A perturbation stochastic finite-element method for groundwater flow
models based on an undetermined-coefficients approach
Leihua Yao & Pengpeng He & Shikun Song
Abstract A new perturbation technique and finite-
element method, which incorporates an undetermined-
coefficients approach, is proposed to conduct stochastic
simulation for problems of groundwater flow. Formulas
of the mean value and variance of groundwater head are
derived to exclude the process of computing the first
and second-order derivatives of groundwater head with
respect to stochastic variables (coefficient of trans-
missibility, storage coefficient, etc.) in the calculation
process of common finite element methods. For ordi-
nary stochastic groundwater problems, the statistical
properties of groundwater head can be easily obtained
by using the proposed method, which is especially
efficient for the stochastic problems that have fewer
input stochastic variables. A stochastic numerical
simulation of a two-dimensional confined-groundwater
flow problem has been conducted to validate effective-
ness and determine the limitations of the proposed
method. The results illustrate that the accuracy and
efficiency of the method proposed are satisfactory, and
that the computing time is shorter when there is a small
number of input stochastic variables.
Keywords Groundwater flow . Perturbation .
Undetermined-coefficients approach .
Stochastic finite-element method . Numerical modeling .
Stochastic variable
Received: 30 June 2009 / Accepted: 9 August 2010
Published online: 7 September 2010
* Springer-Verlag 2010
L. Yao : P. He ())
School of Engineering and Technology,
China University of Geosciences, 29 Xueyuan Road, Haidian
District, Beijing, 100083, China
e-mail: pengpenghe@hotmail.com
Tel.: +86-10-82321912
Fax: +86-10-82322624
S. Song
Planning Department of China Chemical Geology and Mining
Bureau, 19 Xiaoying Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100011,
China
Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609
Introduction
There are many random factors in mathematical models of
groundwater flow. Being restricted and affected by these
random factors, groundwater flow models have great uncer-
tainties. While applying groundwater flow models for
forecasting and managing groundwater resources, to guarantee
reliability of the model’s application, one important problem to
be addressed is quantification of the models’ uncertainties.
Generally, the uncertainties in mathematical models of
groundwater flow could be summarized as follows:
1. Uncertainties of parameters in mathematical models
2. Different degrees of uncertainty for definite conditions
(initial conditions and boundary conditions). In some
cases, the boundary conditions are stochastic processes
3. Uncertainties of the source/sink term in governing
equations. The source/sink term is likely to be a
stochastic variable (Zhou 1993)
To handle these uncertainties of models in numerical
simulation and computation of groundwater flow, the
solution (water head/pressure) of the models should be
considered as a stochastic function, which has a definite
distribution of possibility. Generally, when coefficients of
governing equations or definite conditions contain stochastic
functions in groundwater flow problems, the problems can be
considered as stochastic/probabilistic definite problems of
groundwater flow. Therefore, the traditional deterministic
model should be considered as a special case of stochastic
modeling. During the last two to three decades, a variety of
methods have been established and developed to conduct
stochastic analysis of steady/non-steady and saturated/unsa-
turated groundwater flow problems in homogeneous/hetero-
geneous porous media (e.g. Chan et al. 1976; Bark et al.
1978; Gelhar and Axness 1983; Mantoglou and Gelhar 1987;
Russo and Bouton 1992; Jang et al. 1994; Russo et al. 1997).
Perturbation techniques assume that a tiny perturbation of
the stochastic variable appears around the mean value (Tang
and Pinder 1977). By using the Taylor expansion (Yao
1996), the stochastic variables can be decomposed into the
deterministic term (mean value) and the stochastic term
(caused by perturbation). By substituting the expression of
each stochastic variable into the governing equations, the
statistical properties of the stochastic variable and the
solution of the equations can be obtained using proper
DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4
1604
mathematical or analytical methods. Handa and Anderson If neglecting the terms that are higher than the second
(1981) and Hisada and Nakagiri (1982) have successfully order, the Taylor expansion of f(v1, v2,⋯,vn) at mean value
used the perturbation stochastic finite-element method of v1, v2,⋯,vn can be obtained as follows:
(PSFEM) to apply first-order and second-order perturbation
techniques to random media. In addition, a perturbation P
n
@f
f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ ¼ f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ þ @vi jðx1 ;x2 ;;xn Þ ðvi  vi Þ
technique has been used in groundwater numerical simu- i¼1
lation by Satish and Zhu (1992), who analyzed a stochastic P
n P
n
@2 f
steady-flow problem. In other studies, Yao (1995, 1996) þ 12 @vi @vj jðv1 ;v2 ;;vn Þ ðvi  vi Þðvj  vj Þ
i¼1 j¼1
developed a Taylor-expansion stochastic finite-element
method (TSFEM) and applied it to the analysis of ð2Þ
transient-groundwater-flow problems. Usually, both the
PSFEM and TSFEM require that the coefficient of variation Substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2), one obtains:
of the stochastic variable is rather small (Liu and Lv 1995). It X
n n X
X n
is worth noting that stochastic finite element methods f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ ¼ f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ þ F i "i þ Y ij "i "j
(SFEMs) perform well in numerical simulation for stochastic i¼1 i¼1 j¼1
subsurface flow and contaminant transport problems, con-
ð3Þ
sidering the variability of parameters. It is also worth noting
2
that stochastic boundary element methods (SBEMs) can @f
where F i ¼ @v j ,Y ij ¼ 12 @v@i @v
f
j .
i ðv1 ;v2 ;;vn Þ j ðv1 ;v2 ;;vn Þ
successfully deal with the randomness of boundary con-
ditions of groundwater flow models. However, the more Expected value of f(v1, v2,⋯,vn) can be easily obtained
stochastic variables or factors considered, the more runtime from Equation (3):
is taken and the more complicated the process of stochastic n X
X n
simulation is; the solutions of governing equations can not Ef ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ ¼ f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ þ Y ij covðvi ; vj Þ
be obtained in some cases (Harter and Yeh 1998; Osnes and i¼1 j¼1
Langtangen 1998; Aguirre and Haghighi 2003).
To simplify the procedure of PSFEM this paper aims to ð4Þ
present a new method—undetermined-coefficients-based
perturbation stochastic finite-element method (UPSFEM)— where E(∙) is the expected value operator and cov(vi, vj) is
for groundwater flow models. The perturbation technique, the covariance of stochastic variables vi and vj.
the undetermined-coefficients approach and the stochastic Neglecting terms that are higher than second order, one can
finite-element method are incorporated into the method to obtain the square value of function f(v1, v2,⋯,vn) from Eq. (3):
formulate the first and second-order derivatives of ground- n P
P n
water head with respect to coordinate variables. This avoids ½f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ2 ¼ ½f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ2 þ F i F j "i "j
the need to derive the first and second-order derivatives of i¼1 j¼1
groundwater head with respect to stochastic variables Xn

