Topical Fire Report Series November 2018 | Volume 19, Issue 7

Winter Residential Building Fires 

(2014-2016)

These topical reports are 

designed to explore facets 

of the U.S. fire problem 

as depicted through data 

collected in the U.S. Fire 

Administration’s National 

Fire Incident Reporting 

System. Each topical 

report briefly addresses the 

nature of the specific fire or 

fire-related topic, highlights 

important findings from 

the data, and may suggest 

other resources to consider 

for further information. 

Also included are recent 

examples of fire incidents 

that demonstrate some 

of the issues addressed in 

the report or that put the 

report topic in context. 

Findings

ĵ Each year, from 2014 to 2016, an estimated 108,200 winter residential building fires 

were reported to fire departments within the United States. These fires caused 

an estimated 980 deaths, 3,575 injuries, and $1.9 billion in property loss.

ĵ Winter residential building fires accounted for only 8 percent of the total number 

of fires in the U.S., but they resulted in 30 percent of all fire deaths and 23 percent 

of all fire injuries.

ĵ At 43 percent, cooking was the leading cause of winter residential building fires. 

Small, confined fires accounted for 90 percent of these cooking fires.

ĵ Residential building fire incidence was collectively higher in the winter months of 

January, February and March, peaking in January at 11 percent.

ĵ Winter residential building fires occurred most frequently in the early evening, 

peaking during the dinner hours from 5 to 8 p.m., when cooking fire incidence is high.

ĵ Nonconfined winter residential building fires most often started in cooking areas 

and kitchens (20 percent).

ĵ In 51 percent of nonconfined winter residential building fires, the fire extended 

beyond the room of origin. The leading causes of these larger fires were 

unintentional or careless actions (19 percent), electrical malfunctions (14 percent), 

open flames (12 percent), and heating (9 percent).

ĵ The leading specific factor contributing to ignition in nonconfined winter residential 

building fires was a heat source too close to combustibles (16 percent).

ĵ Smoke alarms were not present in 22 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied 

residential buildings. Additionally, automatic extinguishing systems (AESs) were 

present in only 4 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings.

Each year, from 2014 to 2016, fire departments responded to an estimated 108,200 fires in residential buildings 

during the months of January, February and March across the nation.1,2 These fires resulted in an estimated annual 

average of 980 deaths, 3,575 injuries, and $1.9 billion in property loss.

The residential building portion of the fire problem is of great national importance as it accounts for the vast 

majority of civilian casualties, and winter residential building fires account for a considerable portion of that. 

National estimates for 2014 to 2016 show that 81 percent of all fire deaths and 75 percent of all fire injuries 

occurred in residential buildings.3 Winter residential fires accounted for only 8 percent of the total number of 

fires, but they resulted in 30 percent of all fire deaths and 23 percent of all fire injuries. In addition, residential 

building fires accounted for over half (54 percent) of the total dollar loss from all fires, while winter residential 

fires were 16 percent of the total.4

The term “residential buildings” includes what are commonly referred to as “homes,” whether they are one- or 

two-family dwellings or multifamily buildings. It also includes manufactured housing, hotels and motels, residential 

hotels, dormitories, assisted living facilities, and halfway houses — residences for formerly institutionalized 

National Fire Data Center

16825 S. Seton Ave.

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

2

individuals (patients with mental disabilities or drug addictions, or those formerly incarcerated) that are designed 

to facilitate their readjustment to private life. The term “residential buildings” does not include institutions such as 

prisons, nursing homes, juvenile care facilities, or hospitals, even though people may reside in these facilities for 

short or long periods of time.

This report addresses the characteristics of winter residential building fires reported to the National Fire Incident 

Reporting System (NFIRS). The focus is on winter fires reported during the months of January, February and March 

from 2014 to 2016, the most recent data available at the time of the analysis.5 NFIRS data is used for the analyses 

throughout this report.

For the purpose of this report, the term “winter residential fires” is synonymous with “winter residential building 

fires.” “Winter residential fires” is used throughout the body of this report; the findings, tables, charts, headings and 

endnotes reflect the full category, “winter residential building fires.”

Type of fire

Building fires are divided into two classes of severity in the NFIRS: “confined fires” and “nonconfined fires.” Confined 

building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in extent to specific types of equipment or objects staying within 

pots, fireplaces or certain other noncombustible containers.6 Confined fires rarely result in serious injury or large 

content loss and are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame damage.7 Nonconfined 

fires extend beyond certain types of equipment or objects. They are generally larger fires resulting in more serious 

injury and losses of property and content.

Of the two classes of severity, confined fires accounted for 51 percent of winter residential fires. The larger, 

nonconfined fires accounted for the remaining 49 percent of winter residential fires. Cooking fires were the 

predominant type of smaller, confined fires during the winter in residential buildings (Table 1).

Table 1. Winter residential building fires by type of incident (2014-2016)

Incident Type Percent

Nonconfined fires 49.2

Confined fires 50.8

Cooking fire, confined to container 32.9

Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 9.9

Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined 0.2

Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 3.3

Commercial compactor fire, confined to rubbish 0.3

Trash or rubbish fire, contained 4.2

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Loss measures

Table 2 presents losses of reported residential building fires, averaged over the three-year period for the winter 

months of 2014 to 2016.8 The average number of fatalities and injuries per 1,000 winter residential fires was notably 

higher than the same loss measures for residential building fires that occurred during all other seasons of the year. 

