# Retaining Wall Guard Requirement



## Jeff8737 (Nov 22, 2021)

Please tell me if my logic and reasoning is correct:

The scope of the IRC code states it applies to the construction of "accessory structures"

*Accessory structures* are defined as "a structure that is accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling and that is located on the same lot"

And *structure* is defined as "that which is built or constructed"  With all that in mind:







So if there's a 48 inch high retaining wall at the lot line between two properties, with a vertical drop onto concrete, am I correct to presume that a guard should be required? "Walking surface" is not defined within the code however, the common sense meaning (to me) is a surface that can be walked on; be it asphalt, lumber, grass, etc. And this particular surface would be walked on by landscapers, HVAC technicians, etc from time to time. As such, the risk of falling 4 feet onto concrete exists.

Have I missed anything? Many thanks!


----------



## Msradell (Nov 22, 2021)

I certainly agree with your interpretation, except for cost I can absolutely see no reason not to install one even of code didn't require it.


----------



## tbz (Nov 23, 2021)

Jeff8737 said:


> Please tell me if my logic and reasoning is correct:
> 
> The scope of the IRC code states it applies to the construction of "accessory structures"
> 
> ...


Well Jeff,

First off welcome to the forum.....

Next the USA is a very large area that has many different building codes adopted, hence 2000 - 2018 versions of the IRC alone, not to mention 2021, and many areas that don't even have or adoption any building codes, though those areas are being reduced.

Without knowing the state and jurisdiction, the AHJ - Authority Having Jurisdiction for the adopted model code to be enforced, your question becomes mute.

Depending on how the AHJ adopted and or modified the model code adoption, your assumption is more than likely not correct.

The IRC is based on the building structure not landscaping, though one might stretch the purpose like you are attempting, it is not the intent and one of the many reasons we have an IRC separate from the IBC.

Example: once you leave the building and are to grade, the IRC stops, so if you have a home that exists on to a front exterior landing, then down 3 steps to the walkway and then 15 feet across the yard to another set of steps, let's say 8, that go down to a driveway.  The Model IRC only covers the landing and 3 steps without modification, not the lower 8 steps to the driveway, though many try to stretch that view, it does not.

Example Pic: Red arrow points to walkout to lawn area to the left




Let's look at another example, you buy a lot and build a home that has a natural rock fall at the end of the property that is 20ft, now that you built the home on the property, by your definition though the rock fall is existing and 100 feet away, the lawn runs right up to the edge.  Because you installed the lawn which was not existing you created a walking surface between the two?  I think not.

Unless the retaining wall is directly connected to the home, garage or patio that is attached to the home and the hardscape walking surface is within 36 of that drop, its out in the lawn and thus landscaping.

Just because you installed grass, does not mean you have a walking surface.  And by definition not covered, the lawn mowers are on their own.

Regards - Tom


----------



## steveray (Nov 23, 2021)

A "walking surface" is not typically grass or landscape...Trying to clarify this in 2024....


----------



## Kearney.200 (Nov 23, 2021)

I agree with the OP a guard would be required on a retaining wall that was installed on the property, it follows the intent of the code.
TBZ as to your statement ( devils advocate ) you would not require a guard or hand rail from a landing on a deck then?


----------



## e hilton (Nov 23, 2021)

Kearney.200 said:


> you would not require a guard or hand rail from a landing on a deck then?


A deck is definitely a walking surface.  That’s the reason it is built.  Grass is not a walking surface.  How many places do you see signs “keep off the grass”?


----------



## Jeff8737 (Nov 23, 2021)

tbz said:


> Without knowing the state and jurisdiction, the AHJ - Authority Having Jurisdiction for the adopted model code to be enforced, your question becomes mute.
> 
> Depending on how the AHJ adopted and or modified the model code adoption, your assumption is more than likely not correct.



I checked my state's code. It adopts the 2018 IRC, and there are no local amendments with regard to this topic.  It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to say that the grass along the top of the wall is a walking surface. Unlike the example in your photo, all service people must walk on the grass to service an HVAC unit on the side of the house, along with fiber optic, landscape people, etc. If the intent of the guard requirement is to protect people from falling and being injured, how could a guard not be required for a 4 ft drop?


