4.7 Article

High-level ab initio calculations for the four low-lying families of minima of (H2O)20.: I.: Estimates of MP2/CBS binding energies and comparison with empirical potentials

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
Volume 121, Issue 6, Pages 2655-2663

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.1767519

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report estimates of complete basis set (CBS) limits at the second-order Moller-Plesset perturbation level of theory (MP2) for the binding energies of the lowest-lying isomers within each of the four major families of minima of (H2O)(20). These were obtained by performing MP2 calculations with the family of correlation-consistent basis sets up to quadruple zeta quality, augmented with additional diffuse functions (aug-cc-pVnZ, n=D, T, Q). The MP2/CPS estimates are -200.1 (dodecahedron, 30 hydrogen bonds), -212.6 (fused cubes, 36 hydrogen bonds), -215.0 (face-sharing pentagonal prisms, 35 hydrogen bonds), and -217.9 kcal/mol (edge-sharing pentagonal prisms, 34 hydrogen bonds). The energetic ordering of the various (H2O)(20) isomers does not follow monotonically the number of hydrogen bonds as in the case of smaller clusters such as the different isomers of the water hexamer. The dodecahedron lies ca. 18 kcal/mol higher in energy than the most stable edge-sharing pentagonal prism isomer. The TIP4P, ASP-W4, TTM2-R, AMOEBA, and TTM2-F empirical potentials also predict the energetic stabilization of the edge-sharing pentagonal prisms with respect to the dodecahedron, albeit they universally underestimate the cluster binding energies with respect to the MP2/CBS result. Among them, the TTM2-F potential was found to predict the absolute cluster binding energies to within <1% from the corresponding MP2/CBS values, whereas the error for the rest of the potentials considered in this study ranges from 3% to 5%. (C) 2004 American Institute of Physics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available