In addition, all of the average loss measures associated with nonconfined winter residential fires were substantially 

higher than the same loss measures for confined winter residential fires. This can be expected, however, as 

nonconfined fires are generally larger fires that often result in serious injuries and higher dollar losses.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

3

Table 2. Loss measures for winter and nonwinter residential building fires (three-year average, 2014-2016)

Measure Winter residential 

building fires

Confined winter 

residential 

building fires

Nonconfined 

winter residential 

building fires

Nonwinter 

residential 

building fires

Average loss

Fatalities/1,000 fires 7.2 0.0 14.7 5.2

Injuries/1,000 fires 27.6 5.9 50.1 24.8

Dollar loss/fire $17,350 $220 $35,050 $17,550

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. Average loss for fatalities and injuries is computed per 1,000 fires. Average dollar loss is computed per fire and is rounded to the nearest $10.

2. The 2014 and 2015 dollar-loss values were adjusted to 2016 dollars.

Property use

Figure 1 presents the percentage distribution of winter residential fire losses by property use (i.e., one- and two-family 

residential buildings, multifamily residential buildings, and other residential buildings).9 Consistent with the fact that the 

majority of winter residential fires took place in one- and two-family residential buildings (66 percent), the percentages 

of fatalities (82 percent), injuries (65 percent) and dollar loss (77 percent) were also highest in these types of residences. 

One explanation for the higher percentage of fires and subsequent losses in one- and two-family dwellings may be 

that more stringent building and fire codes, which require detection and suppression systems as well as regular fire 

inspections, are imposed on multifamily dwellings and other residential buildings. In addition, multifamily dwellings 

and other residential buildings may more often be professionally maintained.

Figure 1. Winter residential building fires and losses by property use (2014-2016)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Fires Fatalities Injuries Dollar loss

65.5

27.2

7.3

81.8

4.1

14.0

64.7

31.7

3.6

77.2

18.4

4.4

One- and two-family residential buildings

Multifamily residential buildings

Other residential buildings

Percent of winter residential 

building fires

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes: 1. Total percent of fatalities does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

2. The 2014 and 2015 dollar-loss values were adjusted to 2016 dollars.

When winter residential building fires occur

As shown in Figure 2, winter residential fires occurred most frequently in the early evening, peaking during the dinner 

hours from 5 to 8 p.m., when cooking fire incidence is high.10 Cooking fires, discussed later in the “Causes of winter 

residential building fires” section, accounted for 43 percent of winter residential fires. Fires then declined throughout 

the night, reaching the lowest point during the early to midmorning hours (2 to 7 a.m.). 
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

4

Figure 2. Winter residential building fires by time of alarm (2014-2016)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

11 p.m. - Mid

10 - 11 p.m.

9 - 10 p.m.

1 - 2 p.m.2 - 3 p.m.3 - 4 p.m.4 - 5 p.m.5 - 6 p.m.6 - 7 p.m.7 - 8 p.m.8 - 9 p.m.

12 - 1 p.m.

11 a.m. - 12 p.m.

10 - 11 a.m.

9 - 10 a.m.

1 - 2 a.m.2 - 3 a.m.3 - 4 a.m.4 - 5 a.m.5 - 6 a.m.6 - 7 a.m.7 - 8 a.m.8 - 9 a.m.

Mid - 1 a.m.

2.9 2.6 2.3 2.6

3.0

3.6

4.1

4.5

5.0 5.1 5.2

5.6

6.2

7.0 7.3

6.8

5.9

4.9

4.0

3.3

2.2 2.0 1.9 2.1

Percent of winter residential 

building fires

Time of alarm

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note: Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Figure 3 illustrates that residential fire incidence was collectively higher in the winter months of January, February 

and March, peaking in January at 11 percent.11 Overall, the winter months accounted for 29 percent of residential 

fires, while spring, summer and fall constituted 24, 22 and 26 percent of the total, respectively.12 The increase in fires 

in the cooler months may be explained by the increase in heating fires. In addition, the increase may also be due to 

more indoor activities in general, as well as more indoor seasonal and holiday-related activities. During the spring 

and summer months, fire incidence declined steadily, reaching a low in September.

Figure 3. Residential building fires by month (2014-2016)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

November

December

October

September

August

July

April

May

June

March

February

January

10.6

9.2

7.9 7.3 7.6 7.1 7.0

7.8

9.2 9.0 8.9 8.4

Percent of residential 

building fires

Month of year

Source: NFIRS 5.0.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

5

Causes of winter residential building fires

Cooking was the leading cause and accounted for 43 percent of all winter residential fires, as shown in Figure 4.13

Small, confined fires with limited damage accounted for 90 percent of these cooking fires. 

The next three causes combined accounted for one-third of winter residential fires: heating (20 percent); other 

unintentional or careless actions, a miscellaneous group (7 percent); and electrical malfunctions, such as short circuits 

and wiring problems (7 percent).