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 23, 2021)

Plant briar bushes if there is space to get by them to service the equipment.


----------



## Beniah Naylor (Nov 23, 2021)

Retaining Wall Drop-Off Fencing
					

I came through the same question for my builder and this is what I found in Florida Building Code, I believe the reference is also valid for IBC or other State code that originated from IBC:  R312.1 Guards.  Guards shall be provided in accordance with Sections R312.1.1 through R312.1.4...



					www.thebuildingcodeforum.com
				




Check out this thread - this discussion comes up occasionally here. There is not a definitive answer, the IRC covers single family dwellings and their accessory structures. Is a retaining wall an accessory structure? I'm not sure.

As has been stated, grass is not typically considered to be a walking surface by most in the industry.

Unfortunately, the existence of a hazard does not automatically mean that there is a code section to address it. I would agree that there is a hazard, but I would not necessarily agree that it is within the scope of the codes I can legally enforce to address that hazard.


----------



## e hilton (Nov 23, 2021)

I guess if you add a rail, that would give little boys a bit more height when they play Superman and jump off the edge.


----------



## Sifu (Nov 23, 2021)

Jeff, good question, one that has been asked many times in many places.  I hope steveray is right and they provide more definitive guidance, without which we are left trying to decide for ourselves.  IMHO, a retaining wall in a landscape area would not require a guard.  However, if a sidewalk or other designated walking surface was adjacent to it then it would.  It comes down to intended use.  Like Beniah said, there has not been a definitive answer, and I imagine even if there were, it would still be debatable based on intended use.  This debate is occurring right now within my department.  Our planning department wants to require them (not sure what they are basing that on) and the building department is not as quick to do so, we think a blanket requirement would certainly be over-kill.  I think one would be justified to require or not require based on individual intended uses.  If legitimate concerns exist about safety then you should require it, but if it is not an obvious walking surface I think you could be justified in not requiring it.  You are applying reason to the situation, which is what we should do.  Your conclusions should be justifiable either way....at least unless and until we have a more definitive requirement to reference.  This same type of conflict comes up with landscape elements quite often.  Glenn Matthewson put together a pretty good video about it, sorry I don't have the link at my fingertips, but I bet it is on this forum somewhere.  Check out his site:  https://buildingcodecollege.com/


----------



## steveray (Nov 23, 2021)

I think the proposed language is going to have "walking surface within 3' " and hopefully some other tweaks....


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 23, 2021)

It would seem "pedestrian path" as I believe BOCA used would be more clear than "walking surface".

Interesting that transit platforms as well as seawalls and docks seem to be exempted.

Does a steep embankment that's a clear fall injury hazard get exempted because it's not "constructed"?

As far as service people, they work around fall hazards regularly and have their own requirements to protect against injury.


----------



## tbz (Nov 23, 2021)

Jeff8737 said:


> I checked my state's code. It adopts the 2018 IRC, and there are no local amendments with regard to this topic.  It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to say that the grass along the top of the wall is a walking surface. Unlike the example in your photo, all service people must walk on the grass to service an HVAC unit on the side of the house, along with fiber optic, landscape people, etc. If the intent of the guard requirement is to protect people from falling and being injured, how could a guard not be required for a 4 ft drop?


Jeff and others, 

Let's start with some of the basics first,

1. which state are we talking about? what's the secret about your state location if its a Statewide code adoption?
2. where is the retaining wall on the property in relation to the home...location matters
3. you stated that the retaining wall is on the property line, 
       So is it on both sides of the line or on the high side or low side's property?
       IT makes a difference....
       Are we talking about a 50x100 lot or 30 acres? 
4. who installed it?  The owner of the low side or the owner on the high side?
5. Grass is not a walking surface that is regulated by the 2018 IRC and if it is please point it out, and the top of a retaining wall is not a walking surface either, thus no regulated walking surface adjacent next to fall. 

