Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semiempirical Calculations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computational Chemistry

Abstract

Semiempirical quantum mechanical calculations are based on the Schrödinger equation. This chapter deals with SCF semiempirical methods, in which repeated diagonalization of the Fock matrix refines the wavefunction and molecular energy. These calculations are much faster than ab initio ones, mainly because the number of integrals to be dealt with is greatly reduced by ignoring some and approximating others with the help of experimental quantities, or values from high-level ab initio or DFT calculations. In order of increasing sophistication, these SCF semiempirical procedures have been developed: PPP (Pariser-Parr-Pople), CNDO (complete neglect of differential overlap), INDO (intermediate neglect of differential overlap), and NDDO (neglect of diatomic differential overlap). Today the most popular SCF semiempirical methods are AM1 and PM3, which are carefully parameterized to reproduce experimental quantities (primarily heats of formation). Recent extensions of AM1 (RM1) and PM3 (PM6) seem to represent substantial improvements and are likely to soon become the standard semiempirical methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Michael J. S. Dewar, born Ahmednagar, India, 1918. Ph.D. Oxford, 1942. Professor of chemistry at Universities of London, Chicago, Texas at Austin, and University of Florida. Died Florida, 1997.

References

  1. (a) Weinberg S (1992) Dreams of a final theory: the search for the fundamental laws of nature. Pantheon Books, New York (b) Watson A (2000) Measuring the physical constants. Science 287:1391

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hartree DR (1928) Proc Cambridge Phil Soc 24:89, 111, 426

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bolcer JD, Hermann RB (1994) The development of computational chemistry in the United States. In: Lipkowitz KB, Boyd DB (eds.) Reviews in computational chemistry, vol 5. VCH, New York, Chapter 1

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ref 3, p 12

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dewar MJS (1969) The molecular orbital theory of organic chemistry. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 73

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chapter 5 of this book, reference [329]

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dewar MJS (1969) The molecular orbital theory of organic chemistry. McGraw-Hill, New York, Chapter 3

    Google Scholar 

  8. Levine IN (2000) Quantum chemistry, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Chapter 16

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thiel W (1996). In: Prigogine I, Rice SA (eds) Adv Chem Phys, vol XCIII. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pople JA, Beveridge DL (1970) Approximate molecular orbital theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clark T (2000) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 530:1

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pariser R, Parr RG (1953) J Chem Phys 21:466, 767.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pople JA (1953) Trans Faraday Soc 49:1475

    Google Scholar 

  14. (a) Chemie in unserer Zeit (1993) 12:21–31; (b) Griffiths J (1986) Chemistry in Britain 22:997–1000

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pople JA, Segal GA (1966) J Chem Phys 44:3289, and refs. therein

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coffey P (1974) Int J Quantum Chem 8:263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ref. 7, pp 90–91

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ref. 10, p 76

    Google Scholar 

  19. (a) Pople JA, Beveridge DL, Dobosh PA (1967) J Chem Phys 47:2026; (b) Dixon RN (1967) Mol Phys 12:83

    Google Scholar 

  20. INDO/S: Kotzian M, Rösch N, Zerner MC (1992) Theor Chim Acta 81:201 (b) ZINDO/S is a version of INDO/S with some modifications, plus the ability to handle transition metals. The Z comes from the name of the late Professor Michael C. Zerner, whose group developed the suite of (mostly semiempirical) programs called ZINDO, which includes ZINDO/S. ZINDO is available from, e.g., Molecular Simulations Inc., San Diego, CA, and CAChe Scientific, Beaverton, OR. INDO and ZINDO are available in some program suites, e.g. Gaussian [55]

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pople JA, Santry DP, Segal GA (1965) J Chem Phys 43(10; Pt. 2):S 129; Pople JA, Segal GA (1965) J Chem Phys 43(10; Pt. 2):S 136, discussion, S 150; Pople JA, Segal GA (1966) J Chem Phys 44:3289