Figure 4. Causes of winter residential building fires (2014-2016)

Percent of winter residential building fires 

Causes

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Unknown

Cause under investigation

Other unintentional, careless

Equipment misoperation, failure

Exposure

Natural

Other equipment

Other heat

Open flame

Appliances

Electrical malfunction

Cooking

Heating

Smoking

Playing with heat source

Intentional

Percent of winter residential building

fires with cause determined

Percent of all winter residential 

building fires

36.4

5.6

6.7

3.0

3.5

4.7

4.0

2.7

3.3

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

1.5

1.8

1.3

1.5

6.8

5.7

1.0

1.2

15.6

43.2

16.5

19.6

1.6

1.9

0.3

0.4

2.9

3.4

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. Causes are listed in order of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) Structure Fire Cause Hierarchy for ease of comparison of fire causes across different aspects

of the fire problem. Fires are assigned to one of 16 cause groupings using a hierarchy of definitions, as shown in the figure. A fire is included in the highest

category into which it fits. If it does not fit the top category, then the second one is considered, and if not that one, the third and so on. For example, if the fire

is judged to be intentionally set and a match was used to ignite it, it is classified as intentional and not open flame because intentional is higher in the hierarchy.

	 2. Total percent of all winter residential building fires does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Fire spread in winter residential building fires

As shown in Figure 5, 56 percent of winter residential fires were limited to the object of origin. Included in these fires 

were those coded as “confined fires” in the NFIRS. In addition, 25 percent of fires extended beyond the room of origin.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

6

Figure 5. Extent of fire spread in winter residential building fires (2014-2016) Fire spread

Percent of winter residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 55.7

4.8

17.6

2.8

19.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note: Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Confined fires

The NFIRS allows abbreviated reporting for confined fires, and many reporting details of these fires are not required 

nor are they reported. (Not all fires confined to the object of origin are counted as confined fires).14 As previously 

discussed, however, it is known that confined fires accounted for 51 percent of all winter residential fires. Confined 

cooking fires — those cooking fires confined to a pot or the oven, for example — accounted for 65 percent of these 

confined fires (Table 1).

In addition, the number of confined winter residential fires was greatest from 5 to 7 p.m. These fires accounted for 

63 percent of all winter residential fires occurring in this time period. Moreover, confined cooking fires accounted 

for 68 percent of the confined fires and 43 percent of all fires in residential buildings that occurred between 5 and 7 

p.m. during the winter months.

Of the three winter months, January, February and March, confined residential fires peaked in January at 37 percent, 

while February and March accounted for 32 percent and 31 percent of the fires, respectively.

Nonconfined fires

The next sections of this topical report address nonconfined winter residential fires — the larger and more serious 

fires — where more detailed fire data are available, as they are required to be reported in the NFIRS.

Causes of nonconfined winter residential building fires

While cooking was the leading cause of winter residential fires overall, it only accounted for 10 percent of all 

nonconfined winter residential fires, as shown in Figure 6. Other unintentional or careless actions (15 percent) and 

electrical malfunctions (15 percent) were the primary causes of nonconfined winter residential fires. Secondary 

causes of nonconfined winter residential fires included open flames (10 percent), cooking (10 percent), and heating 

(9 percent).
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

7

Figure 6. Causes of nonconfined winter residential building fires (2014-2016)

Percent of nonconfined winter residential building fires 

Causes

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Unknown

Cause under investigation

Other unintentional, careless

Equipment misoperation, failure

Exposure

Natural

Other equipment

Other heat

Open flame

Appliances

Electrical malfunction

Cooking

Heating

Smoking

Playing with heat source

Intentional

Percent of nonconfined winter residential 

building fires with cause determined

Percent of all nonconfined winter 

residential building fires

7.3

11.5

15.3

5.9

7.9

10.4

7.8

5.4

7.2

1.7

1.3

1.6

1.2

3.0

4.0

2.6

3.4

15.4

11.6

2.0

2.6

25.0

9.8

7.1

9.4

3.1

4.1

0.6

0.8

4.7

6.2

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. Causes are listed in order of the USFA Structure Fire Cause Hierarchy for ease of comparison of fire causes across different aspects of the fire problem. Fires

are assigned to one of 16 cause groupings using a hierarchy of definitions, as shown in the figure. A fire is included in the highest category into which it fits. If

it does not fit the top category, then the second one is considered, and if not that one, the third and so on. For example, if the fire is judged to be intentionally

set and a match was used to ignite it, it is classified as intentional and not open flame because intentional is higher in the hierarchy.

	 2. Total for each distribution does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Where nonconfined winter residential building fires start (area of fire origin)

Nonconfined winter residential fires most often started in cooking areas and kitchens (20 percent), as shown in 

Table 3. Bedrooms (13 percent) and common rooms, living rooms or lounge areas (7 percent) were the next most 

common areas of fire origin in the home. Smaller percentages of fires started in attics and vacant spaces (5 percent) 

and laundry areas (5 percent).

