National Fire Data Center

16825 S. Seton Ave.

Emmitsburg, MD 21727

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/

Topical Fire Report Series June 2017 | Volume 18, Issue 3

Multifamily Residential Building Fires 

(2013-2015)

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 From 2013 to 2015, an estimated 109,700 multifamily residential building fires 

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

caused an estimated 405 deaths; 3,975 injuries; and $1.4 billion in property loss.

ĵ Multifamily residential building fires accounted for 29 percent of all residential 

building fires.

ĵ Small, confined fires accounted for 71 percent of multifamily residential building 

fires.

ĵ Cooking, at 74 percent, was the leading cause of multifamily residential building 

fires. Of these cooking fires, 93 percent were small, confined fires with limited 

damage.

ĵ In 32 percent of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires, the fire extended 

beyond the room of origin. The leading cause of these larger fires was exposures 

(12 percent). In contrast, 53 percent of all other nonconfined residential building 

fires (excluding multifamily buildings) extended beyond the room of origin.

ĵ Cooking areas and kitchens (33 percent) were the primary areas of origin for 

nonconfined multifamily residential building fires.

ĵ Multifamily residential building fire incidence was slightly higher in the cooler 

months, peaking in January (10 percent).

ĵ Smoke alarms were present in 63 percent and sprinkler systems were present in 

12 percent of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires.

From 2013 to 2015, multifamily residential building fires accounted for an annual estimated 109,700 reported fires. 

These fires accounted for 29 percent of all residential building fires responded to by fire departments across the 

nation.1,2 These fires resulted in an annual average of 405 deaths; 3,975 injuries; and $1.4 billion in property loss.

Multifamily residential buildings include structures such as apartments, town houses, row houses, condominiums 

and other tenement properties. Multifamily residential buildings tend to have stricter building codes than oneand two-family buildings.3

 Many multifamily residential buildings are rental properties, and they are usually 

required to comply with more stringent fire prevention statutes and regulations involving smoke alarms and 

sprinkler systems.

As a result of the type of building, the more stringent building and code requirements, and the fact that more 

people live in the building itself than in the predominant one- and two-family residences, fires in multifamily 

residential buildings tend to have a different profile than fires in other types of residences.

A major difference in the multifamily residential building fire profile is seen in cooking fires. Cooking was 

the leading cause of 74 percent of multifamily residential building fires, almost twice that of all other types 

of residential buildings. Multifamily residential buildings also tend to have central heating systems that are 

maintained by professionals instead of homeowners, thus there are typically fewer heating fires from poor 

maintenance or misuse than in one- and two-family dwellings. Also, fire problems related to fireplaces, chimneys 
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

2

and fireplace-related equipment tend to occur less often in multifamily heating fires since multifamily residential 

buildings generally lack these features. Finally, multifamily residential buildings usually have fewer fires caused by 

electrical problems due to construction materials, building codes and professional maintenance.

This current topical report is an update to the “Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2012-2014)” (Volume 17, Issue 3) 

topical report, which was released in June 2016. As part of a series of topical reports that address fires in the major 

residential building types, the remainder of this report addresses the characteristics of multifamily residential building 

fires as reported to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The focus is on fires reported from 2013 to 

2015, the most current data available at the time of the analysis.4 Comparisons to one- and two-family residential 

building fires are noted based on analyses from the “One- and Two-Family Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)” 

(Volume 18, Issue 2) topical report.

For the purpose of this report, the terms “residential fires” and “multifamily fires” are synonymous with “residential 

building fires” and “multifamily residential building fires,” respectively. “Multifamily fires” is used throughout the body 

of this report; the findings, tables, charts, headings and endnotes reflect the full category of “multifamily residential 

building fires.”

Type of fire

Building fires are divided into two classes of severity in the NFIRS: “confined fires,” which are fires confined to certain 

types of equipment or objects, and “nonconfined fires,” which are fires that are not confined to certain types of 

equipment or objects. Confined building fires are small fire incidents that are limited in extent, staying within pots, 

fireplaces or certain other noncombustible containers.5 Confined fires rarely result in serious injury or large content 

loss, and they are expected to have no significant accompanying property loss due to flame damage.6

The smaller, confined fires accounted for 71 percent of the multifamily fires, with cooking fires as the predominant 

type of confined fire (Table 1). Nonconfined fires made up the remaining 29 percent of multifamily fires. In contrast 

to one- and two-family residences, the relative proportions of confined and nonconfined fires were reversed; 

nonconfined fires accounted for the bulk of one- and two-family building fires (60 percent), and confined fires 

accounted for the remaining 40 percent.

