-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
R Myhill, The SPOCK equation of state for condensed phases under arbitrary compression, Geophysical Journal International, Volume 241, Issue 2, May 2025, Pages 934–940, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaf082
- Share Icon Share
SUMMARY
This short paper presents a new equation of state for condensed phases. The equation of state is built on the premise that
1 INTRODUCTION
There are many ways to construct equations of state. Many of the early equations of state were derived from simple models for atomic potentials as a function of interatomic separations. Such equations include the Morse (1929) equation of state used by Slater (1939), and the Rydberg (1932) equation of state rederived by Vinet et al. (1987) and modified by Holzapfel (1998). Other equations of state were derived using Taylor expansions of the internal energy in terms of finite strain. These include the popular second, third and fourth order Birch–Murnaghan equations of state (Murnaghan 1937; Birch 1947), expanded as a Taylor series in Eulerian strain (
A particular challenge when building equations of state is that it is difficult to obtain a simple expression that simultaneously satisfies all the physical and thermodynamic constraints and has the flexibility to fit experimental or computational data. Good experimental data over experimentally feasible ranges of compression (
2 THE SPOCK EQUATION OF STATE
2.1 Desired properties
Any equation of state should ideally satisfy a number of physical, empirical and pragmatic requirements. Physical constraints include the requirement that bulk modulus K should be positive for all volumes (e.g. Lozano & Aslam 2022). In the absence of phase, spin or structural transitions, K should decrease monotonically as a function of volume, and approach zero at infinite volume. The bulk modulus should also be differentiable with respect to volume. Finally,
Favourable characteristics of different equations of state for physically reasonable parameter values. Equations of state are Rydberg–Vinet (Rydberg 1932; Vinet et al. 1987), Birch–Murnaghan of orders 3 and 4 (BM3, BM4; Birch 1947), Modified Tait (MT; Huang & Chow 1974), Reciprocal K-prime (RK; Stacey 2000), MACAW (Lozano & Aslam 2022) and SPOCK (this study).
. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | Yes | – | – | – | Yes |
BM3 | If | – | – | – | – |
BM4 | Not guaranteed | – | – | Yes | – |
Modified Tait | Not guaranteed | Yes | – | Yes | – |
RK | Yes | – | Yes | – | Yes |
MACAW | Yes | Yes | Yes | – | If |
SPOCK | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | Yes | – | – | – | Yes |
BM3 | If | – | – | – | – |
BM4 | Not guaranteed | – | – | Yes | – |
Modified Tait | Not guaranteed | Yes | – | Yes | – |
RK | Yes | – | Yes | – | Yes |
MACAW | Yes | Yes | Yes | – | If |
SPOCK | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Favourable characteristics of different equations of state for physically reasonable parameter values. Equations of state are Rydberg–Vinet (Rydberg 1932; Vinet et al. 1987), Birch–Murnaghan of orders 3 and 4 (BM3, BM4; Birch 1947), Modified Tait (MT; Huang & Chow 1974), Reciprocal K-prime (RK; Stacey 2000), MACAW (Lozano & Aslam 2022) and SPOCK (this study).
. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | Yes | – | – | – | Yes |
BM3 | If | – | – | – | – |
BM4 | Not guaranteed | – | – | Yes | – |
Modified Tait | Not guaranteed | Yes | – | Yes | – |
RK | Yes | – | Yes | – | Yes |
MACAW | Yes | Yes | Yes | – | If |
SPOCK | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | Yes | – | – | – | Yes |
BM3 | If | – | – | – | – |
BM4 | Not guaranteed | – | – | Yes | – |
Modified Tait | Not guaranteed | Yes | – | Yes | – |
RK | Yes | – | Yes | – | Yes |
MACAW | Yes | Yes | Yes | – | If |
SPOCK | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
To place all of these physical requirements on a mathematical basis, we define the following thermodynamic identities:
where
The empirical requirement for equations of state is that they should be able to accurately represent available experimental data with a minimal number of physically meaningful parameters. Most importantly, it should be possible to fit the observed standard state volume
2.2 Derivation
Given the important role played by
The parameters a, b and c can be related to standard state properties:
where we have used eq. (4) in the expression for a. Combining eq. (4) with eq. (8) implies that
The bulk modulus (eq. 3) can be found by integrating and exponentiating eq. (8):
To find an expression for the pressure (eq. 2), let
For positive a, b, c and u:
where
The incomplete gamma function has been implemented as part of many commonly used computational libraries (e.g. BOOST, scipy, mpmath), and can also be implemented in Excel (see Data Availability statement). Using the incomplete gamma function, the change in pressure (eq. 18) can be expressed as:
Finally the change in internal energy is given by (eq. 1):
By letting
where
2.3 Constraints and heuristics
The SPOCK equation of state has one or two more free parameters than most equations of state, and limited data may not be able to independently constrain all five parameters. For this reason, it is useful to provide heuristics that can be used as weak priors during model fitting.