Note that these areas of origin do not include areas associated with confined fires. Cooking was the leading cause of 

all winter residential fires at 43 percent, and it is not surprising that kitchens were the leading area of fire origin. The 

percentages were not identical between cooking and kitchen fires because some cooking fires started outside the 

kitchen, some areas of origin for cooking fires were not reported (as is the case in most confined cooking fires), and 

some kitchen fires did not start due to cooking. In fact, only 47 percent of nonconfined winter residential fires that 

started in the kitchen were cooking fires. Other unintentional or careless actions (14 percent), appliances (8 percent), 

and other heat (8 percent) collectively accounted for an additional 30 percent of kitchen fires.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

8

Table 3. Leading areas of fire origin in nonconfined winter residential building fires (2014-2016)

Areas of fire origin Percent

(unknowns apportioned)

Cooking area, kitchen 19.6

Bedrooms 12.7

Common room, den, family room, living room, lounge 7.1

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

How nonconfined winter residential building fires start (heat source)

Figure 7 shows sources of heat categories for nonconfined winter residential fires. Heat from powered equipment 

accounted for 50 percent of nonconfined winter residential fires. This category includes electrical arcing (16 percent); 

radiated or conducted heat from operating equipment (15 percent); heat from other powered equipment (14 percent); 

and spark, ember or flame from operating equipment (5 percent).

Hot or smoldering objects accounted for 17 percent of nonconfined winter residential fires. This category includes 

items such as hot embers or ashes (8 percent) and miscellaneous hot or smoldering objects (7 percent).

The third largest category pertains to heat from open flame or smoking materials (16 percent). This category includes 

items such as cigarettes (4 percent), other miscellaneous open flame or smoking materials (4 percent), lighters and 

matches (combined, 3 percent), and candles (3 percent).

Figure 7. Sources of heat in nonconfined winter residential building fires by major category (2014-2016)

Percent of nonconfined winter residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Undetermined

Explosive, fireworks

Multiple heat sources including

 multiple ignitions

Chemical, natural heat source

Other heat source

Heat spread from another fire

Heat from open flame

 or smoking material

Hot or smoldering objects

Heat from powered equipment

Percent of nonconfined winter residential

building fires with heat source determined

Percent of all nonconfined winter 

residential building fires

49.7

31.5

16.8

10.6

15.7

9.9

9.3

5.9

6.4

4.0

1.1

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.3

36.6

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 Total for each distribution does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

9

What ignites first in nonconfined winter residential building fires

As shown in Figure 8, 37 percent of the items first ignited in nonconfined winter residential fires where the item is 

determined fell under the “structural component, finish” category. This category includes structural member or 

framing and exterior sidewall covering. The second leading category of items first ignited in nonconfined winter 

residential fires was “general materials,” which accounted for 17 percent of these fires. “General materials” include 

items such as electrical wire, cable insulation, and trash or rubbish. The next three leading categories of nonconfined 

winter residential fires were “organic materials” at 13 percent; “furniture, utensils” at 12 percent; and “soft goods, 

wearing apparel” at 11 percent. These categories include items such as cooking materials, cabinetry, upholstered 

sofas and chairs, clothing, bedding, linens and curtains.

Structural member or framing (12 percent), cooking materials (10 percent), electrical wire, cable insulation (8 percent), 

and exterior sidewall covering (7 percent) were the specific items most often first ignited in nonconfined winter 

residential fires.

Figure 8. Item first ignited in nonconfined winter residential building fires by major category (2014-2016)

Percent of nonconfined winter residential building fires

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Undetermined

Adornment, recreational material, signs

Storage supplies

Liquids, piping, filters

Other items

Soft goods, wearing apparel

Furniture, utensils

Organic materials

General materials

Structural component, finish

Percent of nonconfined winter residential

building fires with item first ignited determined

Percent of all nonconfined winter residential 

building fires

36.5

22.7

17.0

10.6

7.9

12.7

11.5

7.1

11.4

7.1

4.6

2.9

3.3

2.0

2.1

1.3

0.9

0.5

37.8

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 Total percent of all nonconfined winter residential building fires does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Fire spread in nonconfined winter residential building fires

Figure 9 shows the extent of fire spread in nonconfined winter residential fires. In 49 percent of these nonconfined 

fires, the fire was limited to the object or room of fire origin — in 36 percent of these nonconfined fires, the fire was 

limited to the room of origin; in another 13 percent of fires, the fire was limited to the object of origin. (Note that a fire 

limited to a sofa or bed is not defined as a “confined fire” because of the greater potential for spread. Unlike fires in 

pots or chimneys, there is no container to stop the fire even though the fire did not spread beyond the object of origin.)
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

10

In 51 percent of nonconfined winter residential fires, the fire extended beyond the room of origin. The leading causes 

of these larger fires were unintentional or careless actions (19 percent), electrical malfunctions (14 percent), open 

flames (12 percent), and heating (9 percent).

Figure 9. Extent of fire spread in nonconfined winter residential building fires (2014-2016) Fire spread

Percent of nonconfined winter residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 12.7

9.7

35.5

5.8

36.3

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Factors contributing to ignition in nonconfined winter residential building fires

Table 4 shows the categories of factors contributing to ignition in nonconfined winter residential fires. The leading 

category was the misuse of material or product (38 percent). In this category, the leading specific factors contributing 

to ignition were a heat source too close to combustible materials (16 percent) and abandoned or discarded materials, 

such as matches or cigarettes (10 percent).

Electrical failures and malfunctions contributed to 23 percent of nonconfined winter residential fires. Operational 

deficiency was the third leading category at 15 percent. Unattended equipment was the leading factor in the 

operational deficiency category and accounted for 7 percent of all nonconfined winter residential fires. 