Table 1. Multifamily residential building fires by type of incident (2013-2015)

Incident type Percent

Nonconfined fires 29.3

Confined fires 70.7

Cooking fire, confined to container 61.9

Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 0.5

Incinerator overload or malfunction, fire confined 0.1

Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 2.7

Commercial compactor fire, confined to rubbish 0.8

Trash or rubbish fire, contained 4.7

Total 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Loss Measures

Table 2 presents losses, averaged over this three-year period, of reported multifamily fires and all other residential 

fires.7 The average number of fatalities per 1,000 multifamily fires was less than half that of the same loss measure 

for all other residential building fires. The average dollar loss per fire for multifamily fires was more than half that of 
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

3

the same loss measure for all other residential building fires. In addition, the average loss measures for nonconfined 

multifamily fires were substantially higher than the same loss measures for confined multifamily fires; this is to be 

expected, however, since confined fires rarely result in serious injury or large content loss.

Table 2. Loss measures for multifamily residential building fires (three-year average, 2013-2015)

Measure

Multifamily 

residential 

building fires

Confined 

multifamily 

residential 

building fires

Nonconfined 

multifamily 

residential 

building fires

Residential 

building fires 

(excluding 

multifamily)

Average loss

Fatalities/1,000 fires 2.9 0.0 9.9 6.6 

Injuries/1,000 fires 30.1 8.2 82.9 24.6

Dollar loss/fire $11,440 $180 $38,650 $19,020

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 rounded to the nearest $10.

2. The 2013 and 2014 dollar-loss values were adjusted to 2015 dollars.

When multifamily residential building fires occur

As shown in Figure 1, multifamily fires occurred most frequently in the early evening, peaking during dinner from 5 to 

8 p.m.8 This peak period was consistent with the major cause of fires, cooking (discussed in the next section, “Causes 

of multifamily residential building fires”), and accounted for 22 percent of multifamily fires. Fires then declined 

throughout the night, reaching the lowest point during the morning hours from 4 to 7 a.m.

Figure 1. Multifamily residential building fires by time of alarm (2013-2015)

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 2.5 2.2 2.0

2.6

3.2

3.9

4.4

5.0 5.2 5.2

5.6

6.1

7.1

7.5 7.6

6.6

5.5

4.4

3.5

1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6

Percent of multifamily 

residential building fires

Time of alarm

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

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

Figure 2 illustrates that multifamily fire incidence was slightly higher in the cooler months, peaking marginally in 

January (10 percent). This peak was partially the result of an increase in heating fires. Multifamily fire incidence was 

lowest during the months of June through September.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

4

Figure 2. Multifamily residential building fires by month (2013-2015)

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

9.5

8.4 8.4

7.4 7.4 7.5 7.6

8.3

9.0 8.8 9.2

8.5

Percent of multifamily 

residential building fires

Month of year

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Causes of multifamily residential building fires

As shown in Table 3, cooking was by far the leading cause of multifamily fires, accounting for 74 percent of all 

multifamily fires.9 The majority of all cooking fires (93 percent) in multifamily residences were small, confined 

fires with limited damage. The next six causes combined accounted for 18 percent of multifamily fires: heating (5 

percent); appliances (3 percent); open flames (3 percent); other unintentional, careless actions (3 percent); electrical 

malfunctions (2 percent); and intentional actions (2 percent).10

Table 3. Leading and secondary causes of multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015)

Cause Percent

(unknowns apportioned)

Cooking 73.6

Heating 5.2

Appliances 2.8

Open flame 2.6

Other unintentional, careless 2.6

Electrical malfunction 2.4

Intentional 2.3

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

The fire cause profile for multifamily buildings was different from the fire cause profile for one- and two-family 

buildings. While the two leading causes, cooking and heating, were the same, cooking was a substantially more 

prevalent cause of multifamily fires (74 percent) than of one- and two-family fires (37 percent). Heating was a much 

smaller cause of multifamily fires (5 percent) than of one- and two-family fires (16 percent). The order and relative 

size of the remaining causes also differed.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

5

One explanation for the importance of cooking as a cause of multifamily fires may lie in the construction materials, 

building codes and professional maintenance of the buildings. For example, many multifamily residential buildings 

tend to have systems — heating and electrical systems, for instance — that are regularly maintained by professionals. 

