Post on 08-Sep-2019
transcript
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
1
Métodos semiempíricosModelización Molecular
Antonio M. Márquez
MASTER OFICIAL
ESTUDIOS AVANZADOS EN QUÍMICA
Departamento de Química FísicaUniversidad de Sevilla
Curso 2019/20
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 1 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
2
Contenidos del tema
1 Introduction
2 CNDO formalism
3 INDO formalism
4 NDDO formalism
5 Benefits and shortcomings
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 2 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
3
Introduction
1 Introduction
2 CNDO formalism
3 INDO formalism
4 NDDO formalism
5 Benefits and shortcomings
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 3 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
4
Introduction
Objectives
Reduce high computational cost of ab initio calculations whilekeeping a reasonable accuracyEstimate value of 2e-integrals without performing the actualcalculation
Sµν = 〈χµ | χν〉hµν = 〈χµ | h | χν〉
Fµν = hµν +all AO∑λσ
Dλσ [ (µν | λσ)− (µλ | νσ) ]
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 4 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
5
Introduction
General approximations
Fµν = hµν +all AO∑λσ
Dλσ [ (µν | λσ)− (µλ | νσ) ]
2e-integrals tend to zero when the atoms are far apart1st approximation: assume 2e-integrals to be zeroUse only valence electronsUse Slater orbitals as basis set
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 5 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
6
CNDO formalism
1 Introduction
2 CNDO formalism
3 INDO formalism
4 NDDO formalism
5 Benefits and shortcomings
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 6 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
7
CNDO formalism
CNDOComplete Neglect of Differential Overlap
Sµν = δµν
(µν | λσ) = δµνδλσ(µµ | λλ) = γAB
γAA = IPA − EAA
γAB =γAA + γBB
2 + rAB(γAA + γBB)
hµµ = −IPµ −∑
k
(Zk − δZAZk
)γAk
hµν = βABSµν =(βA + βB)
2Sµν
Note: in this last expression S is the actual overlap matrix and β are semiempírical parameters
Minor modifications: CNDO/2, CNDO/3, CNDO/BW, PPP, . . .
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 7 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
8
CNDO formalism
CNDOMain drawbacks
No geometry optimizations and p orbitals treated as equivalent when computing γAB
Failure to distinguish one-center cases between different orbitalsFailure to distinguish different orbitals orientations
These methods are obsolete now
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 8 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
9
INDO formalism
1 Introduction
2 CNDO formalism
3 INDO formalism
4 NDDO formalism
5 Benefits and shortcomings
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 9 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
10
INDO formalism
INDOIntermediate Neglect of Differential Overlap
More flexible handling of 2e-interactions on the same centerMotivated to model spectroscopic (vis-uv) transitions
(ss | ss) = Gss (ss | pp) = Gsp
(pp | pp) = Gpp (pp | p′p′) = Gpp′
(sp | sp) = Lsp
Many more parameters should be added if d orbitals are present
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 10 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
11
INDO formalism
INDODrawbacks and potentialities
Predicted geometries are rather poorConsiderable potential for modeling vis-us spectroscopyINDO/S parametrization very succesful for d → d transitions inTM complexesLess useful for transitions not localized to a single center(i.e. M→L or L→M)
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 11 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
12
INDO formalism
Modified INDO models
Mike J. S. Dewar goal
a parameter set as robust as possible across the widest set of systems(at the time -1970’s- organic chemistry and a few inorganic compoundsincluding 2nd and 3rd row elements)
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 12 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
13
INDO formalism
MINDO/3 parametrization
Includes geometry optimizationSeparated s and p STOs on the same atomβAB are not averages of atomic parametersDifferent functional form for γAB
Empirical modifications to the nuclear repulsion energy
Every parameter was treated as a free variable suibject only to chemicalrestraints (they should be physically realistic)
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 13 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
14
INDO formalism
MINDO/3 Performance
Reports energies and heat of formation
Magnitude Mean absolute error
Heat of formation 11 kcal/molIonization potential 0.7 eVBond lengths 0.022 ÅDipole moments 0.45 D
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 14 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
15
NDDO formalism
1 Introduction
2 CNDO formalism
3 INDO formalism
4 NDDO formalism
5 Benefits and shortcomings
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 15 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
16
NDDO formalism
NDDO basicsNeglect of diatomic differential overlap
Relax constraints on 2-center 2e-integralsAll (µAνA | λBσB) integrals are retainedNumber of distinct integrals increase to 2025 (including d orbitals)Still much less effort than evaluate all possible integralsMost modern semiempirical models are NDDO
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 16 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
17
NDDO formalism
MNDOModified Neglect of Diatomic Overlap
Dewar and Thiel (1977)Atomic parametrization (up to 12 parameters per atom)H, B-F, Al-Cl, Zn, Ge, Br, Sn, I, Hg y Pb only s-p orbitalsMNDO/d adds d-orbitals - hypervalent sulphur and transitionmetalsInability to describe hydrogen bonds; poor reliability in predictingheats of formation; highly substituted steroisomers are predictedtoo unstable compared to linear isomers due to overestimation ofsteric repulsions.
