CCL:G: "Low frequencies" in Gaussian Freq Jobs



 Sent to CCL by: Philippe Carbonniere [philippe.carbonniere],[univ-pau.fr]
 Dear Andrea,
 
Pay attention to use opt=tight (but maybe this is the default for this kind of calculations) and if you use DFT : int=grid=ultrafine. You will lower the six eigenvalues corresponding to rotation and translation. Concerning the common range of this values I would say between -5 and +(5-10) cm-1 for organic systems. Maybe this changes for inorganic systems (who knows !) but I have no experience on that systems.
 Hopping this will be help you,
 Philippe Carbonniere
 Andrea Ciccioli andrea.ciccioli+*+uniroma1.it a écrit :
 
 Sent to CCL by: "Andrea  Ciccioli" [andrea.ciccioli_-_uniroma1.it]
 Dear friends,
 it is commonly asserted in textbooks and software manuals that the obvious test
 to recognize minima in PES among stationary points is that the vibrational
 frequencies have to be real.
 However, I wonder if besides this criterium one should also check carefully the
 values of the frequencies reported as "Low frequencies" in Gaussian
 outputs (just before the list of Harmonic frequencies). These are the
 "frequencies" actually corresponding to translations and rotations,
 and they should be ideally equal to zero, and indeed in many cases they are very
 low. However, it happens not seldom to me, e.g. for triatomic species containing
 heavy elements such as transition metals, to obtain outputs where, although the
 harmonic vibrational frequencies are all real (positive numbers in the Gaussian
 output), ie the structure should be a minimum, nevertheless one or two "Low
 Frequencies" are not that low. Furthermore, they are in general both
 positive and negative. For example, low frequencies as high as  +/- 10 to 40
 cm-1 are obtained. Moreover, these values are apparently larger for analytic
 second-derivative frequency calculations than for numerical calculations (I use
 DF!
 T methods).
 As far as you know, these relatively high values of the "Low
 Frequencies" can indicate that the calculated structure is not a true
 minimum, in spite of having real harmonic frequencies ? What could be a
 reasonable criterium to consider the "Low frequencies" small enough to
 be sure that the stationary point is a true minimum ?
 Has anyone some suggestions/indications to give me ?
 Thanks to all, and season's greetings.
 Andrea Ciccioli
 University of Rome (ITALY)
 Sapienza
 -= This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =-=>
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >
 Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs >
 Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/htdig  (login: ccl, Password: search)>