arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.ep] 11 Jun 2016

Transcription

1 A Simple Analytical Model for Rocky Planet Interior Li Zeng 1,a and Stein B. Jacobsen 1,b 1 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.ep] 11 Jun 2016 a astrozeng@gmail.com b jacobsen@neodymium.harvard.edu ABSTRACT Based on the PREM (Dziewonski & Anderson 1981), the internal gravity of the Earth increases approximately linearly in the core and stays approximately constant in the mantle. Tested with numerical calculations in Zeng et al. (2016), this behavior of internal gravity can be generalized to any two-layer (iron-silicate) rocky exoplanet with core mass fraction (CMF) in between and mass in between 0.1 and 30 M. Based on this fact, (1) CMF CRF 2 (core radius fractionsquared), (2)P c gs 2 (interiorpressurescalesassurfacegravitysquared), (3) energy released of core formation is 1 the total gravitational energy, (4) effective heat capacity of the mantle ( 10 ) Mp M J/K, (5) moment of inertia 1 M 3 p Rp 2, and some other results can be derived. These results, though approximate, are handy to use owing to their simplicity and lucidity. They lead us deeper into the understanding of the interior structures of those planets. Subject headings: Extrasolar planets, interior structure, core mass fraction, core radius fraction, internal pressure, internal gravity, energy of differentiation, moment of inertia 1. Introduction Numerical calculations using realistic Equation of State(EOS)(c.f. Manipulate Planet at (Zeng et al. 2016) indicate that for a two-layer (core+mantle) rocky planet of M and 0.2 CMF 0.35, the internal gravity profile is approximately (Fig. 1): In the core, the gravity g increases linearly with radius from 0 at ( the) center to g s r (surface value) at the core-mantle boundary (CMB): g core (r) = g s R core r

2 2 In the mantle, g stays constant: g mantle (r) = g s In this approximation, core density is constant, then followed by a density drop of 2 3 at the CMB, and mantle density decease as 1/r in radius. From it, some important relations regarding rocky planet interior can be derived. The two first-order differential equations (Zeng & Sasselov 2013; Zeng & Seager 2008; Seager et al. 2007) governing rocky planet interior are: (1) hydrostatic equilibrium (force balance) equation: (2) mass conservation equation: dp dr = Gmρ r 2 = g ρ (1) dm dr = 4πr2 ρ (2) Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 can be combined to give a relation between the internal pressure P and the mass m (mass contained within radius r, now used as the independent variable instead): dp dm = Gm 4πr = 1 4 4πG g2 m = 1 dln(m) g2 4πG dm (3) Integrating Eq. 3, we get (ln(m) stands for natural logarithmic of m): dp = 1 4πG g 2 dln(m) (4) Therefore, the internal pressure of a planet is on the order of: P g2 4πG (5) where g 2 is an average of g 2. Here let s define planet mass as M p, planet radius as R p, and planet mean density as ρ p. Surface gravity g s and characteristic interior pressure P c are: g s GM p R 2 p (6)

3 3 P c g s 2 4πG = GM2 p 4πR 4 p (7) Later on, we will show that P c also approximates the CMB pressure P CMB. If g s is in S.I. unit (m/s 2 ) and P c in GPa, the following approximate relation holds: P c g 2 s (8) For example, Earth s surface gravity is 10 m/s 2, so 10 2 = 100 GPa is close to the actual CMB pressure of 136 GPa. 2. Internal Density Profile { Based on the assumption of gravity profile, the density profile can be easily derived: ρcore (r) = 3gs 1 4πGR core = ρ p = constant, so m CRF core(r) r 3 ρ mantle (r) = gs 1, so m 2πG r r mantle(r) r 2 Fig. 2 compares the PREM density profile (Dziewonski & Anderson 1981) to the approximation. Notice that CRF stands for core radius fraction, g is continuous in r, and ρ may have discontinuities. The 1 -dependence approximates the compression of mantle material towards depth, while the relatively small core (CMF 0.35) allows core density to be r approximated as constant. Anywhere in the mantle, In particular, at the core-mantle boundary (CMB) : ( ) 2 m r = (9) M p R p CMF M core M p = ( Rcore R p ) 2 = CRF 2 (10) In reality: CMF CRF 2 (11) Forexample, applyingeq.11toearthandkepler-93b(dressing et al.2015;ballard et al. 2014):

4 4 Fig. 1. gravity (black) and density (red) profile of the approximation. Fig. 2. black: PREM density profile. red: approximation.

