STRUCTURE FIRES IN
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS
Ben Evarts
November 2012
National Fire Protection Association
Fire Analysis and Research Division
STRUCTURE FIRES IN
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS
Ben Evarts
November 2012
National Fire Protection Association
Fire Analysis and Research Division
Abstract
U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 7,640 structure fires per year in
eating and drinking establishments between 2006 and 2010. These fires caused average annual
losses of two civilian deaths, 115 civilian injuries, and $246 million in direct property damage
each year. Three out of five (57%) of these fires involved cooking equipment.
These estimates are based on data from the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s) National Fire
Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s)
annual fire department experience survey.
Keywords: fire statistics, restaurant fires, bar fires, nightclub fires, cafeteria
Acknowledgements
The National Fire Protection Association thanks all the fire departments and state fire
authorities who participate in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the
annual NFPA fire experience survey. These firefighters are the original sources of the
detailed data that make this analysis possible. Their contributions allow us to estimate the
size of the fire problem.
We are also grateful to the U.S. Fire Administration for its work in developing, coordinating,
and maintaining NFIRS.
For more information about the National Fire Protection Association, visit www.nfpa.org or call
617-770-3000. To learn more about the One-Stop Data Shop go to www.nfpa.org/osds or call
617-984-7443.
Copies of this analysis are available from:
National Fire Protection Association
One-Stop Data Shop
1 Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02169-7471
www.nfpa.org
E-mail: osds@nfpa.org
Phone: 617-984-7443
NFPA No. USS12A
Copyright© 2012, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents
i
List of Tables and Figures
Ii
NFPA Fire Safety Resources
Iii
Fact Sheet
Iv
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments
1
Fire Sprinklers in Eating and Drinking Establishments
3
Appendix A: How National Estimates Statistics are Calculated
19
Appendix B. Recent Selected Published Incidents
27
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
i
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
List of Tables and Figures
Page
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments 2006-2010
Table A. By Property Use
1
Figure 1. By Year, 1980-2010
1
Figure 2. By Major Cause 2006-2010
2
Table 1. By Year, 1980-2010
4
Table 2. By Month 2006-2010
6
Table 3. By Day of Week
6
Table 4. By Time of Day
7
Table 5. By Major Cause
7
Table 6. By Equipment Involved in Ignition
8
Table 7. By Cause
9
Table 8. By Factor Contributing to Ignition
10
Table 9. By Heat Source
12
Table 10. By Area of Origin
14
Table 11. By Item First Ignited
16
Table 12. By Extent of Flame Damage
18
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
ii
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
NFPA Fire Safety Resources
Properly installed and maintained smoke alarms
are necessary to provide a warning of fire to the
occupants. You can find out more information
about smoke alarms here:
NFPA Smoke Alarm Information
NFPA´s wealth of fire-related research includes
historical investigations of technically significant
fire incidents, fire data analysis, and the Charles S.
Morgan Technical Library, one of the most
comprehensive fire literature collections in the
world. In addition, NFPA´s Fire Protection
Research Foundation is a source of independent
fire test data. Find out more at:
www.nfpa.org/research
www.nfpa.org/investigations
Home fire sprinkler systems provide even greater
protection. These systems respond quickly to
reduce the heat, flames, and smoke produced by a
fire. More information about home fire sprinklers
may be found at
www.firesprinklerinitiative.org
Simply put, smoke alarms and fire sprinklers save
lives.
Research
Advocacy
Codes &
Standards
Public
Education
NFPA develops, publishes, and disseminates nearly 300
consensus codes and standards intended to minimize the
probability and effects of fire and other hazards. Safety
in eating and drinking establishments begins with:
For consumers: NFPA provides consumer safety
information regarding fire causes, escape
planning, fire & safety equipment, and many other
topics.
NFPA 1: Fire Code: www.nfpa.org/1
For kids: Sparky.org provides important
information for kids delivered via fun games,
activities, and cartoons.
NFPA 101: Life Safety Code®: www.nfpa.org/101
NFPA 13: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems: www.nfpa.org/13
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
For public educators: NFPA offers resources on fire
safety education programs, educational
messaging, grants & awards, and many other
topics.
iii
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
NFPA Fire Analysis & Research
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments Fact Sheet
During 2006-2010, an estimated average of 7,640 structure fires in eating and drinking
establishments were reported to U.S. fire departments per year, with associated annual losses of:
Two civilian deaths
115 civilian injuries
$246 million in property damage
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments:
By Major Cause: 2006-2010 (Top 5 shown)
Cooking equipment
57%
40%
10%
7%
Heating equipment
Electrical distribution and lighting equipment
7%
Smoking materials
7%
5%
5%
Intentional
0%
13%
Fires
Property Damage
10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Seven out of ten (71%) of fires in eating and drinking establishments stay relatively
small, and do not spread beyond the object of origin.
In eating and drinking establishments, direct property damage per fire was 75%
lower when wet pipe sprinklers were present, compared to fires with no automatic
extinguishing equipment present
Failure to clean was a factor in 21% of these fires
CODES & STANDARDS RELEVANT TO EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS
NFPA 1: Fire Code: www.nfpa.org/1
NFPA 101: Life Safety Code®: www.nfpa.org/101
NFPA 13: Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems: www.nfpa.org/13
Additional resources can be found at www.nfpa.org
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
iv
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments
U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 7,640 structure fires per year in
eating and drinking establishments between 2006 and 2010. These fires caused average annual
losses of two civilian deaths, 115 civilian injuries, and $246 million in direct property damage
each year. See Table A Below:
Table A
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments , by Property Use
2006-2010 Annual Averages
Property Use
Fires
Restaurant or
cafeteria
Unclassified eating or
drinking places
Bar or nightclub
Total
Civilian Deaths
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
5,960
(78%)
2
(68%)
85
(74%)
$192
(78%)
890
(12%)
0
(12%)
14
(12%)
$20
(8%)
790
(10%)
0
(21%)
16
(14%)
$35
(14%)
7,640
(100%)
2
(100%)
115
(100%)
$246
(100%)
These fires followed a significant downward trend from 1980 to the late 1990s. Since then, they
have followed a slight, but inconsistent downward trend. (See Figure 1 below and Table 1)
Figure 1.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments
by Year, 1980-2010
25,000
23,300
20,000
Fires
15,000
10,000
6,800
5,000
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
Year
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
1
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
There are no clear trends in fires in eating and drinking establishments with regard to month of
the year (Table 2), and these fires are slightly more likely on Fridays and the weekend (Table 3).
Fires are less common during the overnight hours (from Midnight to 6 a.m.), though these fires
cause more property damage, on average, than their daytime counterparts (Table 4).
Unsurprisingly, cooking equipment is the leading cause of these fires, as they are involved in 57%
of incidents (Table 5 and Figure 2). Heating equipment was the second leading cause (10% of
fires) and electrical distribution or lighting equipment was third (7%, but 13% of property
damage). Table 6 shows fires by equipment involved in ignition, and is similar to Table 5 (which
summarizes findings from several places).
Figure 2
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments:
By Major Cause: 2006-2010 (Top 5 shown)
Cooking equipment
57%
40%
Heating equipment
7%
10%
Electrical distribution and lighting equipment
7%
Smoking materials
7%
5%
5%
Intentional
0%
13%
Fires
Property Damage
10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
More than two-thirds (69%) of structure fires in eating and drinking establishments were caused
unintentionally. One in five (22%) were caused by the failure of equipment or a heat source, and
5% were set intentionally (Table 7).
