Distribution Field Construction and Prediction Method for Gas Leakage based on Kriging model and Gaussian Process
Article Information
Abstract
Gas leakage poses a significant hazard in chemical industry operations, where failure to respond rapidly to gas diffusion can lead to poisoning, fire, or explosion. Timely and accurate prediction of gas dispersion is therefore essential for emergency decision-making and operational safety. While existing methods such as computational fluid dynamics, spatiotemporal statistics, and surrogate models emphasize prediction accuracy, they often suffer from excessive computational delays—especially critical in leak scenarios where casualties can occur within minutes. To address this gap, this paper introduces a Gaussian process-Markov random field-Kriging (GP-MRF-K) model for fast and reliable prediction of gas concentration fields. The approach integrates Markov random field (MRF) neighborhood structures into Kriging-based spatial interpolation, reducing computational complexity from O(n³) to O(n·m³), where n is the total grid points and m is the average neighbor count. Gas concentration time series are forecasted using Gaussian process regression (GPR), and the MRF-Kriging framework rapidly reconstructs the full concentration field. Validation with real ammonia concentration data from a warehouse-scale experimental setup confirms the feasibility and superiority of GP-MRF-K. With 150 training points and 10 prediction steps, the model achieves an MSE of 4660 and RMSE of 68.26, improving MSE by 67% over GPR-K (MSE=14003) and 87% over LSTM-K (MSE=36172), while attaining an R² of 0.9847. Computation time is reduced to 39.04 seconds, a 21.5% gain over GPR-K (49.72s) and a 98% reduction compared to LSTM-K (1990.85s), thereby meeting real-time emergency response requirements.
Graphical Abstract
Keywords
Data Availability Statement
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
AI Use Statement
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
References
- Ignac-Nowicka, J. (2018). Application of the FTA and ETA method for gas hazard identification for the performance of safety systems in the industrial department. Management Systems in Production Engineering. 26(1), 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2018-0003
[Google Scholar] - Hou, J., Gai, W. M., Cheng, W. Y., & Deng, Y. F. (2020). Statistical analysis of evacuation warning diffusion in major chemical accidents based on real evacuation cases. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 138, 90-98.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Feng, J. R., Gai, W. M., & Yan, Y. B. (2021). Emergency evacuation risk assessment and mitigation strategy for a toxic gas leak in an underground space: The case of a subway station in Guangzhou, China. Safety science, 134, 105039.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Qi, X., Wang, H., Liu, Y., & Chen, G. (2019). Flexible alarming mechanism of a general GDS deployment for explosive accidents caused by gas leakage. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 132, 265–272.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Mei, Y., & Jian, S. (2022). Research on natural gas leakage and diffusion characteristics in enclosed building layout. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 161, 247–262.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Hou, J., Gai, W. M., Cheng, W. Y., & Deng, Y. F. (2021). Hazardous chemical leakage accidents and emergency evacuation response from 2009 to 2018 in China: A review. Safety science, 135, 105101.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Wang, F., Chang, J., Zhang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Q., Zhu, C., & Wang, Z. (2019). Distributed gas detection utilizing Fourier domain optical coherence based absorption spectroscopy. Results in Physics, 13, 102104.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Jiang, Y., Xu, Z., Wei, J., & Teng, G. (2020). Fused CFD-interpolation model for real-time prediction of hazardous gas dispersion in emergency rescue. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 63, 103988.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Klein, L. J., Van Kessel, T., Nair, D., Muralidhar, R., Hinds, N., Hamann, H., & Sosa, N. (2017, December). Distributed wireless sensing for fugitive methane leak detection. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 4583-4591). IEEE.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Wang, N., Gao, Y., Li, C. Y., & Gai, W. M. (2021). Integrated agent-based simulation and evacuation risk-assessment model for underground building fire: A case study. Journal of Building Engineering, 40, 102609.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Liu, J., Zhu, S., Kim, M. K., & Srebric, J. (2019). A review of CFD analysis methods for personalized ventilation (PV) in indoor built environments. Sustainability, 11(15), 4166.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Tominaga, Y., & Stathopoulos, T. (2013). CFD simulation of near-field pollutant dispersion in the urban environment: A review of current modeling techniques. Atmospheric environment, 79, 716-730.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Sharma, V. R., S, S. S., Fernandes, D. V., & MS, M. (2022). Numerical analysis of heat transfer enhancement of solar air heater using discrete triangle wave corrugations. Cogent Engineering, 9(1), 2051312.