# A Quasigeoid-Derived Transformation Model Accounting for Land Subsidence in the Mekong Delta towards Height System Unification in Vietnam

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

_{0}for the Vietnam Local Vertical Datum. The gravity potential of the Vietnam Local Vertical Datum is estimated equal to ${\mathrm{W}}_{0}^{\mathrm{LVD}}$ = 62,636,846.81 ± 0.70 m

^{2}s

^{−2}with the global equipotential surface realized by the conventional value W

_{0}= 62,636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{−2}.

## 1. Introduction

_{0}= 636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{2}, whereas the heights determined from levelling refer to the national Mean Sea Level (MSL), called the Vietnam Local Vertical Datum (VLVD). The MSL over 1950–2005 for a single tide gauge in the north of Vietnam, called Hon Dau (20°40’, 106°49’), was assigned to zero height on the VLVD. With its large mean bias, the gravimetric quasigeoid model does not allow the accurate transformation of GNSS ellipsoidal heights to physical heights in the VLVD. Most often, the gravimetric quasigeoid or geoid model is forced to fit onto the local vertical datum. Such a hybrid quasigeoid/geoid model is used to convert GNSS ellipsoidal heights to physical heights. Most countries make continuous efforts to determine and improve their hybrid geoid or quasigeoid model successfully. For comparison, Table 1 shows the accuracy of several local hybrid geoid or quasigeoid models, and notably of neighboring countries in Asia. The resulting standard deviations obtained for the most recent hybrid models range from a few cm up to 15 cm, depending on the quality of the available gravity and GNSS/levelling data for the hybrid geoid/quasigeoid determination.

_{0}, is considered equal to 62,636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{−2}[27]. From this value, Height System Unification (HSU) can be realized to connect height systems together by determining potential differences referring to the conventional value. Knowing the gravity potential of LVD, the gravity potential difference of every LVD and the LVD offset values between all the LVDs can be determined. Therefore, determining the gravity potential value of LVD plays an important role in the HSU.

_{0}) for the VLVD.

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Offset Model Determination Methodology

^{GNSS/levelling}) and from the model GEOID_LSC (ζ):

_{0}represents the contribution of the zero-degree harmonic term to the GGM with respect to a specific reference ellipsoid [29].

_{0}and U

_{0}are the geocentric gravitational constant of the reference ellipsoid and the normal gravity potential, respectively. The WGS-84 ellipsoid is used as the reference ellipsoid for computation of GEOID_LSC, GM

_{0}= 398,600.4418 × 10

^{9}m

^{3}s

^{−2}and U

_{0}= 62,636,851.7146 m

^{2}s

^{−2}(report of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) [30]), while the Earth’s geocentric gravitational constant GM and the gravity potential Wo are set to GM = 398,600.4418109 × 10

^{9}m

^{3}s

^{−2}and W

_{0}= 62,636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{−2}. The mean Earth radius R is taken equal to 6371 km, and the normal gravity γ at the surface of the ellipsoid is computed by using Equation (4-60) of Hofmann-Wellenhof and Moritz (2006) [29].

- linear in φ and λ model:$${\epsilon}^{\prime}={a}_{0}+{a}_{1}\phi +{a}_{2}\mathsf{\lambda}+\epsilon $$
- second-order polynomial model:$${\epsilon}^{\prime}={a}_{0}+{a}_{1}\phi +{a}_{2}\mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{3}{\phi}^{2}+{a}_{4}\phi \mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{5}{\mathsf{\lambda}}^{2}+\epsilon $$
- third-order polynomial model:$${\epsilon}^{\prime}={a}_{0}+{a}_{1}\phi +{a}_{2}\mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{3}{\phi}^{2}+{a}_{4}\phi \mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{5}{\mathsf{\lambda}}^{2}+{a}_{6}{\phi}^{3}+{a}_{7}{\phi}^{2}\mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{8}\phi {\mathsf{\lambda}}^{2}+{a}_{9}{\mathsf{\lambda}}^{3}+\epsilon $$
- four parameter Helmert model:$${\epsilon}^{\prime}={a}_{1}cos\phi cos\mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{2}cos\phi sin\mathsf{\lambda}+{a}_{3}sin\phi +{a}_{4}+\epsilon $$