One in five fires (21%) in eating and drinking establishments had a failure to clean as a factor
contributing to its ignition. An electrical failure or malfunction was a factor in 16%, and a
mechanical failure or malfunction was involved in 13% (Table 8). Radiated or conducted heat
from operating equipment was the leading heat source in these fires (20%). Nineteen percent
listed unclassified heat from powered equipment as the heat source, and 12% listed a spark,
ember, or flame from operating equipment (Table 9).
Unsurprisingly, given the prevalence of cooking fires, most fires (56%) in eating and drinking
establishments begin in the kitchen or cooking area (Table 10). Four in ten fires in eating
establishments begin with cooking materials, including food as the item first ignited (Table 11).
Most fires in these properties remained small, with 71% staying confined to the object of origin
(Table 12).
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
2
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Fire Sprinklers in Eating and Drinking Establishments
John R. Hall Jr.’s March 2012 report, “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers” contains analysis of
automatic extinguishing equipment in eating and drinking establishments. The report
found that sprinklers are effective fire protection in these properties, and its findings are
summarized below. Those interested in sprinkler protection should also consult NFPA 13:
Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems: www.nfpa.org/13
In 2006-2010, 21% of reported eating or drinking establishment structure fires*
indicated some type of sprinkler was present (79% wet pipe, 7% dry pipe, 15%
other). In properties with more than one type of automatic extinguishing
equipment present, only the type closest to the fire is reported, which mean
sprinklers may have been present in some of the 45% of eating and drinking
establishment structure fires where some type of non-water-based automatic
extinguishing equipment was reported present.
Wet pipe sprinklers operated in 94% of fires and operated effectively in 88% of
fires.** When failure occurred, leading reasons were system shutoff (51%) and
manual intervention defeated system (15%). When operating equipment was
ineffective, leading reasons were water did not reach fire (69%) and not enough
water released (31%).
In eating or drinking establishments, direct property damage per reported fire was
75% lower when wet pipe sprinklers were present, compared to fires with no
automatic extinguishing equipment present.
* Excluding buildings under construction.
** Estimates of reliability and effectiveness are based only on fires and installations where the fire
should have activated and been controlled by an operational system, therefore excluding buildings
under construction, fires with sprinklers not in fire area reported as reason for failure or
ineffectiveness, fires reported as too small to activate equipment, and fires reported as confined to
cooking vessel, chimney or flue, fuel burner or boiler, commercial compactor, incinerator, or trash.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
3
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 1.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments
by Year, 1980-2010
Direct Property Damage
(in Millions)
Year
Fires
Civilian Injuries
As Reported
In 2010 Dollars
1980
23,300
210
$188*
$498
1981
22,400
358
$176
$421
1982
21,700
297
$212
$478
1983
18,200
369
$203
$444
1984
17,500
225
$193
$404
1985
18,900
327
$210
$425
1986
16,000
280
$126
$251
1987
15,600
223
$129
$247
1988
13,500
299
$178
$328
1989
12,300
242
$146
$257
1990
11,800
240
$173
$289
1991
11,700
179
$174
$278
1992
11,700
190
$192
$298
1993
11,200
272
$163
$246
1994
11,600
204
$167
$246
1995
10,600
146
$129
$184
1996
11,200
195
$171
$238
1997
11,300
233
$173
$235
1998
10,800
166
$176
$235
1999
9,300
135
$412
$539
2000
8,300
127
$197
$249
2001
9,100
132
$255
$314
2002
9,100
129
$172
$208
2003
8,400
94
$174
$206
2004
8,100
74
$154
$178
2005
8,300
99
$173
$193
2006
7,700
106
$328
$354
2007
8,400
110
$190
$200
2008
8,400
112
$299
$303
2009
6,900
133
$220
$223
2010
6,800
116
$193
$193
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
4
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 1.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments
by Year, 1980-2010 (continued)
*Estimate does not include MGM grand fire
Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported
only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. Fires are rounded to the nearest ten, civilian injuries are
rounded to the nearest one, and direct property damage is rounded to the nearest million dollars. Inflation
adjustments were based on the consumer price index found in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 2012, “Table 724, Purchasing Power of the Dollar.”
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
5
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 2.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Month
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Fires
Month
Civilian Injuries
Direct Property
Damage (in Millions)
January
670
(9%)
11
(9%)
$18
(7%)
February
630
(8%)
11
(9%)
$19
(8%)
March
700
(9%)
10
(9%)
$45
(18%)
April
650
(8%)
6
(6%)
$17
(7%)
May
650
(9%)
13
(12%)
$20
(8%)
June
610
(8%)
10
(9%)
$16
(7%)
July
640
(8%)
8
(7%)
$19
(8%)
August
610
(8%)
8
(7%)
$18
(7%)
September
600
(8%)
10
(9%)
$22
(9%)
October
630
(8%)
9
(7%)
$15
(6%)
November
590
(8%)
7
(6%)
$18
(7%)
December
660
(9%)
12
(11%)
$18
(8%)
7,640
(100%)
115
(100%)
$246
(100%)
Totals
Table 3.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Day of Week
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Day of Week
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct Property
Damage (in Millions)
Sunday
1,140
(15%)
16
(14%)
$35
(14%)
Monday
1,050
(14%)
18
(15%)
$34
(14%)
Tuesday
1,050
(14%)
18
(15%)
$60
(24%)
Wednesday
1,030
(13%)
17
(15%)
$25
(10%)
Thursday
1,060
(14%)
16
(14%)
$31
(13%)
Friday
1,150
(15%)
16
(14%)
$29
(12%)
Saturday
1,150
(15%)
15
(13%)
$31
(13%)
Totals
7,640
(100%)
115
(100%)
$246
(100%)
Sums may not equal totals due to rounding
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
6
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 4.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Time of Day
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Time of Day
Fires
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
Civilian Injuries
Midnight - 3 a.m.
760
(10%)
8
(7%)
$53
(21%)
3 - 6 a.m.
720
(9%)
12
(10%)
$78
(32%)
6 - 9 a.m.
870
(11%)
11
(9%)
$19
(8%)
9 a.m. - Noon
1,170
(15%)
25
(21%)
$15
(6%)
Noon - 3 p.m.
1,030
(14%)
13
(11%)
$16
(6%)
3 - 6 p.m.
1,050
(14%)
18
(15%)
$14
(6%)
6 - 9 p.m.
1,100
(14%)
17
(15%)
$20
(8%)
940
(12%)
12
(11%)
$30
(12%)
7,640
(100%)
115
(100%)
$246
(100%)
9 p.m. - midnight
Total
Table 5.*
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Major Cause
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Major Cause
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
Cooking equipment
4,360
(57%)
72
(62%)
$99
(40%)
Heating equipment
740
(10%)
14
(12%)
$16
(7%)
Electrical distribution and lighting equipment
570
(7%)
4
(3%)
$33
(13%)
Smoking materials
560
(7%)
5
(5%)
$13
(5%)
Intentional
390
(5%)
7
(6%)
$24
(10%)
Electronic, office or entertainment equipment
120
(2%)
0
(0%)
$11
(4%)
Exposure
120
(2%)
1
(1%)
$10
(4%)
*Note: This table summarizes findings from multiple fields, meaning that the same fire may be listed under multiple
causes. The methodology used is described in the appendix.