5 5 For Earth, CMF = 0.325, and CRF = 3480km 6371km = CRF2 = = 0.298, which is about 9% smaller than For Kepler-93b, calculated from the model in (Zeng et al. 2016), CMF K93b = 0.278, and CRF K93b = CRF 2 K93b = 0.243, which is about 12% smaller than Inreality, CRF 2 tendstounderestimatecmfby 10%. Nevertheless, itprovidesaquick { CMF 0.3 way to estimate CMF from CRF or vice versa. For Earth-like rocky planets: CRF 0.5 Eq. 11 can be generalized to a rocky planet which has volatile envelope, as long as the formula is only applied to the solid portion of that planet. 3. Internal Pressure Profile 3.1. Pressure in the Mantle Since gravity in mantle is constant, Eq 4 can be integrated straightforward to get: P mantle (m) = g2 s 4πG ln ( ) Mp = P c ln m ( ) Mp = 2P c ln m ( Rp r ) (12) From Eq. 12, at the bottom of the mantle, the CMB pressure (P CMB ) is: ( ) ( ) 1 P CMB = P c ln = g2 s 1 CMF 4πG CMF (13) Considering its applicability to 0.2 CMF 0.35, then P CMB ( )P c. And P CMB determines the state of the mantle material in contact with the core. Surface gravity g s can be measured independent of the stellar parameters (Southworth et al. 2007), thus, for rocky planets it is possible to estimate P CMB even without accurately knowing the mass and radius in some cases: g s = 2π (1 e 2 ) 1/2 A RV P orb (R/a) 2 Sin[i] (14)

6 6 where semi-amplitude A RV andorbital eccentricity ecan beconstrained fromthe radialvelocity curve. R/a is the radius over semi-major axis ratio which could be constrained directly from the transit light curve. Orbital period P orb can be constrained from both Range of Applicability At any pressure P, the bulk modulus K P and K = ln(p). In the mantle: ln(ρ) P ln(ρ) K mantle = P mantle ln(ρ mantle ) = g2 s dln(m) 4πG dln(r) = 2P c (15) Thus, in the approximation, the mantle bulk modulus K mantle is treated as a constant equal to twice the characteristic internal pressure P c. For Earth, P c, = g 2 = 115 GPa, so in the approximation, K 4πG mantle, = 230 GPa. ComparingittotheisentropicbulkmodulusK s ofearthmantleaccordingtoprem(dziewonski & Anderson K,LID = 130 GPa 1981): K,670km = GPa, they are on the same order of magnitude. And K,D = 640 GPa this approximation is further justified by invoking the Birch-Murnaghan 2nd-order (BM2) EOS (Birch 1947, 1952), which when fitted to PREM gives K 0 200GPa for both core and mantle: P = 3 2 K 0 [ ( ρ ρ 0 )7 ( ] )5 3 ρ 3 ρ 0 (16) The bulk modulus in BM2 is obtained by the differentiating Eq. 16: K [ P ln(ρ/ρ 0 ) = 3 ( )7 ( 2 K 7 ρ ρ ρ 0 3 ρ 0 ] )5 3 (17) { when P K0,K K 0 Eq. 17 suggests: when P K 0,K/P 7 2. Since P c is the characteristic pressure in the mantle, we have K 2P 2P c, which is the same as Eq. 15. Therefore, this 3 approximation holds for rocky planets from 1M up to higher mass as long as BM2 EOS holds for that mass.

