Modeling the Interior

of Exoplanets
Johnson Liu
7 April 2019
Contents
1 Some variables and constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Equations of Planetary Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Equation of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Shooting Method for Estimating the Density of the Planet Interior . . . . . . . . 3

3 Initial Conditions and Change in Interior Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4 Integration Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 Euler Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 Euler-Cromer Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3 4th Order Runge-Kutta Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4 Integration Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4.1 RK4 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4.2 Euler Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5 Comparing the Euler and RK4 Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 Optimization Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 Optimizing Pi and Rc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3 Interpolation of Surface Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4 Finding Best Values for the Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.1 Pi and Rc Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.2 Linear Interpolation and Extrapolation to Find Better Estimates for Pi
and Rc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6 Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 Three-Layer System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Two-Layer System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.1 Solid Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.2 Liquid Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.3 Comparing Solid Core and Liquid Core Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2.4 Optimization Scheme for Simulating Earth-like Planets . . . . . . . . . . 14

7 Mass-Radius Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8 Comparing Different Equations of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

9 Mass-Radius Diagram of Planets with an Earth-like Composition . . . . . . 16

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

1 Some variables and con- The change in pressure of the planet’s interior
is given by
stants
Variables ρ(r)GM
Variable Symbol Value Units ∆P = − ∆r , (2)
Mass of
r2
MMercury 3.302e26 g
Mercury
Radius of where ρ(r) is the density of the planet’s in-
RMercury 2.439e8 cm
Mercury
terior at a distance r from the center of the
Mass of Earth MEarth 5.972e27 g
Radius of Earth REarth 6.3781e8 cm planet and G is the gravitational constant.
Gravitational Given proper initial conditions, Equa-
G 6.673e-8 cm3 g−1 s−2
Constant tions (1) and (2) can be used to simulate the
Density of Rock radius and the total mass of a given planet.
ρrock
0 3.98 gcm−3
at zero pressure
Since the pressure on the surface of the planet
Bulk Modulus
Krock
0 206 GPa is zero, we can use Equation (2) to make incre-
of Rock
Density of Solid mental changes to the initial pressure at the
Iron at zero ρsolid
0
iron
7.85 gcm−3 center of the planet until we reach a radius
pressure where the simulated pressure reaches zero.
Bulk Modulus
Ksolid
0
iron
255 GPa
of Solid Iron
Density of
Liquid Iron at ρliquid
0
iron
7.05 gcm−3
zero pressure 2.1 Equation of State
Bulk Modulus
Kliquid
0
iron
201 GPa The density ρ(r) of the planet at a radius r
of Liquid Iron
Pressure at from the center needs to be computed for each
center of the Pi — GPa shell. ρ(r) is found using a chosen equation of
planet state. In this project, the equation of state
Radius of the
core
Rc — cm used is

 ! 37 ! 53 
3K0  ρ(r) ρ(r)
P = −  , (3)
2 Equations of Planetary 2 ρ0 ρ0
Structure
where K0 is the bulk modulus of a given ma-
Give the pressure at the center of a planet and
terial and ρ0 is the density of the material at
the radii of the planet’s layers, the mass and
zero pressure [ZSJ16]. Equation (3) can be
radius of the planet can be computed using
written as
equations of planetary structure. In the sim-
ulation, thin spherical shells are successively
added to a central sphere. When each shell a = x7/3 − x5/3 , (4)
is added to the simulated planet, an incre-
mental change in mass is added to the overall
planetary mass. The change in pressure of the where
planet’s interior is also computed at each time
step. The incremental change in mass of the 2P
a = (5)
planet at each time step is given by 3K0
ρ(r)
∆M = 4πρ(r)r2 ∆r . (1) x = . (6)
ρ0