#### 2.2. Data for the Determination of the Offset Model

#### 2.2.1. Gravimetric Quasigeoid Model (GEOID_LSC)

#### 2.2.2. GNSS/Levelling Data

## 3. Land Subsidence in Vietnam

#### 3.1. GNSS and InSAR Data

#### 3.2. Land Subsidence and Correcting GNSS/Levelling Data in the Mekong Delta

^{GNSS/levelling}), we performed the correction according to the following formula:

- using all 802 GNSS/levelling points and calculating the homogeneous distortion parameter (case 1);
- using all 802 GNSS/levelling points and calculating two distortion parameters for two regions: southern (<17° in latitude) and northern part (>17° in latitude) (case 2).

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Offset Model Estimation and Validation

#### 4.2. Estimation of the Geopotential Value W_{0} for the VLVD

_{0}for the VLDV using the differences in height anomalies derived from them. The geopotential number (C) is the potential difference between an equipotential surface (W

_{i}) and a reference equipotential surface. National datum from traditional levelling realizes by selecting as their zero point O a coastal tide gauge and setting it a geopotential value ${W}_{0}^{LVD}$, while a geoid/quasigeoid model realizes the origin of a global datum (W

_{0}). The geopotential number for point i can be written as [44,45]

_{0}must be omitted in this computation. The height anomalies from good 779 GNSS/levelling points after correcting the subsidence for the Mekong Delta was used for estimating ${\mathrm{W}}_{0}^{\mathrm{LVD}}$. Calculation of two tilt parameters for two regions, southern (<17° in latitude) and northern part (>17° in latitude), was also used in this case. The results are shown in Table 7 where the improvement in the STD between the null and third-order model with two parameters was significant. Therefore, the results calculated from the third-order model with two parameters were used to estimate ${W}_{0}^{LVD}$ employing Equation (14). A gravity potential ${W}_{0}^{LVD}$ = 62,636,846.81 ± 0.70 m

^{2}s

^{−2}for the LVD of Vietnam has been determined as an offset to the equipotential surface realized by the conventional value W

_{0}= 62,636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{−2}.

## 5. Conclusions

_{0}for the existing LVD in Vietnam. The gravity potential of the VLVD is estimated equal to ${W}_{0}^{LVD}$= 62,636,846.81 ± 0.70 m

^{2}s

^{−2}with the global equipotential surface realized by the conventional value W

_{0}= 62,636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{−2}. With this gravity potential value, we can thus connect the height system of Vietnam with the neighboring countries.