(coefficient of transmissibility, storage coefficient, etc.), and þ2f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ F i "i

i¼1
to improve the precision of the calculation. The statistical Xn X n
properties of groundwater head also can be obtained by the þ 2f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ Y ij "i "j
method for ordinary stochastic groundwater problems, i¼1 j¼1
especially for the problems that have fewer stochastic
variables. A stochastic numerical example demonstrates the ð5Þ
quality performance and capability of the method presented.
The mean-square value of function f(v1, v2,⋯,vn) can
be calculated as follows:
Perturbation stochastic finite-element method P
n P
n
(PSFEM) using the undetermined-coefficients E½f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ2 ¼ ½f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ2 þ F i F j covðvi ; vj Þ
i¼1 j¼1
approach n X
X n
þ2f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ Y ij covðvi ; vj Þ
If v1, v2,⋯,vn is a set of stochastic variables; f (v1, v2,⋯,vn) i¼1 j¼1
is a function of v1, v2,⋯,vn; and vi is the mean value of vi,
then stochastic variables vi can be decomposed into mean ð6Þ
values and tiny perturbations around the mean value
(Chang and Yeh 2009): The variance of function f(v1, v2,⋯,vn), therefore, is
given by:
vi ¼ vi þ "i ði ¼ 1; 2;    ; nÞ
ð1Þ Var½f ðv1 ; v2 ;    ; vn Þ ¼ E½f ðv1 ; v2 ;    vn Þ2  ½Ef ðv1 ; v2 ;    vn Þ2