2
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets
Figure 1: A plot of Equation (4) with a = 0.4.
Figure (1) shows a plot of Equation (4). In
the complex plane, for a given value of a, there
are multiple complex solutions for x. As long
as a is positive, which will be the case since P
and K0 are always positive, there will be only
one real solution for x.
2.2 Shooting Method for Esti-
mating the Density of the
Planet Interior
Given the pressure at some radius r, the den-
sity at r can be computed from Equation (4)
using the shooting method.
To find the solution for x, we make a guess
for the value of x, compute the right-hand side
of Equation (4), and compare this value to
a. If our guess for x undershoots the value
of a, we increase the value of our guess. If we
overshoot the value of a, we decrease the value
of our guess. If we undershoot in one iteration
and overshoot in the next, or if we overshoot
and then undershoot, we decrease the amount
by which we change our guess for x. With this
approach, we home in on a and we get better
and better estimates for x. When we compute
a value for a to within the desired accuracy,
we stop the iteration. We then multiply x by
ρ0 to retrieve a value for ρ(r) for the current
shell.
3
Johnson Liu
3 Initial Conditions and
Change in Interior
Composition
We must give the simulation an initial pres-
sure (Pi ) for the center of the planet, a
guess for the radius of the planet’s core (Rc ),
the starting radius (ri ) from which we begin
our integration, and the integration step size
(∆r). For a set of initial conditions, the sim-
ulation will produce simulated values for the
radius of the planet and the total mass of the
planet. If the simulated values are different
from the known values, then we will have to
change our initial guesses for Pi and Rc .
Once an initial pressure is given, the den-
sity at the center of the planet can be found
using the method described in Section (2.2).
The initial mass at the center of the planet is
computed using the estimated density:
Mi = ρVi
4πρ 3
= r . (7)
3 i
In our simulations, we have chosen ri = ∆r.
Once we have the initial pressure and ini-
tial mass, we integrate outwards towards the
planet surface using our choice for ∆r and
Equations (1) and (2).
For a planet with multiple layers, we must
change the values for K0 and ρ0 when the
simulation reaches the radius where one layer
meets another. For example, the interior of
Mercury can be approximated with a solid
iron core surrounded by a layer of rock.
For the simulation of Mercury, the simula-
tion starts with K0 = K0solid iron and ρsolid
0
iron
[ZSJ16]. When the simulation reaches the
core radius (Rc ), the values for the bulk
modulus and the density under zero pressure
switches to K0 = K0rock and ρ0 = ρrock 0 , re-
spectively. This process can be generalized
to other cases where there are more than two
layers.
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

4 Integration Techniques Applying the Euler algorithm to Equa-

tions (1) and (2), we have the following equa-
The pressure and the mass of the planet at a tions:
distance r from the center can be computed
using different integration methods such as Mn+1 = Mn + 4πρ(r)r2 ∆r (16)
the Euler algorithm, the Euler-Cromer algo-
rithm, or the Runge-Kutta algorithm. These ρ(r)GMn+1
Pn+1 = Pn − ∆r . (17)
are generic algorithms that are used for solv- r2
ing differential equations.
4.3 4th Order Runge-Kutta Al-
4.1 Euler Algorithm gorithm
For a set of differential equations The Runge-Kutta algorithm is another nu-
merical method for solving differential equa-
dx tions and is expected to be more efficient than
= f (v, t) (8)
dt the Euler method. For a coupled system of
two functions:
dv
= g(x, t) , (9) dy
dt


= f x, y(x), z(x) (18)
dx
the Euler algorithm is given by
dz

= g x, y(x), z(x) , (19)
vn+1 = vn + g(xn , tn )∆t (10) dx
the 4th Order Runge-Kutta algorithm is
xn+1 = xn + f (vn , tn )∆t . (11)

k1 = hf xn , yn , zn (20)


Given x0 , v0 , t0 , and ∆t, we can directly com- l1 = hg xn , yn , zn (21)
pute the values for xn+1 and vn+1 indefinitely.
!
Applying the Euler-Cromer algorithm to h k1 l1
Equations (1) and (2), we have the following k2 = hf xn + , yn + , zn + (22)
2 2 2
equations: !
h k1 l1
Mn+1 = Mn + 4πρ(rn )rn2 ∆r (12) l2 = hg xn + , yn + , zn + (23)
2 2 2

ρ(rn )GMn
Pn+1 = Pn −
!
∆r . (13) h k2 l2
rn2 k3 = hf xn + , yn + , zn + (24)
2 2 2
4.2 Euler-Cromer Algorithm h k2 l2
!
l3 = hg xn + , yn + , zn + (25)
The Euler-Cromer algorithm is a modification 2 2 2
of the set of equations given in Equations (11)
and (11):  
k4 = hf xn , yn + k3 , zn + l3 (26)
vn+1 = vn + g(xn , tn )∆t (14)  
l4 = hg xn , yn + k3 , zn + l3 (27)

xn+1 = xn + f (vn+1 , tn )∆t . (15)

