From:	<BETTENS ( ( at ) ) MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Date:	Fri, 09 Dec 1994 15:32:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject:	Open shell hydrocarbons, AM1 ROHF versus UHF

Dear Netters,

Thanks to those of you who responded to my last posting on the 14th of
November regarding spin contamination.  Before summarizing these
responses I would like to ask one further question which is related to
my last question in the previous posting.  I will then compile all
responses and post a summary.  My question concerns ROHF versus UHF
calculations using the AM1 semiempirical model.  Is anybody aware of
any published work which recommends the use of either in calculating
heats of formation, specifically for hydrocarbon open shell species?

I have examined the original paper of Dewar, M.J.S.; Zoebisch, E.G.;
Healy, E.F. and Stewart, J.J.P., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 107 (1985) 3902
where AM1 was introduced.  In this work the heats of formation of 6
hydrocarbon radicals (all doublets) where compared with the
experimental values.  I could find no indication as to whether the
reported calculations used the UHF or ROHF approaches.  This is
important because the calculated heats for each approach produces
significantly different results.  I consequently repeated the
calculations on the 6 hydrocarbon radicals given in the above paper
and found the following heats of formation (kcal mol^{-1}).  I also
give the values of S^2 and the reported heats as well as the current
experimental values (from J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 17 (1988) Sup. 1)
for comparison below.

           AM1           AM1    Reported
           UHF    S^2    ROHF      AM1     Exp.     Exp. - Calc.(ROHF)
CH3       29.95  0.7613  31.25    31.25   34.8(3)       3.6
C2H3      60.46  0.8589  64.78    64.78   63.4(10)     -1.4
C2H5      15.49  0.7619  18.14    15.48   28           10
CH2CHCH2  30.20  0.9300  38.58    38.58   39            0
(CH3)2CH   3.61  0.7622   6.80    10.07   22.3(6)      15.5
(CH3)3C   -6.14  0.7623  -2.66    -2.66   11.0(6)      13.7

For C2H5 the authors seem to have reported the UHF value.  I was not
able to reproduce the reported result for (CH3)2CH with either the
ROHF or the UHF result.  I was able to reproduce the calculated heat
of formation for this species given by Dewar, M.J.S. and Thiel, W., J.
Am. Chem. Soc., 99 (1977) 4907, using the MNDO Hamiltonian.  In this
earlier work the authors explicitly stated that they used ROHF heats
of formation calculated with MNDO.  It is noted that for the remaining
species the reported AM1 heats of formation also appear to be the ROHF
values.  While agreement with the experimental values are not terrific
and appear particularly bad for the larger saturated hydrocarbon
species, they are adequate for my purposes given that these errors can
be taken as typical for calculated heats of formation of analogous but
larger open shell hydrocarbon radicals.

Does anybody know of any further studies, using the AM1 Hamiltonian,
on radicals where the calculated heats of formation have been compared
with experiment?  It seems to me, from the above table, that the UHF
results are not useful in comparison with the ROHF results, and that
the extent of spin contamination tends to increase with molecular size
and unsaturation, being close to 0.75 for the most saturated species.
For instance, I repeated the calculation on triplet linear C19 given
by Novoa et al., Inorganica Chemica Acta 198-200 (1992) 133, using UHF
and ROHF.  I obtained the same heat of formation as these authors with
no assumed symmetry in the linear chain and using the UHF AM1
Hamiltonian.  However, I obtained an S^2 of 4.356 (should be 2) and a
ROHF heat of formation of 678.72 kcal mol^{-1}, which is greater than
the UHF value by 24.17 kcal mol^{-1}!  I would very much appreciate
any helpful comments or literature references which deals with any of
the above issues I've raised here about AM1 and its applicability of
open shell systems.

Regards,

Ryan Bettens,
OSU Physics Department,
BETTENS' at \`MPS.OHIO-STATE.edu



Similar Messages
12/16/1994:  Spin contamination & AM1 "ROHF" versus UHF
08/01/1995:  Spin contamination, effect on energy and structure.
08/01/1996:  Re: CCL:M:Heat of formation calculation using MOPAC.
04/28/1994:  Semi-empirical methods revisited
08/03/1995:  ACS Chicago - CINF Abstracts    - 29 pages document -
10/04/1994:  EPR Summary
04/16/1997:  Re: CCL:Chem Topic: Spin Contamination
11/02/1995:  summary AM1 vs PM3
11/27/1996:  RE: CCL:pKa calculation
06/10/1993:  Solvation Models -- Time and Quality


Raw Message Text