where εi is the value of the ith perturbation terms. ð7Þ

Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609 DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4

 1605

In order to obtain Φi and Ψij, one can substitute Eq. (3) Fig. 1a, there is a well pumping at constant rate Q
into a motion equation of groundwater flow, combining (m3/day) in the center of the domain. Edges of AB and
with initial and boundary conditions and comparing the CD are no-flow boundaries, while AD and BC are
coefficients of each set of stochastic variables, and then constant head boundaries at H1 (m). This definite
one obtains a series of partial differential equations. solution problem of transient groundwater flow is
Solving these equations by using a finite element method described as follows:
and undetermined-coefficients approach, solutions of Φi
and Ψij are obtained. Substituting the solutions into Eqs.
(4) and (7), the mean and variance values of function f(v1, @2H @2H @H
T þ T  Qdðx  x0 ; y  y0 Þ ¼ S ðx; yÞ 2 G; t > 0
v2,⋯,vn) (groundwater head) can be obtained, respec- @x2 @y2 @t
tively. Detail of the solving process is illustrated in the ð8Þ
following numerical example.

Stochastic numerical example of a two- Hðx; y; 0Þ ¼ H1 ð9Þ

dimensional confined groundwater flow model
Assuming that the region of confined aquifer is a
square with an edge length of a=1,200 m, as shown in Hðx; y; tÞjAD ¼ Hðx; y; tÞjBC ¼ H1 ð10Þ

@H @H
j ¼ j ¼0 ð11Þ
@n DC @n AB
where (x0, y0) is the coordinates of the pumping well; T is
the coefficient of transmissibility (m2/day); S is the storage
coefficient (dimensionless); H is the value of groundwater
head (m); δ(x, y) is the two-dimensional Dirac Delta
function, which is defined as follows:

þ1 x ¼ x0 ; y ¼ y0
dðx  x0 ; y  y0 Þ ¼
0 x 6¼ x0 ; y 6¼ y0

and
Z 1Z 1
dðx  x0 ; y  y0 Þdxdy ¼ 1
1 1

The analytic solution of this problem is given by

Chan et al. (1976). For this problem, it can be assumed
that the four stochastic variables considered (H1, T, Q,
and S) are independent of each other. Expression of the
numerical solution for transient groundwater flow is
rather complicated, and expressions of E(H) and E(H2)
are more complicated. Hence, only the case where H1,
T, Q, and S are evenly distributed stochastic variables is
discussed here.
According to the perturbation technique, stochastic
variables H1, T, Q, and S can be decomposed, respectively,
as follows:
8
>
> H ¼ H1 þ "1
< 1
T ¼ T þ "2
ð12Þ
>
> Q ¼ Q þ "3
Fig. 1 a Sketch of computational domain and boundary con- :
ditions, b finite element mesh and locations of observation well 1–8 S ¼ S þ "4

Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609 DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4

1606

T ð @@xF2 1 þ @@yF2 1 Þ ¼ S @@t

F1
2 2
Using Eq. (3), one can expand groundwater head H as ð18Þ
follows:
H ¼ HE þ F 1 "1 þ F 2 "2 þ F 3 "3 þ F 4 "4 þ Y 1;1 "21 þ Y 2;2 "22 þ Y 3;3 "3
2