1 
k = k1 + 2k2 + 2k3 + k4 (28)
Instead of using vn to solve for xn+1 , the 6
Euler-Cromer algorithm uses vn+1 to solve for 1 
l = l1 + 2l2 + 2l3 + l4 , (29)
xn+1 . 6

4
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

where h is the step size. Applying this to our The simulated density, pressure, and mass for
equations of state, we get Mercury at each time step for different ap-
! proximations for ρ are shown in Figures (2),
GMn (3), and (4), respectively.
k1 = − ρ(rn ) 2 ∆r (30)
rn
 
l1 = 4πρ(rn )rn2 ∆r (31)

!
 ∆r  G Mn + l21
k2 = − ρ rn +
2
2 rn + ∆r
rn
(32)
!
 ∆r  ∆r 2

l2 = 4πρ rn + rn + ∆r
2 2
(33)

!
 ∆r  G Mn + l22 Figure 2: The simulated density of Mercury using
k3 = − ρ rn +
linear and quadratic extrapolation for ρ(rn + ∆r

2
2 rn + ∆r
rn 2 )
and ρ(rn + ∆r). The results from making
 the
(34) ∆r
 
! approximation ρ rn + 2 ≈ ρ rn + ∆r ≈ ρn
 ∆r  ∆r 2 is also shown.
l3 = 4πρ rn + rn + ∆r
2 2
(35)

!
G(Mn + l3
k4 = − ρ(rn + ∆r) ∆r
(rn + ∆r)2
(36)
 
l4 = 4πρ(rn + ∆r)(rn + ∆r)2 ∆r (37)

1 
k = k1 + 2k2 + 2k3 + k4
6
1  
l = l1 + 2l2 + 2l3 + l4 .
6
Since the change in mass does not explicitly
depend on mass or the pressure, l2 and l3 end
up being the same term.
ρ(rn + ∆r
2
) and ρ(rn + ∆r) can be esti-
mated through linear or quadratic extrapola-
tion. These values can also be approximated Figure 3: The simulated pressure of Mercury us-
by substituting them with ρ(rn ): ing linear and quadratic extrapolation for ρ(rn +
∆r
2 ) and ρ(rn +∆r).
 The results from making
 the
∆r 
   
∆r
ρ rn + ≈ ρ rn + ∆r ≈ ρ(rn ) . (38) approximation ρ rn + 2 ≈ ρ rn + ∆r ≈ ρn
2 is also shown.
5
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

Figure 4: The simulated mass of Mercury using Figure 6: A heatmap of the simulated mass for
linear and quadratic extrapolation for ρ(rn + ∆r
2 ) Mercury using the RK4 algorithm.
and ρ(rn + ∆r). The results from making Figures (7) and (8) show the simulated ra-
 the
dius and simulated mass, respectively, from
 
∆r
approximation ρ rn + 2 ≈ ρ rn + ∆r ≈ ρn
using the RK4 algorithm as a function of
is also shown.
step size. These simulations used Pi =
40.1415507194 and Rcfrac = 0.675567506625.
These are the optimal values of Pi and Rc to
4.4 Integration Profile produce a simulated radius and a simulated
mass close to that of Mercury’s. According
4.4.1 RK4 Algorithm to the the figures, we begin to lose accuracy
when the step size becomes larger than 1e4
Figures (5) and (6) show heatmaps of the cm.
simulated radius and simulated mass, respec-
tively, of Mercury as functions of Pi and Rc
using the RK4 alogrithm. The color on the
heatmaps show the absolute value of 1 mi-
nus the ratio of the simulated values (mass
and radius) to the actual mass and radius of
Mercury. Values on the heatmap close to 0
(shown as dark red in the figures) show good
agreement between the simulated mass and
simulated radius relative to the actual mass
and radius of Mercury. The two heatmaps
Figure 7: Final radius (shown as a fraction of
are plotted on with the same colorscale. Both the actual radius of Mercury) as a function of
heatmaps agree on the general area where the log10 (step size) using the RK4 algorithm.
optimal values for Pi and Rc are found.