As a result, there are fewer fires from lack of maintenance or misuse than in one- and two-family housing. Multifamily 

buildings also have fewer fire problems related to fireplaces, chimneys and fireplace-related equipment than one- and 

two-family residential buildings, since multifamily buildings generally lack this equipment.11

It may also be that confined cooking fires are reported to the fire department more often in multifamily residences. 

While these fires are small and contained, and they do not cause much damage, someone may hear the alarm in 

the complex (if the fire is large enough to activate it) or may smell smoke and notify the building manager or the 

fire department. If it is a newer complex, the alarms are often connected to the building alarm system, and the fire 

department is automatically called. These same small cooking fires in one- and two-family residences may occur as 

frequently but may not be reported as often. As little damage occurs and only the residents hear the smoke alarm 

or smell the smoke, the residents may elect not to call the fire department.

Fire spread in multifamily residential building fires

Nearly three-quarters of multifamily fires (74 percent) were limited to the object of origin (Figure 3). These fires 

were primarily coded as confined fires in the NFIRS (small, low-loss fires that were confined to noncombustible 

containers); 93 percent of multifamily fires limited to the object of origin were coded as confined fires. Only 9 percent 

of multifamily fires extended beyond the room of origin, far fewer than in one- and two-family residences (32 percent).

Figure 3. Extent of fire spread in multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015)

8.3

Fire spread

Percent of multifamily residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 74.0

16.7

3.0

5.6

0.7

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Confined fires

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

be reported. It is important to note that not all fires where the extent of fire spread is limited to the object of origin 

are counted as NFIRS confined fires.12 For example, a fire in which the fire spread is limited to a mattress or clothes 

dryer is not defined as a “confined fire” in the NFIRS 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.

Because 71 percent of multifamily fires are confined, the profiles of when multifamily confined fires occurred and 

their causes dominated the overall multifamily fire profile. As shown in Table 1, confined cooking fires accounted for 

62 percent of multifamily fire incidents and dominated the cause of multifamily fires.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

6

The occurrence of confined multifamily fires was greatest during the hours from 5 to 8 p.m., when they accounted for 

76 percent of all multifamily fires that occurred during this period. Moreover, confined cooking fires accounted for 90 

percent of the confined fires and 69 percent of all fires in multifamily buildings that occurred during this time period.

Confined multifamily fires also peaked in January and declined throughout the spring, reaching the lowest incidence 

during the month of July.

Nonconfined fires

This section addresses nonconfined multifamily fires — the larger and more serious fires that are not confined to 

a noncombustible container — where more detailed fire data are available, as they are required to be reported in 

the NFIRS.

Causes of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires

While cooking was the leading cause for multifamily fires overall (74 percent), it only accounted for 21 percent of all 

nonconfined multifamily fires (Figure 4). The next leading causes were appliances (11 percent); other unintentional, 

careless actions (10 percent); open flames, such as candles or matches (9 percent); and electrical malfunctions 

(9 percent). These four causes accounted for 39 percent of the fires.

Figure 4. Causes of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015) Causes

Percent of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires

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 multifamily 

residential building fires with cause

determined

Percent of all nonconfined multifamily

residential building fires

7.6

6.2

1.1

0.9

7.8

6.3

6.3

20.5

16.5

9.0

7.3

10.6

8.6

9.4

7.6

7.6

6.1

0.9

0.8

1.4

1.1

4.1

3.3

1.9

1.5

9.5

7.7

2.3

1.9

19.2

5.1

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, approximately as shown in the chart above. 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 percentage of all nonconfined multifamily residential building fires does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

7

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

Nonconfined multifamily fires most often started in cooking areas and kitchens (33 percent), as shown in Table 4. 