T ð @@xF2 2 þ @@yF2 2 Þ þ ð @@xH2E þ @@yH2E Þ ¼ S @@t

F2
2 2 2 2
ð19Þ
þY 4;4 "24 þ ðY 1;2 þ Y 2;1 Þ"1 "2 þ ðY 1;3 þ Y 3;1 Þ"1 "3

þðY 1;4 þ Y 4;1 Þ"1 "4 þ ðY 2;3 þ Y 3;2 Þ"2 "3

T ð @@xF2 3 þ @@yF2 3 Þ  dðx  x0 ; y  y0 Þ ¼ S @@t
F3
2 2
ð20Þ
þðY 2;4 þ Y 4;2 Þ"2 "4 þ ðY 3;4 þ Y 4;3 Þ"3 "4

where HE is the mean value of H.

For convenience, it can be noted that: Φ5 =Ψ1,1, @2F 4 @2F 4 @F 4 @2H E
Tð þ Þ ¼ S þ ð21Þ
Φ 6 = Ψ 2 , 2 , Φ 7 = Ψ 3 , 3 , Φ 8 = Ψ 4 , 4 , F 9 ¼ Y 1;2 þ Y 2;1 , @x2 @y2 @t @t
F 10 ¼ Y 1;3 þ Y 3;1 ,F 11 ¼ Y 1;4 þ Y 4;1 ,F 12 ¼ Y 2;3 þ Y 3;2 ,
F 13 ¼ Y 2;4 þ Y 4;2 , F 14 ¼ Y 3;4 þ Y 4;3 , then:
T ð @@xF2 5 þ @@yF2 5 Þ ¼ S @@t
F5
2 2
H ¼ HE þ F 1 "1 þ F 2 "2 þ F 3 "3 þ F 4 "4 þ F 5 "21 þ F 6 "22 þ F 7 "23 þ F 8 "24 ð22Þ
þF 9 "1 "2 þ F 10 "1 "3 þ F 11 "1 "4 þ F 12 "2 "3 þ F 13 "2 "4 þ F 14 "3 "4
ð13Þ

Owing to the fact that H1, T, Q, and S are independent T ð @@xF2 6 þ @@yF2 6 Þ þ ð @@xF2 1 þ @@yF2 1 Þ ¼ S @@t
2 2 2 2 F6
ð23Þ
and evenly distributed stochastic variables, groundwater
head H should be expressed as follows, from Eq. (13):

EðHÞ ¼ HE þ F 5 21 þ F 6 22 þ F 7 23 þ F 8 24

T ð @@xF2 7 þ @@yF2 7 Þ ¼ S @@t
F7
2 2
ð24Þ
ð14Þ
where s 21 , s 22 , s 23 and s 24 are variance values of H1, T, Q,
and S, respectively. T ð @@xF2 8 þ @@yF2 8 Þ ¼ S @@t
2 2
F8 F4
þ @@t ð25Þ
By writing the expression of H2 from Eq. (5), E(H2)
can be obtained from Eq. (6) as follows:
Similarly, by substituting Eq. (13) into initial condition
EðH 2 Þ ¼ HE2 þ F 21 21 þ F 22 22 þ F 23 23 þ F 24 24 Eq. (9), and the boundary conditions Eqs. (10)–(11), one
þ2HE ðF 5 21 þ F 6 22 þ F 7 23 þ F 8 24 Þ can obtain:
ð15Þ

Variance of groundwater head is expressed by: HE jt¼0 ¼ H 1 ; F 1 jt¼0 ¼ 1; F i jt¼0 ¼ 0

VarðHÞ ¼ EðH Þ  ½EðHÞ
2 2 ð26Þ
ði ¼ 2; 3;    ; 8Þ
ð16Þ

From Eqs. (14)–(16), it can be found that the variables

Φ9 to Φ14 never appear in the process for calculating the HE jG ¼ADþBC ¼ H 1 ; F 1 jG ¼ADþBC ¼ 1;
mean value and variance of groundwater head. Conse- ð27Þ
quently, the calculation steps are greatly simplified. This F i jG ¼ADþBC ¼ 0 ði ¼ 2; 3;    ; 8Þ
feature is a significant point of the work of this paper; it
also forms the basis of the next calculation using an
undetermined-coefficients-based finite-element method.
Substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (8) and comparing @HE 
 