Figure 8: Final mass (shown as a fraction of

the actual radius of Mercury) as a function of
Figure 5: A heatmap of the simulated radius for log10 (step size) using the RK4 algorithm.
Mercury using the RK4 algorithm.
6
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

4.4.2 Euler Algorithm

Figures (9) and (10) show heatmaps of the

simulated radius and simulated mass, respec-
tively, of Mercury as functions of Pi and Rc
using the Euler algorithm.

Figure 11: Final radius (shown as a fraction of

the actual radius of Mercury) as a function of
log10 (step size) using the Euler algorithm.

Figure 9: A heatmap of the simulated radius for

Mercury using the Euler algorithm.

Figure 12: Final mass (shown as a fraction of

the actual radius of Mercury) as a function of
log10 (step size) using the Euler algorithm.

4.5 Comparing the Euler and

RK4 Algorithms
Figues (13), (14), and (15) so plots of the
simulated density, pressure, and mass, respec-
tively, of Mercury as a function of the distance
away from the center of the planet. Both the
RK4 and Euler algorithms produce about the
same results on the scale used.
Figure 10: A heatmap of the simulated mass for
Mercury using the Euler algorithm.

Figures (11) and (12) show the simulated

radius and simulated mass, respectively, from
using the Euler algorithm as a function of
step size. These simulations used Pi =
40.1436514877 and Rcfrac = 0.675748236404.
According to the figures, we begin to lose ac-
curacy when the step size becomes larger than Figure 13: The simulated density of Mercury as
1e5 cm. a function of the distance from the center of the
planet.
7
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets
Figure 14: The simulated pressure of Mercury as
a function of the distance from the center of the
planet.
Figure 15: The simulated mass of Mercury as a
function of the distance from the center of the
planet.
Figures (16), (17), and (18) show the differ-
ence in the simulated density, pressure, and
mass of Mercury as a function of the distance
from the center of the planet between the RK4
and Euler algorithms. The figures are plotted
on a log scale in the y-axis.
Figure 16: The difference in the density between
the RK4 and Euler algorithms.
8
Johnson Liu
Figure 17: The difference in the pressure between
the RK4 and Euler algorithms.
Figure 18: The difference in the mass between
the RK4 and Euler algorithms.
Figures (19) and (20) show heatmaps of the
difference between the results from the RK4
and Euler algorithms.
Figure 19: A heatmap of the absolute value of the
difference between the results for the simulated
radius from the RK4 and Euler algorithms.
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

5. Central pressure (Pi )

6. Step size (∆r)

7. Type of integration algorithm (Euler,

Euler-Cromer, or 4th order Runge-
Kutta)

8. Equation of state (EOS) (Zeng, BME, or

Vinet)
Figure 20: A heatmap of the absolute value of the
difference between the results for the simulated 9. Expected planetary radius
mass from the RK4 and Euler algorithms.
Figure (21) shows a plot of the simulated 10. Expected planetary mass
radius and simulated mass of Mercury as func-
tions of the step size for the RK4 and Euler 11. Expected core mass fraction
algorithms. The error first decreases with in-
Running the simulation:
creasing step size, then begins to increase af-
ter a certain point. • Compute ρ (using desired EOS) for the
inner-most sphere
4ρ
• Initiate M = 3
π∆r3 for the inner-most
sphere

• Run trajectory

– Euler update for the first three steps

∗ Increase r during each step and
make appropriate changes to P
Figure 21: The error in the simulated mass and and M
radius of Mercury for the RK4 and Euler algo- – While the pressure is above 0 Pa
rithms.
∗ Update using integration
method
5 Optimization Scheme
· Compute new pressure and
5.1 Simulation new mass at each step
· Increase r during each step
The following shows the inputs needed for the
∗ If the current layer is not the
simulation and also the general outline of the
outer-most layer
optimization scheme for finding the best Pi
and Rc for a given two-layer planet. Inputs: · If the radius is greater than
the boundary radius, find
1. Number of layers the pressure and mass at
2. List of radii for each layer, except for the the boundary
outer-most layer · Switch out ρ0 and K for the
new values in the next layer
3. List of densities (ρ0 ) for each layer
– If the pressure becomes less than 0
4. List of bulk modulus (K) values for each Pa, interpolate for the surface pres-
layer sure, radius, and mass

9
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

5.2 Optimizing Pi and Rc

...