The next leading area of fire origin was bedrooms (13 percent). Additional fires started in family rooms or living 

rooms (6 percent), exterior balconies or unenclosed porches (6 percent), laundry areas (5 percent), and bathrooms 

(5 percent). Note that these areas of origin do not include areas associated with confined fires, as that information 

generally is not reported for confined fires. Cooking fires were a substantial percentage of all multifamily fires. 

Therefore, it is likely that the kitchen was the leading area of fire origin for all multifamily fires.

Nonetheless, nonconfined multifamily fires that started in the kitchen were not exclusively cooking fires — only 

55 percent of fires that started in the kitchen were cooking fires. Other unintentional, careless actions (11 percent) 

and appliances (8 percent), such as freezers and refrigerators, accounted for another 19 percent of these kitchen fires. 

Additional nonconfined multifamily fires that started in the kitchen were caused by other heat sources (7 percent) 

and heating (5 percent).

Table 4. Leading areas of fire origin in nonconfined multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015)

Areas of fire origin Percent

(unknowns apportioned)

Cooking area, kitchen 33.2

Bedrooms 12.9

Common room, den, family room, living room, lounge 6.1

Exterior balcony, unenclosed porch 5.6

Laundry area 4.6

Bathrooms 4.6

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

How nonconfined multifamily residential building fires start (heat source)

Figure 5 shows sources of heat categories in nonconfined multifamily fires. The heat from powered equipment 

category accounted for 50 percent of nonconfined multifamily fires. This category includes radiated or conducted 

heat from operating equipment (18 percent), heat from other powered equipment (17 percent), and electrical arcing 

(10 percent).

Heat from open flame or smoking materials accounted for 22 percent of nonconfined multifamily fires. This category 

includes cigarettes (8 percent), heat from miscellaneous open flames or smoking materials (5 percent), lighters and 

matches (combined, 4 percent), and candles (4 percent). The third largest heat source category pertains to hot or 

smoldering objects (13 percent). This category includes miscellaneous hot or smoldering objects (7 percent) and hot 

embers or ashes (5 percent).
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

8

Figure 5. Sources of heat in nonconfined multifamily residential building fires by major category (2013-2015)

Percent of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Undetermined

Multiple heat sources including

 multiple ignitions

Explosives, fireworks

Chemical, natural heat sources

Other heat source

Heat spread from another fire

Hot or smoldering objects

Heat from open flame

 or smoking materials

Heat from powered equipment

28.4

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.3

4.1

5.8

4.2

5.9

9.6

13.4

16.0

22.4

35.8

50.1

Percent of all nonconfined multifamily

residential building fires

Percent of nonconfined multifamily 

residential building fires with heat 

source determined

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

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

Fire spread in nonconfined multifamily fires

Figure 6 shows the extent of fire spread in nonconfined multifamily fires. The majority of nonconfined fires, 

68 percent, were limited to the object or room of fire origin. In 51 percent of nonconfined fires, the fire was limited 

to the room of origin; in another 17 percent of fires, the fire was limited to the object of origin. In 32 percent of 

nonconfined multifamily fires, the fire extended beyond the room of origin. The leading causes of these larger fires 

were exposures (12 percent); unintentional, careless actions (11 percent); electrical malfunctions (10 percent); open 

flames (10 percent); intentional actions (9 percent); and smoking (9 percent). In contrast, 53 percent of all other 

nonconfined residential building fires (excluding multifamily building) extended beyond the room of origin. Automatic 

extinguishing systems (AESs), such as sprinklers, may aid in containing multifamily fires, as discussed in a later section.

Figure 6. Extent of fire spread in nonconfined multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015)

8.3

Fire spread

Percent of nonconfined multifamily residential building fires

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Beyond building of origin

Limited to building of origin

Limited to floor of origin

Limited to room of origin

Limited to object of origin 17.4

51.0

10.2

19.0

2.4

Source: NFIRS 5.0.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

9

Factors contributing to ignition in nonconfined multifamily residential building fires

Table 5 shows the categories of factors contributing to ignition for nonconfined multifamily fires. By far, the leading 

category contributing to the ignition of nonconfined multifamily fires was the misuse of material or product 

(47 percent). Abandoned or discarded materials (17 percent) and a heat source too close to combustible materials 

(15 percent) were the leading specific factors contributing to ignition in this category.