Table 4. Factors contributing to ignition for nonconfined winter residential building fires by major 

category (where factors contributing to ignition are specified, 2014-2016)

Factors contributing to ignition category

Percent of nonconfined winter 

residential building fires 

(unknowns apportioned)

Misuse of material or product 38.1

Electrical failure, malfunction 23.3

Operational deficiency 14.9

Fire spread or control 10.6

Mechanical failure, malfunction 7.8

Other factors contributing to ignition 5.7

Design, manufacture, installation deficiency 2.7

Natural condition 2.2

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. Includes only incidents where factors that contributed to the ignition of the fire were specified.

	 2. Multiple factors contributing to fire ignition may be noted for each incident; the total will exceed 100 percent.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

11

Alerting/Suppression systems in winter residential building fires

Fire fatalities and injuries have declined over the last 35 years, partly due to new technologies to detect and extinguish 

fires. Smoke alarms are present in most homes. In addition, the use of residential sprinklers is widely supported by 

the fire service and is gaining support within residential communities.

Smoke alarm data is available for both confined and nonconfined fires, although for confined fires, the data is very 

limited in scope. Since different levels of data are reported on smoke alarms in confined and nonconfined fires, the 

analyses are performed separately. Note that the data presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7 are the raw counts from the 

NFIRS dataset and are not scaled to national estimates of smoke alarms in winter residential fires. In addition, the 

NFIRS does not allow for the determination of the type of smoke alarm (i.e., photoelectric or ionization) or the location 

of the smoke alarm with respect to the area of fire origin.

Smoke alarms in nonconfined winter fires

Overall, smoke alarms were reported as present in 43 percent of nonconfined winter residential fires (Table 5). In 26 

percent of nonconfined winter residential fires, there were no smoke alarms present. In another 31 percent of these 

fires, firefighters were unable to determine if a smoke alarm was present. Thus, smoke alarms were missing in 26 

percent to potentially 57 percent of fires with the ability to spread and possibly result in fatalities.

Table 5. Presence of smoke alarms in nonconfined winter residential building fires (2014-2016)

Presence of smoke alarms Percent

Present 43.2

None present 26.1

Undetermined 30.7

Total incidents 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

While 14 percent of all nonconfined winter residential fires occurred in residential buildings that are not currently or 

routinely occupied, these buildings — which are under construction, undergoing major renovations, or vacant and 

the like — are unlikely to have alerting and suppression systems that are in place and, if in place, that are operational. 

In fact, only 7 percent of all nonconfined winter fires in unoccupied residential buildings were reported as having 

smoke alarms that operated. As a result, the detailed smoke alarm analyses in the next section focus on nonconfined 

winter fires in occupied residential buildings only.

Smoke alarms in nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings

Smoke alarms were reported as present in 48 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings 

(Table 6). In 22 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings, there were no smoke alarms 

present. In another 30 percent of these fires, firefighters were unable to determine if a smoke alarm was present; 

unfortunately, in 52 percent of the fires where the presence of a smoke alarm was undetermined, either the flames 

involved the building of origin or spread beyond it. The fires were so large and destructive that it is unlikely the 

presence of a smoke alarm could be determined.

When smoke alarms were present (48 percent) and the alarm operational status is considered, the percentage of 

smoke alarms reported as present consisted of:

ĵ Present and operated — 28 percent.

ĵ Present but did not operate — 12 percent (alarm did not operate, 6 percent; fire too small, 6 percent).

ĵ Present but operational status unknown — 8 percent.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

12

When the subset of incidents where smoke alarms were reported as present was analyzed separately as a whole, 

smoke alarms were reported to have operated in 59 percent of the incidents and failed to operate in 12 percent. In 

another 13 percent of this subset, the fire was too small to activate the alarm. The operational status of the alarm 

was undetermined in 16 percent of these incidents.

At least 22 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings had no smoke alarms present — and 

perhaps more if fires without information on smoke alarms could be factored in.15 A large proportion of reported fires 

without smoke alarms may reflect the effectiveness of the alarms themselves: Smoke alarms do not prevent fires, 

but they may prevent a fire from being reported if it is detected at an early stage and extinguished before the fire 

department becomes involved. Alternatively, fires in homes without smoke alarms may not be detected at an early 

stage, causing them to grow large, require fire department intervention, and thus be reported.16

If a fire occurs, properly installed and maintained smoke alarms provide an early warning signal to everyone in a 

home. Smoke alarms help save lives and property. The USFA continues to partner with other government agencies and 

fire service organizations to improve and develop new smoke alarm technologies. More information on smoke alarm 

technologies, performance, disposal and storage, training bulletins, and public education and outreach materials can 

be found at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/technology/smoke_fire_alarms.html. Additionally, the USFA’s 

position statement on smoke alarms is available at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/about/smoke_alarms_position.html.

Table 6. NFIRS smoke alarm data for nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings (2014-2016)

Presence of 

smoke alarms

Smoke alarm 

operational status Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Present

Fire too small to activate smoke 

alarm 5,905 6.1

Smoke alarm operated

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, 

occupants responded 20,434 21.0

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, 

occupants failed to respond 885 0.9

No occupants 2,852 2.9

Smoke alarm failed to alert occupants 633 0.7

Undetermined 2,801 2.9

Smoke alarm failed to operate 5,484 5.6

Undetermined 7,695 7.9

None present 21,179 21.8

Undetermined 29,289 30.1

Total incidents 97,157 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2014 to 2016. They do not represent national

estimates of smoke alarms in nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings. They are presented for informational purposes.

2. Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Smoke alarms in confined winter fires

Less information about smoke alarm status is collected for confined fires, but the data still give important insights 

about the effectiveness of alerting occupants in these types of fires. The analyses presented here do not differentiate 

between occupied and unoccupied residential buildings, as this data detail is not required when reporting confined 

fires in the NFIRS. However, an assumption may be made that confined fires are fires in occupied housing, as these 

types of fires are unlikely to be reported in residential buildings that are not occupied.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

13

Smoke alarms alerted occupants in 42 percent of the reported confined winter residential fires (Table 7). In other 

words, residents received a warning from a smoke alarm in about two-fifths of these fires. The data suggest that 

smoke alarms may alert residents to confined fires, as the early alerting allowed the occupants to extinguish the fires, 

or the fires self-extinguished. If this is the case, it is an example of the contribution to overall safety and the ability to 

rapidly respond to fires in early stages that smoke alarms afford. Details on smoke alarm effectiveness for confined 

fires are needed to pursue this analysis further.

Occupants were not alerted by smoke alarms in 18 percent of confined winter residential fires.17 In 40 percent of these 

confined fires, the smoke alarm effectiveness was unknown.

Table 7. NFIRS smoke alarm data for confined winter residential building fires (2014-2016)

Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Smoke alarm alerted occupants 48,887 41.9

Smoke alarm did not alert occupants 20,771 17.8

Unknown 47,109 40.3

Total incidents 116,767 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2014 to 2016. They do not represent national estimates

of smoke alarms in confined winter residential building fires. They are presented for informational purposes.

Automatic extinguishing systems in nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings

AES data are available for both confined and nonconfined fires, although for confined fires the data are very limited in 

scope. In confined winter residential building fires, an AES was present in less than 1 percent of reported incidents.18

In addition, the following AES analyses focus on nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings only, as 

even fewer AESs are present in unoccupied housing.

Residential sprinklers are the primary AES in residences but are not yet widely installed. In fact, AESs were reported 

as present in only 4 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings (Table 8). 

Residential sprinkler systems help to reduce the risk of deaths and injuries, homeowner insurance premiums, and 

uninsured property losses. Yet many homes do not have AESs, although they are often found in hotels and businesses. 

Sprinklers are required by code in hotels and many multifamily residences. There are major movements in the U.S. fire 

service to require sprinklers in all new homes. At present, however, they are largely absent in residences nationwide.19

The USFA and fire service officials across the nation are working to promote and advance residential fire sprinklers. 

More information on costs and benefits, performance, training bulletins, and public education and outreach materials 

regarding residential sprinklers is available at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/technology/home_fire_

sprinklers.html. Additionally, the USFA’s position statement on residential sprinklers is available at https://www.

usfa.fema.gov/about/sprinklers_position.html.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

14

Table 8. NFIRS automatic extinguishing system data for nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential 

buildings (2014-2016)

Automatic extinguishing system presence Count Percent

AES present 3,820 3.9

Partial system present 191 0.2

AES not present 85,249 87.7

Unknown 7,897 8.1

Total incidents 97,157 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1. The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2014 to 2016. They do not represent national

estimates of AESs in nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings. They are presented for informational purposes.

2. Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Examples

The following are recent examples of winter residential fires reported by the media:

ĵ March 2018: One person was seriously injured when a fire broke out in a single family home in Maywood, Illinois. 

According to fire officials, the fire started in a first-floor bedroom around 7:30 a.m. and spread throughout the 

house. A male occupant of the home sustained first- and second-degree burns on his arm. He was taken to 

Loyola University Medical Center for treatment of his injuries. No other injuries were reported, but the home was 

uninhabitable. The cause of the fire is under investigation.20

ĵ February 2018: Fire crews were dispatched to a chimney fire in a two-story house in Perrysburg, Ohio. The fire 

broke out just before midnight, and it quickly spread to the second floor and roof of the home. A woman and her 

dog escaped the fire unharmed, and no other injuries were reported.21

ĵ January 2018: According to the State Fire Marshal’s Office, an unattended pot of grease on a kitchen stove was 

the source of a midafternoon fire that injured one man and damaged the rear of a town house in Taneytown, 

Maryland. The man received second and third degree burns while attempting to remove the burning pot from 

the stove, and the fire quickly spread forcing the occupants of the home to escape. The man was transported to 

Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, but was expected to make a full recovery. No other injuries were reported 

as a result of the blaze. Structural damage to the home was estimated at $100,000 with an additional estimated 

$25,000 in contents loss.22

ĵ January 2018: An early morning house fire in Addison, Illinois, resulted in the deaths of an elderly couple in their 70s. 

Fire crews believed the fire started in the kitchen area of the home shortly after 2:30 a.m. and spread to the attic. 

The couple was found in the bedroom of their home. According to the fire department, there were no working smoke 

alarms in the home. The cause of the blaze is unknown; however, fire officials determined it was not suspicious.23
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

15

NFIRS data specifications for winter residential building fires

Data for this report were extracted from the NFIRS annual Public Data Release files for 2014, 2015 and 2016. Only 

Version 5.0 data were extracted.