5.3 Interpolation of Surface

Values
The integration for the pressure of the planet
stops when the simulation gets to a pressure Figure 22: An example of the interpolation for
below zero. Stopping at this point gives an the surface radius.
overestimation for the simulated radius and Figure (14) shows that the pressure of the
mass of the planet. To get a better esti- planet can be approximated as a quadratic
mate, we must find the radius and mass where with a negative value for a2 . This means that
the pressure becomes equal to zero. To do we take the larger of the two roots found from
this, we interpolate between the three points Equation (42).
with pressures closest to P = 0. These To interpolate for the mass of the planet at
three points are the last point generated in P = 0, we use the polynomial
the integration and the two previous points:
(Rl , Pl ), (Rl−1 , Pl−1 ), (Rl−2 , Pl−2 ). M = b0 + b 1 R + b2 R 2 . (43)
A polynomial is fitted to these three points
to find the radius where the pressure is equal Given the points (Rl , Ml ), (Rl−1 , Ml−1 ), and
to zero. We use a second order polynomial for (Rl−2 , Ml−2 ), we solve for the coefficients
our interpolation: b0 , b1 , and b2 the same way we solve for the
coefficients a0 , a1 , and a2 . We then take the
larger of the two roots from Equation (42) and
P = a0 + a1 R + a2 R 2 . (39) substitute R into Equation (43) to find the
simulated mass at P = 0.
To find the coefficients a0 , a1 , and a2 , we solve
a system of three equations: 5.4 Finding Best Values for the
Independent Variables
    
Pl 1 Rl Rl2 a0 5.4.1 Pi and Rc Optimization
2  
Pl−1  = 1 Rl−1 Rl−1 a1 (40)
Pl−2 2
1 Rl−2 Rl−2 a2 For one set of guesses for Pi and Rc , the sim-
ulation will produce a result for the simulated
radius and simulated mass of the planet. The
   −1  
a0 1 Rl Rl2 Pl simulated radius and mass will, in general, dif-
2 
a1  = 1 Rl−1 Rl−1 Pl−1 (41) fer from the planet’s actual radius and mass.
.
2 In order to find better and better estimates
a2 1 Rl−2 Rl−2 Pl−2
for Pi and Rc , we use the shooting method to
home in on the best value for one of the two
Once the coefficients are found, we make the independent variables using one of the two de-
substitution P = 0 in Equation (39) and solve pendent variables as a measure of best fit. For
for the roots: example, we can choose to first optimize Pi to
get a good value for the simulated radius while
−a1 ± (a21 − 4a2 a0 )1/2 keeping Rc constant. Then, we optimize Rc to
R= . (42) get a good value for the simulated mass while
2a2

10
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

keeping Pi constant. We repeat this cycle un-
til the simulated radius and mass are within
a desired error threshold.
An example optimization scheme is:
1. Optimize Pi using planet mass as a mea-
sure of best fit
2. Optimize Rc using planet radius as a
measure of best fit
3. Optimize Pi using planet mass as a mea-
sure of best fit
4. Optimize Rc using planet radius as a
measure of best fit
5. etc ...
5.4.2 Linear Interpolation and Extrap-
olation to Find Better Estimates
for Pi and Rc
Given two initial guesses for one of the in-
dependent variables, the simulated value for
one of the dependent variables can be found.
These points can then be used to interpolate,
or extrapolate, for a better guess for the in-
dependent variable.
Given two points (x0 , y0 ) and (x1 , y1 ), the
slope of the line between the points is given
by
∆y
y0 =
∆x
y1 − y0
= . (44)
x1 − x0
In order to get an estimate for the indepen-
dent variable xn that will give us a simulated
value for yn that is close to the desired value
yd , we use the slope in Equation (44) to make
a change in our value for x. We solve for xn
using a previous guess xp :
yd − yp
xn = xp + . (45)
y0
If
we use the point (x0 , y0 ) for xp and yp . Oth-
erwise, we use the point (x1 , y1 ). Once we
have a value for xn , we use it in our simu-
lations to produce a value for yn . We then
repeat the process using the points (xn , yn )
and (xp , yp ) to solve for the next guess for xn .
When our value for yn is close enough to our
desired value yd :
|yd − yn | < threshold , (47)
we keep the value for the optimized indepen-
dent variable fixed and we begin optimizing
the other independent variable.
6 Earth
6.1 Three-Layer System
The interior of the Earth can be modeled as
a three-layer system with a solid iron core, a
liquid iron middle layer, and a rocky mantle.
For a three-layer system, we can either make
a guess for the radius of the inner layer and
the radius of the middle layer or we can make
a guess for the radius of the middle layer and
make a choice for the pressure at the inter-
face between the inner layer and the middle
layer. For the latter choice, the simulation
switches from the inner layer to the middle
layer when the interface pressure is reached.
In the following figures, simulations were per-
formed using 330 GPa as the pressure where
the inner solid iron layer of the Earth meets
the middle liquid iron layer.
Figures (23) and (24) show heatmaps of the
simulated radius and simulated mass, respec-
tively, of a three-layer Earth system.