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Lemoine, F.G.; Kenyon, S.C.; Factor, J.K.; Trimmer, R.G.; Pavlis, N.K.; Chinn, D.S.; Cox, C.M.; Klosko, S.M.; Luthcke, S.B.; Torrence, M.H.; et al. The Development of the Joint NASA GSFC and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Geopotential Model EGM96. 1998; p. 584. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980218814 (accessed on 28 January 2020).
- Pavlis, N.K.; Holmes, S.A.; Kenyon, S.C.; Factor, J.K. The development and evaluation of the Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008). J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
**2012**, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Vu, D.T.; Bruinsma, S.; Bonvalot, S. A high-resolution gravimetric quasigeoid model for Vietnam. Earth Planets Space
**2019**, 71, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Featherstone, W.E.; Sproule, D.; Goos, J.; Kirby, J.; Kuhn, M.; Claessens, S.J. Towards the new AusGeoid model. In Proceedings of SSC2005 Spatial Intelligence, Innovation and Praxis: The National Biennial Conference of the Spatial Sciences Institute, September 2005; Spatial Sciences Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2005; ISBN 0-9581366-2-9. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, N.J.; Featherstone, W.E.; Hu, G.; Johnston, G.M. AUSGeoid09: A more direct and more accurate model for converting ellipsoidal heights to AHD heights. J. Spat. Sci.
**2011**, 56, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brown, N.J.; McCubbine, J.C.; Featherstone, W.E.; Gowans, N.; Woods, A.; Baran, I. AUSGeoid2020 combined gravimetric–geometric model: Location-specific uncertainties and baseline-length-dependent error decorrelation. J. Geod.
**2018**, 92, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kuroishi, Y.; Ando, H.; Fukuda, Y. A new hybrid geoid model for Japan, GSIGEO2000. J. Geod.
**2002**, 76, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Miyahara, B.; Kodama, T.; Kuroishi, Y. Development of New Hybrid Geoid Model for Japan, “GSIGEO2011”. 2014, Volume 10. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Development-of-new-hybrid-geoid-model-for-Japan-%2C-%E2%80%9C-Miyahara-Kodama/9218fa00c80813084355b096ea1efe84c2d21f1c (accessed on 28 January 2020).
- Lee, S.B.; Auh, S.C.; Seo, D.Y. Evaluation of global and regional geoid models in South Korea by using terrestrial and GNSS data. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
**2017**, 21, 1905–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dumrongchai, P.; Wichienchareon, C.; Promtong, C. Local geoid modeling for Thailand. Int. J. Geoinform.
**2012**, 8, 15–26. [Google Scholar] - Gatchalian, R.; Forsberg, R.; Olesen, A. PGM2016: A New Geoid Model for the Philippines; Report of National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Republic of The Philippines: Quezon City, Philippines, 2016; p. 27. Available online: http://www.isgeoid.polimi.it/Geoid/Asia/Philippines/new_geoid_for_the_philippines.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
- Ismail, M.K.; Din, A.H.M.; Uti, M.N.; Omar, A.H. Establishment of New Fitted Geoid Model in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328683742 (accessed on 22 November 2018).
- Chen, Y.-Q.; Luo, Z. A hybrid method to determine a local geoid model—Case study. Earth Planets Space
**2004**, 56, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Entin, I.I. Main systematic errors in precise levelling. Bull. Geod.
**1959**, 52, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Geodetic Leveling and Its Applications—Vanicek—1980—Reviews of Geophysics—Wiley Online Library. Available online: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/RG018i002p00505 (accessed on 22 November 2019).
- Amos, M. New Zealand vertical datum 2009. New Zealand Surv.
**2010**, 300, 5–16. [Google Scholar] - Hayden, T.; Amjadiparvar, B.; Rangelova, E.; Sideris, M.G. Estimating Canadian vertical datum offsets using GNSS/levelling benchmark information and GOCE global geopotential models. J. Geod. Sci.
**2013**, 2, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Amjadiparvar, B.; Rangelova, E.V.; Sideris, M.G.; Véronneau, M. North American height datums and their offsets: The effect of GOCE omission errors and systematic levelling effects. J. Appl. Geod.
**2013**, 7, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Featherstone, W.E.; Filmer, M.S. A New GPS-based evaluation of distortions in the Australian Height Datum in Western Australia. J. R. Soc. West. Aust.
**2008**, 91, 199–206. [Google Scholar] - Erban, L.E.; Gorelick, S.M.; Zebker, H.A. Groundwater extraction, land subsidence, and sea-level rise in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett.
**2014**, 9, 084010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Minderhoud, P.S.J.; Erkens, G.; Pham, V.H.; Bui, V.T.; Erban, L.; Kooi, H.; Stouthamer, E. Impacts of 25 years of groundwater extraction on subsidence in the Mekong delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett.
**2017**, 12, 064006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reyes, R.B.; Nagai, M.; Kamiya, Y.; Tipdecho, T.; Ninsawat, S. Effect of sea level rise in the validation of geopotential/geoid models in Metro Manila, Philippines. Surv. Rev.
**2015**, 47, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kasenda, A.; Kearsley, A.H.W. Towards the Establishment of an Indonesian Unified Vertical Datum. In Vertical Reference Systems; Drewes, H., Dodson, A.H., Fortes, L.P.S., Sánchez, L., Sandoval, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 334–338. [Google Scholar]
- Amos, M.J.; Featherstone, W.E. Unification of New Zealand’s local vertical datums: Iterative gravimetric quasigeoid computations. J. Geod.
