings, the machineryemployed (if any), the conditions under which the inspection or repair isperformed and many other variables whose significance may not beapparent, the Institute and its members and personnel cannot and do notassume any liability for damage to persons or property or otherconsequences 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 InternationalsPaul Raitano, who took many of the photographs used in this manual.Thanks also to Interport Maintenance of Newark, New Jersey, for makingtheir depot and equipment available for IICLs photographic session.

GA/99-1 Copyright 1999 by Institute of International Container Lessors, Ltd. All rights reserved. Noportion of this document may be copied, reproduced, stored in a computer or other retrievalsystem or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written consent of theInstitute.


3/23

CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION/11.1 General.........................................................................................................11.2 Resolving Gray-Area Categories.....................................................................1

SECTION 2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES REGARDING GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS/22.1 Introduction..................................................................................................22.2 Damage vs. Wear ........................................................................................22.3 Abusive or Improper Action ..........................................................................3

SECTION 3 GRAY-AREA INSPECTION CRITERIA/43.1 Plank Floors (Solid and Laminated)Cracks and Splits..................................43.2 Plank Floors (Solid and Laminated)Broken.................................................43.3 Laminated Plank FloorsDelamination ........................................................43.4 Plywood FloorsDelamination, Rolling Shear, Broken Flooring

and Combination Defects.......................................................................53.5 Cleaning .......................................................................................................63.6 InteriorScratches and Other Abrasions.......................................................73.7 DoorsGasket Seal Watertightness...............................................................83.8 Frame Components and PanelsMetal Loss Due to Corrosion .....................8

3.9 Panels and Other ComponentsCorrection of PreviousImproper Repairs....................................................................................9

3.10 Allocating Correction of Improper Repairs and UnacceptablePre-Existing Conditions...........................................................................9

SECTION 4 COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS/11

Photo 4.1 Split Plank/11Photo 4.2 Floor Impact/11Photo 4.3 Floor Finger Crack/11Photo 4.4 Floor Delamination (Wear)/12Photo 4.5 Floor Delamination (Damage)/12Photo 4.6 Numerous Scratches on Corrugations/13Photo 4.7 Individual Deep Scratches on Corrugations/13Photo 4.8 Normal-Use Scratches (Wear)/13Photo 4.9 Cut Gasket/14Photo 4.10 Use of Inspectors Hammer to Test Corrosion/14Photo 4.11 Corroded Area Holed by Inspectors Hammer/14Photo 4.12 Surface Corrosion (Example #1)/15Photo 4.13 Surface Corrosion (Example #2)/15Photo 4.14 Good Panel Straightening/16Photo 4.15 Acceptable Panel Straightening/16


4/23

(COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS, CONTINUED)

Photo 4.16 Borderline-Quality Panel Straightening/16Photo 4.17 Poor-Quality Panel Straightening (Example #1)/17Photo 4.18 Poor-Quality Panel Straightening (Example #2)/17Photo 4.19 Poor-Quality Panel Straightening (Example #2)/18Photo 4.20 Roof Panel Insert with Different Corrugation Profile at end/18


5/23

1 July 1999

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GeneralFor nearly 25 years, IICL has provided the container industry with publishedcriteria for determining whether specific damage to containers requires repair.The latest version of these criteria, the Guide for Container EquipmentInspection, Fifth Edition, commonly called IICL-5 by the industry, was issuedin 1996 with the International Chamber of Shipping.

It has become evident over the past three years that a few areas needfurther clarification. In some cases, it may be difficult to determine if repair isrequired or to distinguish clearly between damage or wear conditions.As the number of defects requiring repair has decreased under IICL-5, theseambiguous conditions, known in the industry as gray areas, have constitutedan increasing share of disputes between parties on repair estimates. In orderto minimize such disputes, IICL has sought to define the principal gray areasand resolve them into repairworthiness and damage/wear categories. Theseprincipal 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 CategoriesThis Supplement clarifies which of the conditions above require repair. Inaddition, repairworthy conditions have been categorized as either damage orwear to the extent practicable (non-repairworthy conditions have not beencategorized). Even though a condition may not require repair under the IICLcriteria described in this Supplement, owners may wish to have such acondition 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 resolvesissues left open in IICL-5, its contents may ultimately be incorporated into afuture edition of the Inspection Guide and possibly other manuals.


