1 / 21

DFTB Symposium

DFTB Symposium. Looking at DFTB from a Semiempirical Perspective Walter Thiel Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung, Mülheim , Germany ACS National Meeting at San Francisco, 11 September 2006. DFTB: Original tight-binding approach.

ondrea
Download Presentation

DFTB Symposium

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DFTB Symposium Looking at DFTB from a Semiempirical Perspective Walter Thiel Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung, Mülheim, Germany ACS National Meeting at San Francisco, 11 September 2006

  2. DFTB: Original tight-binding approach • LCAO-MOs from solution of secular equations with overlap. In usual matrix notation: H0C=SCE. • Hamiltonian matrix elements calculated using the kinetic energy operator and an effective Kohn-Sham potential which is approximated as the sum of the Kohn-Sham potentials of associate neutral atoms (A, B). • Basis orbitals and potentials V0 taken from DFT calculations on atoms. • Only two-center terms computed • Non-iterative tight-binding treatment. • Total energy as sum of orbital energies and repulsive two-center correction terms determined by fitting the differences between reference DFT and tight-binding DFTB potential curves in suitable reference molecules. G. Seifert, H. Eschrig, and W. Bieger, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) 267, 529 (1986). G. Seifert, D. Porezag, and T. Frauenheim, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 58, 185 (1996).

  3. SCC-DFTB: Self-consistent-charge tight-binding approach • Improve DFTB by allowing for charge fluctuations. • Second-order expansion of the DFT total energy with respect to the charge density variation relative to a chosen reference density. • Charge density variation represented by sum of atomic contributions qAwhich are approximated by Mulliken charges: • Damped Coulomb interaction between Mulliken charges with correct asymptotic behavior for large distances (→ 1/RAB) and for small distances (→ one-center-term: chemical hardness computed from PBE). • Working equations: • Iterative SCF treatment. • Parametrization of repulsive two-center terms Erep(part of E0). M. Elstner, D. Porezag, G. Jungnickel, J. Elsner, M. Haugk, T. Frauenheim, S. Suhai, and G. Seifert, Phys. Rev. B 58, 7260 (1998).

  4. SCC-DFTB vs. MNDO-type methods: Basic Features

  5. SCC-DFTB vs. MNDO-type methods: Practical issues

  6. SCC-DFTB validation by the Elstner group • Reaction energies for 28 reactions involving 22 small molecules (CHNO): Mean absolute deviation of 4.3 kcal/mol relative to G2 reference data, compared with BLYP deviations of 5.1 (3.6) kcal/mol for cc-pVDZ(cc-pVTZ) basis. • Harmonic frequencies for 196 normal modes of these 22 molecules (CHNO): Mean absolute deviation of 75 cm-1 from B3LYP/cc-pVTZ reference data. • Bond lengths and bond angles of these molecules: Excellent agreement with MP2/6-31G* and BLYP/cc-pVTZ reference data, with mean absolute deviations of 0.017 (0.016) Å and 1.6° (1.4°) vs. MP2 (BLYP). • Occasional failures reported (H2O2 planar, CO energetics, N2H4 frequencies). T. Krüger, M. Elstner, P. Schiffels, and T. Frauenheim, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 114110 (2005).

  7. Heats of formation: General considerations • MNDO-type methods: Evaluation from computed atomization energies and experimental heats of formations of the atoms. • Implies that zero-point vibrational and thermal corrections are incorporated into through the parametrization. • Not done in the SCC-DFTB parametrization. • First option in SCC-DFTB: Include zero-point vibrational and thermal corrections explicitly. • Second option in SCC-DFTB: Add empirical atomic increments for converting the computed total energies into heats of formations, or equivalently, treat as an adjustable parameter rather than computing it. M. R. Ibrahim and P. v. R. Schleyer, J. Comput. Chem. 6, 157 (1985). W. Thiel, Tetrahedron 44, 7393 (1988).