Source: NFIRS 5.0 and NFPA survey.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
7
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 6.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Equipment Involved in Ignition
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Equipment Involved in Ignition
Cooking equipment
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
4,360
(57%)
72
(62%)
$99
(40%)
No equipment involved in ignition
850
(11%)
15
(13%)
$59
(24%)
Heating equipment
740
(10%)
14
(12%)
$16
(7%)
Electrical distribution and lighting equipment
570
(7%)
4
(3%)
$33
(13%)
Contained trash or rubbish fire
420
(6%)
1
(1%)
$0
(0%)
Fan
160
(2%)
1
(1%)
$6
(2%)
Clothes dryer
110
(1%)
6
(6%)
$6
(2%)
Refrigerator or refrigerator/freezer
70
(1%)
0
(0%)
$4
(2%)
Air conditioner
60
(1%)
2
(2%)
$2
(1%)
Torch, burner or soldering iron
50
(1%)
0
(0%)
$3
(1%)
250
(3%)
0
(0%)
$18
(7%)
7,640
(100%)
115
(100%)
$246
(100%)
Other known equipment involved in ignition*
Total
Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding
* The estimates of fires involving fireplaces or chimneys include all fires with the confined chimney or flue incident type
regardless of what may have been coded as equipment involved. Likewise, the estimates of fires involving furnaces,
central heat or boilers include all fires with confined fuel burner or boiler incident type. The estimates shown should be
considered upper bounds. Except for confined cooking fires, the estimates for equipment involved in ignition did not
break out the confined fires further.
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
8
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 7.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Cause
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Cause
Unintentional
Non-confined
Confined
Failure of equipment or heat source
Non-confined
Confined
Intentional
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified cause
Non-confined
Confined
Other known cause
Non-confined
Confined
Total
Non-confined
Confined
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
5,270
2,140
3,130
1,700
1,040
650
390
270
120
240
150
90
(69%)
(28%)
(41%)
(22%)
(14%)
(9%)
(5%)
(4%)
(2%)
(3%)
(2%)
(1%)
82
53
29
26
14
11
7
5
2
1
1
0
(71%)
(46%)
(25%)
(22%)
(12%)
(10%)
(6%)
(4%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
$170
$167
$3
$39
$39
$1
$24
$24
$0
$10
$10
$0
(69%)
(68%)
(1%)
(16%)
(16%)
(0%)
(10%)
(10%)
(0%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
40
30
10
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
$3
$3
$0
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
7,640
3,630
4,010
(100%)
(48%)
(52%)
115
73
43
(100%)
(63%)
(37%)
$246
$243
$3
(100%)
(99%)
(1%)
Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding errors. Confined structure fires (NFIRS incident type 113-118) were
analyzed separately from non-confined structure fires (incident type 110-129, except 113-118). See Appendix A for
details.
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
9
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 8.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Factor Contributing to Ignition
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Factor
Failure to clean
Non-confined
Confined
Electrical failure or malfunction
Non-confined
Confined
Mechanical failure or malfunction
Non-confined
Confined
Abandoned or discarded material or
product
Non-confined
Confined
Heat source too close to combustibles
Non-confined
Confined
Equipment unattended
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified factor contributed to ignition
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified misuse of material or product
Non-confined
Confined
Unintentionally turned on or not turned off
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified operational deficiency
Non-confined
Confined
Flammable liquid or gas spilled
Non-confined
Confined
Equipment not being operated properly
Non-confined
Confined
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
1,580
360
1,210
1,210
1,010
200
990
440
550
(21%)
(5%)
(16%)
(16%)
(13%)
(3%)
(13%)
(6%)
(7%)
15
4
12
9
9
0
21
13
8
(13%)
(3%)
(10%)
(8%)
(8%)
(0%)
(18%)
(11%)
(7%)
$19
$17
$2
$56
$56
$0
$18
$17
$0
(8%)
(7%)
(1%)
(23%)
(23%)
(0%)
(7%)
(7%)
(0%)
670
380
300
640
380
260
550
140
410
470
210
260
380
150
230
210
70
140
200
60
140
120
40
80
120
40
80
(9%)
(5%)
(4%)
(8%)
(5%)
(3%)
(7%)
(2%)
(5%)
(6%)
(3%)
(3%)
(5%)
(2%)
(3%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(1%)
(2%)
(0%)
(1%)
8
3
5
11
11
0
10
7
3
7
5
2
7
5
2
2
1
2
5
3
2
9
4
5
4
4
0
(7%)
(2%)
(5%)
(9%)
(9%)
(0%)
(9%)
(6%)
(3%)
(6%)
(5%)
(2%)
(6%)
(5%)
(2%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(5%)
(3%)
(2%)
(8%)
(3%)
(5%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
$12
$12
$0
$18
$18
$0
$68
$67
$0
$19
$19
$0
$7
$7
$0
$5
$5
$0
$7
$7
$0
$2
$2
$0
$1
$1
$0
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
(7%)
(7%)
(0%)
(27%)
(27%)
(0%)
(8%)
(8%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
10
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 8.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Factor Contributing to Ignition
Annual Averages 2006-2010 (continued)
Factor
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
Exposure fire
Non-confined
Confined
120
110
10
(2%)
(1%)
(0%)
1
1
0
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
$10
$10
$0
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
Other known factor contributing to ignition
Non-confined
Confined
760
480
280
(10%)
(6%)
(4%)
13
10
3
(11%)
(9%)
(3%)
$26
$26
$0
(11%)
(11%)
(0%)
Total fires
Non-confined
Confined
7,640
3,630
4,010
(100%)
(48%)
(52%)
115
73
43
(100%)
(63%)
(37%)
$246 (100%)
$243 (99%)
$3
(1%)
Total factors*
Non-confined
Confined
8,010
3,840
4,170
(105%)
(50%)
(55%)
123
78
44
(106%)
(68%)
(38%)
$269 (109%)
$265 (108%)
$3
(1%)
*Multiple entries allowed in this field, so total factors add up to more than total fires
Fires in which the factor contributing to ignition was coded as “none,” unknown, or not reported have been
allocated proportionally among fires with known factor contributing to ignition.
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey, sums may not equal totals due to rounding
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
11
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 9.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Heat Source
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Heat Source
Fires
Radiated or conducted heat from operating equipment
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified heat from powered equipment
Non-confined
Confined
Spark, ember or flame from operating equipment
Non-confined
Confined
Arcing
Non-confined
Confined
Smoking materials
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified heat source
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified hot or smoldering object
Non-confined
Confined
Hot ember or ash
Non-confined
Confined
Heat from direct flame or convection currents
Non-confined
Confined
Match
Non-confined
Confined
Other known heat source
Non-confined
Confined
Total
Non-confined
Confined
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
12
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
1,530
560
970
1,490
540
950
920
360
560
850
740
110
560
340
210
550
200
350
390
220
170
290
140
150
270
90
180
120
40
80
(20%)
(7%)
(13%)
(19%)
(7%)
(12%)
(12%)
(5%)
(7%)
(11%)
(10%)
(1%)
(7%)
(5%)
(3%)
(7%)
(3%)
(5%)
(5%)
(3%)
(2%)
(4%)
(2%)
(2%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(1%)
25
14
11
17
15
2
21
11
10
7
5
2
5
5
0
3
2
2
4
4
0
3
1
2
5
2
3
4
2
2
(21%)
(12%)
(9%)
(15%)
(13%)
(2%)
(18%)
(9%)
(9%)
(6%)
(4%)
(2%)
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
(5%)
(2%)
(3%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
$30
$30
$1
$23
$23
$1
$70
$69
$0
$45
$44
$0
$13
$13
$0
$12
$12
$1
$9
$9
$0
$3
$3
$0
$9
$9
$0
$1
$1
$0
(12%)
(12%)
(0%)
(10%)
(9%)
(0%)
(28%)
(28%)
(0%)
(18%)
(18%)
(0%)
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(1%)
(0%)
(0%)
680
400
270
(9%)
(5%)
(4%)
20
12
8
(18%)
(11%)
(7%)
$30
$30
$0
(12%)
(12%)
(0%)
7,640
3,630
4,010
(100%)
(48%)
(52%)
115
73
43
(100%)
(63%)
(37%)
$246
$243
$3
(100%)
(99%)
(1%)
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 9. (Continued)
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Heat Source
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding errors. The statistics on matches, lighters, smoking materials and
candles include a proportional share of fires in which the heat source was heat from an unclassified open flame or smoking
material. Confined structure fires (NFIRS incident type 113-118) were analyzed separately from non-confined structure
fires (incident type 110-129, except 113-118). See Appendix A for details.