2.3.1
The SPOCK equation of state requires that
2.3.2
A negative value for
A more flexible constraint is to assume that
The Holland & Powell (2011) heuristic satisfies this inequality. Enforcing eq. (32) limits the magnitude of the first argument (
and when
These limits are computationally beneficial because evaluating the incomplete gamma function with negative
By precluding large negative values of
3 EXAMPLES AND COMPARISON WITH OTHER EQUATIONS OF STATE
In the following sections, the SPOCK equation of state is directly compared with the Rydberg–Vinet (Rydberg 1932; Vinet et al. 1987), Birch–Murnaghan (BM3, BM4; Birch 1947), Modified Tait (MT; Huang & Chow 1974), Reciprocal K-prime (RK; Stacey 2000), and Murnaghan combined with the Walsh mirror-image (MACAW; Lozano & Aslam 2022) equations of state. None of these equations have as many adjustable parameters as the SPOCK equation of state, and so for these the other parameters are implicitly defined. For example,
where functions for A, B and C in terms of
3.1 Platinum
Equation of state parameter values for Pt have been optimized using the high pressure experimental data from Fratanduono et al. (2021) (Table 2). A graphical comparison between each equation of state and the experimental data is provided (Fig. 1).

(a) Volumes and (b) bulk moduli for Pt using different equations of state (abbreviations as in Table 1). Differences between model and observed values are given in panels (c) and (d). Parameters for each equation of state are fitted to the isothermal Pt data of Fratanduono et al. (2021). The bulk moduli data have been estimated from the gradient of the pressure with respect to the volume. Weighted sum of squared residuals (WSS) for each model are shown in the legend of panel (a).
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg-Vinet | 9.0943(5) | 256.9(3) | 5.893(5) | – | – | – | 0.63 |
BM3 | 9.0880(18) | 266.9(11) | 5.38(2) | – | – | – | 9.20 |
BM4 | 9.0958(3) | 254.5(3) | 6.023(13) | – | −4.85(5) | 12.3 | 0.26 |
Modified Tait | 9.0936(5) | 259.8(4) | 5.525(15) | – | −1.98(3) | 5.1 | 0.50 |
RK | 9.0976(6) | 249.4(6) | 6.64(4) | 2.77(3) | – | – | 0.84 |
MACAW | 9.0948(3) | 257.2(3) | 5.731(10) | 2.578(11) | – | – | 0.26 |
SPOCK | 9.0951(4) | 256.5(5) | 5.79(3) | 2.42(15) | −3.12(15) | 8.0 | 0.25 |
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg-Vinet | 9.0943(5) | 256.9(3) | 5.893(5) | – | – | – | 0.63 |
BM3 | 9.0880(18) | 266.9(11) | 5.38(2) | – | – | – | 9.20 |
BM4 | 9.0958(3) | 254.5(3) | 6.023(13) | – | −4.85(5) | 12.3 | 0.26 |
Modified Tait | 9.0936(5) | 259.8(4) | 5.525(15) | – | −1.98(3) | 5.1 | 0.50 |
RK | 9.0976(6) | 249.4(6) | 6.64(4) | 2.77(3) | – | – | 0.84 |
MACAW | 9.0948(3) | 257.2(3) | 5.731(10) | 2.578(11) | – | – | 0.26 |
SPOCK | 9.0951(4) | 256.5(5) | 5.79(3) | 2.42(15) | −3.12(15) | 8.0 | 0.25 |
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg-Vinet | 9.0943(5) | 256.9(3) | 5.893(5) | – | – | – | 0.63 |
BM3 | 9.0880(18) | 266.9(11) | 5.38(2) | – | – | – | 9.20 |
BM4 | 9.0958(3) | 254.5(3) | 6.023(13) | – | −4.85(5) | 12.3 | 0.26 |
Modified Tait | 9.0936(5) | 259.8(4) | 5.525(15) | – | −1.98(3) | 5.1 | 0.50 |
RK | 9.0976(6) | 249.4(6) | 6.64(4) | 2.77(3) | – | – | 0.84 |
MACAW | 9.0948(3) | 257.2(3) | 5.731(10) | 2.578(11) | – | – | 0.26 |
SPOCK | 9.0951(4) | 256.5(5) | 5.79(3) | 2.42(15) | −3.12(15) | 8.0 | 0.25 |
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg-Vinet | 9.0943(5) | 256.9(3) | 5.893(5) | – | – | – | 0.63 |
BM3 | 9.0880(18) | 266.9(11) | 5.38(2) | – | – | – | 9.20 |
