• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Retaining Wall Guard Requirement

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