Source: NFIRS 5.0 and NFPA survey.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
13
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 10.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Area of Origin
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Area of Origin
Kitchen or cooking area
Non-confined
Confined
Exterior wall surface
Non-confined
Confined
Confined chimney or flue fire
Non-confined
Confined
Lavatory, bathroom, locker room or check
room
Non-confined
Confined
Exterior roof surface
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified outside area
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified equipment or service area
Non-confined
Confined
Attic or ceiling/roof assembly or concealed
space
Non-confined
Confined
Wall assembly or concealed space
Non-confined
Confined
Dining room, bar or beverage area, or
cafeteria
Non-confined
Confined
Heating equipment room
Non-confined
Confined
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
4,290
1,240
3,050
230
230
0
230
0
230
(56%)
(16%)
(40%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(3%)
(0%)
(3%)
70
37
33
0
0
0
3
0
3
(61%)
(32%)
(29%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(3%)
(0%)
(3%)
$70
$68
$2
$6
$6
$0
$1
$0
$1
(28%)
(28%)
(1%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
220
150
70
210
200
10
180
90
80
140
70
70
(3%)
(2%)
(1%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
1
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
$2
$2
$0
$3
$3
$0
$3
$3
$0
$6
$6
$0
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
140
140
0
130
130
0
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
0
0
0
1
1
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
$19
$19
$0
$6
$6
$0
(8%)
(8%)
(0%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
120
100
20
120
70
50
(2%)
(1%)
(0%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
1
1
0
4
1
3
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(3%)
(1%)
(2%)
$10
$10
$0
$2
$2
$0
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
14
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 10.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Area of Origin
Annual Averages 2006-2010 (continued)
Area of Origin
Unclassified area of origin
Non-confined
Confined
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
120
60
60
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
1
1
0
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
$3
$3
$0
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
Other known area of origin
Non-confined
Confined
1,500
1,150
340
(20%)
(15%)
(5%)
28
26
2
(24%)
(23%)
(1%)
$114
$113
$0
(46%)
(46%)
(0%)
Total
Non-confined
Confined
7,640
3,630
4,010
(100%)
(48%)
(52%)
115
73
43
(100%)
(63%)
(37%)
$246
$243
$3
(100%)
(99%)
(1%)
Sums may not equal totals due to rounding
NFIRS 5.0 does not have a separate area of origin code for fires starting in chimneys. Any home fire with NFIRS incident
type 114 - “Chimney of fire originating in and confined to a chimney or flue” is captured here.
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
15
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 11.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Item First Ignited
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Item First Ignited
Cooking materials, including food
Non-confined
Confined
Flammable or combustible liquids or gases,
piping or filter
Non-confined
Confined
Electrical wire or cable insulation
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified item first ignited
Non-confined
Confined
Rubbish, trash, or waste
Non-confined
Confined
Structural member or framing
Non-confined
Confined
Exterior wall covering or finish
Non-confined
Confined
Appliance housing or casing
Non-confined
Confined
Box, carton, bag, basket, or barrel
Non-confined
Confined
Exterior roof covering or finish
Non-confined
Confined
Linen other than bedding
Non-confined
Confined
Unclassified structural component or finish
Non-confined
Confined
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
3,100
620
2,480
(41%)
(8%)
(32%)
46
22
24
(40%)
(19%)
(20%)
$30
$28
$2
(12%)
(11%)
(1%)
660
250
410
540
420
120
420
190
240
350
100
240
330
330
0
250
250
0
180
80
100
160
100
60
150
150
0
140
100
40
120
120
0
(9%)
(3%)
(5%)
(7%)
(5%)
(2%)
(6%)
(2%)
(3%)
(5%)
(1%)
(3%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(2%)
(1%)
(0%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
24
11
13
5
5
0
6
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
0
4
4
0
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
2
2
0
(20%)
(9%)
(11%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(5%)
(2%)
(2%)
(3%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(6%)
(6%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
$12
$12
$0
$11
$11
$0
$8
$8
$0
$4
$4
$0
$78
$78
$0
$9
$9
$0
$2
$2
$0
$4
$4
$0
$7
$7
$0
$3
$3
$0
$12
$12
$0
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(32%)
(32%)
(0%)
(4%)
(4%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(2%)
(2%)
(0%)
(3%)
(3%)
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0%)
(5%)
(5%)
(0%)
16
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 11.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Item First Ignited
Annual Averages 2006-2010 (continued)
Item First Ignited
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
Unclassified organic materials
Non-confined
Confined
120
60
60
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
0
0
0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
$1
$1
$0
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
Other known item first ignited
Non-confined
Confined
1,120
870
260
(15%)
(11%)
(3%)
15
14
1
(13%)
(12%)
(1%)
$64
$64
$0
(26%)
(26%)
(0%)
Total
Non-confined
Confined
7,640
3,630
4,010
(100%)
(48%)
(52%)
115
73
43
(100%)
(63%)
(37%)
$246
$243
$3
(100%)
(99%)
(1%)
Note: Sums may not equal totals due to rounding errors. Confined structure fires (NFIRS incident type 113-118) were analyzed
separately from non-confined structure fires (incident type 110-129, except 113-118). See Appendix A for details.
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
17
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Table 12.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments: by Extent of Flame Damage
Annual Averages 2006-2010
Item First Ignited
Fires
Civilian Injuries
Direct
Property Damage
(in Millions)
Confined to object of origin (defined by incident type)
Confined to object of origin
Confined to room of origin
Confined to floor of origin
Confined to building of origin
Beyond building of origin
4,010
1,460
1,000
200
900
80
(52%)
(19%)
(13%)
(3%)
(12%)
(1%)
43
19
26
6
19
3
(37%)
(16%)
(22%)
(5%)
(17%)
(2%)
$3
$11
$21
$9
$177
$24
(1%)
(5%)
(9%)
(4%)
(72%)
(10%)
Totals
7,640
(100%)
115
(100%)
$246
(100%)
Sums may not equal totals due to rounding
Source: NFIRS and NFPA Survey
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
18
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Appendix A: How National Estimates Statistics are Calculated
The statistics in this analysis are estimates derived from the U.S. Fire Administration’s (USFA’s)
National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the National Fire Protection Association’s
(NFPA’s) annual survey of U.S. fire departments. NFIRS is a voluntary system by which
participating fire departments report detailed factors about the fires to which they respond.
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. fire departments participate, although not all of these departments
provide data every year. Fires reported to federal or state fire departments or industrial fire
brigades are not included in these estimates.