Operational deficiency, the second leading category, contributed to 21 percent of nonconfined multifamily fires. 

Unattended equipment was the leading factor in the operational deficiency category, and it accounted for 12 percent 

of all nonconfined multifamily fires. Electrical failures and malfunctions was the third leading category of factors 

contributing to ignition at 15 percent.

Table 5. Factors contributing to ignition for nonconfined multifamily residential building fires by major 

category (where factors contributing to ignition were specified, 2013-2015)

Factors contributing to ignition category Percent of nonconfined multifamily residential 

building fires (unknowns apportioned)

Misuse of material or product 47.3

Operational deficiency 20.8

Electrical failure, malfunction 15.1

Fire spread or control 7.4

Other factors contributing to ignition 6.4

Mechanical failure, malfunction 5.9

Natural condition 1.4

Design, manufacture, installation deficiency 0.8

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.

Alerting/Suppression systems in multifamily 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. As 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 6 through 8 are the raw counts from 

the NFIRS dataset and are not scaled to national estimates of smoke alarms or sprinklers in multifamily fires. In 

addition, the NFIRS does not allow for the determination of the type of smoke alarm — that is, if the smoke alarm 

was photoelectric or ionization — or the location of the smoke alarm with respect to the area of fire origin.

Smoke alarms in nonconfined fires

Because of various avenues of fire notification in multifamily buildings, the detailed smoke alarm analyses in the next 

section focus on all nonconfined fires in multifamily buildings.13

Smoke alarms were reported as present in 63 percent of nonconfined multifamily fires. In 19 percent of nonconfined 

multifamily fires, no smoke alarms were present. In another 18 percent of these fires, firefighters were unable to 

determine if a smoke alarm was present (Table 6).
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

10

When operational status is considered, the percentage of smoke alarms reported as present (63 percent) consisted of:

ĵ Present and operated — 39 percent.

ĵ Present, but did not operate — 14 percent (fire too small, 8 percent; alarm failed to operate, 7 percent).14

ĵ Present, but operational status unknown — 10 percent.

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 62 percent of these incidents. The alarms failed to operate in 

11 percent of the incidents, and the fire was too small to activate the alarm in another 12 percent. Additionally, the 

operational status of the alarm was undetermined in 16 percent of these incidents.15

Nationally, only 3 percent of households do not have smoke alarms.16 From 2013 to 2015, no smoke alarms were 

present in at least 19 percent of the nonconfined fires in multifamily buildings — and perhaps more if fires without 

information on smoke alarms were also taken into account.17 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.18

Properly installed and maintained smoke alarms provide an early warning signal to everyone in a home if a fire occurs. 

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 multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015)

Presence of 

smoke alarms

Smoke alarm 

operational status Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Present

Fire too small to activate 

smoke alarm 5,080 7.6

Smoke alarm operated

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, occupants 

responded 19,660 29.4

Smoke alarm alerted occupants, occupants 

failed to respond 1,190 1.8

No occupants 2,522 3.8

Smoke alarm failed to alert occupants 442 0.7

Undetermined 2,349 3.5

Smoke alarm failed to operate 4,491 6.7

Undetermined 6,628 9.9

Null/Blank 2 0.0

None present 12,636 18.9

Undetermined 11,832 17.7

Total reported incidents 66,832 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2013 to 2015. They do not represent national estimates

of smoke alarms in nonconfined multifamily fires. They are presented for informational purposes.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

11

Smoke alarms in confined fires

Although less information about smoke alarm status is collected for confined fires, the data still give important 

insights. Smoke alarms operated and alerted occupants in 54 percent of confined multifamily fires (Table 7). In 

14 percent of confined multifamily fires, the occupants were not alerted by the smoke alarm.19 In 32 percent of the 

confined fires, the smoke alarm effectiveness was unknown.

Table 7. NFIRS smoke alarm data for confined multifamily residential building fires (2013-2015)

Smoke alarm effectiveness Count Percent

Smoke alarm alerted occupants 86,677 53.7

Smoke alarm did not alert occupants 23,297 14.4

Unknown 51,473 31.9

Total reported incidents 161,447 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Note:	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2013 to 2015. They do not represent national estimates

of smoke alarms in confined multifamily fires. They are presented for informational purposes.

Automatic extinguishing systems in nonconfined multifamily residential building fires

AES data — primarily from sprinkler systems in residential buildings — is also available for both confined and 

nonconfined fires, but for confined fires, an AES was present in only 1 percent of reported residential incidents.20

Full or partial AESs were present in 12 percent of nonconfined multifamily fires (Table 8). The presence of suppression 

systems (most likely sprinkler systems)21 was greater in nonconfined multifamily fires than in nonconfined fires in all 

other residential buildings (2 percent only), possibly as a result of code requirements.

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.22

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 can be found at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/prevention/technology/

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

www.usfa.fema.gov/about/sprinklers_position.html.

Table 8. NFIRS automatic extinguishing system data for nonconfined multifamily residential building fires 

(2013-2015)

Automatic extinguishing system presence Count Percent

Automatic extinguishing system present 8,177 12.2

Partial system present 418 0.6

Automatic extinguishing system not present 54,609 81.7

Unknown 3,628 5.4

Total reported incidents 66,832 100.0

Source: NFIRS 5.0.

Notes:	 1.	 The data presented in this table are raw data counts from the NFIRS dataset summed (not averaged) from 2013 to 2015. They do not represent national

estimates of AESs in nonconfined multifamily fires. They are presented for informational purposes.

2. Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

12

Examples

The following are some recent examples of multifamily fires reported by the media:

ĵ March 2017: A large fire destroyed an entire apartment building and displaced about 50 people in Woodstock, 

Illinois. When crews arrived on the scene of the early morning fire, flames extending into the attic of the building 

were visible from second-floor balconies. Along with help from local police officers, firefighters evacuated the 

occupants from the building. No one was killed, and only minor injuries were reported. One person, however, was 

treated and released from a nearby hospital. The cause of the fire which resulted in an estimated $2.3 million in 

damage remained under investigation.23

ĵ March 2017: A 62-year-old woman was rescued from a fire that broke out in a multiunit apartment building in 

Mansfield, Massachusetts, but later died from her injuries. The fire, which started about 5:45 p.m. in the basement 

of the building, was caused by improper disposal of smoking materials.24

ĵ February 2017: Unattended cooking caused a fire that destroyed a Bel Air, Maryland, two-story townhouse. 

The occupant of the home fell asleep around 11:30 p.m. and later woke to the sound of the smoke alarm. The 

woman discovered a fire in the kitchen. She was able to wake her children, located in a second floor bedroom, 

and escape the home without injury. Emergency personnel were dispatched just after 1:30 a.m. The fire resulted 

in an estimated $30,000 in damage to the structure and an additional $10,000 in damage to its contents.25

NFIRS data specifications for multifamily residential building fires

Data for this report were extracted from the NFIRS annual Public Data Release files for 2013, 2014 and 2015. Only 

Version 5.0 data were extracted.

Multifamily 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 double counting of incidents.

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 429:

Property Use Description

429 Multifamily dwelling. Includes apartments, condos, town houses, row houses, tenements.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

13

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.

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 residential 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 U.S. Fire Administration’s Topical Fire Report Series (Volume 18),” https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/

statistics/data_sources_and_national_estimates_methodology_vol18.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 request additional information, visit https://www.usfa.fema.gov/contact.html. To comment on this specific report, 

visit https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/contact/dataReportEval?reportTitle=Multifamily%20Residential%20Building%20

Fires%20(2013-2015).

Notes:

1National estimates are based on 2013 to 2015 native Version 5.0 data from the NFIRS, residential structure fire loss estimates from the National 

Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) annual surveys of fire loss, and the 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 2015,” September 2016, http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fireproblem/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 

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.

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

4Fire 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 2013 to 2015, 67 percent of the NFPA’s annual 

average estimated 1,294,500 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.

5In the NFIRS, confined fires are defined by Incident Type codes 113 to 118.