*Definition of a guard: "*_A building component or a system of building components located near the open sides of elevated *walking surfaces* that minimizes the possibility of a fall from the walking surface to the lower level."_

6. so if they had a natural stone shale drop to the concrete driveway of the lot next door is a guard required.
7. was the 48" retaining wall permitted under the building code or just built under a zoning requirement?  
8. Show me where in the IRC it requires someone with a 40 acre spread to take you from the home in the center of the property to the street with guards along the entire concrete driveway with drop offs, that slope away and drop more than 30 inches within 36 inches?

These are just a few of things and I am guessing if you installed a flagpole in the middle of the yard is that a structure also?


----------



## Jeff8737 (Nov 23, 2021)

tbz said:


> Jeff and others,
> 
> Let's start with some of the basics first,
> 
> ...


----------



## tbz (Nov 23, 2021)

Kearney.200 said:


> I agree with the OP a guard would be required on a retaining wall that was installed on the property, it follows the intent of the code.
> TBZ as to your statement ( devils advocate ) you would not require a guard or hand rail from a landing on a deck then?


Once you exit the structure and are to grade, building code is done...unless you go in to another structure...then to grade and done.

So, you exit the home on to a deck then down to grass grade, IRC stops.

The retaining wall is not a walking surface and nor is the grass per the IRC, otherwise every inspector should be roaming every inch of the property for drops from grass, because the definition of guard says "from elevated walking surfaces"


----------



## Sifu (Nov 23, 2021)

steveray said:


> I think the proposed language is going to have "walking surface within 3' " and hopefully some other tweaks....


That is the threshold I use now, but it has to be a walking surface within that 3'.  I like the more specific "pedestrian path" language too.  As TBZ is saying, lots of things can be walked on, but that doesn't make them walking surfaces from a code perspective.

I did encounter one once time on a commercial build that was a disaster waiting to happen.  A rear sidewalk-pedestrian path, where the adjacent grass sloped away significantly down to a retaining wall 50' away.  It did not "require" any guards, but if someone tripped they were going for a long ride.  I encouraged them to install a guard, and asked how they thought it would look when they were in court and I said I tried but they met the minimum code and didn't want to spend the money.  They put it in.


----------



## tbz (Nov 23, 2021)

Thank you Jeff for the additional information about the project,

So, the wall was a result of direction from your office to fix an issue created by the builder that they should not have done.

You note that the wall is on the lower side of the fall property, thus the top of the wall is not really an issue for the owner it is an issue created by the owner now affecting the owner next door. 

Either way, were in the adopted ID IRC does it say that grass is a walking surface that you regulate for falls?  I get the concern, but concern is not a code requirement, and the retaining wall I am guessing does not have a top that is 30 plus inches wide either, so how does that become a walking surface, balance beam maybe, not a defined walking surface. 

Though I get your concerns and I get it, this whole problem was created by the owner's builder, or the builder under the direction of the owner.

If the wall is completely on the owner's property, I am not sure how you get there through the IRC, I would venture you need to find another way, but not the IRC.

JMO


----------



## tbz (Nov 23, 2021)

steveray said:


> I think the proposed language is going to have "walking surface within 3' " and hopefully some other tweaks....


Can't wait to see this Steve - but how do you plan to terminate the exterior path length?

Remember an 80 x 90 lot is different than 5 acres or even 30 acres.

You can't cover the entire property


----------



## tbz (Nov 23, 2021)

and for the record, is a minimum code a logical thing?


----------



## e hilton (Nov 23, 2021)

tbz said:


> If the wall is completely on the owner's property,


So the wall is completely on the property of the low-side owner, and it was put there because of his actions.  He and his family and guests are not at risk, effectively he has a nice stone wall.  However he is putting his neighbor at risk, therefore the low-side HO should be required to install a guard rail, or restore the slope.  Or if the drop-off is a couple of feet inside his property line, then he should pay to install a decorative fence on the PL to serve as a warning to the neighbors pedestrians.


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 24, 2021)

i would not call a grass lawn as walking surface any more then a flat roof as walking surface.