    Google Scholar 

  22. Boyd DB (1995). In: Lipkowitz KB, Boyd DB (eds) Reviews in computational chemistry, vol 6. VCH, New York, Chapter 5

    Google Scholar 

  23. (a) Wilson E (1998) Chem Eng News October 19:12; (b) Malakoff D (1998) Science 282:610; (c) Nobel lecture: Angew Chem Int Ed (1999) 38:1895

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dewar MJS (1992) A semiempirical life. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ref. 24, p 131

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dewar MJS (1975) J Am Chem Soc 97:6591. In response to criticisms of MINDO/3 by Pople (Pople JA (1975) J Am Chem Soc 97:5306) and Hehre (Hehre WJ (1975) J Am Chem Soc 97:5308)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dewar MJS (1975) Science 187:1037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Halgren TA, Kleier DA, Lipscomb WN (1975) Science 190:591; response: Dewar MJS (1975) Science 190:591

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dewar MJS (1983) J Mol Struct 100:41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dewar MJS, Jie C (1992) Acc Chem Res 25:537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Li Y, Houk KN (1993) J Am Chem Soc 115:7478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ref. 24, p 125

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bingham RC, Dewar MJS, Lo DH (1975) J Am Chem Soc 97:1285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Levine IN (2000) Quantum chemistry, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p 659

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dewar MJS, Klopman G (1967) J Am Chem Soc 89:3089

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Baird NC, Dewar MJS (1969) J Chem Phys 50:1262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Clark T (1985) A handbook of computational chemistry. Wiley, New York, Chapter 4

    Google Scholar 

  38. (a) First appearance of MNDO: Dewar MJS, Thiel W (1977) J Am Chem Soc 99:4899; (b) Results of MNDO calculations on molecules with H, C, N, O: Dewar MJS, Thiel W (1977) J Am Chem Soc 99:4907; (c) Results for molecules with B: Dewar MJS, McKee ML (1977) J Am Chem Soc 99:5231

    Google Scholar 

  39. Offenhartz PO’D (1970) Atomic and molecular orbital theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 325 (these matrix elements are zero because the AO functions belong to different symmetry species, while the operator (kinetic plus potential energy) is spherically symmetric

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dewar MJS, Thiel W (1977) Theor Chim Acta 46:89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Stewart JJP (1989) J Comp Chem 10:209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Thiel W (1988) Tetrahedron 44:7393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. (a) Thiel W, Voityuk AA (1996) J Phys Chem 100:616; (b) Thiel W (1996) Adv Chem Phys 93:703, in particular 722–725

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lewars E (2008) Modeling marvels. Springer, Amsterdam, Chapter 4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Gorelsky SI (2004). In: McCleverty JA, Meyer TJ (eds) Comprehensive coordination chemistry II, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 467

    Google Scholar 

  46. (a) Thiel W (1981) J Am Chem Soc 103:1413; (b) Thiel W (1981) J Am Chem Soc 103:1420; (c) Schweig A, Thiel W (1981) J Am Chem Soc 103:1425

    Google Scholar 

  47. (a) Schröder S, Thiel W (1985) J Am Chem Soc 107:4422; (b) Schröder S, Thiel W (1986) J Am Chem Soc 108:7985; (c) Schröder S, Thiel W (1986) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 138:141

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bachmann C, Huessian TY, Debû F, Monnier M, Pourcin J, Aycard J-P, Bodot H (1990) J Am Chem Soc 112:7488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Scott AP, Nobes RH, Schaefer HF, Radom L (1994) J Am Chem Soc 116:10159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Delamere C, Jakins C, Lewars E (2002) Can J Chem 80:94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Fowler JE, Galbraith JM, Vacek G, Schaefer HF (1994) J Am Chem Soc 116:9311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. (a) Lewars E (2008) Modeling marvels. Springer, Amsterdam, Chapter 3; (b) Lewars E (1983) Chem Rev 83:519

    Google Scholar 

  53. (a) Vacek G, Galbraith JM, Yamaguchi Y, Schaefer HF, Nobes RH, Scott AP, Radom L (1994) J Phys Chem 98:8660 (b) Vacek G, Colegrove BT, Schaefer HF (1991) Chem Phys Lett 177:468