Winter residential building fires were defined using the following criteria:

ĵ Aid Types 3 (mutual aid given) and 4 (automatic aid given) were excluded to avoid counting a single incident more 

than once.

ĵ Incident Types 111 to 123 (excluding Incident Type 112):

Incident Type Description

111 Building fire

113 Cooking fire, confined to container

114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue

115 Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined

116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined

117 Commercial compactor fire, confined to rubbish

118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained

120 Fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure, other

121 Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence

122 Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle

123 Fire in portable building, fixed location

Note: Incident Types 113 to 118 do not specify if the structure is a building.

ĵ Property Use Series 400, which consists of the following:

Property Use Description

400 Residential, other

419 One- or two-family dwelling, detached, manufactured home, mobile home not in transit, duplex

429 Multifamily dwelling

439 Boarding/Rooming house, residential hotels

449 Hotel/Motel, commercial

459 Residential board and care

460 Dormitory-type residence, other

462 Sorority house, fraternity house

464 Barracks, dormitory

ĵ Structure type:

Ý For Incident Types 113 to 118:

f 1 — Enclosed building, or

f 2 — Fixed portable or mobile structure, or

f Structure Type not specified (null entry).

Ý For Incident Types 111 and 120 to 123:

f 1 — Enclosed building, or

f 2 — Fixed portable or mobile structure.

ĵ Residential building fires that occurred in the three months of January, February and March.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

16

The analyses contained in this report reflect the current methodologies used by the USFA. The USFA is committed 

to providing the best and most current information on the U.S. fire problem and continually examines its data and 

methodology to fulfill this goal. Because of this commitment, data collection strategies and methodological changes 

are possible and do occur. As a result, analyses and estimates of the fire problem may change slightly over time. 

Previous analyses and estimates on specific issues (or similar issues) may have used different methodologies or data 

definitions and may not be directly comparable to the current ones.

Information regarding the USFA’s national estimates for nonresidential building fires, as well as the data sources used 

to derive the estimates, can be found in the document “Data Sources and National Estimates Methodology Overview 

for the U.S. Fire Administration’s Topical Fire Report Series (Volume 19),” https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/

statistics/data_sources_and_national_estimates_methodology_vol19.pdf. This document also addresses the specific 

NFIRS data elements analyzed in the topical reports, as well as “unknown” data entries and missing data.

To help prevent winter weather-related home fires, the USFA provides safety tips, social media messages, public 

service announcements, and publications regarding winter fires available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/

outreach/winter.html.

To request additional information, visit https://www.usfa.fema.gov/contact.html. Provide feedback on this report.

Notes:

1National estimates are based on 2014 to 2016 native Version 5.0 data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), residential 

structure fire loss estimates from the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) annual surveys of fire loss, and the U.S. Fire Administration’s 

(USFA’s) residential building fire loss estimates: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/order_download_data.html. Further information 

on the USFA’s residential building fire loss estimates can be found in the “National Estimates Methodology for Building Fires and Losses,” 

August 2012, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/national_estimate_methodology.pdf. For information on the NFPA’s survey 

methodology, see the NFPA’s report “Fire Loss in the United States During 2016,” September 2017, https://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/firestatistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fire-problem/fire-loss-in-the-united-states. In this topical report, fires are rounded 

to the nearest 100, deaths to the nearest five, injuries to the nearest 25, and dollar loss to the nearest $100 million.

2In NFIRS Version 5.0, a structure is a constructed item of which a building is one type. In previous versions of the NFIRS, the term “residential 

structure” commonly referred to buildings where people live. To coincide with this concept, the definition of a residential structure fire for 

the NFIRS 5.0 includes only those fires where the NFIRS 5.0 structure type is 1 or 2 (enclosed building and fixed portable or mobile structure) 

with a residential property use. Such structures are referred to as “residential buildings” to distinguish these buildings from other structures 

on residential properties that may include fences, sheds and other uninhabitable structures. In addition, confined fire incidents that have a 

residential property use but do not have a structure type specified are presumed to occur in buildings. Nonconfined fire incidents that have 

a residential property use without a structure type specified are considered to be invalid incidents (Structure Type is a required field) and are 

not included.

3Each year, from 2014 to 2016, there were an estimated 374,900 residential building fires. These fires caused an estimated 2,700 deaths, 11,525 

injuries, and $6.6 billion in property loss (USFA’s residential building fire loss estimates).

4The percentages shown here are derived from the national estimates of residential building fires as explained in Endnote 1 and the summary 

data resulting from NFPA’s annual fire loss surveys (Haynes, Hylton J.G., “Fire Loss in the United States During 2014,” NFPA, September 2015; 

“Fire Loss in the United States During 2015,” NFPA, September 2016; “Fire Loss in the United States During 2016,” NFPA, September 2017). 

5Fire department participation in the NFIRS is voluntary; however, some states do require their departments to participate in the state system. 