@F i 
coefficients of each set of stochastic variables, one then @n G ¼DCþAB ¼ 0; @n G ¼DCþAB ¼0 ði ¼ 1; 2;    8Þ
obtains the following series of equations using an ð28Þ
undetermined-coefficients technique:
Employing finite-element methods in solving Eqs. (17)–
@ 2 HE @ 2 HE @HE (28), one can obtain HE,F i ði ¼ 1; 2;    ; 8Þ of a specific node
Tð 2 þ Þ  Qdðx  x0 ; y  y0 Þ ¼ S
@x @y2 @t at a specified time. From Eqs. (14)–(16), the mean value and
variance of the groundwater head could be obtained easily. It
ð17Þ
seems that the calculation process of this problem is indeed

Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609 DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4


complicated and cumbersome. Nevertheless, the calculation
is easy to be achieved via the common finite-element-
method simulation for groundwater flow.
As shown in Fig. 1b, eight observational wells,
numbered from 1 to 8, are set in the domain for
conveniently comparing the solution of different methods.
The study domain is meshed into 312 triangular units for
finite element method simulation. In the simulation, a time
step is set to 0.1 day within day 1. From day 1 to day 10,
the time step is set to 1 day. When the problem is
simulated at 10 days, 19 time-step calculations are
accomplished. Results are shown in Table 1.
In addition, the other versatile stochastic simulated
method, TSFEM was employed to solve this two-dimen-
sional confined groundwater flow problem in order to
illustrate the efficiency and accuracy of UPSFEM. The
results of TSFEM simulation obtained by Yao (1996) are
also shown in Table 1.
Discussion
On one hand, as can be seen from Fig. 2, after pumping for
0.1 day, the results of the UPSFEM have a little deviation
from the analytic solution, which tends to be more apparent
at a node that is closer to the pumping well. However,
when pumping for 10 days, the mean value and variance of
groundwater head from the analytic method and UPSFEM,
respectively, are almost the same. The results of UPSFEM
1607
basically are identical to that of TSFEM from 0.1 to
10 days. In other words, the UPSFEM solution has a
similar accuracy to the TSFEM solution. The comparison
indicates that the correctness and accuracy of the solution
calculated by the presented UPSFEM are reliable.
On the other hand, for the two-dimensional numerical
example, five intermediate variables are calculated to
solve the mean value of H for 0.1 day in a UPSFEM
simulation, and nine intermediate variables in a TSFEM
simulation; 95(5×19, where 19 is the number of time
steps) for 10 days in a UPSFEM simulation and 171(9×
19) in a TSFEM simulation. Furthermore, the number of
intermediate variables to solve the variance of H for both
0.1-day UPSFEM and TSFEM and 10-day UPSFEM and
TSFEM are the same. Apparently, as demonstrated in
Table 1, UPSFEM simulation has a similar efficiency to
TSFEM simulation regarding this problem (taking the same
time, 1 s for 0.1 day and 8 s for 10 days), although the
UPSFEM changes a one-variable problem into a nine-
variable problem. In essence, such a change only aims to
formulate the equations of mean value and variance of
groundwater head. UPSFEM′s satisfactory efficiency is due
to its skillful formulation of the mean value and variance of
groundwater head before the finite-element-method simu-
lation, and partly due to it excluding the process of
computing the first and second-order derivatives of ground-
water head with respect to stochastic variables H1, T, Q,
and S. This advantage of UPSFEM will be more significant
for multivariable stochastic analysis of groundwater flow