----------



## Sifu (Nov 24, 2021)

In my AHJ, where this debate is occurring on the floors over my head, they are giving no thought to just how a guard is constructed on a retaining wall.  Most of these are existing, but even the new ones would be problematic.  Many are stacked block, all have disturbed fill behind them.  Getting the guards to resist the required loads could prove problematic and expensive.  When I asked the question I got some blank stares.  I think they would be better served to develop a set of criteria for what they consider a walking surface (like pedestrian path!) and enforce it consistently.  There may well be instances where it would be required, but there are definitely instances where they would not be required.


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 24, 2021)

I look at the photos tbz posted and can't imagine the expense and public outrage that requiring guards atop them would entail.

I hope supporters will show evidence in the form of injuries and deaths resulting from falls from retaining walls, not just a couple of documented incidents and anectdotal reports, to justify this.


----------



## jj1289 (Nov 24, 2021)

Yes a code change proposal is in the works for the 2024 I-Codes. CT midifies the code and adds the following language to the IRC;

(Add) *R404.4.1 Guards. *Retaining walls with a difference in finished grade from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall that is greater than 4 feet (1219 mm) _shall _be provided with _guards _complying with Sections R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 when there is a walking surface, parking lot or driveway on the high side located closer than 2 feet (610 mm) to the retaining wall. For the purpose of this section, grass, planting beds or landscaped areas _shall _not be a walking surface.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 24, 2021)

Does anybody know why 4 feet is the magic number, is there scientific research that a 4 foot fall vs a 3 foot or 30 inch fall is different? Just curious


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 24, 2021)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Does anybody know why 4 feet is the magic number, is there scientific research that a 4 foot fall vs a 3 foot or 30 inch fall is different? Just curious


Yeah. I've asked same many times  Why 30".  I'm guessing one code said 24", another 36", and all the experts said 48", so result was 30".  
I also wonder where the 2' away came from for this case.  

Isn't there a threshold of my 48" for some level of protection in OSHA?


----------



## steveray (Nov 24, 2021)

CT made up the 2 feet I am sure...Just a place to start...


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 24, 2021)

A never ending  story subject to risk management concerns and property insurance coverage?


----------



## tbz (Nov 24, 2021)

jj1289 said:


> Yes a code change proposal is in the works for the 2024 I-Codes. CT midifies the code and adds the following language to the IRC;
> 
> (Add) *R404.4.1 Guards. *Retaining walls with a difference in finished grade from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall that is greater than 4 feet (1219 mm) _shall _be provided with _guards _complying with Sections R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 when there is a walking surface, parking lot or driveway on the high side located closer than 2 feet (610 mm) to the retaining wall. For the purpose of this section, grass, planting beds or landscaped areas _shall _not be a walking surface.


My 3 cents, I think this is the wrong direction to require a guard, and should be directed at a barrier conforming to the requirements of the pool barrier requirements, set at a height of 36-inches, IMO is a much better direction than a guard.

My reasoning is that the overwhelming number of retaining walls built at private residences are dry laid block and none of them can support the loads of guards being attached to them, thus requiring a barrier which does not require the vastly higher load transfer would be much more in line with preforming the task, since many of them are being built with offset fence behind the walls already when installed.

This is going to add a drastic amount of cost to projects with no statistics to back the requirement, as there is no injury data out there showing the need, only assumption.

Of Note as currently written to be proposed would not require a guard be installed for the project listed in this O.P.  There is no walking surface within 24 inches, only grass...

Again my 3 cents

Happy Thanksgiving everyone....


----------



## tbz (Nov 24, 2021)

Sifu said:


> In my AHJ, where this debate is occurring on the floors over my head, they are giving no thought to just how a guard is constructed on a retaining wall.  Most of these are existing, but even the new ones would be problematic.  Many are stacked block, all have disturbed fill behind them.  Getting the guards to resist the required loads could prove problematic and expensive.  When I asked the question I got some blank stares.  I think they would be better served to develop a set of criteria for what they consider a walking surface (like pedestrian path!) and enforce it consistently.  There may well be instances where it would be required, but there are definitely instances where they would not be required.