NFIRS provides the most detailed incident information of any national database not limited to
large fires. NFIRS is the only database capable of addressing national patterns for fires of all sizes
by specific property use and specific fire cause. NFIRS also captures information on the extent of
flame spread, and automatic detection and suppression equipment. For more information about
NFIRS visit http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/. Copies of the paper forms may be downloaded from
http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/documentation/design/NFIRS_Paper_Forms_2008.pdf.
NFIRS has a wide variety of data elements and code choices. The NFIRS database contains
coded information. Many code choices describe several conditions. These cannot be broken
down further. For example, area of origin code 83 captures fires starting in vehicle engine areas,
running gear areas or wheel areas. It is impossible to tell the portion of each from the coded
data.
Methodology may change slightly from year to year.
NFPA is continually examining its methodology to provide the best possible answers to specific
questions, methodological and definitional changes can occur. Earlier editions of the same
report may have used different methodologies to produce the same analysis, meaning that the
estimates are not directly comparable from year to year.
NFPA’s fire department experience survey provides estimates of the big picture.
Each year, NFPA conducts an annual survey of fire departments which enables us to capture a
summary of fire department experience on a larger scale. Surveys are sent to all municipal
departments protecting populations of 50,000 or more and a random sample, stratified by
community size, of the smaller departments. Typically, a total of roughly 3,000 surveys are
returned, representing about one of every ten U.S. municipal fire departments and about one
third of the U.S. population.
The survey is stratified by size of population protected to reduce the uncertainty of the final
estimate. Small rural communities have fewer people protected per department and are less
likely to respond to the survey. A larger number must be surveyed to obtain an adequate
sample of those departments. (NFPA also makes follow-up calls to a sample of the smaller fire
departments that do not respond, to confirm that those that did respond are truly
representative of fire departments their size.) On the other hand, large city departments are so
few in number and protect such a large proportion of the total U.S. population that it makes
sense to survey all of them. Most respond, resulting in excellent precision for their part of the
final estimate.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
19
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
The survey includes the following information: (1) the total number of fire incidents, civilian
deaths, and civilian injuries, and the total estimated property damage (in dollars), for each of
the major property use classes defined in NFIRS; (2) the number of on-duty firefighter injuries,
by type of duty and nature of illness; 3) the number and nature of non-fire incidents; and (4)
information on the type of community protected (e.g., county versus township versus city) and
the size of the population protected, which is used in the statistical formula for projecting
national totals from sample results. The results of the survey are published in the annual report
Fire Loss in the United States. To download a free copy of the report, visit
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.fireloss.pdf.
Projecting NFIRS to National Estimates
As noted, NFIRS is a voluntary system. Different states and jurisdictions have different reporting
requirements and practices. Participation rates in NFIRS are not necessarily uniform across
regions and community sizes, both factors correlated with frequency and severity of fires. This
means NFIRS may be susceptible to systematic biases. No one at present can quantify the size
of these deviations from the ideal, representative sample, so no one can say with confidence
that they are or are not serious problems. But there is enough reason for concern so that a
second database -- the NFPA survey -- is needed to project NFIRS to national estimates and to
project different parts of NFIRS separately. This multiple calibration approach makes use of the
annual NFPA survey where its statistical design advantages are strongest.
Scaling ratios are obtained by comparing NFPA’s projected totals of residential structure fires,
non-residential structure fires, vehicle fires, and outside and other fires, and associated civilian
deaths, civilian injuries, and direct property damage with comparable totals in NFIRS. Estimates
of specific fire problems and circumstances are obtained by multiplying the NFIRS data by the
scaling ratios. Reports for incidents in which mutual aid was given are excluded from NFPA’s
analyses.
Analysts at the NFPA, the USFA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission developed the specific
basic analytical rules used for this procedure. "The National Estimates Approach to U.S. Fire Statistics,"
by John R. Hall, Jr. and Beatrice Harwood, provides a more detailed explanation of national estimates.
Version 5.0 of NFIRS, first introduced in 1999, used a different coding structure for many data elements,
added some property use codes, and dropped others. The essentials of the approach described by Hall
and Harwood are still used, but some modifications have been necessary to accommodate the changes
in NFIRS 5.0.
Figure A.1 shows the percentage of fires originally collected in the NFIRS 5.0 system. Each year’s release
version of NFIRS data also includes data collected in older versions of NFIRS that were converted to
NFIRS 5.0 codes.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
20
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Figure A.1. Fires Originally Collected in NFIRS 5.0 by Year
100%
88%
94%
94%
97%
99%
100%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
79%
80%
65%
60%
48%
40%
21%
20%
7%
0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
From 1999 data on, analyses are based on scaling ratios using only data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0:
NFPA survey projections
NFIRS totals (Version 5.0)
For 1999 to 2001, the same rules may be applied, but estimates for these years in this form will be less
reliable due to the smaller amount of data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0; they should be viewed with
extreme caution.
NFIRS 5.0 introduced six categories of confined structure fires, including:
cooking fires confined to the cooking vessel,
confined chimney or flue fires,
confined incinerator fire,
confined fuel burner or boiler fire or delayed ignition,
confined commercial compactor fire, and
trash or rubbish fires in a structure with no flame damage to the structure or its contents.
Although causal and other detailed information is typically not required for these incidents, it is
provided in some cases. Some analyses, particularly those that examine cooking equipment, heating
equipment, fires caused by smoking materials, and fires started by playing with fire, may examine the
confined fires in greater detail. Because the confined fire incident types describe certain scenarios, the
distribution of unknown data differs from that of all fires. Consequently, allocation of unknowns must
be done separately.
Some analyses of structure fires show only Non-confined fires. In these tables, percentages shown are
of Non-confined structure fires rather than all structure fires. This approach has the advantage of
showing the frequency of specific factors in fire causes, but the disadvantage of possibly overstating the
percentage of factors that are seldom seen in the confined fire incident types and of understating the
factors specifically associated with the confined fire incident types.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
21
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Other analyses include entries for confined fire incident types in the causal tables and show percentages
based on total structure fires. In these cases, the confined fire incident type is treated as a general
causal factor.
For most fields other than Property Use and Incident Type, NFPA allocates unknown data proportionally
among known data. This approach assumes that if the missing data were known, it would be distributed
in the same manner as the known data. NFPA makes additional adjustments to several fields. Casualty
and loss projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of unusually serious fire.
In the formulas that follow, the term “all fires” refers to all fires in NFIRS on the dimension studied. The
percentages of fires with known or unknown data are provided for Non-confined fires and associated
losses, and for confined fires only.
Cause of Ignition: This field is used chiefly to identify intentional fires. “Unintentional” in this field is a
specific entry and does not include other fires that were not intentionally set: failure of equipment or
heat source, act of nature, or “other” (unclassified).” The last should be used for exposures but has
been used for other situations as well. Fires that were coded as under investigation and those that were
coded as undetermined after investigation were treated as unknown.
Factor Contributing to Ignition: In this field, the code “none” is treated as an unknown and allocated
proportionally. For Human Factor Contributing to Ignition, NFPA enters a code for “not reported” when
no factors are recorded. “Not reported” is treated as an unknown, but the code “none” is treated as a
known code and not allocated. Multiple entries are allowed in both of these fields. Percentages are
calculated on the total number of fires, not entries, resulting in sums greater than 100%. Although
Factor Contributing to Ignition is only required when the cause of ignition was coded as: 2)
unintentional, 3) failure of equipment or heat source; or 4) act of nature, data is often present when not
required. Consequently, any fire in which no factor contributing to ignition was entered was treated as
unknown.