Table 1 Results of calculated mean value (top half) and variance of groundwater head (bottom half), by the analytic method (Chan et al.
1976), TSFEM (Yao 1996), and UPSFEM
Node number When t=0.1 day When t=10.0 days
Analytic TSFEM UPSFEM Analytic TSFEM UPSFEM
solution solution solution solution solution solution
Mean value of groundwater head (m)
1 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000
2 99.826 99.825 99.825 99.554 99.509 99.507
3 99.561 99.616 99.615 99.035 98.991 98.988
4 99.131 99.322 99.321 98.386 98.405 98.400
5 98.458 98.850 98.848 97.546 97.673 97.665
6 97.330 97.986 97.982 96.312 96.599 96.587
7 96.526 97.072 97.065 95.481 95.625 95.611
8 93.416 93.908 93.891 92.361 92.429 92.404
Number of intermediate variables 1/node 9 5 1/node 9×19a =171 5×19a =95
Time in seconds (using the same Not given 1 1 Not given 8 8
computer)
Variance of groundwater head (m2)
1 33.333 33.332 33.333 33.333 33.332 33.333
2 33.335 33.335 33.333 33.334 33.331 33.335
3 33.346 33.336 33.334 33.339 33.331 33.340
4 33.371 33.337 33.336 33.351 33.333 33.350
5 33.418 33.344 33.340 33.373 33.360 33.369
6 33.514 33.356 33.354 33.424 33.400 33.410
7 33.590 33.384 33.380 33.470 33.451 33.460
8 33.959 33.555 33.554 33.725 33.699 33.714
Number of intermediate variables 1/node 9 9 1/node 9×19a =171 9×19a =171
Time in seconds (using the same Not given 1 1 Not given 8 8
computer)
a
19 is the number of time steps
t is pumping time; H1, T, Q and S all are evenly distributed stochastic variables; E (H1)=100.0; E (T)=100.0; E (Q)=1000.0; E (S)=1.0×
10–4 ; Var (T)=33.333, Var (H1)=33.333, Var (Q)=3333.333, and Var (S)=3.333×10–11

Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609 DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4

1608
Fig. 2 Mean values and variances of groundwater head at different observational wells, when t=0.1 day and t=10 days, respectively
(using analytic method, TSFEM and UPSFEM)
problems, as well as contaminant transport problems based
on the same theoretical framework.
In addition, the stochastic variables in this two-dimen-
sional numerical problem are conveniently assumed to be
evenly distributed for formulating the mean value and
variance of groundwater head H . Actually, such a process
could not limit the application of UPSFEM to heteroge-
neous problems that are spatially stationary. If one uses
UPSFEM (or a similar idea) to solve more complex
confined-groundwater problems, one needs to introduce
more stochastic variables and undetermined coefficients in
the process of formulating the mean value and variance of H,
and the number of equations will increase correspondingly.
More importantly, as well as finite-element methods,
finite-difference methods (FDM) and finite-volume
methods (FVM) can also be employed to extend the
application of UPSFEM to other groundwater flow
problems. The details of Eqs. (17)–(28) need to be
improved in further research work when using FDM,
FVM or other numerical simulation methods.
Conclusions
The stochastic simulation of a groundwater flow model,
which is capable of approximating the real hydrogeological
Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609
condition, represents significant progress in hydrogeology
research. It is essential to study the basic mathematical and
mechanical theory of stochastic simulation of groundwater
flow and to promote the results of this study with a view to
further practical applications. Selecting a set of variables,
traditional deterministic numerical simulations obtain one
set of results, which are quite different from the mean
values of variables by the perturbation SFEM in this study.
In fact, deterministic simulation indeed is a special case of
stochastic simulation.
The undetermined-coefficients-based perturbation sto-
chastic finite-element method (UPSFEM) presented for
groundwater flow modeling in this paper cannot cause an
increase in the number of stochastic variables in the
process of simulation. Hence, the method excludes
complicated derivational procedures and the drawbacks
of solution accuracy of the Taylor-expansion stochastic
finite-element method (TSFEM). The method also per-
forms a highly efficient simulation, especially when there
are a small number of stochastic variables in stochastic
groundwater problems. In conducting the stochastic
simulation experiment, the numerical example of a two-
dimensional confined groundwater flow problem (which
has an analytic solution) shows that the accuracy and
efficiency of the method proposed in this paper are
satisfied.
DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4