Additionally, if a fire department is a recipient of a Fire Act Grant, participation is required. From 2014 to 2016, 68 percent of the NFPA’s annual 

average estimated 1,328,500 fires to which fire departments responded were captured in the NFIRS. Thus, the NFIRS is not representative of 

all fire incidents in the U.S. and is not a “complete” census of fire incidents. Although the NFIRS does not represent 100 percent of the incidents 

reported to fire departments each year, the enormous dataset exhibits stability from one year to the next without radical changes. Results 

based on the full dataset are generally similar to those based on part of the data.

6In the NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type codes 113 to 118.

7The NFIRS distinguishes between “content” and “property” loss. Content loss includes losses to the contents of a structure due to damage by 

fire, smoke, water and overhaul. Property loss includes losses to the structure itself or to the property itself. Total loss is the sum of the content 

loss and the property loss. For confined fires, the expectation is that the fire did not spread beyond the container (or rubbish for Incident Type 

code 118), and hence, there was no property damage (damage to the structure itself) from the flames. However, there could be property damage 

as a result of smoke, water and overhaul.

8The average fire death and fire injury loss rates computed from the national estimates do not agree with average fire death and fire injury loss 

rates computed from NFIRS data alone. The fire death rate computed from national estimates is (1,000 x (980/108,200)) = 9.1 deaths per 1,000 

winter residential building fires, and the fire injury rate is (1,000 x (3,575/108,200)) = 33.0 injuries per 1,000 winter residential building fires.
TFRS Volume 19, Issue 7 | Winter Residential Building Fires (2014-2016)

17

9“One- and two-family residential buildings” include detached dwellings, manufactured homes, mobile homes not in transit, and duplexes. 

“Multifamily residential buildings” include apartments, town houses, row houses, condominiums, and other tenement properties. “Other 

residential buildings” include boarding/rooming houses, hotel/motels, residential board and care facilities, dormitory-type residences, sorority/

fraternity houses, and barracks.

10For the purposes of this report, the time of the fire alarm is used as an approximation for the general time at which the fire started. However, 

in the NFIRS, it is the time at which the fire was reported to the fire department.

11Each year, from 2014 to 2016, there were an estimated 374,900 residential building fires.

12Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

13The USFA Structure Fire Cause Methodology was used to determine the cause of winter residential building fires. The cause methodology and 

definitions can be found in the document “National Fire Incident Reporting System Version 5.0 Fire Data Analysis Guidelines and Issues,” July 

2011, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/nfirs/nfirs_data_analysis_guidelines_issues.pdf. Based on the cause definition, fires caused 

by intentional actions include, but are not limited to, fires that are deemed to be arson. Intentional fires are those fires that are deliberately 

set and include fires that result from the deliberate misuse of a heat source and fires of an incendiary nature (arson) that require fire service 

intervention. For information and statistics on arson fires only, refer to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program arson statistics from the U.S. 

Department of Justice, FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr.

14As noted previously, confined building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in scope, are confined to noncombustible containers, rarely 

result in serious injury or large content loss, and are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame damage. In the 

NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type codes 113 to 118.

15Here, at least 22 percent of nonconfined winter fires in occupied residential buildings had no smoke alarms present — the 22 percent that 

were known to not have smoke alarms and some portion (or as many as all) of the fires where the smoke alarm presence was undetermined.

16The “2004-2005 National Sample Survey of Unreported Residential Fires,” however, suggests that this may not be the case. It is observed 

that “if this conjecture is true, it would suggest that the percentage decrease in fire department-attended fires would have been greater than 

unattended fires in the 20 year period between the surveys.”

17In confined fires, the entry “smoke alarm did not alert occupants” can mean no smoke alarm was present; the smoke alarm was present but 

did not operate; the smoke alarm was present and operated, but the occupant(s) was already aware of the fire; or there were no occupants 

present at the time of the fire.

18As confined fires codes are designed to capture fires contained to noncombustible containers, it is not recommended to code a fire incident 

as a small-, low- or no-loss confined fire incident if the automatic extinguishing system (AES) operated and contained the fire as a result. 

The preferred method is to code the fire as a standard fire incident with fire spread confined to the object of origin and provide the relevant 

information on AES presence and operation.

19U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2011, September 

2013, “Health and Safety Characteristics-All Occupied Units (National),” Table S-01-AO, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programssurveys/ahs/data/2011/h150-11.pdf (accessed July 26, 2018).

20Romain, Michael, “Family Displaced, One Seriously Injured In March 18 Maywood House Fire,” https://thevillagefreepress.org, March 18, 2018, 

https://thevillagefreepress.org/2018/03/18/family-displaced-one-seriously-injured-in-march-18-maywood-house-fire/ (accessed July 30, 2018).

21“Multiple Crews Respond to Perrysburg House Fire Friday Night,” www.wtol.com, Feb. 3, 2018, http://www.wtol.com/story/37419153/multiplecrews-respond-to-perrysburg-house-fire-friday-night (accessed July 30, 2018).

22Kelvey, Jon, “Cooking Fire The Source Of Taneytown Blaze That Sent One To Hospital,” www.carrollcountytimes.com, Jan. 30, 2018, http://www.

carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/cc-taneytown-house-fire-20180130-story.html (accessed July 30, 2018).

23“2 Killed In House Fire In Addison,” cltv.com, Jan. 22, 2018, https://cltv.com/2018/01/22/2-killed-in-house-fire-in-addison/ (accessed July 30, 2018).