BM4 | 9.0958(3) | 254.5(3) | 6.023(13) | – | −4.85(5) | 12.3 | 0.26 |
Modified Tait | 9.0936(5) | 259.8(4) | 5.525(15) | – | −1.98(3) | 5.1 | 0.50 |
RK | 9.0976(6) | 249.4(6) | 6.64(4) | 2.77(3) | – | – | 0.84 |
MACAW | 9.0948(3) | 257.2(3) | 5.731(10) | 2.578(11) | – | – | 0.26 |
SPOCK | 9.0951(4) | 256.5(5) | 5.79(3) | 2.42(15) | −3.12(15) | 8.0 | 0.25 |
For this equation of state, all evaluated equations of state perform acceptably, apart from the BM3 equation of state, which has a WSS residuals of 9.20. As expected, the three-parameter Rydberg–Vinet equation of state has a higher WSS residual than most of the four parameter equations (BM4, MT, MACAW). The four parameter RK equation of state performs slightly less well than any of these. The five parameter SPOCK equation of state slightly outperforms all other equations of state. For this data set, there is little to differentiate between MACAW and SPOCK; BM4 and MT have slightly larger residuals at low pressure (Fig. 1c).
The variation in parameter values between models is about ten times larger than the formal uncertainties. Ignoring the BM3 fit, the range of estimated
3.2 Gold
Equation of state parameter values for Au have been optimized using the high-pressure experimental data from Fratanduono et al. (2021) (Table 3). A graphical comparison between each equation of state and the experimental data is provided (Fig. 2).

(a) Volumes and (b) bulk moduli for Au using different equations of state (abbreviations as in Table 1). Differences between model and observed values are given in panels (c) and (d). Parameters for each equation of state are fitted to the isothermal Au data of Fratanduono et al. (2021). The bulk moduli data have been estimated from the gradient of the pressure with respect to the volume. Weighted sum of squared residuals (WSS) for each model are shown in the legend of panel (a).
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | 10.183(2) | 167.3(6) | 5.999(14) | – | – | – | 12.29 |
BM3 | 10.171(4) | 177.7(13) | 5.33(3) | – | – | – | 59.06 |
BM4 | 10.1926(10) | 159.8(4) | 6.52(3) | – | −9.97(17) | 15.9 | 2.40 |
Modified Tait | 10.1887(15) | 165.1(7) | 5.80(3) | – | −3.51(11) | 5.8 | 6.24 |
RK | 10.1984(6) | 151.9(4) | 7.84(4) | 2.15(2) | – | – | 1.07 |
MACAW | 10.1912(10) | 162.3(4) | 6.092(19) | 2.420(15) | – | – | 2.64 |
SPOCK | 10.1959(5) | 156.6(4) | 6.76(4) | 2.97(3) | −10.0(3) | 15.6 | 0.59 |
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | 10.183(2) | 167.3(6) | 5.999(14) | – | – | – | 12.29 |
BM3 | 10.171(4) | 177.7(13) | 5.33(3) | – | – | – | 59.06 |
BM4 | 10.1926(10) | 159.8(4) | 6.52(3) | – | −9.97(17) | 15.9 | 2.40 |
Modified Tait | 10.1887(15) | 165.1(7) | 5.80(3) | – | −3.51(11) | 5.8 | 6.24 |
RK | 10.1984(6) | 151.9(4) | 7.84(4) | 2.15(2) | – | – | 1.07 |
MACAW | 10.1912(10) | 162.3(4) | 6.092(19) | 2.420(15) | – | – | 2.64 |
SPOCK | 10.1959(5) | 156.6(4) | 6.76(4) | 2.97(3) | −10.0(3) | 15.6 | 0.59 |
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | 10.183(2) | 167.3(6) | 5.999(14) | – | – | – | 12.29 |
BM3 | 10.171(4) | 177.7(13) | 5.33(3) | – | – | – | 59.06 |
BM4 | 10.1926(10) | 159.8(4) | 6.52(3) | – | −9.97(17) | 15.9 | 2.40 |
Modified Tait | 10.1887(15) | 165.1(7) | 5.80(3) | – | −3.51(11) | 5.8 | 6.24 |
RK | 10.1984(6) | 151.9(4) | 7.84(4) | 2.15(2) | – | – | 1.07 |
MACAW | 10.1912(10) | 162.3(4) | 6.092(19) | 2.420(15) | – | – | 2.64 |
SPOCK | 10.1959(5) | 156.6(4) | 6.76(4) | 2.97(3) | −10.0(3) | 15.6 | 0.59 |
. | WSS . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rydberg–Vinet | 10.183(2) | 167.3(6) | 5.999(14) | – | – | – | 12.29 |
