O slideshow foi denunciado.
Seu SlideShare está sendo baixado. ×

IntroductiontoCompChem_2009.ppt

Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Próximos SlideShares
Molecular modelling
Molecular modelling
Carregando em…3
×

Confira estes a seguir

1 de 85 Anúncio

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Semelhante a IntroductiontoCompChem_2009.ppt (20)

Mais de AnandKumar279666 (20)

Anúncio

Mais recentes (20)

IntroductiontoCompChem_2009.ppt

  1. 1. Introduction to Computational Chemistry Shubin Liu, Ph.D. Research Computing Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  2. 2. its.unc.edu 2 Outline  Introduction  Methods in Computational Chemistry •Ab Initio •Semi-Empirical •Density Functional Theory •New Developments (QM/MM)  Hands-on Exercises The PPT format of this presentation is available here: http://its2.unc.edu/divisions/rc/training/scientific/ /afs/isis/depts/its/public_html/divisions/rc/training/scientific/short_courses/
  3. 3. its.unc.edu 3 About Us  ITS – Information Technology Services • http://its.unc.edu • http://help.unc.edu • Physical locations:  401 West Franklin St.  211 Manning Drive • 10 Divisions/Departments  Information Security IT Infrastructure and Operations  Research Computing Center Teaching and Learning  User Support and Engagement Office of the CIO  Communication Technologies Communications  Enterprise Applications Finance and Administration
  4. 4. its.unc.edu 4 Research Computing  Where and who are we and what do we do? • ITS Manning: 211 Manning Drive • Website http://its.unc.edu/research-computing.html • Groups  Infrastructure -- Hardware  User Support -- Software  Engagement -- Collaboration
  5. 5. its.unc.edu 5 About Myself  Ph.D. from Chemistry, UNC-CH  Currently Senior Computational Scientist @ Research Computing Center, UNC-CH  Responsibilities: • Support Computational Chemistry/Physics/Material Science software • Support Programming (FORTRAN/C/C++) tools, code porting, parallel computing, etc. • Offer short courses on scientific computing and computational chemistry • Conduct research and engagement projects in Computational Chemistry  Development of DFT theory and concept tools  Applications in biological and material science systems
  6. 6. its.unc.edu 6 About You  Name, department, research interest?  Any experience before with high performance computing?  Any experience before with computational chemistry research?  Do you have any real problem to solve with computational chemistry approaches?
  7. 7. its.unc.edu 7 Think BIG!!!  What is not chemistry? • From microscopic world, to nanotechnology, to daily life, to environmental problems • From life science, to human disease, to drug design • Only our mind limits its boundary  What cannot computational chemistry deal with? • From small molecules, to DNA/proteins, 3D crystals and surfaces • From species in vacuum, to those in solvent at room temperature, and to those under extreme conditions (high T/p) • From structure, to properties, to spectra (UV, IR/Raman, NMR, VCD), to dynamics, to reactivity • All experiments done in labs can be done in silico • Limited only by (super)computers not big/fast enough!
  8. 8. its.unc.edu 8 Central Theme of Computational Chemistry DYNAMICS REACTIVITY STRUCTURE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY SEQUENCE  STRUCTURE  DYNAMICS  FUNCTION  EVALUTION
  9. 9. its.unc.edu 9 Multiscale Hierarchy of Modeling
  10. 10. its.unc.edu 10 What is Computational Chemistry? Application of computational methods and algorithms in chemistry • Quantum Mechanical i.e., via Schrödinger Equation also called Quantum Chemistry • Molecular Mechanical i.e., via Newton’s law F=ma also Molecular Dynamics • Empirical/Statistical e.g., QSAR, etc., widely used in clinical and medicinal chemistry Focus Today       H t i ˆ 
  11. 11. its.unc.edu 11 How Big Systems Can We Deal with? Assuming typical computing setup (number of CPUs, memory, disk space, etc.)  Ab initio method: ~100 atoms  DFT method: ~1000 atoms  Semi-empirical method: ~10,000 atoms  MM/MD: ~100,000 atoms
  12. 12. its.unc.edu 12                 i j n 1 i ij n 1 i N 1 i 2 i 2 r 1 r Z - 2m h - H             n i j n 1 i ij n 1 i r 1 i h H Starting Point: Time-Independent Schrodinger Equation    E H       H t i ˆ 
  13. 13. its.unc.edu 13 Equation to Solve in ab initio Theory    E H Known exactly: 3N spatial variables (N # of electrons) To be approximated: 1. variationally 2. perturbationally
  14. 14. its.unc.edu 14 Hamiltonian for a Molecule  kinetic energy of the electrons  kinetic energy of the nuclei  electrostatic interaction between the electrons and the nuclei  electrostatic interaction between the electrons  electrostatic interaction between the nuclei                   nuclei B A AB B A electrons j i ij nuclei A iA A electrons i A nuclei A A i electrons i e R Z Z e r e r Z e m m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ˆ   H
  15. 15. its.unc.edu 15 Ab Initio Methods  Accurate treatment of the electronic distribution using the full Schrödinger equation  Can be systematically improved to obtain chemical accuracy  Does not need to be parameterized or calibrated with respect to experiment  Can describe structure, properties, energetics and reactivity  What does “ab intio” mean? • Start from beginning, with first principle  Who invented the word of the “ab initio” method? • Bob Parr of UNC-CH in 1950s; See Int. J. Quantum Chem. 37(4), 327(1990) for details.
  16. 16. its.unc.edu 16 Three Approximations  Born-Oppenheimer approximation • Electrons act separately of nuclei, electron and nuclear coordinates are independent of each other, and thus simplifying the Schrödinger equation  Independent particle approximation • Electrons experience the ‘field’ of all other electrons as a group, not individually • Give birth to the concept of “orbital”, e.g., AO, MO, etc.  LCAO-MO approximation • Molecular orbitals (MO) can be constructed as linear combinations of atom orbitals, to form Slater determinants
  17. 17. its.unc.edu 17 Born-Oppenheimer Approximation  the nuclei are much heavier than the electrons and move more slowly than the electrons  freeze the nuclear positions (nuclear kinetic energy is zero in the electronic Hamiltonian)  calculate the electronic wave function and energy  E depends on the nuclear positions through the nuclear-electron attraction and nuclear-nuclear repulsion terms  E = 0 corresponds to all particles at infinite separation               nuclei B A AB B A electrons j i ij nuclei A iA A electrons i i electrons i e el r Z Z e r e r Z e m 2 2 2 2 2 2 ˆ  H             d d E E el el el el el el el el * * ˆ , ˆ H H
  18. 18. its.unc.edu 18 Approximate Wavefunctions  Construction of one-electron functions (molecular orbitals, MO’s) as linear combinations of one-electron atomic basis functions (AOs)  MO-LCAO approach.  Construction of N-electron wavefunction as linear combination of anti-symmetrized products of MOs (these anti-symmetrized products are denoted as Slater- determinants).                      down) - (spin up) - (spin ; 1       i i u i k N k kl i l r q
  19. 19. its.unc.edu 19 The Slater Determinant                                                                   z c b a z c b a z z z z c c c c b b b b a a a a n z c b a z c b a n z c b a n n n n n n n n                                                            3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 Α̂ ! 1 ! 1
  20. 20. its.unc.edu 20 The Two Extreme Cases  One determinant: The Hartree–Fock method.  All possible determinants: The full CI method.         N N      3 2 1 3 2 1 HF     There are N MOs and each MO is a linear combination of N AOs. Thus, there are nN coefficients ukl, which are determined by making stationary the functional: The ij are Lagrangian multipliers.                     N l k ij lj kl ki N j i ij u S u H E 1 , * 1 , HF HF HF ˆ  
  21. 21. its.unc.edu 21 The Full CI Method  The full configuration interaction (full CI) method expands the wavefunction in terms of all possible Slater determinants:  There are possible ways to choose n molecular orbitals from a set of 2N AO basis functions.  The number of determinants gets easily much too large. For example:         n N 2                                            1 ˆ ; 2 1 , CI CI CI 2 1 CI          c S c H E c n N * n N 9 10 10 40          Davidson’s method can be used to find one or a few eigenvalues of a matrix of rank 109.
  22. 22. its.unc.edu 22         N N      3 2 1 3 2 1 HF                         N l k ij lj kl ki N j i ij u S u H E 1 , * 1 , HF HF HF ˆ                     N i li ki kl N l k kl mn N n m mn u u P nl mk P h P E H 1 * 1 , 2 1 1 , nuc HF HF ; ˆ   0 HF     E uki Hartree–Fock equations The Hartree–Fock Method
  23. 23. its.unc.edu 23      | S  Overlap integral                      | 2 1 | P H F    i i occ i c c   2 P Density Matrix        S F    i i i c c The Hartree–Fock Method
  24. 24. its.unc.edu 24 1. Choose start coefficients for MO’s 2. Construct Fock Matrix with coefficients 3. Solve Hartree-Fock-Roothaan equations 4. Repeat 2 and 3 until ingoing and outgoing coefficients are the same Self-Consistent-Field (SCF)        S F    i i i c c
  25. 25. its.unc.edu 25 Semi-empirical methods (MNDO, AM1, PM3, etc.) Full CI perturbational hierarchy (CASPT2, CASPT3) perturbational hierarchy (MP2, MP3, MP4, …) excitation hierarchy (MR-CISD) excitation hierarchy (CIS,CISD,CISDT,...) (CCS, CCSD, CCSDT,...) Multiconfigurational HF (MCSCF, CASSCF) Hartree-Fock (HF-SCF) Ab Initio Methods
  26. 26. its.unc.edu 26 Who’s Who
  27. 27. its.unc.edu 27 Size vs Accuracy Number of atoms 0.1 1 10 1 10 100 1000 Accuracy (kcal/mol) Coupled-cluster, Multireference Nonlocal density functional, Perturbation theory Local density functional, Hartree-Fock Semiempirical Methods Full CI
  28. 28. its.unc.edu 28 ROO,e= 291.2 pm 96.4 pm 95.7 pm 95.8 pm symmetry: Cs Equilibrium structure of (H2O)2 W.K., J.G.C.M. van Duijneveldt-van de Rijdt, and F.B. van Duijneveldt, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2, 2227 (2000). Experimental [J.A. Odutola and T.R. Dyke, J. Chem. Phys 72, 5062 (1980)]:  ROO 2 ½ = 297.6 ± 0.4 pm SAPT-5s potential [E.M. Mas et al., J. Chem. Phys. 113, 6687 (2000)]:  ROO 2 ½ – ROO,e= 6.3 pm  ROO,e(exptl.) = 291.3 pm AN EXAMPLE
  29. 29. its.unc.edu 29 Experimental and Computed Enthalpy Changes He in kJ/mol Exptl. CCSD(T) SCF G2 DFT CH4  CH2 + H2 544(2) 542 492 534 543 C2H4  C2H2 + H2 203(2) 204 214 202 208 H2CO  CO + H2 21(1) 22 3 17 34 2 NH3  N2 + 3 H2 164(1) 162 149 147 166 2 H2O  H2O2 + H2 365(2) 365 391 360 346 2 HF  F2 + H2 563(1) 562 619 564 540 Gaussian-2 (G2) method of Pople and co-workers is a combination of MP2 and QCISD(T)
  30. 30. its.unc.edu 30 LCAO  Basis Functions  ’s, which are atomic orbitals, are called basis functions  usually centered on atoms  can be more general and more flexible than atomic orbital functions  larger number of well chosen basis functions yields more accurate approximations to the molecular orbitals        c
  31. 31. its.unc.edu 31 Basis Functions  Slaters (STO)  Gaussians (GTO)  Angular part *  Better behaved than Gaussians  2-electron integrals hard  2-electron integrals simpler  Wrong behavior at nucleus  Decrease too fast with r r) exp(     2 n m l r exp * z y x  
  32. 32. its.unc.edu 32 Contracted Gaussian Basis Set  Minimal STO-nG  Split Valence: 3- 21G,4-31G, 6- 31G • Each atom optimized STO is fit with n GTO’s • Minimum number of AO’s needed • Contracted GTO’s optimized per atom • Doubling of the number of valence AO’s
  33. 33. its.unc.edu 33 Polarization / Diffuse Functions  Polarization: Add AO with higher angular momentum (L) to give more flexibility Example: 3-21G*, 6-31G*, 6-31G**, etc.  Diffusion: Add AO with very small exponents for systems with very diffuse electron densities such as anions or excited states Example: 6-31+G*, 6-311++G**
  34. 34. its.unc.edu 34 Correlation-Consistent Basis Functions  a family of basis sets of increasing size  can be used to extrapolate to the basis set limit  cc-pVDZ – DZ with d’s on heavy atoms, p’s on H  cc-pVTZ – triple split valence, with 2 sets of d’s and one set of f’s on heavy atoms, 2 sets of p’s and 1 set of d’s on hydrogen  cc-pVQZ, cc-pV5Z, cc-pV6Z  can also be augmented with diffuse functions (aug-cc-pVXZ)
  35. 35. its.unc.edu 35 Pseudopotentials, Effective Core Potentials  core orbitals do not change much during chemical interactions  valence orbitals feel the electrostatic potential of the nuclei and of the core electrons  can construct a pseudopotential to replace the electrostatic potential of the nuclei and of the core electrons  reduces the size of the basis set needed to represent the atom (but introduces additional approximations)  for heavy elements, pseudopotentials can also include of relativistic effects that otherwise would be costly to treat
  36. 36. its.unc.edu 36 Correlation Energy  HF does not include correlations anti-parallel electrons  Eexact – EHF = Ecorrelation  Post HF Methods: • Configuration Interaction (CI, MCSCF, CCSD) • Møller-Plesset Perturbation series (MP2, MP4)  Density Functional Theory (DFT)
  37. 37. its.unc.edu 37 Configuration-Interaction (CI)  In Hartree-Fock theory, the n-electron wavefunction is approximated by one single Slater-determinant, denoted as:  This determinant is built from n orthonormal spin-orbitals. The spin-orbitals that form are said to be occupied. The other orthonormal spin-orbitals that follow from the Hartree-Fock calculation in a given one-electron basis set of atomic orbitals (AOs) are known as virtual orbitals. For simplicity, we assume that all spin-orbitals are real.  In electron-correlation or post-Hartree-Fock methods, the wavefunction is expanded in a many-electron basis set that consists of many determinants. Sometimes, we only use a few determinants, and sometimes, we use millions of them: In this notation, is a Slater- determinant that is obtained by replacing a certain number of occupied orbitals by virtual ones.  Three questions: 1. Which determinants should we include? 2. How do we determine the expansion coefficients? 3. How do we evaluate the energy (or other properties)? HF HF       c HF CI 
  38. 38. its.unc.edu 38 Truncated configuration interaction: CIS, CISD, CISDT, etc.  We start with a reference wavefunction, for example the Hartree- Fock determinant.  We then select determinants for the wavefunction expansion by substituting orbitals of the reference determinant by orbitals that are not occupied in the reference state (virtual orbitals).  Singles (S) indicate that 1 orbital is replaced, doubles (D) indicate 2 replacements, triples (T) indicate 3 replacements, etc., leading to CIS, CISD, CISDT, etc.         N N k j i      3 2 1 HF                     etc. , 3 2 1 , 3 2 1 N N N k b a ab ij N k j a a i              
  39. 39. its.unc.edu 39 Truncated Configuration Interaction Level of excitation Number of parameters Example CIS n  (2N – n) 300 CISD … + [n  (2N – n)] 2 78,600 CISDT …+ [n  (2N – n)] 3 18106 … … … Full CI         n N 2  109 Number of linear variational parameters in truncated CI for n = 10 and 2N = 40.
  40. 40. its.unc.edu 40 Multi-Configuration Self-Consistent Field (MCSCF)  The MCSCF wavefunctions consists of a few selected determinants or CSFs. In the MCSCF method, not only the linear weights of the determinants are variationally optimized, but also the orbital coefficients.  One important selection is governed by the full CI space spanned by a number of prescribed active orbitals (complete active space, CAS). This is the CASSCF method. The CASSCF wavefunction contains all determinants that can be constructed from a given set of orbitals with the constraint that some specified pairs of - and -spin- orbitals must occur in all determinants (these are the inactive doubly occupied spatial orbitals).  Multireference CI wavefunctions are obtained by applying the excitation operators to the individual CSFs or determinants of the MCSCF (or CASSCF) reference wave function. k C C c k k k k ) ˆ ˆ ( CISD - MR 2 1          k k k k k k d C k C c 2 1 ˆ ) ˆ ( MRCI - IC Internally-contracted MRCI:
  41. 41. its.unc.edu 41 Coupled-Cluster Theory  System of equations is solved iteratively (the convergence is accelerated by utilizing Pulay’s method, “direct inversion in the iterative subspace”, DIIS).  CCSDT model is very expensive in terms of computer resources. Approximations are introduced for the triples: CCSD(T), CCSD[T], CCSD-T.  Brueckner coupled-cluster (e.g., BCCD) methods use Brueckner orbitals that are optimized such that singles don’t contribute.  By omitting some of the CCSD terms, the quadratic CI method (e.g., QCISD) is obtained.
  42. 42. its.unc.edu 42 Møller-Plesset Perturbation Theory  The Hartree-Fock function is an eigenfunction of the n-electron operator .  We apply perturbation theory as usual after decomposing the Hamiltonian into two parts:  More complicated with more than one reference determinant (e.g., MR-PT, CASPT2, CASPT3, …) F̂         F H H F H H H H ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 1 0 1 0      MP2, MP3, MP4, …etc. number denotes order to which energy is computed (2n+1 rule)
  43. 43. its.unc.edu 43 Semi-Empirical Methods  These methods are derived from the Hartee–Fock model, that is, they are MO-LCAO methods.  They only consider the valence electrons.  A minimal basis set is used for the valence shell.  Integrals are restricted to one- and two-center integrals and subsequently parametrized by adjusting the computed results to experimental data.  Very efficient computational tools, which can yield fast quantitative estimates for a number of properties. Can be used for establishing trends in classes of related molecules, and for scanning a computational poblem before proceeding with high- level treatments.  A not of elements, especially transition metals, have not be parametrized
  44. 44. its.unc.edu 44 Semi-Empirical Methods Number 2-electron integrals (|) is n4/8, n = number of basis functions Treat only valence electrons explicit Neglect large number of 2-electron integrals Replace others by empirical parameters Models: • Complete Neglect of Differential Overlap (CNDO) • Intermediate Neglect of Differential Overlap (INDO/MINDO) • Neglect of Diatomic Differential Overlap (NDDO/MNDO, AM1, PM3)
  45. 45. its.unc.edu 45     A B AB V U H   U from atomic spectra VAB value per atom pair 0 H   , on the same atom    S H AB    B A AB 2 1      One  parameter per element Approximations of 1-e integrals
  46. 46. its.unc.edu 46 Popular DFT  Noble prize in Chemistry, 1998  In 1999, 3 of top 5 most cited journal articles in chemistry (1st, 2nd, & 4th)  In 2000-2003, top 3 most cited journal articles in chemistry  In 2004-2005, 4 of top 5 most cited journal articles in chemistry: • 1st, Becke’s hybrid exchange functional (1993) • 2nd, LYP correlation functional (1988) • 3rd, Becke’s exchange functional (1988) • 4th, PBE correlation functional (1996) http://www.cas.org/spotlight/bchem.html Citations of DFT on JCP, JACS and PRL
  47. 47. its.unc.edu 47 Brief History of DFT  First speculated 1920’ •Thomas-Fermi (kinetic energy) and Dirac (exchange energy) formulas  Officially born in 1964 with Hohenberg- Kohn’s original proof  GEA/GGA formulas available later 1980’  Becoming popular later 1990’  Pinnacled in 1998 with a chemistry Nobel prize
  48. 48. its.unc.edu 48 What could expect from DFT?  LDA, ~20 kcal/mol error in energy  GGA, ~3-5 kcal/mol error in energy  G2/G3 level, some systems, ~1kcal/mol  Good at structure, spectra, & other properties predictions  Poor in H-containing systems, TS, spin, excited states, etc.
  49. 49. its.unc.edu 49 Density Functional Theory  Two Hohenberg-Kohn theorems: •“Given the external potential, we know the ground-state energy of the molecule when we know the electron density ”. •The energy density functional is variational.           E Ĥ Energy
  50. 50. its.unc.edu 50 But what is E[]?  How do we compute the energy if the density is known?  The Coulombic interactions are easy to compute:  But what about the kinetic energy TS[] and exchange- correlation energy Exc[]?         , ] [ , ] [ , ] [ 2 1 ext ne nn r r r r r r r r r            d d J d V E r Z Z E nuclei B A AB B A       E[] = TS[] + Vne[] + J[] + Vnn[] + Exc[]
  51. 51. its.unc.edu 51 Kohn-Sham Scheme , | ) ( | ) ( , ) ( , | | ) ( ) ( , | | ) ( , 2 1 and ) ( ) ( ) ( ˆ where , ˆ 2 3 2                         nk nk nk xc xc ee a a a ne xc ee ne nk nk nk r f r E r V r d r r r r V R r Z r V K r V r V r V K H H      The Only Unknown • Suppose, we know the exact density. • Then, we can formulate a Slater determinant that generates this exact density (= Slater determinant of system of N non-interacting electrons with same density ). • We know how to compute the kinetic energy Ts exactly from a Slater determinant. • Then, the only thing unknown is to calculate Exc[].
  52. 52. its.unc.edu 52 All about Exchange-Correlation Energy Density Functional  LDA – f(r) is a function of (r) only  GGA – f(r) is a function of (r) and |∇(r)|  Mega-GGA – f(r) is also a function of ts(r), kinetic energy density  Hybrid – f(r) is GGA functional with extra contribution from Hartree- Fock exchange energy         r r r r d f QXC     , , , 2    Jacob's ladder for the five generation of DFT functionals, according to the vision of John Perdew with indication of some of the most common DFT functionals within each rung.
  53. 53. its.unc.edu 53 LDA Functionals  Thomas-Fermi formula (Kinetic) – 1 parameter  Slater form (exchange) – 1 parameter  Wigner correlation – 2 parameters       3 / 2 2 3 / 5 3 10 3 ,       F F TF C d C T r r     3 / 1 3 / 2 3 / 1 3 / 4 4 3 8 3 ,        X X S X C d C E r r       r r r     d b a EW C 3 / 1 1   
  54. 54. its.unc.edu 54 Popular Functional: BLYP/B3LYP Two most well-known functionals are the Becke exchange functional Ex[] with 2 extra parameters  &  The Lee-Yang-Parr correlation functional Ec[] with 4 parameters a-d Together, they constitute the BLYP functional: The B3LYP functional is augmented with 20% of Hartree-Fock exchange:         r r r r d e d e E E E c x c x xc               , , LYP B LYP B BLYP   3 / 4 2 2 2 3 / 4 , 1               LDA X B X E E   r d e t t C b d a E c W W F LYP c                                3 / 1 2 3 / 5 3 / 2 3 / 1 18 1 9 1 2 1 1        nl km P P b E E a E N l k kl N n m mn c x xc        1 , 1 , LYP B B3LYP
  55. 55. its.unc.edu 55 Density Functionals LDA local density GGA gradient corrected Meta-GGA kinetic energy density included Hybrid “exact” HF exchange component Hybrid-meta-GGA VWN5 BLYP HCTH BP86 TPSS M06-L B3LYP B97/2 MPW1K MPWB1K M06 Better scaling with system size Allow density fitting for even better scaling Meta-GGA is “bleeding edge” and therefore largely untested (but better in theory…) Hybrid makes bigger difference in cost and accuracy Look at literature if somebody has compared functionals for systems similar to yours! Increasing quality and computational cost
  56. 56. its.unc.edu 56 Percentage of occurrences of the names of the several functionals indicated in Table 2, in journal titles and abstracts, analyzed from the ISI Web of Science (2007). S.F. Sousa, P.A. Fernandes and M.J. Ramos, J. Phys. Chem. A 10.1021/jp0734474 S1089-5639(07)03447-0 Density Functionals
  57. 57. its.unc.edu 57 Problems with DFT  ground-state theory only  universal functional still unknown  even hydrogen atom a problem: self-interaction correction  no systematic way to improve approximations like LDA, GGA, etc.  extension to excited states, spin multiplets, etc., though proven exact in theory, is not trivial in implementation and still far from being generally accessible thus far
  58. 58. its.unc.edu 58 DFT Developments  Theoretical • Extensions to excited states, etc. • Better functionals (mega-GGA), etc • Understanding functional properties, etc.  Conceptual • More concepts proposed, like electrophilicity, philicity, spin- philicity, surfaced-integrated Fukui fnc • Dynamic behaviors, profiles, etc.  Computational • Linear scaling methods • QM/MM related issues • Applications
  59. 59. its.unc.edu 59 Examples DFT vs. HF Hydrogen molecules - using the LSDA (LDA)
  60. 60. its.unc.edu 60 Chemical Reactivity Theory Chemical reactivity theory quantifies the reactive propensity of isolated species through the introduction of a set of reactivity indices or descriptors. Its roots go deep into the history of chemistry, as far back as the introduction of such fundamental concepts as acid, base, Lewis acid, Lewis base, etc. It pervades almost all of chemistry.  Molecular Orbital Theory • Fukui’s Frontier Orbital (HOMO/LUMO) model • Woodward-Hoffman rules • Well developed: Nobel prize in Chemistry, 1981 • Problem: conceptual simplicity disappears as computational accuracy increases because it’s based on the molecular orbital description  Density Functional Theory (DFT) • Conceptual DFT, also called Chemical DFT, DF Reactivity Theory • Proposed by Robert G. Parr of UNC-CH, 1980s • Still in development -- Morrel H. Cohen, and Adam Wasserman, J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 111,2229
  61. 61. its.unc.edu 61 DFT Reactivity Theory  General Consideration • E  E [N, (r)]  E [] • Taylor Expansion: Perturbation resulted from an external attacking agent leading to changes in N and (r), N and (r),                                                                                                         ' ' 2 ! , , 2 2 2 2 r r r r r r r r 2 1 r r r r r r 2 d d E d N E N N N E d E N N E N E N N E E N N N                  Assumptions: existence and well-behavior of all above partial/functional derivatives
  62. 62. its.unc.edu 62 Conceptual DFT  Basic assumptions •E  E [N, (r)]  E [] •Chemical processes, responses, and changes expressible via Taylor expansion •Existence, continuous, and well-behavedness of the partial derivatives
  63. 63. its.unc.edu 63 DFT Reactivity Indices  Electronegativity (chemical potential)  Hardness / Softness  Maximum Hardness Principle (MHP)      / 1 , 2 2 1 2 2               S N E HOMO LUMO 2 LUMO HOMO N E                
  64. 64. its.unc.edu 64 DFT Reactivity Indices  Fukui function                N f r r – Nucleophilic attack       r r r N N f       1 – Electrophilic attack       r r r 1     N N f   – Free radical activity       2 r r r     f f f
  65. 65. its.unc.edu 65 Electrophilicity Index Physical meaning: suppose an electrophile is immersed in an electron sea The maximal electron flow and accompanying energy decrease are 2 2 1 N N E          2 2 max   N    2 2        2 2 min E Parr, Szentpaly, Liu, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121, 1922(1999).
  66. 66. its.unc.edu 66 Experiment vs. Theory Pérez, P. J. Org. Chem. 2003, 68, 5886. Pérez, P.; Aizman, A.; Contreras, R. J. Phys. Chem. A 2002, 106, 3964.    2 2  log (k) = s(E+N)
  67. 67. its.unc.edu 67 Minimum Electrophilicity Principle  Analogous to the maximum hardness principle (MHP)  Separately proposed by Noorizadeh and Chattaraj  Concluded that “the natural direction of a chemical reaction is toward a state of minimum electrophilicity.” Noorizadeh, S. Chin. J. Chem. 2007, 25, 1439. Noorizadeh, S. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2007, 20, 514. Chattaraj, P.K. Ind. J. Phys. Proc. Ind. Natl. Sci. Acad. Part A 2007, 81, 871. non- LA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aa -0.091 - 0.085 -0.093 -0.093 - 0.088 -0.087 -0.083 -0.090 Bb -0.089 - 0.084 -0.088 -0.089 - 0.087 -0.087 -0.0842 - 0.0892 Aa -0.172 - 0.247 -0.230 -0.220 - 0.218 -0.226 -0.2518 - 0.2161 Bb -0.171 - 0.246 -0.247 -0.233 - 0.221 -0.226 -0.2506 - 0.2157 Yue Xia, Dulin Yin, Chunying Rong, Qiong Xu, Donghong Yin, and Shubin Liu, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2008, 112, 9970.
  68. 68. its.unc.edu 68 Nucleophilicity  Much harder to quantify, because it related to local hardness, which is ambiguous in definition.  A nucleophile can be a good donor for one electrophile but bad for another, leading to the difficulty to define a universal scale of nucleophilicity for an nucleophile. A B A B A       2 2 1             Jaramillo, P.; Perez, P.; Contreras, R.; Tiznado, W.; Fuentealba, P. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 8181.  = -N - ½ S()2 Minimizing  in Eq. (14) with respect to , one has =-N and  = - ½ N2. Making use of the following relation B A B A N       
  69. 69. its.unc.edu 69 Philicity and Fugality  Philicity: defined as ·f(r) • Chattaraj, Maiti, & Sarkar, J. Phys. Chem. A 107, 4973(2003) • Still a very controversial concept, see JPCA 108, 4934(2004); Chattaraj, et al. JPCA, in press.  Spin-Philicity: defined same as  but in spin resolution • Perez, Andres, Safont, Tapia, & Contreras. J. Phys. Chem. A 106, 5353(2002)  Nuclofugality & Electrofugality     2 ) ( 2       A En     2 ) ( 2      I Ee Ayers, P.W.; Anderson, J.S.M.; Rodriguez, J.I.; Jawed, Z. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2005, 7, 1918. Ayers, P.W.; Anderson, J S.M.; Bartolotti, L.J. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2005, 101, 520.
  70. 70. its.unc.edu 70 Dual Descriptors            N N N N f N E E N f                                                         r r r r r          2 2 2 2 2 3rd-order cross-term derivatives    0 2   r r d f        r r r     f f f 2        r r r HOMO LUMO f     2 Recovering Woodward-Hoffman rules! Ayers, P.W.; Morell, C., De Proft, D.; Geerlings, P. Chem. Eur. J., 2007, 13, 8240 Geerling, P. De Proft F. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2008, 10, 3028
  71. 71. its.unc.edu 71 Steric Effect one of the most widely used concepts in chemistry originates from the space occupied by atom in a molecule previous work attributed to the electron exchange correlation Weisskopf thought of as “kinetic energy pressure” Weisskopf, V.F., Science 187, 605-612(1975).
  72. 72. its.unc.edu 72 Steric effect: a DFT description Assume since we have E[] ≡ Es[] + Ee[] + Eq[] E[] = Ts[] + Vne[] + J[] + Vnn[] + Exc[] Ee[] = Vne[] + J[] + Vnn[] Eq[] = Exc[] + EPauli[] = Exc[] + Ts[] - Tw[] Es[] ≡ E[] - Ee[] - Eq[] = Tw[]          r r r d TW    2 8 1 S.B. Liu, J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 126, 244103. S.B. Liu and N. Govind, J. Phys. Chem. A 2008, 112, 6690. S.B. Liu, N. Govind, and L.G. Pedersen, J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 129, 094104. M. Torrent-Sucarrat, S.B. Liu and F. De Proft, J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113, 3698.
  73. 73. its.unc.edu 73  In 1956, Taft constructed a scale for the steric effect of different substituents, based on rate constants for the acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of esters in aqueous acetone. It was shown that log(k / k0) was insensitive to polar effects and thus, in the absence of resonance interactions, this value can be considered as being proportional to steric effects. Hydrogen is taken to have a reference value of EsTaft= 0 Experiment vs. Theory
  74. 74. its.unc.edu 74 QM/MM Example: Triosephosphate Isomerase (TIM) 494 Residues, 4033 Atoms, PDB ID: 7TIM Function: DHAP (dihydroxyacetone phosphate) GAP (glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate) GAP DHAP H2 O
  75. 75. its.unc.edu 75 Glu 165 (the catalytic base), His 95 (the proton shuttle) DHAP GAP TIM 2-step 2-residue Mechanism
  76. 76. its.unc.edu 76 QM/MM: 1st Step of TIM Mechanism QM/MM size: 6051 atoms QM Size: 37 atoms QM: Gaussian’98 Method: HF/3-21G MM: Tinker Force field: AMBER all-atom Number of Water: 591 Model for Water: TIP3P MD details: 20x20x20 Å3 box, optimize until the RMS energy gradient less than 1.0 kcal/mol/Å. 20 psec MD. Time step 2fs. SHAKE, 300 K, short range cutoff 8 Å, long range cutoff 15 Å.
  77. 77. its.unc.edu 77 QM/MM: Transition State ===================== Energy Barrier (kcal/mol) ------------------------------------- QM/MM 21.9 Experiment 14.0 =====================
  78. 78. its.unc.edu 78 What’s New: Linear Scaling O(N) Method  Numerical Bottlenecks: • diagonalization ~N3 • orthonormalization ~N3 • matrix element evaluation ~N2-N4  Computational Complexity: N log N  Theoretical Basis: near-sightedness of density matrix or orbitals  Strategy: • sparsity of localized orbital or density matrix • direct minimization with conjugate gradient  Models: divide-and-conquer and variational methods  Applicability: ~10,000 atoms, dynamics 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Atoms CPU se conds pe r CG ste p OLMO NOLMO Diagonalization
  79. 79. its.unc.edu 79 What Else … ?  Solvent effect •Implicit model vs. explicit model  Relativity effect  Transition state  Excited states  Temperature and pressure  Solid states (periodic boundary condition)  Dynamics (time-dependent)
  80. 80. its.unc.edu 80 Limitations and Strengths of ab initio quantum chemistry
  81. 81. its.unc.edu 81 Popular QM codes Gaussian (Ab Initio, Semi-empirical, DFT) Gamess-US/UK (Ab Initio, DFT) Spartan (Ab Initio, Semi-empirical, DFT) NWChem (Ab Initio, DFT, MD, QM/MM) MOPAC/2000 (Semi-Empirical) DMol3/CASTEP (DFT) Molpro (Ab initio) ADF (DFT) ORCA (DFT)
  82. 82. its.unc.edu 82 Reference Books  Computational Chemistry (Oxford Chemistry Primer) G. H. Grant and W. G. Richards (Oxford University Press)  Molecular Modeling – Principles and Applications, A. R. Leach (Addison Wesley Longman)  Introduction to Computational Chemistry, F. Jensen (Wiley)  Essentials of Computational Chemistry – Theories and Models, C. J. Cramer (Wiley)  Exploring Chemistry with Electronic Structure Methods, J. B. Foresman and A. Frisch (Gaussian Inc.)
  83. 83. its.unc.edu 83 Questions & Comments Please direct comments/questions about research computing to E-mail: research@unc.edu Please direct comments/questions pertaining to this presentation to E-Mail: shubin@email.unc.edu The PPT format of this presentation is available here: http://its2.unc.edu/divisions/rc/training/scientific/ /afs/isis/depts/its/public_html/divisions/rc/training/scientific/short_courses/
  84. 84. its.unc.edu 84 Hands-on: Part I Purpose: to get to know the available ab initio and semi-empirical methods in the Gaussian 03 / GaussView package • ab initio methods  Hartree-Fock  MP2  CCSD • Semiempirical methods  AM1 The WORD .doc format of this hands-on exercises is available here: http://its2.unc.edu/divisions/rc/training/scientific/ /afs/isis/depts/its/public_html/divisions/rc/training/scientific/short_courses/labDirections_compchem_2009.doc
  85. 85. its.unc.edu 85 Hands-on: Part II Purpose: To use LDA and GGA DFT methods to calculate IR/Raman spectra in vacuum and in solvent. To build QM/MM models and then use DFT methods to calculate IR/Raman spectra • DFT  LDA (SVWN)  GGA (B3LYP) • QM/MM

×