|yd − y0 | < |yd − y1 | , (46) Figure 23: A heatmap of the simulated radius for
a three-layer Earth using the RK4 algorithm.
11
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

Figure 24: A heatmap of the simulated mass for Figure 26: The simulated pressure of a three-
a three-layer Earth using the RK4 algorithm. layer Earth as a function of the distance from
the center of the planet.

Figures (25) through (27) show plots of the

simulated density, pressure, and mass, respec-
tively, as functions of the distance from the
center of the planet for a three-layer Earth
system. The optimal values for the pressure
at the center of the planet and the radius
of the liquid layer were found to be Pi =
329.93388695 and Rcfrac = 0.498829628385.
The optimal value for the pressure is slightly
less than the interface pressure. This could be
due to a breakdown of our assumption that
Figure 27: The simulated mass of a three-layer
the pressure within the planet does not de-
Earth as a function of the distance from the cen-
pend on temperature. The equation of state
ter of the planet.
that we use does not depend on temperature
and we assumed that the interface pressure
does not depend on temperature.

6.2 Two-Layer System

6.2.1 Solid Core

Figures (28) and (29) show heatmaps of the

Figure 25: The simulated density of a three-layer
Earth as a function of the distance from the cen-
ter of the planet.
12
simulated radius and simulated mass, respec-
tively, of a two-layer Earth system with a solid
iron core. The optimal central pressure was
found to be Pi = 344.813822028 while the
optimal core radius fraction was found to be
Rcf = 0.478203042596 (as a fraction of one
Earth radius: 6.3781e8 cm). The core mass
fraction using the optimal values for central
pressure and core radius fraction was found
f
to be Cm = 0.295896.
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

Figure 28: A heatmap of the simulated radius for Figure 30: A heatmap of the simulated radius for
a two-layer Earth with a solid iron core using the a two-layer Earth with a liquid iron core using the
RK4 algorithm. RK4 algorithm.

Figure 31: A heatmap of the simulated mass for

a two-layer Earth with a liquid iron core using
Figure 29: A heatmap of the simulated mass for the RK4 algorithm.
a two-layer Earth with a solid iron core using the
RK4 algorithm.
Optimal Values for PiEarth , RcEarth
System Optimal Pi Optimal Rcfrac
Three-Layer 329.93388695 0.498829628385
Two-Layer
344.894697542 0.478306828759
(solid core)
Two-Layer
329.943254361 0.4988400716
(liquid core)
6.2.2 Liquid Core

Figures (30) and (31) show heatmaps of the

simulated radius and simulated mass, respec-
tively, of a two-layer Earth system with a liq-
uid iron core. The optimal central pressure
was found to be Pi = 330.301200929 while
the optimal core radius fraction was found to
be Rcf = 0.499405375442 (as a fraction of one
Earth radius: 6.3781e8 cm). The core mass
fraction using the optimal values for central
pressure and core radius fraction was found
f
to be Cm = 0.247954.
6.2.3 Comparing Solid Core and Liq-
uid Core Simulations
Figures (32), (33), and (34) show the differ-
ence in the results in two simulations of a two-
layer Earth. One simulation was done using
a solid iron core while the other simulation
was done using a liquid iron core. The dif-
ferences are very small with spikes just before
R = 3.186e8cm.