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cramer CJ (2004) Essentials of computational chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK, p 145

    Google Scholar 

  55. Gaussian is available for several operating systems; see Gaussian, Inc., http://www.gaussian.com, 340 Quinnipiac St., Bldg. 40, Wallingford, CT 06492, USA. As of mid-2009, the latest “full” revision (as distinct from more frequent revisions) of the Gaussian suite of programs was Gaussian 09. The name arises from the fact that ab initio basis sets use Gaussian functions

  56. Spartan is an integrated molecular mechanics, ab initio and semiempirical program with an input/output graphical interface. It is available in UNIX workstation and PC versions: Wavefunction Inc., http://www.wavefun.com, 18401 Von Karman, Suite 370, Irvine CA 92715, USA. As of mid-2009, the latest version of Spartan was Spartan 09. The name arises from the simple or “Spartan” user interface

  57. AMPAC is a semiempirical suite of programs. It can be leased from Semichem, Inc., http://www.semichem.com/default.php, 12456 W, 62nd Terrace, Suite D, Shawnee, KS 66216, USA. As of mid-2009, the latest version of AMPAC was AMPAC 9. The name means Austin method package; cf. AM1

  58. MOPAC is a semiempirical suite of programs. It can be obtained from http://www.cacheresearch.com/mopac.html, CAChe Research, CAChe Research LLC, 13690 SW Otter Lane, Beaverton, OR 97008, USA. As of mid-2009, the latest version of MOPAC was MOPAC2009. The name means Molecular Orbital Package, but is said to have been inspired by this geographical oddity: “The original program was written in Austin, Texas. One of the roads in Austin is unusual in that the Missouri-Pacific railway runs down the middle of the road. Since this railway was called the MO-PAC, when names for the program were being considered, MOPAC was an obvious contender”. See http://openmopac.net/manual/index_troubleshooting.html

  59. For Dewar’s very personal reminiscences of Austin see ref. 24, pp 111–120

    Google Scholar 

  60. Dewar MJS, Zoebisch EG, Healy EF, Stewart JJP (1985) J Am Chem Soc 107:3902

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Note particularly ref. 8, p 662

    Google Scholar 

  62. Reference [24], pp 134, 135

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dannenberg JJ, Evleth EM (1992) Int J Quantum Chem 44:869

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Rocha GB, Freire RO, Simas AM, Stewart JJP (2006) J Comp Chem 27:1101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Voityuk AA, Roesch N (2000) J Phys Chem A 104:4089

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Imhof P, Noe F, Fischer S, Smith JC (2006) J Chem Theory Comput 2:1050

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Nam K, Cui Q, Gao J, York DM (2007) J Chem Theory Comput 3:486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Jomoto J, Lin J, Nakajima T (2002) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 577:143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Winget P, Horn AHC, Selçuki C, Bodo M, Clark T (2003) J Mol Model 9:408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Stewart JJP (1989) J Comp Chem 10:221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Stewart JJP (1991) J Comp Chem 12:320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Dewar MJS, Healy EF, Holder AJ, Yuan Y-C (1990) J Comp Chem 11:541

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Stewart JJP (1990) J Comp Chem 11:543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Ref. 24, p 185

    Google Scholar 

  75. Holder AJ, Dennington RD, Jie C (1994) Tetrahedron 50:627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Dewar MJS, Jie C, Yu J (1993) Tetrahedron 49:5003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. (a) Hehre WJ, Yu J, Adei E (1996) Abstracts of papers of the ACS 1996, 212, COMP 092; (b) Hehre WJ, Yu J, Klunziger PE (1997) A guide to molecular mechanics and molecular orbital calculations in Spartan. Wavefunction Inc., Irvine, CA