6The 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.
TFRS Volume 18, Issue 3 | Multifamily Residential Building Fires (2013-2015)

14

7The 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 the NFIRS data alone. The fire death rate computed from national estimates is 1,000 x (405/109,700) = 3.7 deaths per 

1,000 multifamily residential building fires, and the fire injury rate is 1,000 x (3,975/109,700) = 36.2 injuries per 1,000 multifamily residential 

building fires.

8For 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.

9The USFA Structure Fire Cause Methodology was used to determine the cause of multifamily 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.

10Fires 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.

11The American Housing Survey does not indicate the number of fireplaces, chimneys and fireplace-related equipment per se. It does collect data 

on fireplaces, etc., as the primary heating unit, which applies to this analysis. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Housing Survey – Table Creator, select “2015 (Year) National (Area) Housing Unit Characteristics (Table); Units 

by Structure Type (Variable 1),” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html#?s_areas=a00000&s_

year=n2015&s_tableName=Table1&s_byGroup1=a1&s_byGroup2=a1&s_filterGroup1=t1&s_filterGroup2=g1 (accessed March 27, 2017).

12As 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.

13The discussion in the “Smoke Alarms in Nonconfined Fires” section of this report includes nonconfined fires that occurred in both occupied

and unoccupied multifamily residential buildings. There are two principal reasons for including both states of occupancy in the analysis. First, 

requirements that smoke alarms be interconnected in multifamily units are being included in an increasing number of local building codes. As 

a result, interconnected alarms may be present in more recently constructed multifamily residential buildings in many jurisdictions. Second, in 

all multifamily residential buildings, the proximity or closeness of the dwelling units to one another heightens the possibility that an occupant 

would hear an alarm, smell smoke, or see flames coming from a neighboring unit. Thus, even though a fire may start in an unoccupied unit, it 

is possible that a fire department will be notified either automatically or by an occupant in a neighboring unit, who may become alerted to the 

presence of a fire either by the sounding of an interconnected alarm or by other physical cues.

14Total does not add up to 14 percent due to rounding.

15Total does not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

16Greene, Michael and Craig Andres, “2004-2005 National Sample Survey of Unreported Residential Fires,” Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate 

for Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, July 2009.

17Here, no smoke alarms were present in at least 19 percent of the nonconfined fires in multifamily residential buildings — the 19 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.

18The “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.”

19In 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.

20As confined fire 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 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.

21From the 2011 American Housing Survey, 12.7 to 14.0 percent of multiunit housing units have sprinklers inside the home. The percentage 

range reflects the differences in NFIRS’s definition of multifamily and that of the American Housing Survey. HUD and U.S. Census Bureau, 

2011 American Housing Survey – Table Creator, select “2011 (Year) National (Area) Health and Safety Characteristics (Table); Units by Structure 

Type (Variable 1),” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablecreator.html#?s_areas=a00000&s_year=

n2015&s_tableName=Table1&s_byGroup1=a1&s_byGroup2=a1&s_filterGroup1=t1&s_filterGroup2=g1 (accessed March 29, 2017).

22HUD 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/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2011/h150-11.pdf (accessed 

March 29, 2017).

23Rupp, Whitney, “Fire Destroys Woodstock Apartment Building, 50 Displaced,” www.thewoodstockindependent.com, March 25, 2017, http://

www.thewoodstockindependent.com/March-2017/Fire-Destroys-Woodstock-Apartment-Building-50-Displaced/ (accessed March 29, 2017).

24Jones, Tim, “Woman Dies From Injuries in Mansfield, Mass. Apartment Building Fire,” www.necn.com, March 16, 2017, http://www.necn.com/

news/new-england/Woman-Dies-From-Injuries-in-Mansfield-Mass-Apartment-Building-Fire-416354463.html (accessed March 29, 2017).

25Goodman, Brian, “Unattended Cooking Blamed For Fire That Destroyed Bel Air Townhouse,” www.daggerpress.com, Feb. 2, 2017, http://www.

daggerpress.com/2017/02/02/unattended-cooking-blamed-for-fire-that-destroyed-bel-air-townhouse/ (accessed March 29, 2017).