6/23

2 July 1999

SECTION 2 GUIDING PRINCIPLESREGARDING GRAY-AREACONDITIONS

2.1 IntroductionIn order to enable parties to assign responsibility more easily, the Supplementwill categorize repairworthy conditions (i.e., conditions that require repair) aswear or damage. Thus, for each gray-area condition, the Supplement willrecommend:

First, whether the condition requires repairSecond, 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 recommendationson allocation to damage or wear categories. Definition and cause of thedefect are critically important to the proper allocation of repairworthy defects.

2.2 Damage vs. WearIICL-5 defines damage as defects caused by a single event or a series ofsingle events, while wear is defined as defects caused by continuousdeterioration ... occurring under normal-use conditions. IICL recognizes thatthere are situations where it is difficult to distinguish a large number ofdamage-causing single events from wear due to continuous deterioration.

When it is impossible to make such a distinction, the inspector shouldconsider whether the defect is caused by abusive or improper action thatsubjects the container to conditions for which it was not designed. Examplesof such abusive or improper action include:

Movement by improperly secured aggressive cargo, such as scrap metalswhich may cause scratches on interior walls

Loading of corrosive chemicals or noxious materialsOverloading, causing floor damage

If the defect appears to be due (at least in part) to the container havingbeen subjected to one or more instances of abusive or improper action forwhich it was not designed (such as those listed above), the defect should be

characterized as damage. This assumes that there are no manufacturingdefects that would shorten the life of the affected components under normaluse.

On the other hand, if the defect does not appear to have been the result ofan abusive or improper action and is not apparently the result of a singleevent or a series of single events (the traditional IICL definition of damage),the defect should be classified as wear. Wear also includes defects due toinferior materials or related manufacturing defects which could not have beenthe result of abusive or improper action by the user.


7/23

3 July 1999

Signs of abuse (e.g. impact and overloading) are indications of damage,while a breakdown in the condition of components without such signsindicates wear.

Section 3 of this Supplement provides specific, concrete examples ofinstances of damage and wear, followed in Section 4 by photographs of theseconditions.

2.3 Abusive or Improper Action

The inclusion of abusive or improper action as an additional determinant ofdamage and wear conditions, as described above, is meant to assist inallocating repairworthy conditions to the appropriate categories of damageand wear. Please note that the use of abusive or improper actionsupplements the definitions included in IICL-5 and does not replace them. Inclarifying and categorizing gray areas, IICL considered the possibility that acontainer might have limited future utility if repairs of certain defects werenot performed. IICL also recognized that the cause of repairworthy defects issometimes open to reasonable doubt.


8/23

4 July 1999

SECTION 3 GRAY-AREA INSPECTIONCRITERIA

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

3.1.2 Inspection criterion: Cracks and splits in plank flooring require repair onlyif

they leak light or result in loose pieces of flooring.

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

3.1.4 Allocation: Cracks and splits are considered damage when accompanied bysigns of impact (e.g. dents or gouges) or overloading (e.g. underlyingcrossmembers 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 oroverloading. 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 woodacross 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 oroverloading or both.

3.2.4 Allocation: Broken planks are always considered damage.

3.3 Laminated Plank FloorsDelamination

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 repaironly if they leak light or result in loose pieces of flooring.


9/23

5 July 1999

3.3.3 Apparent cause: Laminated-plank delamination is a breakdown in adhesion ofthe glue line(s).

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

3.4 Plywood FloorsDelamination, Rolling Shear, Broken Flooring andCombination Defects

3.4.1 Definitions: Delamination of plywood is a failure of the adhesive in (a) glueline(s) between laminates. Rolling-shear failure is a failure of the wood fiberswithin the laminates themselves (not within the glue line[s]). Breakage orbroken plywood flooring is a separation in any direction through one or morelaminates that includes either the top or bottom surface veneer.

Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure may be indicated by one or moreof the following conditions:

Signs of sponginess or spring back in the floor causing the floor to giveway 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 ahollow sound distinct from the normal solid sound of an intact floor.

A surface veneer is defined as the outermost laminate on either the top orbottom surface of the plywood.

As a practical matter, it is not possible to detect differences betweeninstances of delamination and those of rolling-shear failure, unless the surfaceveneer(s) are broken, without removal of the flooring (which is not done as anormal 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 fromlaminate to laminate, it is impractical to distinguish between cracks, splits and

breaks in plywood flooring. Therefore, all separations through one or morelaminates that include the top and bottom surface veneer(s) will beconsidered broken.

A special type of break, called a finger crack, is a separation in a surfaceveneer running transversely, combined with separations running longitudinallyat both ends of the transverse separation. Finger cracks are usually seen onthe bottom surface veneer and are indicative of tension failure in the wood.Note that a finger crack could be damage under some circumstances and wearunder 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 byaccumulated forklift travel, impact, overloading, natural aging of the wood ormoisture ingress into the interior of the plywood (e.g. from excessive steam-cleaning). Broken flooring, including finger cracking, is caused by impact oroverloading.

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


10/23

6 July 1999

hidden interior laminates of the wood, and not be readily apparent from thesurface, it may be difficult to determine the type of defect. As a practicalguide, 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 underlyingcrossmembers) and with breakage (finger cracks or more severe breaks) ofan outer veneer.

Breakage of an outer veneer, without delamination, rolling-shear failure orindication 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 inPhotos 4.2 and 4.3. Photo 4.2 shows the area of impact on the floorsurface. Photo 4.3 shows a finger crack on the underside of the floordirectly 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 beconsidered 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 eitherimpact or overloading and without breakage of an outer veneer. Thiscondition is shown in Photo 4.4.

Delamination and/or rolling-shear failure, without indication of eitherimpact 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:

3.5 CleaningDefects inside containers repaired by cleaning are often considered grayareas. Treatment of such defects is covered by the latest edition of the IICLGeneral Guide for Container Cleaning. Cleaning-related gray areas are notconsidered in this document.

Evidence ofdelimination

and/or rollingshear

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

Evidence of

impact oroverloading

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES

Breakage of anouter veneer

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

Allocation

DAMAGE

DAMAGE

DAMAGE

WEAR

WEAR

WEAR


11/23

7 July 1999

3.6 InteriorScratches and Other Abrasions

3.6.1 Definition and inspection criteria: All scratches and abrasions to the interiorwalls 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 andother abrasions will be made on the walls of containers during normal-useloading and unloading, which implies wear. In order to resolve this dilemma,supplementary criteria for determining damage and wear conditions areprovided below.

Conditions best regarded as damage based on the definitions below requirerepair. Conditions best regarded as wear based on the definitions below donot require repair according to these criteria, although an owner may chooseto repair them based on its own maintenance requirements.

Note that:

No interior markings are required by international standard or regulation,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 contactwith foreign substances is not considered a scratch or abrasion and alwaysrequires repair.

3.6.2 Allocation (damage): Deep scratches and abrasions with individual scratcheseasily identifiable are considered to be damage. Such abrasions are oftendeep enough to penetrate coatings down to base metal. The abrasions areapparent not only on the standing corrugations (outboard when viewed fromthe interior), but also on the recessed and side faces of corrugations. The totalaccumulation of scratches and abrasions is usually higher than would beexpected on a typical container of the same type and age. Such damagerequires repair.

3.6.2.1 Apparent cause: Loading and unloading of one or a few especially aggressivecargoes, such as scrap metal.

This condition is shown in Photos 4.6 and 4.7. Note the scratches presenton the recessed corrugations in Photo 4.6 and the deep scratches in Photo4.7.

3.6.3 Allocation (wear): An accumulation of many small scratches and abrasionswith individual abrasions not readily identifiable are considered to be wear.The majority of these abrasions are located on the standing faces ofcorrugations (outboard when viewed from the interior) and on the formededges of such faces, not on the recessed and side faces. Such anaccumulation of scratches and abrasions is typical of most containers of thesame 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 alsonot repairworthy according to these criteria.