13
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets
Figure 32: The difference between the simulated
density of a two-layer Earth from using a solid
core and a liquid core.
Figure 33: The difference between the simulated
density of a two-layer Earth from using a solid
core and a liquid core.
Figure 34: The difference between the simulated
density of a two-layer Earth from using a solid
core and a liquid core.
6.2.4 Optimization Scheme for Simu-
lating Earth-like Planets
Using a solid core model for a two-layer Earth,
f rac
the simulated iron mass fraction (Miron ) is
0.2053749666. We use this value to simu-
late Earth-like planets with larger masses and
radii. For a given core pressure, a guess for the
Rc value is made. We optimize the Rc value to
14
Johnson Liu
get the correct iron mass fraction for a given
core pressure. If the simulated iron mass frac-
tion is off from the expected value, we make
another guess for the Rc value. When we have
the results from two simulations, we can in-
terpolate or extrapolate for our next guess for
Rc using the Rc value and iron mass fraction
from those two previous simulations.
7 Mass-Radius Diagram
The relationship between the mass and radius
of a planet is given by
R = (0.0592rmf + 0.0975)(log M )2
+ (0.2337rmf + 0.4938) log M
+ (0.3102rmf + 0.7932) , (48)
where R is the radius of the planet in units
of the radius of Earth, M is the mass of the
planet in units of the mass of the Earth, and
rmf is the rock mass fraction of the planet
[FMB07].
Figure (35) shows a mass-radius diagram
for planets made entirely out of rock and plan-
ets made entirely out of solid iron. The equa-
tion of state used for the simulations of the
planets in the diagram is the one in Equa-
tion (3). Figure (36) shows the same plot as
in Figure (35), but on a log-log scale.
Figure 35: A mass-radius diagram of rocky and
iron planets.
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

Figure 36: The mass-radius diagram from Fig- Figure 37: The Zeng, Vinet, and BME equations
ure (35) in log-log scale. of state.

8 Comparing Different
Equations of State
In addition to the Zeng equation of state
from Equation (3), the Vinet equation of state
[Sea+07] is

3 0 Figure 38: The Zeng, Vinet, and BME equations

P = 3K0 x2/3 1 − x−1/3 e 2 (K0 −1)(1−x )(49)
−1/3

of state for x ≥ 1.

and the BME equation of state [Sea+07] is

3K0 7/3
x − x5/3


P =
2 
3 0 2/3


1 + (K0 − 4) x − 1 . (50)
4

The values for K0 and K00 are given in Ta-

ble (1). Figure (37) shows the plots of the
Figure 39: The mass-radius diagrams for iron
three equations of state. The plots are very
planets using the Zeng, Vinet, and BME equa-
similar. Figure (38) shows the same plots for
tions of state.
x ≥ 1. Figure (39) shows the mass-radius di-
agrams from the iron planet simulations using
the Zeng, Vinet, and BME equations of state.
Figure (40) shows the same mass-radius dia-
grams, but on a log-log scale.

Variable Zeng Vinet BME

K0 (GPa) 255 156.2 162.5
K00 – 6.08 5.5
ρ0 (g/cm) 7.85 8.3 7.86
Figure 40: The same mass-radius diagrams as in
Table 1: The values for K0 , K00 , and ρ0 for the Figure (39), but on a log-log scale.
Zeng, Vinet, and BME equations of state.
15
Modeling the Interior of Exoplanets Johnson Liu

9 Mass-Radius Diagram
of Planets with an
Earth-like Composition

Figure 41: Radius versus mass diagram for plan-

ets with an Earth-like composition.
References
[FMB07] J. J. Fortney, M. S. Marley, and
J. W. Barnes. “Planetary Radii
Across Five Orders of Magnitude
in Mass and Stellar Insolation:
Application to Transits”. In: The
Astrophysical Journal 659 (2007),
pp. 1661–1672. doi: 10 . 1086 /
512120.
[Sea+07] S. Seager et al. “Mass-Radius Re-
lationships for Solid Exoplanets”.
In: The Astrophysical Journal 669
(2007), pp. 1279–1297. doi: 10 .
1086/521346.
[ZSJ16] Li Zeng, Dimitar Sasselov, and
Stein Jacobsen. “Mass-Radius Re-
lation for Rocky Planets based
on PREM”. In: The Astrophysical
Journal 819 (2016), p. 127. doi:
10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/127.

16