Sifu,

My point exactly and why I believe the barrier direction is a much more viable direction, also with the driveway part added in, what is the difference between a man-made block, wood tie, hand laid dry stone wall or poured Concrete to name a few and as thus, lets bring back the large acreage driveways into the question?

Again 50x100 lot thinking with total disregard for 1 acre and larger properties


----------



## tbz (Nov 24, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> A never ending  story subject to risk management concerns and property insurance coverage?


The simple answer is risk management might be micromanaged in CA, but in many other states not even on the radar.

Just think what the difference in results to last week's verdict in WI would be if in CA, please don't comment on the trial or results, my point is simply not everyone lives in a nanny state like CA, ADA.....


----------



## tbz (Nov 24, 2021)

e hilton said:


> So the wall is completely on the property of the low-side owner, and it was put there because of his actions.  He and his family and guests are not at risk, effectively he has a nice stone wall.  However he is putting his neighbor at risk, therefore the low-side HO should be required to install a guard rail, or restore the slope.  Or if the drop-off is a couple of feet inside his property line, then he should pay to install a decorative fence on the PL to serve as a warning to the neighbors pedestrians.


E-H,

Again assuming an issue without information, and how do you get to your enforcement within the model IRC?

All the commentary and interps you will get from the ICC will contradict your opinion.

even if we try and go to the Intent of the code, the Intent of the IRC is to limit the requirements to the home and Structures t less than the IBC, and here is a question for you the model IRC in R404.4 notes retaining walls in excess of 48", the OP notes the retaining wall is 48" high, I guess you can find a spot along the edge of the base of the wall, but pushing dirt against it will kick that requirement because how do you get the 36" distance off the edge for 30" when a retaining wall is measured from the base for height.

Perceived hazards is a personal view, not a tape measurement requirement.

Don't get me wrong I too would strongly suggest installing a fence, even a 2-line split rail with some vegetation, but the question is how does one enforce a requirement that is not there for guards...


----------



## tbz (Nov 24, 2021)

steveray said:


> CT made up the 2 feet I am sure...Just a place to start...


Steve I believe the BOCA 1993 or 1996 had the 24 inch distance for retaining walls.

I remember back when NJ was using the BOCA and 1&2 Fam CABO, many inspectors tried to pull in the 24 inch requirement for retaining walls for guards on to projects permitted under the CABO.  Thus NO-GO, but A for effort....

So I would guess the 24 comes from the BOCA model codes from the 1990's, Glenn dust off those 90's from the shelf and maybe prove me wrong or closely right.  As I get older the memory gets foggier...


----------



## Jeff8737 (Nov 24, 2021)

e hilton said:


> So the wall is completely on the property of the low-side owner, and it was put there because of his actions.  He and his family and guests are not at risk, effectively he has a nice stone wall.  However he is putting his neighbor at risk, therefore the low-side HO should be required to install a guard rail, or restore the slope.  Or if the drop-off is a couple of feet inside his property line, then he should pay to install a decorative fence on the PL to serve as a warning to the neighbors pedestrians.



@e hilton yes, that is exactly correct (side note: the wall is not nice, nor is it stone. It's a poorly constructed wooden wall) There was plenty of room to keep the slope for water drainage, and perhaps just cover it with rocks, and still accomplish what the owner desired (an RV pad). It was entirely unnecessary to create a 4 ft vertical drop at the lot line, thereby creating this danger of of a fall off my property onto his.


----------



## steveray (Nov 29, 2021)

tbz said:


> Steve I believe the BOCA 1993 or 1996 had the 24 inch distance for retaining walls.
> 
> I remember back when NJ was using the BOCA and 1&2 Fam CABO, many inspectors tried to pull in the 24 inch requirement for retaining walls for guards on to projects permitted under the CABO.  Thus NO-GO, but A for effort....
> 
> So I would guess the 24 comes from the BOCA model codes from the 1990's, Glenn dust off those 90's from the shelf and maybe prove me wrong or closely right.  As I get older the memory gets foggier...