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Espinosa, R., Jiménez, F., & Palma, J. (2022). Multi-objective evolutionary spatio-temporal forecasting of air pollution. Future Generation Computer Systems, 136, 15-33.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Feng, J., Yan, L., & Hang, T. (2019). Stream-flow forecasting based on dynamic spatio-temporal attention. IEEE Access, 7, 134754-134762.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Martínez, W. A., Melo, C. E., & Melo, O. O. (2017). Median Polish Kriging for space–time analysis of precipitation. Spatial statistics, 19, 1-20.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Herman, E., Stewart, J. A., & Dingreville, R. (2020). A data-driven surrogate model to rapidly predict microstructure morphology during physical vapor deposition. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 88, 589–603.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Wang, J., Peng, X., Chen, Z., Zhou, B., Zhou, Y., & Zhou, N. (2022). Surrogate modeling for neutron diffusion problems based on conservative physics-informed neural networks with boundary conditions enforcement. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 176, 109234.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Jeong, M., & Koo, H. (2025). Evaluating Spatio-Temporal Kriging with Machine Learning Considering the Sources of Spatio-Temporal Variation. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(6), 224.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Schmit, L. A., & Farshi, B. (1974). Some approximation concepts for structural synthesis. AIAA Journal, 12(5), 692–699.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Kim, C., Lee, H., Kim, K., Lee, Y., & Lee, W. B. (2018). Efficient process monitoring via the integrated use of Markov random fields learning and the graphical lasso. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 57(39), 13144-13155.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Jeong, S., Murayama, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2005). Efficient optimization design method using kriging model. Journal of aircraft, 42(2), 413-420.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Na, J., Jeon, K., & Lee, W. B. (2018). Toxic gas release modeling for real-time analysis using variational autoencoder with convolutional neural networks. Chemical Engineering Science, 181, 68-78.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Zhang, D., Liang, Y., Cao, L., Liu, J., & Han, X. (2022). Evidence-theory-based reliability analysis through Kriging surrogate model. Journal of Mechanical Design, 144(3), 031701.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Liu, X., Zhao, W., & Wan, D. (2022). Multi-fidelity Co-Kriging surrogate model for ship hull form optimization. Ocean engineering, 243, 110239.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Park, J., & Sandberg, I. W. (1991). Universal approximation using radial-basis-function networks. Neural computation, 3(2), 246-257.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Song, D., Lee, K., Phark, C., & Jung, S. (2021). Spatiotemporal and layout-adaptive prediction of leak gas dispersion by encoding-prediction neural network. process safety and Environmental Protection, 151, 365-372.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Cho, S., Kim, Y., Kim, M., Cho, H., Moon, I., & Kim, J. (2022). Multi-objective optimization of an explosive waste incineration process considering nitrogen oxides emission and process cost by using artificial neural network surrogate models. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 162, 813-824.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Ma, Y., He, Y., Wang, L., & Zhang, J. (2022). Probabilistic reconstruction for spatiotemporal sensor data integrated with Gaussian process regression. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 69, 103264.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Zhou, X., Dong, C., Zhao, C., & Bai, X. (2020). Temperature-field reconstruction algorithm based on reflected sigmoidal radial basis function and QR decomposition. Applied Thermal Engineering, 171, 114987.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Liao, Z., Wang, B., Xia, X., & Hannam, P. M. (2012). Environmental emergency decision support system based on Artificial Neural Network. Safety Science, 50(1), 150-163.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Picka, J. D. (2006). Gaussian Markov random fields: theory and applications.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Wang, D., Liu, K., & Zhang, X. (2022). A spatiotemporal prediction approach for a 3D thermal field from sensor networks. Journal of Quality Technology, 54(2), 215-235.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Xu, L., & Huang, Q. (2012). Modeling the interactions among neighboring nanostructures for local feature characterization and defect detection. IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering, 9(4), 745-754.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar] - Li, S., Deng, J., Li, Y., & Xu, F. (2022, May). An intermittent fault severity evaluation method for electronic systems based on LSTM network. In 2022 Prognostics and Health Management Conference (PHM-2022 London) (pp. 224-227). IEEE.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cited By (1)
-
N. A. Baranov. Interpolation of pollutant concentration measurement data taking into account local wind speed.
Vestnik of Samara University. Natural Science Series, 2026 , 32 (1).