3.6.3.1 Apparent cause: Contact with cargo-loading equipment or the cargo itselfduring carriage of a large number of non-aggressive general cargoes.

This condition is shown in Photo 4.8. Note the absence of significantscratching in the recessed corrugations.


12/23

8 July 1999

3.7 DoorsGasket Seal Watertightness

3.7.1 Definition: The definition of watertight depends on the gasket location:

Vertical side gaskets and horizontal bottom gaskets: These gaskets areconsidered to be watertight if they do not leak light when the doors areclosed 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 ifthey do not leak light AND the outer lips of the gaskets are fully in placeand seated against the header. Cuts, splits and cracks are acceptable on theouter lips, but pieces may not be missing.

3.7.2 Inspection criterion: A gasket seal that is watertight, as defined immediatelyabove, does not require repair. The bottom horizontal gasket in Photo 4.9does not require repair if it is watertight, even though it has cuts.

3.8 Frame Components and PanelsMetal Loss Due to Corrosion

3.8.1 Definition: Metal loss due to corrosion is the partial or complete removal ofstructural strength from metal due to oxidation. This is true even if thematerial actually swells in thickness due to the oxidation, e.g. in the case of

crossmember corrosion covered by undercoating. The metal oxide will beeasily 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 applyto the surface patina formed when Corten

steel is exposed to repeated cycles of wetness and dryness. This patina doesnot remove any structural strength from the parent metal, does not contributeto metal loss and is not easily dislodged by light blows of an inspectorshammer. However, if Corten steel is oxidized due to continuous, long-termimmersion in a moist medium (e.g. standing water or wet mud), that oxidationis not Corten patina, and is considered corrosion.

3.8.2 Inspection criteria and allocation: Corroded components whose structuralstrength is in question should be tested by a short series of light blows from aninspectors hammer. (See the IICL Guide for Container Damage Measurementfor information on this hammer.) Correct use of the inspectors hammer isshown in Photo 4.10.

Components that permanently deform (e.g. that bend, dent or bow) orbecome holed after being struck by light blows of the hammer require repairand should be considered wear. An example of this condition is the corrodedarea shown in Photo 4.11, which has become holed after being struck by thehammer.

Components with surface corrosion and no other signs of damage shouldnot deform and do not require repair. The corroded areas in Photos 4.12 and4.13 represent surface corrosion and will not be penetrated when subjectedto a hammer test. However, both of these conditions are improper repairs,since they were not properly prepared and painted when the repairsoccurred. The degree of corrosion does not require repair by itself, althoughthe condition still may be repairworthy depending on the owners policy oncorrecting improper repairs of this type. (Consult the owner to determinewhether correction of this type of improper repair is necessary. See Section3.9 for further information.)


13/23

9 July 1999

However, if a repairworthy component or portion of a component isadjacent to a non-repairworthy but corroded component or portion, part orall of the corroded component may have to be repaired in order to attach areplacement properly to the component requiring repair.

3.9 Panels and Other ComponentsCorrection of Previous Improper Repairs

3.9.1 Correction of Poor-Quality RepairsWhen 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 ContainerEquipment Inspection. Owners discretion is the primary determinant ofwhether such repairs should be corrected. Therefore, it is important to reportnon-conforming repairs with poor workmanship or improper materials to theowner in order to determine whether they require correction.

3.9.2 Correction of Improper Panel StraighteningPoorly-straightened panel damage should be reworked if anyof the followingconditions exists:

No attempt was made to restore the original corrugated formed edges.No attempt was made to flatten the surfaces between the formed edges.There is a complete loss of the original 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 thiscondition is not required.

Photo 4.15 shows a lower degree of quality but still acceptable degree ofstraightening, where a reasonable attempt was made to restore thecorrugation, although with many hammer marks. This repair should notrequire rework, unless the owner declares otherwise.

Photo 4.16 shows borderline conditions: numerous hammer marks, little orno surface preparation/painting, and/or only a feeble attempt at restoringthe corrugation. Rework of these conditions depends on owners policies.