Yeah...this was at least sort of in BOCA and our group is discussing using the "barrier" language or "acceptable to the AHJ" as you/ we discussed in Pittsburgh about the rooftop stuff....


----------



## tbz (Dec 1, 2021)

jj1289 said:


> Yes a code change proposal is in the works for the 2024 I-Codes. CT midifies the code and adds the following language to the IRC;
> 
> (Add) *R404.4.1 Guards. *Retaining walls with a difference in finished grade from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall that is greater than 4 feet (1219 mm) _shall _be provided with _guards _complying with Sections R312.1.2 and R312.1.3 when there is a walking surface, parking lot or driveway on the high side located closer than 2 feet (610 mm) to the retaining wall. For the purpose of this section, grass, planting beds or landscaped areas _shall _not be a walking surface.


JJ,

This wording currently in CT, do you measure to the back side of the retaining wall for the 24" or the open sided edge?

Looking to clarify the tick point.

reason for question:

23.5 + 8" block wall = 31.5" to open edge
VS 23.9375 to open edge
*"*located closer than 2 feet (610 mm) *to the retaining wall."*

Does not say open sided edge, so I am guessing and looking to clarify


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 1, 2021)

I don't think the code says how close the guard needs to be from the edge. You don't need to put the guard directly on top of a retaining wall. Why couldn't you  build the guard 2' away from the edge to comply? Code is not specific on how close the guard is to the edge, as long as it's between the edge and the walking surface.


----------



## tbz (Dec 1, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't think the code says how close the guard needs to be from the edge. You don't need to put the guard directly on top of a retaining wall. Why couldn't you  build the guard 2' away from the edge to comply? Code is not specific on how close the guard is to the edge, as long as it's between the edge and the walking surface.


Rick, that is not the question I am asking of JJ,

The modified code section adopted in CT, says if the *walking surface* is _within 24 inches of the_ *retaining wall*, then a guard is required.

So, my question is, where do you measure the trigger point to on the retaining wall, edge of the walking surface too?

The very first part of the retaining wall the tape measure comes in contact with or the further point of the open sided edge?

If you have a 12 deep dry laid techno block wall, and the back edge of the block is 23" from the edge of the walking surface, ie: paver block hardscape, does that trigger the guard requirement?  

Or do they measure to the open sided edge for the trigger which is another 12" away, hence 23 + 12 = 35" and thus no guard required.

Based on the wording I am questioning the trigger point that would delineate between the guard being require or not?  and their intent for the trigger point?


----------



## steveray (Dec 1, 2021)

I am pretty sure we measure from edge of walkway to edge of "drop".....Or i would if I ran into it anyway....


----------



## ICE (Dec 1, 2021)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Does anybody know why 4 feet is the magic number, is there scientific research that a 4 foot fall vs a 3 foot or 30 inch fall is different? Just curious


That was the number the committee could accept. 

I meet a person that was on the committee that determined that fifty occupants was a trigger for a bunch of egress related codes. When asked why they chose fifty he said "That was the number the committee could accept."  There was no science or research on the topic.  It was a jury of our peers.  And that is how it's done.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 1, 2021)

There is some research, but I suspect US codes are more tradition than science.  This suggests greater than 60" are four times more injurious than less than 60". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9346069/


----------



## ICE (Dec 1, 2021)

At five feet a person falling is upside down and the head hits first.  It's all about the center of gravity.


----------



## steveray (Dec 1, 2021)

ICE said:


> At five feet a person falling is upside down and the head hits first.  It's all about the center of gravity.


If they walk off a 5' wall then there head might not be up top......


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 1, 2021)

I'm with steveray on this. The litigation I've worked on the injuries are to hips and below.

I want to know if guard is required if there is water below, either year round or part of year. A lot of retaining walls with paths at top, called river walks here.  Business opportunity.


----------



## instantmessenger (Dec 2, 2021)

If you aren't in compliance, you can might be able add mulch or soil at the bottom of the wall. (depending on what is at the bottom if the retaining wall)


----------

