Models of Jupiter's growth incorporating thermal and hydrodynamic constraints

By Jack J. Lissauer, O. Hubickyj, G. D’Angelo, P. Bodenheimer. 2008

228 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We model the growth of Jupiter via core nucleated accretion, applying constraints from hydrodynamical processes that result from the disk{planet interaction. We compute the planet’s internal structure using a well tested planetary formation code that is based upon a Henyey-type stellar evolution code. The planet’s interactions with the protoplanetary disk are calculated using 3-D hydrodynamic simulations. Previous models of Jupiter’s growth have taken the radius of the planet to be approximately one Hill sphere radius, RH. However, 3-D hydrodynamic simulations show that only gas within 0:25RH remains bound to the planet, with the more distant gas eventually participating in the shear ow of the protoplanetary disk. Therefore in our new simulations, the planet’s outer boundary is placed at the location where gas has the thermal energy to reach the portion of the ow not bound to the planet. We nd that the smaller radius increases the time required for planetary growth by 5%. Thermal pressure limits the rate at which a planet less than a few dozen times as massive as Earth can accumulate gas from the protoplanetary disk, whereas hydrodynamics regulates the growth rate for more massive planets. Within a moderately viscous disk, the accretion rate peaks when the planet’s mass is about equal to the mass of Saturn. In a less viscous disk hydrodynamical limits to accretion are smaller, and the accretion rate peaks at lower mass. Observations suggest that the typical lifetime of massive disks around young stellar objects is 3 Myr. To account for the dissipation of such disks, we perform some of our simulations of Jupiter’s growth within a disk whose surface gas density decreases on this timescale. In all of the cases that we simulate, the planet’s eective radiating temperature rises to well above 1000 K soon after hydrodynamic limits begin to control the rate of gas accretion and the planet’s distended envelope begins to contract. According to our simulations, proto-Jupiter’s distended and thermally-supported envelope was too small to capture the planet’s current retinue of irregular satellites as advocated by Pollack et al. [Pollack, J.B., Burns, J.A., Tauber, M.E., 1979. Icarus 37, 587{611]. Subject headings: Jovian planets; Jupiter, interior; Accretion; Planetary formation; Planet-disk interaction

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c7fd5cd8d552992e45fabeecd5e5b4150f770280

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. Jon Fortney
2. D. Charbonneau
3. Timothy Morton
4. G. Marcy
5. J. Johnson
6. C. Mordasini
7. Andrew W. Howard
8. J. Winn