7 Pressure in the Core Since ρ core = const in the approximation, from Eq. 1 we have: dp core (r) dr = G r 2 ( ) ( ) gs r 3 3gs = 3P c r (18) GR core 4πGR core Rcore 2 Integrating it gives the pressure-dependence on r as a parabolic function: ( r ) 2 (19) P core (r) = P P c R core Central pressure P 0 can be determined by connecting it to P CMB at CMB: P 0 3 ( ) 1 2 P c = P CMB = P c ln CMF (20) So, P 0 = P c [ ( )] ln P 0 3P c (21) CMF Thus, in our approximation, the pressure dependence on radius is piecewise: parabolic in core and logarithmic in mantle. For Earth, it can be closely matched to the pressure profile calculated from PREM shown in Fig Energy of Core Formation According to Virial Theorem (Haswell 2010), the total gravitational energy is: surface P E grav = 3 center ρ dm (22) With the analytic forms of P and ρ in our approximation, Eq. 22 can be integrated: E grav = GM2 p 3R p (2 15 CRF3 ) (23)

8 8 Fig. 3. Piecewise approximation to pressure profile inside Earth (generally applicable to two-layer rocky planets of 0.2 CMF 0.35): Black curve: pressure profile from PREM. Red dashed curve: parabolic function in r as an approximation for pressure in core. Light-green dashed curve: logarithmic function in r as an approximation for pressure in mantle.

9 9 Comparingittothegravitationalenergyofauniform-density spheree grav, uniform sphere = 3 GMp 2 5 R p, the difference of the two can be taken as the energy released during core formation (release of gravitational energy due to concentration of denser material towards the center): E diff = E grav, uniform sphere E grav = GM2 p R p ( ) 1 15 (1 CRF3 ) = GM2 p R p ( ) 1 15 (1 CMF3/2 ) (24) Since 0.2 CMF 0.35, the term CMF 3/2 is small enough to be dropped to give: E diff 1 15 GM 2 p R p 1 10 E grav (25) Therefore, the energy released during core formation is 10% of the total gravitational energy of such an Earth-like rocky planet. For Earth, E diff, J. 5. Heat Capacity of the Rocky Mantle Since the temperatures inside the mantle of such a planet are likely above the Debye temperature, the heat capacity per mole of atoms can be approximated as 3R (gas constant R=8.314 J K 1 mol 1 ). The specific heat capacity (heat capacity per unit mass) is 3R/µ where µ is the average atomic weight of the composition, which for Mg-silicates (MgO, SiO 2, or any proportion of them combined, including MgSiO 3 or Mg 2 SiO 4 ) is 0.02 kg/mol. The specific thermal energy u th of the mantle material is thus: u th = 3RT µ (26) where T is temperature. The total thermal energy of mantle is calculated by integration: E th,mantle = Mp M core u th dm = M p 1 CMF u th dx (27) where x m M p. In the approximation, mantle density ρ mantle 1 r 1 m. On the other hand, with the assumption of adiabatic temperature gradient in the mantle and the introduction of the Grüneisen parameter γ ln(t) ln(ρ) adiabat,

10 10 u th = 3R T mp µ ( ) γ ρ = 3R T mp µ ρ 0 ( m M p ) γ 2 (28) where T mp (mantle potential temperature) is defined as the temperature when mantle adiabat is extrapolated to zero pressure. Here, γ = 1 is taken for simplicity. Then, E th,mantle = 2 M p 3R T mp (1 CMF) (29) µ whereas CMF 0.3 for the planets concerned, so CMF CRF 0.5 = 1, and total 2 thermal energy of mantle (mostly contributed by vibrations of atoms in crystal lattice, while electron contribution is ignored here) is: E th,mantle 3R T mp µ M p ( ) ( ) Tmp Mp J (30) 1000K M One can define an effective heat capacity C th,mantle of the mantle with regard to T mp : C th,mantle 3R µ M p ( Mp M ) J/K (31) Eq. 30 suggests that the thermal energy can be calculated by treating the mantle as uncompressed att mp ofmassm p. ForEarth, T mp 1700KandM p = kgandµ = 0.02 kg/mol (Stacey & Davis 2008), thus, E th,mantle, J and C th,mantle, J/K. Detailed calculation in Stacey & Davis (2008) shows the effective heat capacity of Earth mantle is J/K, very close to our estimate. Since the core is small, they can be regarded as approximations for thermal energy and heat capacity for the entire planet, and generally applied to other rocky planets having known their masses and mantle potential temperatures. Mantle dictates the cooling of the core (Stacey & Davis 2008). 6. Moment of Inertia Moment of inertia is calculated from the following formula, where x is the distance of the mass element to the rotational axis: I = ρ( r) x 2 dv (32) V