When selecting many stochastic variables, the work of
computation is heavy and the period of simulation is quite
long. Also, because of the neglect of terms that are higher
than second order in the Taylor expansion equation, a
truncation error of results inevitably exists which cannot
be neglected, especially when the variance of input
stochastic variables is big. Therefore, one needs to try to
select as many appropriate methods as possible that are
suited to the practical situation while treating more
complicated hydrogeological problems.
References
Aguirre CG, Haghighi K (2003) Stochastic modeling of transient
contaminant transport. J Hydrol 276:224–239
Bark AA, Gelhar LW, Gutjahr AL, MacMillan JR (1978) Stochastic
analysis of spatial variability in subsurface flows: 1. comparison
of one- and three-dimensional flows. Water Resour Res 14
(2):263–271
Chan YK, Mullineux N, Reed JR (1976) Analytic solutions for
drawdowns in rectangular artesian aquifers. J Hydrol 31:151–160
Chang CM, Yeh H-D (2009) Stochastic analysis of bounded
unsaturated flow in heterogeneous aquifers: spectral/perturba-
tion approach. Adv Water Resour 32(1):120–126
Gelhar LW, Axness CL (1983) Three-dimensional stochastic
analysis of macrodispersion in aquifers. Water Resour Res 19
(1):161–180
Handa K, Anderson K (1981) Application of finite element methods
in statistical analysis of structures. In: Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on Struct. Safety and Reliability,
Trondheim, Norway, June 1981, pp 409-417
Hydrogeology Journal (2010) 18: 1603–1609
1609
Harter T, Yeh T-C (1998) Flow in unsaturated random porous
media, nonlinear numerical analysis and comparison to ana-
lytical stochastic models. Adv Water Resour 22(3):185–195
Hisada T, Nakagiri S (1982) Stochastic finite element analysis of
uncertain structures system, In: Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on FEM, Brisbane, Australia, August 1982,
pp 133-138
Jang Y-S, Sitar N, Der KA (1994) Reliability approach to
probabilistic modeling of contaminant transport. Water Resour
Res 30(8):2435–2448
Liu N, Lv T (1995) Stochastic FEM and its applications in
engineering. Adv Mech 1:114–125
Mantoglou A, Gelhar LW (1987) Stochastic modeling of large-scale
transient unsaturated flow systems. Water Resour Res 23(1):37–46
Osnes H, Langtangen HP (1998) An efficient probabilistic finite
element method for stochastic groundwater flow. Adv Water
Resour 22(2):185–195
Russo D, Bouton M (1992) Statistical analysis of spatial variability in
unsaturated flow parameters. Water Resour Res 28(7):1911–1925
Russo D, Russo I, Laufer A (1997) On the spatial variability of
parameters of the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Water
Resour Res 33(5):947–956
Satish MG, Zhu J (1992) Stochastic approach for groundwater flow
in a semiconfined aquifer subject to random boundary con-
ditions. Adv Water Resour 15:329–339
Tang DH, Pinder GF (1977) Simulation of groundwater flow and
mass transport under uncertainty. Adv Water Resour 1(1):25–30
Yao L (1995) Study of stochastic numerical simulation for ground-
water flow (in Chinese). PhD Thesis, Institute of Geology, China
Yao L (1996) Taylor series expansion stochastic finite element
method for models of groundwater flow. J China Coal Soc 21
(6):566–570
Zhou Y (1993) Foreign simulation of groundwater flow and
substance transmission: current situations and trends. In:
Proceedings of engineering geology, hydrogeology and environ-
mental geology. Seismological Press, Beijing
DOI 10.1007/s10040-010-0639-4