  8. SCC-DFTB heats of formation: Explicit calculation • Standard CHNO test set with 140 mostly organic molecules:Strong overbinding in 139 cases (exception: H2), mean absolute deviation of 54.5 kcal/mol from experiment. • Errors (kcal/mol) for selected molecules: H2 + 28.0, methane -14.1, ethane -27.7, ethylene -18.8, acetylene -17.4, n-hexane -75.1, benzene -56.7, N2 -32.4, ammonia -18.2, HCN -34.2, water -13.3, dimethylether – 38.1, CO -31.8, CO2 -37.5, formaldehyde -25.7, acetic acid -40.9, nitric acid -130.8. • Errors increase with molecular size. • Errors particularly large for triple bonds (N2, HCN, CO) and NO bonds. • Typical overbinding per bond (kcal/mol): C–H 3-4, N–H and O–H 6-7, C–C and C=C 4-7, C≡C ca. 10, C≡N ca. 25. • Direct calculation with explicit inclusion of zero-point vibrational and thermal corrrections leads to inaccurate heats of formation in SCC-DFTB. • Potential problems with dissociation reactions.

  9. SCC-DFTB heats of formation: Increment approach • Applied by the Jorgensen group. • Electronic energies of the atoms optimized by fitting against the experimental heats of formation of the PDDG/PM3 training set with 134 reference molecules. • Results (in eV): • Use of the optimized values removes systematic errors from the SCC- DFTB atomization energies. • Reaction energies are not affected. • All subsequent results for SCC-DFTB heats of formation are based on these fitted values. K. W. Sattelmeyer, J. Tirado-Rives, and W. L. Jorgensen, J. Phys. Chem. A 110, 13551 (2006).

  10. SCC-DFTB validation by the Jorgensen group: Energetics • All values in kcal/mol, N comparisons. • Experimental reference data, except for H-bond energies from CCSD(T). • SCC-DFTB problems: Molecules with NO bonds, three-membered rings, some small molecules (H2, H2C=CH2). K. W. Sattelmeyer, J. Tirado-Rives, and W. L. Jorgensen, J. Phys. Chem. A 110, 13551 (2006).

  11. SCC-DFTB validation by the Jorgensen group: Other properties • N comparisons for neutral CHNO molecules • Reference geometries from MP2/cc-pVTZ • Reference dipole moments from gas-phase experiments K. W. Sattelmeyer, J. Tirado-Rives, and W. L. Jorgensen, J. Phys. Chem. A 110, 13551 (2006).

  12. Mean absolute errors ( N comparisons) for a standard validation set of mostly organic compounds (C, H, N, O). Mean absolute errors ( N comparisons) for a standard validation set of mostly organic compounds (C, H, N, O). Own validation: Standard CHNO molecules • Heats of formation ΔHf, bond lengths R, bond angles , vertical ionization potentials IP, dipole moments μ, vibrational wavenumbers ν.

  13. Own validation: Heats of formation Mean absolute errors (kcal/mol) for N comparisons

  14. Own validation: G2 and G3 sets Mean absolute errors (N comparisons) for heats of formation (kcal/mol) Reference data from G2 and G3 studies a,b • a) L. A. Curtiss, K. Raghavachari, P. C. Redfern, and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 7374 (2000). • b) P. C. Redfern, P. Zapol, L. A. Curtiss, and K. Raghavachari, J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 5850 (2000). • c) G3 data only up to C8H18. • Error increases with molecular size, e.g., up to 30 kcal/mol for C16H34 in B3LYP. • N=78, 26, 22 in rows 1, 3, 4 (triplets excluded).