    Google Scholar 

  78. Bosque R, Maseras F (2000) J Comp Chem 21:562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. (a) Zakharian TY, Coon SR (2001) Cobalt and nickel. Computers & Chemistry (Oxford) 25:135; (b) Jemmis ED, Sharma PK (2001) Transition metal complexes of C60 and C70. J Mol Graph Model 19:256; (c) Ball DM, Buda C, Gillespie AM, White DP, Cundari TR (2002) Spin state of transition metal complexes. Inorg Chem 41:152; (d) Buda C, Burt SK, Cundari TR, Shenkin PS (2002) Technetium. Inorg Chem 41:2060; (e) Nemykin VN, Basu P (2003) Molybdenum and vanadium. Inorg Chem 42:4046; (f) Gorelski SI (2004) Review of semiempirical methods for transition metals. In: McCleverty JA, Meyer TJ (eds) Comprehensive coordination chemistry II, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 467; (g) Martinez R, Brito F, Araujo ML, Ruette F, Sierraalta A (2004) Comparison of PM3(tm) with CATIVIC, a new parameterized method. Int J Quantum Chem 97:854; (h) Buda C, Cundari TR (2004) De novo prediction of ground states. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 686:137; (i) Buda C, Flores A, Cundari TR (2005) De novo prediction of ground states. J Coord Chem 58:575; (j) Parada J, Ibarra C, Gillitt ND, Bunton CA (2005) Chromium derivatives of sucrose. Polyhedron 24:1002

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cramer CJ (2004) Essentials of computational chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK, 155

    Google Scholar 

  81. http://www.cache.fujitsu.com/mopac/Mopac2002manual/node650.html

  82. Stewart JJP (2007) J Mol Model 13:1173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. http://openmopac.net/MOPAC2009brochure.pdf

  84. Stewart JJp (2004) J Phys Chem Ref Data 33:713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. From “Accuracy”, in MOPAC2009 manual: http://openmopac.net/manual/accuracy.html

  86. Holder AJ, Evleth EM (1994) In: Smith DA (ed) Modelling the hydrogen bond. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, Chapter 7

    Google Scholar 

  87. Levine IN (2000) Quantum chemistry, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ; Chapters 16 and 17, and references therein

    Google Scholar 

  88. Hehre WJ (1995) Practical strategies for electronic structure calculations. Wavefunction, Inc, Irvine, CA

    Google Scholar 

  89. Stewart JJP (1997) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 410:195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. MOZYME is a program in the suite of semiempirical programs MOPAC programs; reference [58]

    Google Scholar 

  91. Stewart JJP (1996) Int J Quantum Chem 58:133

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Thiel W (1998) In: Irikura KK, Frurip DJ (eds) Computational thermochemistry. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, Chapter 8

    Google Scholar 

  93. Bond D (2007) J Org Chem 72:5555

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Pedley JB (1994) Thermochemical data and structures of organic compounds. Thermodynamics Research Center, College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  95. (a) CO2/N2 copolymers: Bylykbashi J, Lewars E (1999) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 469:77; (b) Oxirenes: Lewars E (2000) Can J Chem 78:297–306