**2009**, 83, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rapp, R.H.; Balasubramania, N. A Conceptual Formulation of a World Height System; Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Tran, T.; Nguyen, X.H.; Le, Q.H.; Doan, T.T.H. Updated trend of change of sea level of the east sea, Vietnam. Sci. Tech. Hydro-Meteorol. J.
**2015**, 657, 25–30. [Google Scholar] - Sánchez, L.; Čunderlík, R.; Dayoub, N.; Mikula, K.; Minarechová, Z.; Šíma, Z.; Vatrt, V.; Vojtíšková, M. A conventional value for the geoid reference potential $$W {0}$$W0. J. Geod.
**2016**, 90, 815–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fotopoulos, G. An Analysis on the Optimal Combination of Geoid, Orthometric and Ellipsoidal Height Data. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, December 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hofmann-Wellenhof, B.; Moritz, H. Physical Geodesy, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; ISBN 978-3-211-33544-4. [Google Scholar]
- NIMA. Deparment of Defense World Geodectic System 1984. 2000, p. 169. Available online: https://earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
- Iliffe, J.C.; Ziebart, M.; Cross, P.A.; Forsberg, R.; Strykowski, G.; Tscherning, C.C. Osgm02: A New Model for Converting Gps-Derived Heights to Local Height Datums in Great Britain and Ireland. Surv. Rev.
**2003**, 37, 276–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Forsberg, R.; Tscherning, C.C. An Overview Manual for the GRAVSOFT Geodetic Gravity Field Modelling Programs; DTU Space: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Farr, T.G.; Rosen, P.A.; Caro, E.; Crippen, R.; Duren, R.; Hensley, S.; Kobrick, M.; Paller, M.; Rodriguez, E.; Roth, L.; et al. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Rev. Geophys.
**2007**, 45. Available online: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005RG000183 (accessed on 28 January 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Becker, J.J.; Sandwell, D.T.; Smith, W.H.F.; Braud, J.; Binder, B.; Depner, J.; Fabre, D.; Factor, J.; Ingalls, S.; Kim, S.-H.; et al. Global Bathymetry and Elevation Data at 30 Arc Seconds Resolution: SRTM30_PLUS. Mar. Geod.
**2009**, 32, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pham, H.L. Final Report: Research on Establishing the Height System Unification for Vietnam on the Basis without Using the Mean Sea Level; The Vietnam Institute of Geodesy and Cartography (VIGAC): Hanoi, Vietnam, 2009. (In Vietnamese) [Google Scholar]
- Wessel, P.; Smith, W.H.F. New, improved version of generic mapping tools released. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union
**1998**, 79, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Drinkwater, M.R.; Floberghagen, R.; Haagmans, R.; Muzi, D.; Popescu, A. GOCE: ESA’s First Earth Explorer Core Mission. In Earth Gravity Field from Space—From Sensors to Earth Sciences; Space Sciences Series of ISSI; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 419–432. ISBN 978-90-481-6334-2. [Google Scholar]
- Bruinsma, S.L.; Förste, C.; Abrikosov, O.; Lemoine, J.-M.; Marty, J.-C.; Mulet, S.; Rio, M.-H.; Bonvalot, S. ESA’s satellite-only gravity field model via the direct approach based on all GOCE data. Geophys. Res. Lett.
**2014**, 41, 7508–7514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Featherstone, W.E.; Lyon, T.J.; McCubbine, J.C. Potentially Misleading GPS Leveling–Based Assessment of Gravimetric Geoid or Quasigeoid Models due to Vertical Land Motion and Different GPS Processing Software. J. Surv. Eng.
**2019**, 145, 04019015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Marty, J.C. Algorithmic Documentation of the GINS Software. Available online: https://www5.obs-mip.fr/wp-content-omp/uploads/sites/28/2017/11/GINS_Algo_2013.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2020).
- Copernicus Emergency Management Service. Available online: https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/list-of-components/EMSN057 (accessed on 19 November 2019).
- Minh, D.H.T.; Van Trung, L.; Toan, T.L. Mapping Ground Subsidence Phenomena in Ho Chi Minh City through the Radar Interferometry Technique Using ALOS PALSAR Data. Remote Sens.
**2015**, 7, 8543–8562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kotsakis, C.; Katsambalos, K.; Ampatzidis, D. Estimation of the zero-height geopotential level WoLVDin a local vertical datum from inversion of co-located GPS, leveling and geoid heights: A case study in the Hellenic islands. J. Geod.
**2012**, 86, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tocho, C.; Vergos, G.S. Estimation of the Geopotential Value W0 for the Local Vertical Datum of Argentina Using EGM2008 and GPS/Levelling Data W0LVD. In IAG 150 Years; Rizos, C., Willis, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 271–279. [Google Scholar]
- Vergos, G.S.; Erol, B.; Natsiopoulos, D.A.; Grigoriadis, V.N.; Işık, M.S.; Tziavos, I.N. Preliminary results of GOCE-based height system unification between Greece and Turkey over marine and land areas. Acta Geod. Geophys.
**2018**, 53, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gerlach, C.; Rummel, R. Global height system unification with GOCE: A simulation study on the indirect bias term in the GBVP approach. J. Geod.
**2013**, 87, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gatti, A.; Reguzzoni, M.; Venuti, G. The height datum problem and the role of satellite gravity models. J. Geod.
**2013**, 87, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Amjadiparvar, B.; Rangelova, E.; Sideris, M.G. The GBVP approach for vertical datum unification: Recent results in North America. J. Geod.
**2016**, 90, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)/levelling data: yellow dots are first- and second-order levelling benchmarks, whereas purple dots denote third-order ones.