  15. Own validation: Pericyclic reactions • Reference data for barriers taken from experiment and published calculations at the CCSD(T), MP4, MP2, and B3LYP level. • Reference data for transition structure mostly from B3LYP/6-31G*, partly also from MP2 and CCSD(T) calculations. • Reaction studied: Diels-Alder reaction, electrocyclic ring opening, Cope and Claisen rearrangement, dipolar cycloaddition, ene reaction. • Mean absolute deviations (N comparisons):

  16. Own validation: Peptides • Reference data taken from RHF, B3LYP, and MP2 calculations: Geometries generally from RHF/6-31G* or RHF/6-31G**, relative energies generally from MP2/6-31G*//RHF or LMP2/cc-pVTZ(-f)//RHF and sometimes from B3LYP/6-31G* • Reference systems for geometries: N-methylacetamide complexes (3), Ac-Ala-NHMe dipeptides (7), Ac-(Gly)2-NHMe turns (4), Ac-(Gly)3-NHMe turns (5), Ac-(Ala)3-NHMe tetrapeptides (10), Ac-(Ala)n-NHMe (n=2-6) helix and C7eq conformers (10). • Reference systems for relative energies: All except first and last group above. • Mean absolute deviations (N comparisons): K. Möhle, H. J. Hofmann, and W. Thiel, J. Comput. Chem. 22, 509 (2001).

  17. Own validation: Hydrogen bond energies • Reference geometries from B3LYP/aug-cc-pVTZ optimizations. • Reference energies from single-point counterpoise-corrected MP2//B3LYP energies using the aug-cc-pVDZ and aug-cc-pVTZ basis sets and subsequent complete basis set extrapolation: E (MP2/CBS). • Higher-order correlation effects estimated from the difference between single- point CCSD(T) and MP2 calculations with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis: Ecorr. • Reference binding energy: E0 = E(MP2/CBS) + Ecorr. • Reference systems: All 57 CHNO complexes from the MMFF94 data base, see T. A. Halgren, J. Comput. Chem. 17, 520 (1996). • Mean absolute deviations of computed H-bond energies (kcal/mol):

  18. Own validation: Hydrogen bond geometries • Reference geometries from B3LYP/aug-cc-pVTZ optimizations. • Reference systems: All 57 CHNO complexes from the MMFF94 data base, see T. A. Halgren, J. Comput. Chem. 17, 520 (1996). • Mean deviations (N comparisons): N AM1 OM2 DFTB X· · ·H · · ·Y bond lengths (Å) 148 0.12 -0.14 -0.03X· · ·H · · ·Y bond angles (deg) 74 -32.1 -10.3 0.1 • Mean absolute deviations (N comparisons): N AM1 OM2 DFTB X· · ·H · · ·Y bond lengths (Å) 148 0.25 0.20 0.08X· · ·H · · ·Y bond angles (deg) 74 33.7 12.1 6.2

  19. Treatment of excited states in large molecules Ref. 1: Excited state surfaces within TDDFT response theory • Standard TDDFT and TD-DFTB share similar limitations in applicability and accuracy (for conjugated organic molecules). • TDDFT with GGA/hybrid functionals should be applied to photochemical problems with great care. • Issues: Long-range charge transfer or polarization, multiconfigurational ground state. Ref. 2: Calculating absorption shifts for retinal proteins • Comparison of different methods • Recommendation: Use SCC-DFTB for ground-state optimization or MD and OM2-GUGACI or ab initio SORCI for excitation energies. Ref. 3: Color tuning in rhodopsins • Successful application of this approach to analyze spectral shifts between rhodopsins. [1] M. Wanko, M. Elstner et al, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 1674 (2004). [2] M. Wanko, W. Thiel, F. Neese, M. Elstner et al, J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 3606 (2005).[3] M. Hofmann, K. Schulten, W. Thiel, M. Elstner et al, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 10818 (2006).

  20. SCC-DFTB validation: Assessment • Viable alternative to established semiempirical methods • Comparable overall accuracy • Accuracy ranking dependent on systems and properties considered • Present evidence suggest overall: AM1 < SCC-DFTB < OM2, PDDG/PM3 • SCC-DFTB excellent for geometries • SCC-DFTB performs well for biological systems • SCC-DFTB may show large errors in “unusual” systems • SCC-DFTB less suitable for excited states • More elements need to be parametrized N. Otte, M. Scholten, and W. Thiel, J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 5751 (2007).

  21. Acknowledgements Marco Bocola Marcus Elstner Axel Koslowski Bill Jorgensen Nikolaj Otte Paul Strodel

More Related