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 17 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
18
NDDO formalism
AM1Austin Model 1
Dewar et al. (1985)H, B-F, Al-Cl, Zn, Ge, Br, I y HgUses a modified expression for core-core repulsion and newparametrizationAllows for some description of the hydrogen bond and improvesheats of formation
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 18 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
19
NDDO formalism
MNDO-PM3, PM3Parametric Method Number 3
James P. Stewart (1989)H, Li, C-F, Mg-Cl, Zn-Br, Cd-I, Hg-AtParametrized to reproduce large number of molecular propertiesBetter description of hydrogen bond but unphysicalhydrogen-hydrogen attraction in other casesProblems when analyzing molecular interactionsBetter Thermochemistry than AM1
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 19 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
20
NDDO formalism
PM6Parametric Method Number 6
Careful examination of experimental data to ensure quality andconsistencyUse of ab initio/DFT results when there are no experimental dataCorrection of the core-core repulsion functionNew methods for computing 1- and 2-center integrals for TMs
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 20 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
21
Benefits and shortcomings
1 Introduction
2 CNDO formalism
3 INDO formalism
4 NDDO formalism
5 Benefits and shortcomings
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 21 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
22
Benefits and shortcomings
Benefits and shortcomings
Effort grows as O(N3) - Fock matrix diagonalizationPresent limit ∼ 10000 atoms ∼ 100000 basis functionsReasonable results for systems related to those used in theparametrization; results unpredictable in other casesUse to understand and rationalize experimental results
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 22 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
23
Benefits and shortcomings
Usage limits (I)
The following limitations should always be kept in mindErrors are, in general, more systematic in ab initio or DFT levels.Errors in semiempirical methods are less uniform and thus harderto correct.The observed accuracy may be different for different classes ofcompounds, and there are elements that are more ”difficult” thanothers.Semiempirical methods can only be applied to moleculescontaining elements that have been parametrized.
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 23 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
24
Benefits and shortcomings
Usage limits (II)
The following limitations should always be kept in mindParametrization require reliable experimental or theoreticalreference data.Different parametrizations of a given semiempirical model may berequired for different properties.There is no systematic way for improving results.There is no implicit procedure to judge the quality of results.
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 24 / 26
Métodossemiempíricos
marquez@us.es
25
Benefits and shortcomings
Accuracy
Average Unsigned Error in Semiempirical Predictions
Quantity PM6 PM3 AM1 Units
∆Hf 8.01 18.20 22.86 kcal/molr 0.091 0.104 0.130 Åα 7.86 8.50 8.77 degreesµ 0.85 0.72 0.67 DebyeI.P.s 0.50 0.68 0.63 eVConformer Energies 2.2-2.3 1.9-2.8 kcal/molVib. freq. 14%
marquez@us.es (Química Física) Métodos semiempíricos 25 / 26