**Figure 3.**(

**a**) Differences between GNSS/levelling data and GEOID_LSC; (

**b**) Linear regression on the differences of GNSS/levelling data and GEOID_LSC in northern (>21° in latitude) and near coast (points within 50 km from the coastline) and (

**c**) Differences between GNSS/levelling data and DIR/EGM (d/o 719) plus RTM effects.

**Figure 4.**Magnitude of relative differences between GEOID_LSC with 803 GNSS/levelling points over 21,423 baselines (blue), fourth-order tolerance (orange) and third-order tolerance (purple).

**Figure 6.**(

**a**) Differences of GNSS/levelling data and GEOID_LSC in the southern region; (

**b**) Linear regression on the differences of GEOID_LSC and GNSS/levelling data in the southern region; (

**c**) InSAR results derived for the period 2006–2010 from ALOS-1 provided by Dr Laura E Erban [20] and (

**d**) InSAR results derived for the period 2015–2018 from Sentinel-1, project EMSN057 [41].

**Figure 7.**(

**a**) Distortions, (

**b**) residuals and (

**c**) differences between the 779 GNSS/levelling points and gravimetric quasigeoid model adding offset model.

No | Country, Region | Name | Year | STD (cm) | Geoid Type | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Australia | AUSGeoid98 | 2005 | 11.8 | Hybrid quasigeoid | [4] |

AUSGeoid09 | 2009 | 3.0 | Hybrid quasigeoid | [5] | ||

AUSGeoid2020 | 2018 | 2.7 | Hybrid quasigeoid | [6] | ||

2 | Japan | GSIGEO2000 | 2002 | 4.0 | Hybrid geoid | [7] |

GSIGEO2011 | 2014 | 1.8 | Hybrid geoid | [8] | ||

3 | South Korea | KNGeoid13 | 2013 | 5.4 | Hybrid geoid | [9] |

KNGeoid14 | 2014 | 5.2 | Hybrid geoid | [9] | ||

4 | Thailand | THAI12H | 2012 | 15.8 | Hybrid geoid | [10] |

5 | Philippines | PGM2016 | 2016 | 2.2 | Hybrid geoid | [11] |

6 | Peninsular (Malaysia) | VMGEOID04 | 2018 | 5.0 | Hybrid geoid | [12] |

Sabah and Sarawak (Malaysia) | EMGEOID05 | 2018 | 10.0 | Hybrid geoid | [12] | |

7 | Hong Kong | HKGEOID-2000 | 2004 | 1.7 | Hybrid geoid | [13] |

8 | Shenzhen | SZGEOID-2001 | 2004 | 1.4 | Hybrid geoid | [13] |

**Table 2.**Descriptive statistics of the absolute (residuals) and relative differences between the 812 GNSS/levelling stations and GEOID_LSC. Unit: (m).