[CrossRef]
Cite This Article
TY - JOUR AU - Hou, Chenglong AU - Zha, Yuhao AU - Yang, Jun AU - Wang, Ning PY - 2026 DA - 2026/02/03 TI - Distribution Field Construction and Prediction Method for Gas Leakage based on Kriging model and Gaussian Process JO - ICCK Transactions on Systems Safety and Reliability T2 - ICCK Transactions on Systems Safety and Reliability JF - ICCK Transactions on Systems Safety and Reliability VL - 2 IS - 1 SP - 11 EP - 25 DO - 10.62762/TSSR.2025.861997 UR - https://www.icck.org/article/abs/TSSR.2025.861997 KW - gas leakage KW - field prediction KW - kriging model KW - markov random field KW - neighborhood structure KW - gaussian process AB - Gas leakage poses a significant hazard in chemical industry operations, where failure to respond rapidly to gas diffusion can lead to poisoning, fire, or explosion. Timely and accurate prediction of gas dispersion is therefore essential for emergency decision-making and operational safety. While existing methods such as computational fluid dynamics, spatiotemporal statistics, and surrogate models emphasize prediction accuracy, they often suffer from excessive computational delays—especially critical in leak scenarios where casualties can occur within minutes. To address this gap, this paper introduces a Gaussian process-Markov random field-Kriging (GP-MRF-K) model for fast and reliable prediction of gas concentration fields. The approach integrates Markov random field (MRF) neighborhood structures into Kriging-based spatial interpolation, reducing computational complexity from O(n³) to O(n·m³), where n is the total grid points and m is the average neighbor count. Gas concentration time series are forecasted using Gaussian process regression (GPR), and the MRF-Kriging framework rapidly reconstructs the full concentration field. Validation with real ammonia concentration data from a warehouse-scale experimental setup confirms the feasibility and superiority of GP-MRF-K. With 150 training points and 10 prediction steps, the model achieves an MSE of 4660 and RMSE of 68.26, improving MSE by 67% over GPR-K (MSE=14003) and 87% over LSTM-K (MSE=36172), while attaining an R² of 0.9847. Computation time is reduced to 39.04 seconds, a 21.5% gain over GPR-K (49.72s) and a 98% reduction compared to LSTM-K (1990.85s), thereby meeting real-time emergency response requirements. SN - 3069-1087 PB - Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge LA - English ER -
@article{Hou2026Distributi,
author = {Chenglong Hou and Yuhao Zha and Jun Yang and Ning Wang},
title = {Distribution Field Construction and Prediction Method for Gas Leakage based on Kriging model and Gaussian Process},
journal = {ICCK Transactions on Systems Safety and Reliability},
year = {2026},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
pages = {11-25},
doi = {10.62762/TSSR.2025.861997},
url = {https://www.icck.org/article/abs/TSSR.2025.861997},
abstract = {Gas leakage poses a significant hazard in chemical industry operations, where failure to respond rapidly to gas diffusion can lead to poisoning, fire, or explosion. Timely and accurate prediction of gas dispersion is therefore essential for emergency decision-making and operational safety. While existing methods such as computational fluid dynamics, spatiotemporal statistics, and surrogate models emphasize prediction accuracy, they often suffer from excessive computational delays—especially critical in leak scenarios where casualties can occur within minutes. To address this gap, this paper introduces a Gaussian process-Markov random field-Kriging (GP-MRF-K) model for fast and reliable prediction of gas concentration fields. The approach integrates Markov random field (MRF) neighborhood structures into Kriging-based spatial interpolation, reducing computational complexity from O(n³) to O(n·m³), where n is the total grid points and m is the average neighbor count. Gas concentration time series are forecasted using Gaussian process regression (GPR), and the MRF-Kriging framework rapidly reconstructs the full concentration field. Validation with real ammonia concentration data from a warehouse-scale experimental setup confirms the feasibility and superiority of GP-MRF-K. With 150 training points and 10 prediction steps, the model achieves an MSE of 4660 and RMSE of 68.26, improving MSE by 67\% over GPR-K (MSE=14003) and 87\% over LSTM-K (MSE=36172), while attaining an R² of 0.9847. Computation time is reduced to 39.04 seconds, a 21.5\% gain over GPR-K (49.72s) and a 98\% reduction compared to LSTM-K (1990.85s), thereby meeting real-time emergency response requirements.},
keywords = {gas leakage, field prediction, kriging model, markov random field, neighborhood structure, gaussian process},
issn = {3069-1087},
publisher = {Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge}
}
Article Metrics
Publisher's Note
ICCK stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and Permissions
Portico