EGU25-8720, updated on 14 Mar 2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-8720
EGU General Assembly 2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Planetary Interior Modeling Using Synthetic Gravity Simulator
Edoardo Santero Mormile1,2 and Giuseppe Mitri2
Edoardo Santero Mormile and Giuseppe Mitri
  • 1Università di Trento, Physics, Italy (e.santeromormile@unitn.it)
  • 2Università "G. d'Annunzio", Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Geologia, Pescara, Italy (edoardo.santeromormile@phd.unich.it, giuseppe.mitri@unich.it)

Gravity inversion techniques enable the characterisation of the internal mass distribution of planetary bodies by combining data from their shape, gravity, and rotation. However, the inherent ambiguity in scalar gravity signals, specifically, between mass and depth, poses a significant challenge for inferring internal structure. In this work, we introduce a novel approach leveraging the spherical harmonics framework described in [1], in particular, the gravitational harmonics coefficients [Cnm, Snm]. Starting with a simplified interior structure (assuming homogeneous layers), interior model parameters are the number of layers, average layer thickness, average layer density, and the topography of layer interfaces (if present). Regarding the latter, in cases where Bouguer anomalies are available, the mantle-crust interface topography can be inferred using a filtering approach, as proposed in [2]. Notably, this method does not rely on assumptions of isostatic compensation but requires careful selection of the filtering parameters. From these parameters. the spherical harmonics coefficients for each layer and the global ones are computed (see [1]). From these coefficients, key quantities such as gravitational potential, Free-Air anomalies, and Bouguer anomaly maps are evaluated and then compared to space measurements, measuring the model performance by different metrics (e.g. RMSE, structural similarity index, Pearson correlation coefficient). By varying model parameters randomly within physically constrained ranges (e.g. by mass conservation, moment of inertia and observed shape), this process is repeated iteratively. The parameter combination minimizing the performance metrics between modelled and observed data represents the best-fit internal structure. This approach is robust and flexible at the same time, being able to accommodate diverse celestial bodies with a wide variety of planetary shapes, internal configurations, and gravitational data sets and to objectively identify the optimal parameter configuration. This method is benchmarked on Mercury [3], resulting in a mantle-crust interface at ~28 km depth and a mantle density of 3210 [kg/m3], consistent with existing literature (see [4]). Furthermore, this procedure can be used to compute the expected gravity signal from unknown bodies targeted by the upcoming missions and instruments (e.g. Ganymede for JUICE), test different theoric interior models, and obtain their gravitational response.

Acknowledgements: ESM and GM acknowledge support from the Italian Space Agency (2022-16-HH.1-2024). This paper and related research have been conducted during and with the support of the Italian national inter-university PhD programme in Space Science and Technology.

References: [1] M. A. Wieczorek, ‘Gravity and Topography of the Terrestrial Planets’, in Treatise on Geophysics, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 153–193. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00169-X.[2] M. A. Wieczorek and R. J. Phillips, ‘Potential anomalies on a sphere: Applications to the thickness of the lunar crust’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 103, no. E1, pp. 1715–1724, 1998, doi: 10.1029/97JE03136.[3] A. Genova et al., Regional variations of Mercury’s crustal density and porosity from MESSENGER gravity data, Icarus, vol. 391, p. 115332, Feb. 2023.[4] S. Buoninfante, M. Milano, B. Negri et al. ‘Gravity evidence for a heterogeneous crust of Mercury’. Sci Rep 13, 19854 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46081-4

How to cite: Santero Mormile, E. and Mitri, G.: Planetary Interior Modeling Using Synthetic Gravity Simulator, EGU General Assembly 2025, Vienna, Austria, 27 Apr–2 May 2025, EGU25-8720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-8720, 2025.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material file

Comments on the supplementary material

AC: Author Comment | CC: Community Comment | Report abuse

supplementary materials version 1 – uploaded on 26 Apr 2025
  • CC1: Comment on EGU25-8720, Haifeng Xiao, 29 Apr 2025

    Hi Edoardo, nice poster! I wonder does that mean you already have an estimate of the size of the inner core of Mercury (for the four-layer model) and it is quite large? Thanks. From Haifeng.   

    • AC1: Reply to CC1, Edoardo Santero Mormile, 29 Apr 2025

      The method is potentially able to do it; however, in this case, the estimate of the inner core parameters for the 4-layer Mercury model is not reliable.
      This is related to the fact that the inner core layer interface (with the following outer core) is a perfect sphere, so, gravitationally speaking, it is not visible, i.e. the gravitational signal is equals to 0 (other than its contribution to degrees 0 and 1). Due to this, as you can see on the poster, the inner core is trying to push its radius as high as possible, while the outer core is doing the opposite. Furthermore, the density difference between the two is quite "low", despite the supposed fundamental state difference (solid vs liquid). These results suggest that, for this configuration of the inner and outer core layers, the method is not able to distinguish correctly between them and in the end it results in a sort of single layer (an overall bulk core).
      If we consider an interface topography between the inner and outer core, in that case, the method could find a disentanglement and so a reliable estimate of the inner core parameters.

      • CC2: Reply to AC1, Haifeng Xiao, 29 Apr 2025

        Thanks for the explanation, looking forward to your upcoming progress!