Absolute Differences | ||||||

Mean | STD | Max | Min | Outlier Points | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC} (812 points) | 0.680 | 0.097 | 0.987 | 0.310 | 9 | |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC} (excluding outliers) (803 points) | 0.682 | 0.092 | 0.937 | 0.396 | 0 | |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{DIR/EGM+RTM} (803 points) | 0.682 | 0.168 | 1.138 | 0.119 | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC} (North-east part) (190 points) | 0.705 | 0.077 | 0.879 | 0.459 | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC} (Southern, <11°) (120 points) | 0.634 | 0.092 | 0.937 | 0.402 | ||

Relative Differences | ||||||

Mean | STD | Max | Min | Outlier third-order | Outlier fourth-order | |

∆ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ∆ζ^{LSC} (803 points) (21,423 baselines) | 0.087 | 0.071 | 0.518 | 0 | 8153 (38.06%) | 2052 (9.58%) |

**Table 3.**Relative differences between 803 GNSS/levelling points and GEOID_LSC, per baseline length (every 10 km) (NoB: Number of Baselines). Unit: (m).

10 km | 20 km | 30 km | 40 km | 50 km | 60 km | 70 km | 80 km | 90 km | 100 km | All | |

NoB | 96 | 760 | 1356 | 1776 | 2215 | 2505 | 2845 | 3068 | 3334 | 3468 | 21,423 |

mean | 0.055 | 0.065 | 0.077 | 0.082 | 0.084 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 0.091 | 0.090 | 0.093 | 0.087 |

STD | 0.045 | 0.055 | 0.063 | 0.066 | 0.070 | 0.072 | 0.073 | 0.072 | 0.073 | 0.074 | 0.071 |

Max | 0.219 | 0.302 | 0.407 | 0.394 | 0.451 | 0.451 | 0.518 | 0.449 | 0.467 | 0.428 | 0.518 |

min | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Northern Part | |||||||||||

NoB | 34 | 231 | 376 | 530 | 647 | 751 | 854 | 868 | 1004 | 998 | 6294 |

mean | 0.044 | 0.075 | 0.080 | 0.084 | 0.083 | 0.089 | 0.092 | 0.094 | 0.093 | 0.093 | 0.089 |

STD | 0.030 | 0.061 | 0.066 | 0.066 | 0.069 | 0.071 | 0.071 | 0.069 | 0.072 | 0.072 | 0.070 |

Max | 0.120 | 0.295 | 0.322 | 0.316 | 0.390 | 0.400 | 0.468 | 0.396 | 0.392 | 0.404 | 0.468 |

min | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Points Near the Coast (within 50 km from the coastline) | |||||||||||

NoB | 18 | 202 | 312 | 357 | 380 | 369 | 347 | 361 | 336 | 321 | 3003 |

mean | 0.042 | 0.055 | 0.067 | 0.073 | 0.072 | 0.079 | 0.078 | 0.074 | 0.074 | 0.75 | 0.073 |

STD | 0.037 | 0.049 | 0.055 | 0.066 | 0.067 | 0.067 | 0.065 | 0.060 | 0.069 | 0.069 | 0.064 |

Max | 0.138 | 0.290 | 0.388 | 0.333 | 0.418 | 0.363 | 0.384 | 0.408 | 0.467 | 0.352 | 0.467 |

min | 0.007 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

**Table 4.**Descriptive statistics of the differences between the GNSS/levelling data corrected in Mekong Delta and GEOID_LSC. Unit: (m).