Photos 4.17 - 4.19 show unacceptable conditions which require rework(subject to owners policies): poor surface preparation and painting, pooror no restoration of corrugation profile, paint mismatching, etc.

3.9.3 Correction of Different Corrugation Profiles on a Partial Roof PanelReplacementIf a single corrugated roof panel is replaced with a panel having a differentcorrugation, the panel repair is not considered improper and correction isnot necessary,provided that (1) structural integrity and watertightness aremaintained, (2) workmanship and material are of acceptable quality and (3)ISO tolerances are not exceeded.

Photo 4.20 shows an example of an insert to a roof panel with a differentcorrugation profile at the end. This insert does not need to be repaired.

3.10 Allocating Correction of Improper Repairs and Unacceptable Pre-ExistingConditionsSometimes, it is difficult to determine whether an improper repair or otherpre-existing condition that needs to be repaired should be considered damage


14/23

10 July 1999

or wear. Owners and users should consider the following factors jointly inmaking such a determination:

Should the improper repair or other pre-existing condition be repaired? Ifnot, no further consideration is necessary. If the condition does requirerepair, consider the next factor.

Is the condition pre-existing, i.e., was the condition present prior to thetime that the last user took control of the unit? In order to determinewhether 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 conditionThe allocation of repair costs made based on the above determination

should be done based on mutual agreement between owner and user as perthe contractual agreement between them.


15/23

11 July 1999

SECTION 4: PHOTOGRAPHS OF GRAY-AREA CONDITIONS

Photo 4.1 (to left) / Split plank. This is a wear item sincethere is no sign of impact or overloading present. Repairis 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 impactshown in Photo 4.2. Since this is accompanied by a sign of impact, this is considered damage.


16/23

12 July 1999

Photo 4.4/ Delaminated plywood board, without indication of either impact or overloadingand 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 wearcondition.


17/23

13 July 1999

Photo 4.6 (to left) / Numerous scratches on recessed as well asstanding 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 ofscratches on recessed corrugations. This is a wear condition.


18/23

14 July 1999

Photo 4.9 (to left) / Bottom horizon-tal gasket with cuts. This gasket doesnot require repair as long as it is stillwatertight.

Photo 4.11 (to left) / Corroded areaholed by the inspectors hammer test.This is a wear condition which must berepaired.

Photo 4.10 (to right) / Use of theinspectors hammer: if the corrodedarea shown permanently deforms or

becomes holed when struck by ashort series of light blows from thehammer, repair is necessary. Thisis a wear condition. If there is nodeformation or holing, no repair isrequired.


19/23

15 July 1999

Photo 4.12/ Surface corrosion due to improper surface preparation and painting of a panelpatch (interior view). The degree of corrosion does not require repair by itself, although thecondition still may be repairworthy depending on the owners policy on correcting improperrepairs of this type.

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


20/23

16 July 1999

Photo 4.14/ Good straightening of a front panel.No rework required.

Photo 4.15/ Acceptable panel straightening. De-spite many hammer marks, the corrugation profilewas reasonably restored; rework is not required.

Photo 4.16/ Borderline-quality panel straightening. Numerous hammer marks and only afeeble attempt made to restore corrugation profile. The need to rework is dependent onowners policies.


21/23

17 July 1999

Photo 4.17/ Poor-quality panel straightening.Only a feeble attempt made to restore corruga-tion profile, using a large-headed hammer withouta corrugation dolly. There is significant stretchingof metal. No attempt at surface preparation hasbeen made. Rework subject to owners 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 owners policies).


22/23

18 July 1999

Photo 4.19/ Poor-quality panel straightening. Numerous hammer marks and no surfacepreparation or painting. Rework required (subject to owners policies).

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


23/23

Carlisle Leasing International LLCContainer Applications International, Inc.Cronos Containers LimitedFlexi-Van Leasing, Inc.Florens Container Services (U.S.) Ltd.Interpool Limited

GE SeaCo SRLTextainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Ltd.Trac Lease, Inc.Transamerica Leasing Inc.Triton Container International Ltd.XTRA International

supplement on container inspection and repair gray areas, 2nd edition (published 2003)

Documents