In some analyses, all entries in the category of mechanical failure, malfunction (factor contributing to
ignition 20-29) are combined and shown as one entry, “mechanical failure or malfunction.” This
category includes:
21. Automatic control failure;
22. Manual control failure;
23. Leak or break. Includes leaks or breaks from containers or pipes. Excludes operational
deficiencies and spill mishaps;
25. Worn out;
26. Backfire. Excludes fires originating as a result of hot catalytic converters;
27. Improper fuel used; Includes the use of gasoline in a kerosene heater and the like; and
20. Mechanical failure or malfunction, other.
Entries in “electrical failure, malfunction” (factor contributing to ignition 30-39) may also be combined
into one entry, “electrical failure or malfunction.” This category includes:
31. Water-caused short circuit arc;
32. Short-circuit arc from mechanical damage;
33. Short-circuit arc from defective or worn insulation;
34. Unspecified short circuit arc;
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
22
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
35. Arc from faulty contact or broken connector, including broken power lines and loose
connections;
36. Arc or spark from operating equipment, switch, or electric fence;
37. Fluorescent light ballast; and
30. Electrical failure or malfunction, other.
Heat Source. In NFIRS 5.0, one grouping of codes encompasses various types of open flames and
smoking materials. In the past, these had been two separate groupings. A new code was added to
NFIRS 5.0, which is code 60: “Heat from open flame or smoking material, other.” NFPA treats this code
as a partial unknown and allocates it proportionally across the codes in the 61-69 range, shown below.
61. Cigarette;
62. Pipe or cigar;
63. Heat from undetermined smoking material;
64. Match;
65. Lighter: cigarette lighter, cigar lighter;
66. Candle;
67 Warning or road flare, fuse;
68. Backfire from internal combustion engine. Excludes flames and sparks from an exhaust system,
(11); and
69. Flame/torch used for lighting. Includes gas light and gas-/liquid-fueled lantern.
In addition to the conventional allocation of missing and undetermined fires, NFPA multiplies fires with
codes in the 61-69 range by
All fires in range 60-69
All fires in range 61-69
The downside of this approach is that heat sources that are truly a different type of open flame or
smoking material are erroneously assigned to other categories. The grouping “smoking materials”
includes codes 61-63 (cigarettes, pipes or cigars, and heat from undetermined smoking material, with a
proportional share of the code 60s and true unknown data.
Equipment Involved in Ignition (EII). NFIRS 5.0 originally defined EII as the piece of equipment that
provided the principal heat source to cause ignition if the equipment malfunctioned or was used
improperly. In 2006, the definition was modified to “the piece of equipment that provided the principal
heat source to cause ignition.” However, much of the data predates the change. Individuals who have
already been trained with the older definition may not change their practices. To compensate, NFPA
treats fires in which EII = NNN and heat source is not in the range of 40-99 as an additional unknown.
To allocate unknown data for EII, the known data is multiplied by
All fires
(All fires – blank – undetermined – [fires in which EII =NNN and heat source <>40-99])
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
23
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
In addition, the partially unclassified codes for broad equipment groupings (i.e., code 100 - heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning, other; code 200 - electrical distribution, lighting and power transfer,
other; etc.) were allocated proportionally across the individual code choices in their respective broad
groupings (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; electrical distribution, lighting and power transfer,
other; etc.). Equipment that is totally unclassified is not allocated further. This approach has the same
downside as the allocation of heat source 60 described above. Equipment that is truly different is
erroneously assigned to other categories.
In some analyses, various types of equipment are grouped together.
Code Grouping
Central heat
EII Code
132
133
NFIRS definitions
Furnace or central heating unit
Boiler (power, process or heating)
Fixed or portable space heater
131
123
124
141
142
143
Furnace, local heating unit, built-in
Fireplace with insert or stove
Heating stove
Heater, excluding catalytic and oil-filled
Catalytic heater
Oil-filled heater
Fireplace or chimney
120
121
122
125
126
127
Fireplace or chimney
Fireplace, masonry
Fireplace, factory-built
Chimney connector or vent connector
Chimney – brick, stone or masonry
Chimney-metal, including stovepipe or flue
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
Unclassified electrical wiring
Electrical power or utility line
Electrical service supply wires from utility
Electric meter or meter box
Wiring from meter box to circuit breaker
Panel board, switch board or circuit breaker
board
Electrical branch circuit
Outlet or receptacle
Wall switch
Ground fault interrupter
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
Distribution-type transformer
Overcurrent, disconnect equipment
Low-voltage transformer
Generator
Inverter
Uninterrupted power supply (UPS)
Surge protector
Fixed wiring and related equipment
Transformers and power supplies
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
24
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
228
229
Battery charger or rectifier
Battery (all types)
Lamp, bulb or lighting
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
241
242
243
244
Unclassified lamp or lighting
Lamp-tabletop, floor or desk
Lantern or flashlight
Incandescent lighting fixture
Fluorescent light fixture or ballast
Halogen light fixture or lamp
Sodium or mercury vapor light fixture or lamp
Work or trouble light
Light bulb
Nightlight
Decorative lights – line voltage
Decorative or landscape lighting – low voltage
Sign
Cord or plug
260
261
262
263
Unclassified cord or plug
Power cord or plug, detachable from
appliance
Power cord or plug- permanently attached
Extension cord
Torch, burner or soldering iron
331
332
333
334
Welding torch
Cutting torch
Burner, including Bunsen burners
Soldering equipment
Portable cooking or warming equipment
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
641
Coffee maker or teapot
Food warmer or hot plate
Kettle
Popcorn popper
Pressure cooker or canner
Slow cooker
Toaster, toaster oven, counter-top broiler
Waffle iron, griddle
Wok, frying pan, skillet
Breadmaking machine
Equipment was not analyzed separately for confined fires. Instead, each confined fire incident type was
listed with the equipment or as other known equipment.
Item First Ignited. In most analyses, mattress and pillows (item first ignited 31) and bedding, blankets,
sheets, and comforters (item first ignited 32) are combined and shown as “mattresses and bedding.” In
many analyses, wearing apparel not on a person (code 34) and wearing apparel on a person (code 35)
are combined and shown as “clothing.” In some analyses, flammable and combustible liquids and gases,
piping and filters (item first ignited 60-69) are combined and shown together.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
25
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Area of Origin. Two areas of origin: bedroom for more than five people (code 21) and bedroom for less
than five people (code 22) are combined and shown as simply “bedroom.” Chimney is no longer a valid
area of origin code for Non-confined fires.
Rounding and percentages. The data shown are estimates and generally rounded. An entry of zero
may be a true zero or it may mean that the value rounds to zero. Percentages are calculated from
unrounded values. It is quite possible to have a percentage entry of up to 100% even if the rounded
number entry is zero. The same rounded value may account for a slightly different percentage share.
Because percentages are expressed in integers and not carried out to several decimal places,
percentages that appear identical may be associated with slightly different values.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
26
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Appendix B: Recent Selected Published Incidents
The following are selected published incidents in eating and drinking establishments. Included are short articles
from the “Firewatch” or “Bi-monthly” columns in NFPA Journal or it predecessor Fire Journal and incidents from
either the large-loss fires report or catastrophic fires report. If available, investigation reports or NFPA Alert
Bulletins are included and provide detailed information about the fires.
It is important to remember that this is anecdotal information. Anecdotes show what can happen; they are not a
source to learn about what typically occurs.
NFPA’s Fire Incident Data Organization (FIDO) identifies significant fires through a clipping service, the Internet and
other sources. Additional information is obtained from the fire service and federal and state agencies. FIDO is the
source for articles published in the “Firewatch” column of the NFPA Journal and many of the articles in this report.