    Google Scholar 

  96. H 2 C=CHOH reaction The only quantitative information on the barrier for this reaction seems to be: Saito S (1976) Chem Phys Lett, 42:399, halflife in the gas phase in a Pyrex flask at room temperature ca. 30 minutes. From this one calculates (section 5.5.2.2d, Eq (5.202)) a free energy of activation of 93 kJ mol−1. Since isomerization may be catalyzed by the walls of the flask, the purely concerted reaction may have a much higher barrier. This paper also shows by microwave spectroscopy that ethenol has the O-H bond syn to the C=C. The most reliable measurement of the ethenol/ethanal equilibrium constant, by flash photolysis, is 5.89 × 10−7 in water at room temperature (Chiang Y, Hojatti M, Keeffe JR, Kresge AK, Schepp NP, Wirz J (1987) J Am Chem Soc 109:4000). This gives a free energy of equilibrium of 36 kJ mol−1 (ethanal 36 kJ mol−1 below ethenol). The accurate G3MP2 method [section 5.5.2.2b] places the gas phase free energy of ethanal 43 kJ mol−1 below that of ethenol. HNC reaction The barrier for rearrangement of HNC to HCN has apparently never been actually measured. The equilibrium constant in the gas phase at room temperature was calculated (Maki AG, Sams RL (1981) J Chem Phys 75:4178) at 3.7 x 10−8, from actual measurements at higher 9 temperatures; this gives a free energy of equilibrium of 42 kJ mol−1 (HCN 42 kJ mol−1 below HNC). The G3MP2 method places the gas phase free energy of HCN 59 kJ mol−1 below that of HNC. CH 3 NC reaction The reported experimental activation energy is 161 kJ mol−1 (Wang D, Qian X, Peng J (1996) Chem Phys Lett 258:149; Bowman JM, Gazy B, Bentley JA, Lee TJ, Dateo CE (1993) J Chem Phys 99:308; Rabinovitch BS, Gilderson PW (1965) J Am Chem Soc 87:158; Schneider FW, Rabinovitch BS (1962) J Am Chem Soc 84:4215). The energy difference between CH3NC and CH3CN has apparently never been actually measured. The G3MP2 method places the gas phase free energy of CH3CN 99 kJ mol−1 below that of CH3NC. Cyclopropylidene reaction Neither the barrier nor the equilibrium constant for the cyclopropylidene/allene reaction have been measured. The only direct experimental information of these species come from the failure to observe cyclopropylidene at 77 K (Chapman OL (1974) Pure and Applied Chemistry 40:511). This and other experiments (references in Bettinger HF, Schleyer PvR, Schreiner PR, Schaefer HF (1997) J Org Chem 62:9267 and in Bettinger HF, Schreiner PR, Schleyer PvR, Schaefer HF (1996) J Phys Chem 100:16147) show that the carbene is much higher in energy than allene and rearranges very rapidly to the latter. Bettinger et al., 1997 (above) calculate the barrier to be 21 kJ mol−1 (5 kcal mol−1). The G3MP2 method places the gas phase free energy of allene 283 kJ mol−1 below that of cyclopropylidene.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Some examples are (a) Activation enthalpies of cytochrome-P450-mediated hydrogen abstractions; comparison of PM3, SAM1, and AM1 with a DFT method: Mayeno AN, Robinson JL, Yang RSH, Reisfeld B (2009) J Chem Inf Model 49:1692; (b) Pyruvate to lactate transformation catalyzed by L-lactate dehydrogenase, attempt to improve accuracy of semiempirical descriptors (AM1/MM): Ferrer S, Ruiz-Pernia JJ, Tunon I, Moliner V, Garcia-Viloca M, Gonzalez-Lafont A, Lluch JM (2005) J Chem Theory Comput 1:750; (c) Mechanism of tyrosine phosphorylation catalyzed by the insulin receptor tyrosine kinase (PM3): Pichierri F, Matsuo Y (2003) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 622:257; (d) A novel type of irreversible inhibitor for carboxypeptidase A (PM3): Chung SJ, Chung S, Lee HS, Kim E-J, Oh KS, Choi HS, Kim KS, Kim JJ, Hahn JH, Kim DH (2001) J Org Chem 66:6462

    Google Scholar 

  98. Reference [92], p 157

    Google Scholar 

  99. Information supplied by Dr. R. Johnson of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, USA (NIST): best fits to about 1100 vibrations of about 70 closed-shell molecules. An extensive collection of scaling factors is available on the NIST website (http://srdata.nist.gov/cccbdb/)

  100. Scott AP, Radom L (1996) J Phys Chem Phys Chem 100:16502

    Google Scholar 

  101. Holder AJ, Dennington RD II (1997) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 401:207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. AM1, MP2(fc)/6-31G*, and experimental IR spectra were compared by the author for 18 of the 20 compounds in Fig.6.2 (suitable IRs were not found for HOCl and CH3SH) and for these 10: cyclopentane, cyclopentene, cyclopentanone, pyrrolidine, pyrrole, butanone, diethyl ether, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, and tetrahydrofuran. On the basis of the relative intensities of the bands, of these 28 compounds only for six, HCN, CH3OH, H2C=CH2, HOF, cyclopentene and cyclopentanone were both the AM1 and MP2 spectra similar to the experimental; for the others the MP2 IRs were closer to experiment