Mean | STD | Max | Min | Outlier Points | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC} (Southern, <11°) (120 points) | 0.634 | 0.092 | 0.937 | 0.402 | |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC} (>11°) (683 points) | 0.690 | 0.089 | 0.933 | 0.396 | |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling_cor} – ζ^{LSC} (Southern, <11°) (120 points) | 0.664 | 0.085 | 0.937 | 0.459 | |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling_cor} – ζ^{LSC} (803 points) | 0.686 | 0.089 | 0.937 | 0.396 | 1 |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling_cor} – ζ^{LSC} (excluding outliers) (802 points) | 0.687 | 0.088 | 0.937 | 0.423 |

Mean | STD | Max | Min | Outlier Points | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Linear (802 points) | 0 | 0.087 | 0.285 | −0.296 | |

Second-order (802 points) | 0 | 0.085 | 0.265 | −0.326 | |

Third-order (802 points) | 0 | 0.082 | 0.262 | −0296 | |

Helmert model (802 points) | 0 | 0.086 | 0.285 | −0.316 | |

case 2 (Third-order) (802 points) | 0 | 0.078 | 0.252 | −0.288 | 6 |

case 2 (Third-order) outlier (796 points) | 0 | 0.075 | 0.225 | −0.223 |

**Table 6.**Descriptive statistics of the differences between the GNSS/levelling data and gravimetric quasigeoid adding offset model with baseline length < 100 km. Unit: (m).

Absolute Differences | ||||||

Mean | STD | Max | Min | Outlier Points | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC}-ε (796 points)(cross-validation) | 0 | 0.065 | 0.250 | −0.291 | 17 | |

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC}-ε (779 points)(excluding outliers) (cross-validation) | 0 | 0.059 | 0.170 | −0.170 | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC}-ε (779 points) | 0 | 0.034 | 0.099 | −0.109 | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC}-ε (Hanoi) (32 points) | −0.004 | 0.047 | 0.109 | −0.092 | ||

ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ζ^{LSC}-ε (HCMC) (29 points) | −0.001 | 0.055 | 0.104 | −0.139 | ||

Relative Differences | ||||||

Mean | STD | Max | Min | Outlier 3rd Order | Outlier 4th Order | |

∆ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ∆ζ^{LSC}-∆ε (779 points) (20,243 baselines) | 0.026 | 0.020 | 0.109 | 0 | 377 (1.86%) | 14 (0.07%) |

∆ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ∆ζ^{LSC}-∆ε (Hanoi) (469 baselines) | 0.024 | 0.018 | 0.074 | 0.003 | 8 | 0 |

∆ζ^{GNSS/levelling} – ∆ζ^{LSC}-∆ε (HCMC) (384 baselines) | 0.025 | 0.019 | 0.085 | 0.085 | 13 | 0 |

**Table 7.**Descriptive statistics of the differences between the GNSS/levelling data removed tilt effects and GEOID_LSC. Reference geopotential values ${W}_{0}^{LVD}$ for the VLVD with the global reference level realized by the conventional value W

_{0}= 62,636,853.4 m

^{2}s

^{−2}. Unit: (m).

Mean | STD | Max | Min | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Null model | 0.688 | 0.083 | 0.912 | 0.435 |

Third-order | 0.693 | 0.075 | 0.897 | 0.458 |

Third-order (two parameters) | 0.689 | 0.071 | 0.902 | 0.478 |

$\delta {W}^{LVD}$ | 6.60 ± 0.70 (m^{2}s^{−2}) | ${W}_{0}^{LVD}$ | 62,636,846.81 ± 0.70 (m^{2}s^{−2}) |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Vu, D.T.; Bruinsma, S.; Bonvalot, S.; Remy, D.; Vergos, G.S.
A Quasigeoid-Derived Transformation Model Accounting for Land Subsidence in the Mekong Delta towards Height System Unification in Vietnam. *Remote Sens.* **2020**, *12*, 817.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050817

**AMA Style**

Vu DT, Bruinsma S, Bonvalot S, Remy D, Vergos GS.
A Quasigeoid-Derived Transformation Model Accounting for Land Subsidence in the Mekong Delta towards Height System Unification in Vietnam. *Remote Sensing*. 2020; 12(5):817.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050817

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Vu, Dinh Toan, Sean Bruinsma, Sylvain Bonvalot, Dominique Remy, and Georgios S. Vergos.
2020. "A Quasigeoid-Derived Transformation Model Accounting for Land Subsidence in the Mekong Delta towards Height System Unification in Vietnam" *Remote Sensing* 12, no. 5: 817.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050817