Suppression Systems Control Restaurant Grease Fire, Pennsylvania
A kitchen extinguishing system and a sprinkler that activated during a fire in an Asian restaurant
limited fire damage.
The single-story restaurant building, which was 20 feet (6 meters) wide and 40 feet (12 meters)
long, was protected by a wet-pipe sprinkler system and a kitchen hood suppression system,
both of which were connected to a monitored fire alarm system.
Investigators determined that the fire started in grease deposits that had formed in the bottom
of smoke box cooking equipment and spread to a deep fat fryer, causing the hood extinguishing
system to activate.
Additional heat fused a nearby sprinkler, which held the fire in check until the fire department
arrived to extinguish the blaze. The kitchen's hood system extinguished the fire in the deep
fryer.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2012, NFPA Journal, May/June, 38-39.
Suppression System Controls Kitchen Hood Fire, Utah
A fire suppression system controlled a fire that started in the hood duct of a restaurant kitchen,
but the fire fed off the grease that had built up in the duct and continued to burn until
firefighters extinguished it. The building was occupied when the fire broke out, but everyone
had evacuated safely by the time firefighters arrived.
Someone called 911 to report the blaze at 4:20 p.m., and firefighters arrived four minutes later
to find smoke coming from the roof. The restaurant owner told the incident commander that
the hood had caught fire after they started the grill. It looked as though the hood suppression
system had put the fire out, but firefighters on the roof reported that they could still see the
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
27
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
fire burning in the ductwork some 8 feet (2 meters) below them. When they were unable to
get water on the flames from their position, they recommended an interior attack.
Interior crews advanced a hose line into the kitchen and opened the ceiling around the duct
work. Once the duct was exposed, they saw that the grease and creosote that had built up on
the sides of it were still burning. Fortunately, the duct maintained its integrity, preventing the
fire and heat from escaping into hidden areas before it was extinguished.
Investigators noted that the hood suppression system heads did not discharge properly.
Damage to the property and its contents was estimated at $5,000. There were no injuries.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2012,”Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, May/June, 39.
Sprinklers Put Out Restaurant Fire, California
Two sprinklers extinguished a fire on a prep table near a deep fat fryer in the kitchen of a
restaurant before it could do much damage to the property.
The restaurant, located in single-story, wood-frame strip mall, had a kitchen hood suppression
system and a wet-pipe sprinkler system. The restaurant was closed for the night.
Firefighters responding to the 1:06 a.m. sprinkler system’s monitored water flow alarm found
light smoke in the restaurant and called for additional units before forcing the front door and
advancing a hose line into the kitchen. Once inside, they discovered that the fire had already
been extinguished by the operating sprinklers. Other fire department companies helped
ventilate the restaurant and shut down the sprinkler system.
Investigators discovered a distinctive “V” pattern on the preparation counter to the left of a
deep fat fryer where a plastic colander filled with tempura batter and soybean oil was draining
into a plastic bowl. They determined that the bowl was the point of fire origin and that the
cause of the fire was spontaneous ignition.
The fire did approximately $5,000 in damage. There were no injuries.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2011, “Firewatch,” NFPA Journal, January/February, 26 .
Restaurant Fire Causes Million-Dollar Loss, Missouri
A Mexican restaurant on the upper level of a two-story, L-shaped building and a game store
below it were damaged by an early morning fire that burned undetected until a passerby saw
smoke coming from the back door and called 911 at 6:34 a.m.
Firefighters arrived two minutes after the call to find smoke coming from the roof vent. The
incident commander ordered several units to set up for a coordinated interior attack, and after
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
28
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
stepping inside, firefighters heard the fire traveling through the walls and ceiling. The engine
crew waited by the front door with a hose line while another company ventilated the rear of
the restaurant.
Additional companies provided back up, removing walls and ceilings between the restaurant’s
seating area and the kitchen, where the fire was concentrated.
Investigators determined that the fire started in the kitchen in a machine used to warm tortilla
chips, but they could not discover why.
Heavy black smoke filled both levels of the building and destroyed both the structure, which
was valued at $650,000, and its contents, valued at $350,000. There were no injuries.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2011, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, July/August, 18.
Kitchen Fire Damages Restaurant, Ohio
A restaurant suffered significant structural damage when a pressurized deep fat fryer
malfunctioned and ignited cooking oil, starting a fire that caused more than a million dollars in
property damage.
The single-story, wood-frame building covered an area of 16,625 square feet (1,545 square
meters) and had a wood-frame roof covered in asphalt shingles. Smoke and heat detectors
throughout the building were connected to a monitored fire alarm panel. A kitchen hood fire
suppression system was installed in the kitchen, but it did not operate. There were no
sprinklers.
Employees detected the fire and tried unsuccessfully to control it using portable fire
extinguishers before the restaurant manager called the fire department at 9:17 a.m. The
monitoring company did not report the alarm to the fire department until 20 minutes into the
incident.
Firefighters arrived within four minutes of the manager’s 911 call to find heavy smoke pouring
from the back of the building and flames coming out the roof. First-in crews found flames from
floor to ceiling at the end of the cooking line and abandoned their initial efforts to control the
fire from inside, undertaking a defensive fire attack instead.
The building, valued at $2.1 million, and its contents, valued at $500,000, sustained damage
estimated at $1.25 million and $250,000, respectively. There were no injuries
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2011, “Firewatch,” NFPA Journal, September/October 14.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
29
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Sprinklers Limit Fire Loss to Restaurant, New Hampshire
A single sprinkler controlled an early morning fire in the kitchen of a restaurant until firefighters
arrived, limiting both fire and water damage.
The single-story building, which contained the restaurant and another occupancy, had a brick
façade and a flat wooden roof covered with tar and gravel over rubber. It was protected by a
wet-pipe sprinkler system with a monitored water flow alarm.
Firefighters responded to the 3:40 a.m. water flow alarm and arrived within four minutes to
find smoke in the restaurant. After entering the building, they determined that the water flow
was coming from the kitchen, where a sprinkler had nearly extinguished the blaze. Crews
stopped the water from flowing from the sprinkler with a wooden wedge and used a portable
fire extinguisher to put out items still burning on a shelving unit that had blocked the spray
from the sprinkler.
Investigators determined that the fire started on a shelf containing cardboard take-out
containers and metal serving dishes. They believe that the fire was unintentional but were
unable to identify how it started.
The building, valued at more than $1 million, sustained approximately $5,000 in damage. Its
contents sustained $10,000 in damage. There were no injuries.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2011, “Firewatch,” NFPA Journal, November/December, 20-21.
Grease Fire Destroys Restaurant, Maryland
Employees of a take-out restaurant had begun preparing to open for the day when they
discovered a fire in the ductwork over two rotisserie ovens and a deep-fat fryer. They tried to
put out the flames with fire extinguishers, but the fire spread through the ductwork to
concealed spaces above.
The single-story, wood-frame restaurant, which measured 100 by 30 feet (30 by 9 meters), was
separated from adjacent stores by gypsum board walls. The restaurant had no smoke or fire
detection equipment, and its kitchen hood system was not operational as heads were missing.
Approximately 30 minutes after a worker cleaned the overhead duct filters and ignited charcoal
in the ovens, he noticed the fire and used several fire extinguishers in an unsuccessful effort to
control the flames. After a delay of about eight minutes, a restaurant employee called 911 at
8:40 a.m.
Investigators determined that the fire began when heat from the ovens ignited a build-up of
grease in the ductwork. A hole in the ductwork allowed the fire to spread into the concealed
ceiling space, where it charred the combustible construction and ignited the roof assembly. The
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
30
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
owner told investigators that the ductwork had been poorly cleaned two weeks earlier and that
he had contacted another firm about future cleaning.