    Google Scholar 

  103. Galabov B, Yamaguchi Y, Remington RB, Schaefer HF (2002) J Phys Chem A 106:819

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Healy EF, Holder A (1993) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 281:141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Coolidge MB, Marlin JE, Stewart JJP (1991) J Comp Chem 12:948

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Reference 88, pp 74, 76–77, 80–82

    Google Scholar 

  107. Hehre WJ, Radom L, Schleyer pvR, Pople JA (1986) Ab initio molecular orbital theory. Wiley, New York, Section6.6

    Google Scholar 

  108. Scheiner AC, Baker J, Andzelm JW (1997) J Comp Chem 18:775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Cramer CJ (2004) Essentials of computational chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK, p 309

    Google Scholar 

  110. Anh NT, Frisson G, Solladié-Cavallo A, Metzner P (1998) Tetrahedron 54:12841

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Jensen F (2007) Introduction to computational chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, p 296

    Google Scholar 

  112. Lendvay G (1994) J Phys Chem 98:6098

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Available from Hypercube Inc., http://www.hyper.com/

  114. Foresman JB, Frisch Æ (1996) Exploring chemistry with electronic structure methods, 2nd edn. Gaussian Inc, Pittsburgh, PA, p 218

    Google Scholar 

  115. Levin RD, Lias SG (1982) Ionization potential and appearance potential measurements, 1971–1981. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  116. Curtiss LA, Nobes RH, Pople JA, Radom L (1992) J Chem Phys 97:6766

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Dewar MJS, Rzepa HS (1978) J Am Chem Soc 100:784

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Reference [24], p 180

    Google Scholar 

  119. Bachrach SM (2007) Computational organic chemistry. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, p xv

    Google Scholar 

  120. Enrico Fermi quoted to Freeman Dyson those words of von Neumann: Dyson F (2004) Nature 427:297

    Google Scholar 

  121. Cramer CJ (2004) Essentials of computational chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK, Table2.1

    Google Scholar 

  122. Cramer CJ (2004) Essentials of computational chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK, p 157

    Google Scholar 

  123. (a) Gasteiger J, Engel T (eds) (2004) Chemoinformatics: a textbook. Wiley, Weinheim, Germany; (b) Leach AR, Gille VJ (eds) (2003) An introduction to chemoinformatics. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  124. (a) Leach AR (2001) Molecular modelling, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Essex, England, chapter 12; (b) Höltje H-D, Folkers G (1996) Molecular modelling, applications in medicinal chemistry. VCH, Weinheim, Germany; (c) van de Waterbeemd H, Testa B, Folkers G (eds) (1997) Computer-assisted lead finding and optimization. VCH, Weinheim, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  125. Dewar MJS, Storch DM (1985) J Am Chem Soc 107:3898

    Google Scholar 

  126. For a series of small, mostly nonbiological molecules AM1 seemed better than PM3, except for O-H/O hydrogen bonds: Dannenberg JJ (1997) J Mol Struct (Theochem) 410:279

    Google Scholar 

  127. In model systems of biological relevance, mostly involving water, PM3 was superior to AM1: Zheng Y-J, Merz KM (1992) J Comp Chem 13:1151

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Chemistry, Trent University, West Bank Drive 1600, K9J 7B8, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

    Prof. Errol G. Lewars

Authors
  1. Prof. Errol G. Lewars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Errol G. Lewars .

Appendices

Easier Questions

  1. 1.

    Outline the similarities and differences between the extended Hückel method on the one hand and methods like AM1 and PM3 on the other. What advantages does the EHM have over more accurate semiempirical methods?

  2. 2.

    Outline the similarities and differences between molecular mechanics, ab initio, and semiempirical methods.

  3. 3.

    Both the simple Hückel and the PPP methods are π electron methods, but PPP is more complex. Itemize the added features of PPP.

  4. 4.

    What is the main advantage of an all-valence-electron method like, say, CNDO over a purely π electron method like PPP?

  5. 5.

