4.7 Article

CCSD(T)/CBS fragment-based calculations of lattice energy of molecular crystals

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 144, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.4941055

关键词

-

资金

  1. Czech Science Foundation (GACR) [15-07912S]
  2. specific university research (MSMT) [20/2015]
  3. program Projects of Large Infrastructure for Research, Development, and Innovations [LM2010005]
  4. CERIT-SC under the program Centre CERIT Scientific Cloud, part of the Operational Program Research and Development for Innovations [CZ.1.05/3.2.00/08.0144]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparative study of the lattice energy calculations for a data set of 25 molecular crystals is performed using an additive scheme based on the individual energies of up to four-body interactions calculated using the coupled clusters with iterative treatment of single and double excitations and perturbative triples correction (CCSD(T)) with an estimated complete basis set (CBS) description. The CCSD(T)/CBS values on lattice energies are used to estimate sublimation enthalpies which are compared with critically assessed and thermodynamically consistent experimental values. The average absolute percentage deviation of calculated sublimation enthalpies from experimental values amounts to 13% (corresponding to 4.8 kJ mol(-1) on absolute scale) with unbiased distribution of positive to negative deviations. As pair interaction energies present a dominant contribution to the lattice energy and CCSD(T)/CBS calculations still remain computationally costly, benchmark calculations of pair interaction energies defined by crystal parameters involving 17 levels of theory, including recently developed methods with local and explicit treatment of electronic correlation, such as LCC and LCC-F12, are also presented. Locally and explicitly correlated methods are found to be computationally effective and reliable methods enabling the application of fragment-based methods for larger systems. (C) 2016 AIP Publishing LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据