4.4 Article

Best methods for calculating interaction energies in 2-butene and butane systems

Journal

COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORETICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 1117, Issue -, Pages 150-161

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.comptc.2017.08.001

Keywords

Benchmark; Alkenes; Alkanes; Double bond; CCSD(T) calculations; DFT calculations

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Development, Republic of Serbia [OI172063, III46010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Benchmarking study on eighteen methods, including MP2, B2PLYP-D3, B2PLYP-D3BJ, coB97xD, M05-D3, M06-D3, M052X-D3, M061-1F-D3, PBEO-D3, PBEO-D3BJ, B3LYP-D3, B3LYP-D3DJ, TPSS-D3, TPSS-D3BJ, BP86-D3, BP86-D3BJ, BLYP-D3, BLYP-D3BJ and ten basis sets: cc-pVDZ, cc-pVTZ, aug-cc-pVDZ, cc-pVQZ, def2-SVP, def2-TZVP, def2-TZVPP, def2-QZVP, 6-311++G and 6-31G, for each method, have been performed, calculating interaction energies in (1) unsaturated/unsaturated systems (2-butene dimers), (2) unsaturated/saturated system (between butane and 2-butene) and (3) saturated/saturated (butane dimers). The calculated interaction energies are compared with accurate CCSD(T)/CBS energies. The data show that most levels of theory have the highest errors for systems with butane dimers, and calculated interaction energies in these systems are overestimated. The best levels, overall for all systems, are BLYP-D3BJ/clef2-QZVP and BLYP-D3BJ/cc-pVQZ with similar root mean square deviation (RMSD) values of 0.056 kcal mo1-1 and 0.060 kcalmorl compared to CCSD(T) values. The best level for (1) 2-butene dimers is B3LYP-D3BJ/aug-cc-pVDZ; for (2) interactions between 2-butene and butane is BLYP-D3BJ/def2-SVP; while for (3) butane dimers is BLYP-D3BJ/def2-QZVP. The differences in calculated energies among several methods are not high, however, it is important that most of the DFT methods overestimate interactions in butane dimers. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available