The structure, valued at $2 million, and its contents, valued at $500,000, were destroyed. There
were no injuries.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2009, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, May/June, 43-44.
Fire Destroys Restaurant, Iowa
An early morning fire started by an electrical malfunction destroyed a bar and grill.
The one-story, wood-frame building, which was 62 feet (19 meters) long and 28 feet (9 meters)
wide, had a basement and a wood roof covered by asphalt shingles. A fire detection system in
the kitchen operated, but the only suppression system was installed over the cooking area.
Crews responding to a 2:30 a.m. alarm from the monitoring company forced a rear door open
and entered the kitchen, where they found moderate heat and heavy smoke but no fire. They
backed out and forced the front door open, entering the restaurant to find floor-to-ceiling
smoke and high heat. As the firefighters crawled along the floor, they could feel the heat
through their protective pants and suspected that the seat of the fire was in the basement.
Investigators determined that the fire started in the stairwell leading to the basement, which
contained several pieces of electric-powered equipment. An electrical malfunction in one of
them started the fire, which ignited manufactured wood products.
The building, valued at $500,000, and its contents, valued at $250,000, were destroyed
Ken Tremblay, 2009, "Firewatch", NFPA Journal, September/October, 27-28.
Restaurant Fire in Texas Causes $15 Million in Damage, 2008
This two-story restaurant was of unprotected ordinary construction. The ground floor area was
not reported. The restaurant was closed due to a hurricane but three people, including two
adults and a child, had taken refuge in the structure.
No information was reported on fire protection systems or fire development.
The hurricane’s winds hampered firefighting operations. The three occupants suffered burns
over 70 percent of their bodies, but they survived.
Stephen G. Badger, 2009, “Large-Loss for 2008,” NFPA, Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
31
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Sprinkler Controls Kitchen Fire, Colorado
A natural gas line that terminated in a commercial kitchen was not properly capped and a
cleaner mopping the floor accidentally hit the valve, turning it on slightly, causing leaking
natural gas to ignite.
A single sprinkler controlled the fire. During investigation several fire and building code
violations were noted, which led to the fire and subsequent loss.
The fire occurred in a 100 foot (30 meter) by 100 foot (30 meter) wood-framed building with a
flat roof covered by tar and gravel. The building housed a grocery store that included a
commercial kitchen located in the rear of the store. The building lacked a fire detection system,
but did have a wet-pipe sprinkler system that operated and held the fire in check. At the time of
the fire the building was closed for the evening, but was occupied by a cleaning crew.
The cleaner heard a sound and looked behind himself to find fire burning up from behind a
stove that he had just cleaned. He called a co-worker, who then called 911 at 5:03 a.m. The fire
department arrived within four minutes and found occupants evacuating and the sprinkler
system operating. Using a hose line, the crew advanced into the kitchen and extinguished the
remaining fire behind the stove. They also shut-off the flow of gas using the quarter turn valve.
Other crews provided ventilation and gained access to the sprinkler valve to shut down the
system.
Once the natural gas began to leak from the valve it was most probably ignited by standing
pilots of the commercial gas-fired range. Investigators found the valve was not capped and
several other fire safety violations. The water flow did not trip an alarm as required during the
last inspection and had not been repaired. The wet-chemical system in an adjacent cooking
area was past the required six month inspection date, as were fire extinguishers within the
store.
The fire caused approximately $23,200 in loss and the building owner was cited for several
violations and would not be able to operate the kitchen until they were corrected.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2008, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, January/February, 23- 24.
Aerosol Can Falls into Deep Fat Fryer, Starts Fire, Washington
Washington investigators searching for the cause of a fire that damaged a restaurant in a bed
and breakfast facility believe an aerosol can of bug repellant fell into an operating deep-fat
fryer and exploded, spewing hot oil around the first-floor kitchen. The resulting fire spread into
wall voids.
The two-story, wood-frame building, which had an asphalt-shingled roof, was protected by a
monitored fire alarm system that alerted the occupants. The deep fat fryer was protected by a
dry-chemical hood suppression system, but it failed to operate because its cylinder had no
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
32
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
pressure. There were no sprinklers. The restaurant’s lunch crowd had dispersed 20 minutes
before the fire started.
Flames spread through the building’s concealed spaces until firefighters responding to the
12:21 p.m. alarm extinguished it.
The structure was valued at $1.5 million, and its contents at $700,000. Structural losses were
estimated at $150,000; damage to the contents was estimated at $450,000. There were no
injuries. The incident was still under investigation at the time of the report.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2006, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, May/June, 30.
Grease Build Up Ignites, Destroying Restaurant, Maryland
A fire that started in a restaurant’s cooking ventilation system spread to concealed spaces after
the restaurant closed. The fire burned undetected until a passerby saw it and called the fire
department.
The single-story, wood-frame building, which was 150 feet (45.7 meters) long and 150 feet
(45.7 meters) wide, had a steel truss roof covered by a metal deck and a built-up roof. The
building had no sprinklers and it was not reported to have had a fire detection system. A dry
chemical system protected the cooking hood system and ventilation duct, but it did not operate
during the fire for unknown reasons. The main floor of the building contained the service and
dining areas, and a mezzanine contained mechanical equipment and storage.
The passerby called the fire department at 5:15 a.m., and responding firefighters found heavy
smoke and flames coming from the roof. Once on the roof, they reported fire coming from the
ventilation ducts and left just before the roof collapsed.
Investigators determined that the fire started in the first-floor kitchen just above a gas-fired
broiler when heat from the broiler ignited a build-up of grease in ventilation hood. The links in
the dry chemical system had fused, but the system did not activate.
The building, valued at $1.25 million, and its contents, valued at $750,000, were destroyed.
There were no injuries
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2006, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, March/April, 30.
Fire Damages Comedy Club, Ohio
Twenty minutes after the owner of a comedy club closed the building for the night, a passerby
saw smoke coming from roof-mounted ventilation equipment and called 911 to report the fire
at 11:51 p.m.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
33
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
Built in the 1930s, the single-story building had concrete block walls supporting metal,
bowstring roof trusses and a built-up metal roof. The first floor contained a bar and lounge, a
kitchen, storage space, and two-level seating and dining areas, as well as an unoccupied
apartment. There was also a small second floor that held an office and rest rooms. Originally
designed as a movie theater, the building contained many types of occupancies over the years,
including a church, a restaurant, and a nightclub, before it became a comedy club and dinner
theater.
The owner and the bartender closed the club between 11:30 and 11:35 p.m., securing all the
doors, shutting off the lights, and setting the alarm. They both left without detecting any fire or
smoke. Around 20 minutes later, however, smoke could be seen coming from the roof, and an
active fire was burning in a portion of the tiered seating areas.
Responding firefighters found fire and smoke filling the club’s seating area, and the police
discovered an open door at one end of the building, raising suspicions that the fire had been
deliberately set.
The cause of the fire, which investigators determined began in the seating area, has not been
determined, but arson has not been ruled out. Based on the statement of the owner,
investigators think someone moved the tables and chairs to the center of the room and ignited
them by pouring a flammable liquid on the electrical outlets against one wall.
Damage to the building, valued at $600,000, was estimated at $400,000. Its contents, valued at
$200,000, sustained $100,000 in damage. There were no injuries.
Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2006,” Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, January/February, 22.
Structure Fires in Eating and Drinking Establishments, 11/12
34
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA