4.4 Article

Benchmarking density functional tight binding models for barrier heights and reaction energetics of organic molecules

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 38, 期 25, 页码 2171-2185

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.24866

关键词

DFTB; transition state optimization; barrier heights; reaction energies

资金

  1. Serbian-German bilateral project [451-03-01038/2015-09/7]
  2. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
  3. Serbian Ministry of Education and Science [172035]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01-GM106443]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Density Functional Tight Binding (DFTB) models are two to three orders of magnitude faster than ab initio and Density Functional Theory (DFT) methods and therefore are particularly attractive in applications to large molecules and condensed phase systems. To establish the applicability of DFTB models to general chemical reactions, we conduct benchmark calculations for barrier heights and reaction energetics of organic molecules using existing databases and several new ones compiled in this study. Structures for the transition states and stable species have been fully optimized at the DFTB level, making it possible to characterize the reliability of DFTB models in a more thorough fashion compared to conducting single point energy calculations as done in previous benchmark studies. The encouraging results for the diverse sets of reactions studied here suggest that DFTB models, especially the most recent third-order version (DFTB3/3OB augmented with dispersion correction), in most cases provide satisfactory description of organic chemical reactions with accuracy almost comparable to popular DFT methods with large basis sets, although larger errors are also seen for certain cases. Therefore, DFTB models can be effective for mechanistic analysis (e.g., transition state search) of large (bio)molecules, especially when coupled with single point energy calculations at higher levels of theory. (c) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.4
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