Citations in the corpus

• Gravitational Instabilities in Circumstellar Disks (2016, background): “Lissauer et al. (2009) found in numerical simulations that gaps roughly 5RH in width are capable of entirely shutting off accretion.”
• MAKE SUPER-EARTHS, NOT JUPITERS: ACCRETING NEBULAR GAS ONTO SOLID CORES AT 0.1 AU AND BEYOND (2014, methodology): “Lissauer et al. (2009) employ 3D hydrodynamic simulations of planets embedded in viscous disks to argue that Rout should range between RH/4 and RB (their equation 3).”
• THE IMPRINT OF EXOPLANET FORMATION HISTORY ON OBSERVABLE PRESENT-DAY SPECTRA OF HOT JUPITERS (2016, background): “During the early formation the proto-planet is in the attached phase, so that its radius is approximately the smaller of the accretion radius and one third of the Hill sphere radius (Lissauer et al. 2009).”
• Characterization of exoplanets from their formation - I. Models of combined planet formation and evolution (2012, methodology): “As found by hydrodynamic simulations by Lissauer et al. (2009), only the inner part of the material inside the planet’s Roche lobe is permanently bound to the envelope of the planet, while the upper part participates in the general gas flow in the protoplanetary disk.”
• FORMATION AND STRUCTURE OF LOW-DENSITY EXO-NEPTUNES (2011, background): “Three-dimensional calculations of disk-planet interaction (Lissauer et al. 2009) gave the result that not all the gas passing through the Hill sphere is actually accreted by the planet; some of it simply flows through and rejoins the disk’s azimuthal motion.”
• Extrasolar planet population synthesis - IV. Correlations with disk metallicity, mass, and lifetime (2012, background): “It is clear that such a simple fit can only be a rough approximation of the real effect and that e.g. disk viscosity also has an influence on the degree of quenching of gas accretion (Lissauer et al. 2009).”
• THE MASS–METALLICITY RELATION FOR GIANT PLANETS (2015, background): “However, for a plausible scenario, we may again appeal to studies of Jupiter formation, which suggest that the planet’s final mass is determined by the mass at which the planet truncates gas accretion by opening a large gap in the disk (e.g., Lissauer et al. 2009).”
• Characterization of exoplanets from their formation - II. The planetary mass-radius relationship (2012, result): “We put special emphasis on the comparison of our results with those of other models of planet formation and evolution like Burrows et al. (1997), Baraffe et al. (2003), Fortney et al. (2007) or Lissauer et al. (2009).”
• SPECTRAL AND PHOTOMETRIC DIAGNOSTICS OF GIANT PLANET FORMATION SCENARIOS (2011, unknown): “Core-accretion simulations of the formation of Jupiter by Pollack et al. (1996) and Lissauer et al. (2009) indicate that the formation timescale depends sensitively on the areal surface density (σinit) of the protoplanetary disk.”
• FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF KEPLER PLANET-CANDIDATE HOST STARS USING ASTEROSEISMOLOGY (2013, unknown): “…the cores of gas giants is the core-accretion model, a slow process involving the collision of planetesimals (Safronov & Zvjagina 1969), with giant planets growing massive enough to gravitationally trap light gases (Mizuno 1980; Pollack et al. 1996; Lissauer et al. 2009; Movshovitz et al. 2010).”
• A dynamically-packed planetary system around GJ 667C with three super-Earths in its habitable zone (2013, background): “Modeling of gas accretion has found that planets smaller than 1M⊕ can accrete hydrogen in certain circumstances (Ikoma et al. 2001), but the criticalm ss is likely larger (Lissauer et al. 2009).”
• THE RUNTS OF THE LITTER: WHY PLANETS FORMED THROUGH GRAVITATIONAL INSTABILITY CAN ONLY BE FAILED BINARY STARS (2009, methodology): “Terminating accretion is an unsolved problem for Jupiter in our own solar system, and so to provide a further constraint on fS , we refer to the numerical simulations of Lissauer et al. (2009) (See also D’Angelo et al. (2003) for a detailed explanation of the numerical work).”
• PLANET OCCURRENCE WITHIN 0.25 AU OF SOLAR-TYPE STARS FROM KEPLER (2011, background): “Rocky composition for the smallest planets supports the core-accretion model of planet formation (Pollack et al. 1996; Lissauer et al. 2009; Movshovitz et al. 2010).”
• Forming Planetesimals in Solar and Extrasolar Nebulae (2009, background): “Current models set the formation of solar system giant planets within a disk with more solids, and sometimes more gas, than the MMSN. Goldreich et al. (2004) identify Neptune and Uranus with “isolation-mass” oligarchs at r ≈ 20–30 AU, requiring FZrel ≈ 6.1 Lissauer et al. (2009) prefer FZrel ≈ 3.5 a”
• THE EFFECTS OF SNOWLINES ON C/O IN PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES (2011, background): “…that the snowlines are static, which is justified by the long timescales at which disk midplane temperatures change in disks older than 106 years (when gas giants are proposed to form) compared to the 105 year timescales of runaway gasaccretion (Lissauer et al. 2009; Dodson-Robinson et al. 2009).”
• The minimum-mass extrasolar nebula: in situ formation of close-in super-Earths (2012, background): “…also help to form distant gas and ice giants — for a theoretical perspective, see the diskmass enhancement factors invoked to form Jupiter (e.g., Lissauer et al. 2009) and Uranus and Neptune (e.g., Goldreich et al. 2004), and for an observational view, see the microlensing surveys which…”
• Origin of water in the inner Solar System: Planetesimals scattered inward during Jupiter and Saturn's rapid gas accretion (2017, background): “This neglects the more complex growth curve envisioned by the core accretion model, in which a core’s growth proceeds slowly until runaway gas accretion is triggered, and a slower tail of growth after the planet carves a gap in the disk (Pollack et al., 1996; Ikoma et al., 2000; Rice and Armitage, 2”