4.7 Article

Performance of coupled cluster theory in thermochemical calculations of small halogenated compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 118, 期 8, 页码 3510-3522

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.1532314

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atomization energies at 0 K and heats of formation at 298 K were obtained for a collection of small halogenated molecules from coupled cluster theory including noniterative, quasiperturbative triple excitations calculations with large basis sets (up through augmented septuple zeta quality in some cases). In order to achieve near chemical accuracy (+/-1 kcal/mol) in the thermodynamic properties, we adopted a composite theoretical approach which incorporated estimated complete basis set binding energies based on frozen core coupled cluster theory energies and (up to) five corrections: (1) a core/valence correction; (2) a Douglas-Kroll-Hess scalar relativistic correction; (3) a first-order atomic spin-orbit correction; (4) a second-order spin-orbit correction for heavy elements; and (5) an approximate correction to account for the remaining correlation energy. The last of these corrections is based on a recently proposed approximation to full configuration interaction via a continued fraction approximant for coupled cluster theory [CCSD(T)-cf]. Failure to consider corrections (1) to (4) can introduce errors significantly in excess of the target accuracy of +/-1 kcal/mol. Although some cancellation of error may occur if one or more of these corrections is omitted, such a situation is by no means universal and cannot be relied upon for high accuracy. The accuracy of the Douglas-Kroll-Hess approach was calibrated against both new and previously published four-component Dirac Coulomb results at the coupled cluster level of theory. In addition, vibrational zero-point energies were computed at the coupled cluster level of theory for those polyatomic systems lacking an experimental anharmonic value. (C) 2003 American Institute of Physics.

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