BM3 | 10.171(4) | 177.7(13) | 5.33(3) | – | – | – | 59.06 |
BM4 | 10.1926(10) | 159.8(4) | 6.52(3) | – | −9.97(17) | 15.9 | 2.40 |
Modified Tait | 10.1887(15) | 165.1(7) | 5.80(3) | – | −3.51(11) | 5.8 | 6.24 |
RK | 10.1984(6) | 151.9(4) | 7.84(4) | 2.15(2) | – | – | 1.07 |
MACAW | 10.1912(10) | 162.3(4) | 6.092(19) | 2.420(15) | – | – | 2.64 |
SPOCK | 10.1959(5) | 156.6(4) | 6.76(4) | 2.97(3) | −10.0(3) | 15.6 | 0.59 |
The WSS residuals for the Au models are significantly higher than they were for Pt. The three-parameter models (Vinet, BM3) perform poorly, the four-parameter models (BM4, Modified Tait, RK, MACAW) have WSS residuals of 1–10, and the SPOCK equation of state has a WSS residual of 0.6. Similar to the Pt models, parameter variation between models is about ten times greater than formal uncertainties. The volume residuals between the data and the RK and SPOCK equations of state at
At first glance, the good performance of the Reciprocal K-prime (RK) equation of state relative to the BM4 and MT equations is surprising. How can an equation of state that constrains
Fig. 3 illustrates the differences between the different equations of state by assuming the same parameter values as those optimized for the SPOCK equation of state (last line of Table 3). Particularly prominent in all subfigures are the failures of the BM4 and MT equations of state at extreme compression noted in Table 1. Also notable are the failures of the Vinet, BM3, BM4 and RK equations of state in tension (Fig. 3b). The RK equation of state performs particularly poorly in tension, despite showing promising behaviour at positive compressions (Fig. 2).
Both MACAW and SPOCK are robust equations of state at all volumes, but their responses are quite different. Notably, the magnitude of
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The SPOCK equation of state can accurately reproduce experimental data to extreme pressure. It exhibits robust behaviour both in compression and in tension, properties required by the underlying physics of compression in compact media (Stacey 2000; Lozano & Aslam 2022). It allows the user to fit
One limitation of the new equation of state is its reliance on the incomplete gamma function, which is expensive to evaluate relative to (for example) the exponential function. Even in applications where the calculation cost precludes direct use of the SPOCK equation of state, it could remain useful for initial calibration to experimental data. A secondary fitting step could then convert the SPOCK calibration to a cheaper approximation using splines, Chebyshev polynomials, or machine-learning models. This two-stage calibration would enable generation of realistic equations of state with many parameters while avoiding overfitting.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (Large Grant MC-squared; Award No. NE/T012633/1) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (Grant No. ST/R001332/1).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Eduardo Lozano and Jesse Walters for their careful reviews of this paper, and Tobias Keller for his editorial handling. Any mistakes or oversights are my own.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Equation of state fitting and all the figures in this study were produced using the BurnMan Python package (Myhill et al. 2023, 2024), and are provided as contributions to that package at https://github.com/geodynamics/burnman. An excel spreadsheet implementing the SPOCK EoS can be found in the contrib directory of that repository.