4.6 Article

Databases for transition element bonding: Metal-metal bond energies and bond lengths and their use to test hybrid, hybrid meta, and meta density functionals and generalized gradient approximations

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY A
卷 109, 期 19, 页码 4388-4403

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp0504468

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a data set of bond lengths for 8 selected transition metal dimers (Ag-2, Cr-2, Cu-2, CuAg, Mo-2, Ni-2, V-2, and Zr-2) and another data set containing their atomization energies and the atomization energy of ZrV, and we use these for testing density functional theory. The molecules chosen for the test sets were selected on the basis of the expected reliability of the data and their ability to constitute a diverse and representative set of transition element bond types while the data sets are kept small enough to allow for efficient testing of a large number of computational methods against a very reliable subset of experimental data. In this paper we test 42 different functionals: 2 local spin density approximation (LSDA) functionals, 12 generalized gradient approximation (GGA) methods, 13 hybrid GGAs, 7 meta GGA methods, and 8 hybrid meta GGAs. We find that GGA density functionals are more accurate for the atomization energies of pure transition metal systems than are their meta, hybrid, or hybrid meta analogues. We find that the errors for atomization energies and bond lengths are not as large if we limit ourselves to dimers with small amounts of multireference character. We also demonstrate the effects of increasing the fraction of Hartree-Fock exchange in multireference systems by computing the potential energy curve for Cr-2 and Mo-2 with several functionals. We also find that BLYP is the most accurate functional for bond energies and is reasonably accurate for bond lengths. The methods that work well for transition metal bonds are found to be quite different from those that work well for organic and other main group chemistry.

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

4.6
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