11 11 Let s consider two simple cases first: { thin spherical shell with radius Rp, I shell = 2 3 MR2 p uniform solid sphere with radius R p, I solid sphere = 2 5 MR2 p Defining C I/MR 2 p asthe moment of inertia factor, forshell C=2 3, andfor sphere C=2 5. Smaller C means mass is more concentrated towards the center. For the approximation, the moment of inertia of the core and the mantle can each be calculated separately first, then combined to give the full moment of inertia of the planet: I core = 2 5 M pr 2 p CMF2 (33) I mantle = 1 3 M pr 2 p (1 CMF 2 ) (34) I total = I core +I mantle = 1 3 M prp ( ) CMF2 (35) Considering only 0.2 CMF 0.35, the term 1 5 CMF2 can be ignored, and C 1. We 3 already know that in the solar system, C for Mercury, Venus, and Earth are indeed very close to 1 (Rubie et al. 2007). Here we generalize this fact of C 1 to all Earth-like rocky 3 3 planets: I planet 1 3 M p R 2 p (36) For Earth, M R 2 = kg m 2, and I 1 3 M R 2 = kg m 2. Therefore, angular momentum of Earth s rotation is L = I Ω = kg m 2 /s. And the total rotationalenergyofearthise rot = 2 I 1 Ω 2 = L2 2 Ω 2 is the angular frequency of Earth s rotation. = J, whereω = rad/sec 7. More Applications The aforementioned 5 results are just examples of what can be derived from this model, while it can be used to derive more results as you wish. The model itself only depends on 3 parameters: (1) surface gravity g s (2) planet radius R p (3) core radius fraction CRF. The procedure is as follows:

12 12 1. Given the mass M p and radius R p of a rocky planet, the surface gravity g s = G Mp R 2 p be calculated immediately. can 2. Then, CMF can be determined from the mass-radius relations described in (Zeng et al. 2016; Zeng & Jacobsen 2016b). 3. CRF can be estimated as CMF. Then all 3 parameters are obtained, and one may calculate the approximate properties of this planet as one wishes. 8. Conclusion Here we present a simple approximate model for Earth-like rocky planetary interiors. It predicts (1) CMF CRF 2 (core radius fraction squared), (2) P c gs 2 (interior pressure scales as surface gravity squared), (3) energy released of core formation ( is 1 the total 10 gravitational energy, (4) effective heat capacity of the mantle Mp J/K, and (5) moment of inertia 1 M 3 p Rp 2. Other results may be derived following the procedure. Although being approximate, these relations are straightforward to apply, as in many cases mass and radius are only measured approximately anyway. When they are combined with mass-radius relations of (Zeng et al. 2016; Zeng & Jacobsen 2016b), they can provide us more insights and intuitions towards rocky planetary interiors, and complements the numerical approach. M ) 9. Acknowledgement This work was supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation(SCOL[award#337090] to L.Z.). Part of this research was conducted under the Sandia Z Fundamental Science Program and supported by the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under Award Numbers de-na and de-na to S. B. Jacobsen (PI) with Harvard University. This research is the authors views and not those of the DOE. The authors would like to thank Dimitar D. Sasselov for insightful suggestions and helpful comments on this paper.

13 13 REFERENCES Ballard, S., Huber, D., Chaplin, W., et al. 2014, ApJ Birch, F. 1947, Physical Review, 71, , J. Geophys. Res., 57, 227 Dressing, C. D., Charbonneau, D., Dumusque, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 135 Dziewonski, A. M., & Anderson, D. L. 1981, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 25, 297 Haswell, C. A. 2010, Transiting Exoplanets Rubie, D., Nimmo, F., & Melosh, H. 2007, in Treatise on Geophysics, ed. G. Schubert (Amsterdam: Elsevier), Seager, S., Kuchner, M., Hier-Majumder, C. A., & Militzer, B. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1279 Southworth, J., Wheatley, P. J., & Sams, G. 2007, MNRAS, 379, L11 Stacey, F. D., & Davis, P. M Zeng, L., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016b, submitted to ApJ Zeng, L., & Sasselov, D. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, pp. 227 Zeng, L., Sasselov, D. D., & Jacobsen, S. B. 2016, ApJ, 819, 127 Zeng, L., & Seager, S. 2008, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 120, 983 This preprint was prepared with the AAS L A TEX macros v5.2.