    Explain the terms ZDO, CNDO, INDO, and NDDO, showing why the latter three represent a progressive conceptual improvement.

  6. 6.

    How does an AM1 or PM3 “total electron wavefunction” Ψ differ from the Ψ of an ab initio calculation?

  7. 7.

    Ab initio energies are “total dissociation” energies (dissociation to electrons and atomic nuclei) and AM1 and PM3 energies are standard heats of formation. Is one of these kinds of energy more useful? Why or why not?

  8. 8.

    For certain kinds of molecules molecular mechanics can give better geometries and relative energies than can even sophisticated semiempirical methods. What kinds of properties can the latter calculate that MM cannot?

  9. 9.

    Why do transition metal compounds present special difficulties for AM1 and PM3?

  10. 10.

    Although both AM1 and PM3 normally give good molecular geometries, they are not too successful in dealing with geometries involving hydrogen bonds (PM3 seems to be the better one here). Suggest reasons for this deficiency.

Harder Questions

  1. 1.

    Why are even very carefully-parameterized semiempirical methods like AM1 and PM3 not as accurate and reliable as high-level (e.g. MP2, CI, coupled-cluster) ab initio calculations?

  2. 2.

    Molecular mechanics is essentially empirical, while methods like PPP, CNDO, and AM1/PM3 are semiempirical. What are the analogies in PPP etc. to MM procedures of developing and parameterizing a forcefield? Why are PPP etc. only semiempirical?

  3. 3.

    What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of parameterizing semiempirical methods with data from ab initio calculations rather than from experiment? Could a SE method parameterized using ab initio calculations logically be called semiempirical?

  4. 4.

    There is a kind of contradiction in the Dewar-type methods (AM1, etc.) in that overlap integrals are calculated and used to help evaluate the Fock matrix elements, yet the overlap matrix is taken as a unit matrix as far as diagonalization of the Fock matrix goes. Discuss.

  5. 5.

    What would be the advantages and disadvantages of using the general MNDO/AM1 parameterization procedure, but employing a minimal basis set instead of a minimal valence basis set?

  6. 6.

    In SCF semiempirical methods major approximations lie in the calculation of the \( H_{ r{{ s}}}^{\rm{core}} \), (rs|tu), and (ru|ts) integrals of the Fock matrix elements F rs (Eq. 6.1=5.82). Suggest an alternative approach to approximating one of these integrals.

  7. 7.

    Read the exchange between Dewar on the one hand and Halgren, Kleir and Lipscomb on the other [28]. Do you agree that semiempirical methods, even when they give good results “inevitably obscure the physical bases for success (however striking) and failure alike, thereby limiting the prospects for learning why the results are as they are.”? Explain your answer.

  8. 8.

    It has been said of semiempirical methods: “They will never outlive their usefulness for correlating properties across a series of molecules… I really doubt their predictive value for a one-off calculation on a small molecule on the grounds that whatever one is seeking to predict has probably already been included in with the parameters.” (A. Hinchliffe, “Ab Initio Determination of Molecular Properties”, Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1987, p. x). Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Compare the above quotation with ref. [24], pp. 133–136.

  9. 9.

    For common organic molecules Merck Molecular Force field geometries are nearly as good as MP(fc)/6-31G* geometries (Section 3.4). For such molecules single-point MP(fc)/6-31G* calculations (Section 5.4.2), which are quite fast, on the MMFF geometries, should give energy differences comparable to those from MP(fc)/6-31G*//MP(fc)/6-31G* calculations. Example: CH2=CHOH/CH3CHO, ΔE(MP2 opt, including ZPE) = 71.6 kJ mol−1, total time 1,064 s; ΔE(MP2 single point on MMFF geometries) = 70.7 kJ mol−1, total time = 48 s (G98 on a Pentium 3). What role does this leave for semiempirical calculations?

  10. 10.

    Semiempirical methods are untrustworthy for “exotic” molecules of theoretical interest. Give an example of such a molecule and explain why it can be considered exotic. Why can’t semiempirical methods be trusted for molecules like yours? For what other kinds of molecules might these methods fail to give good results?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lewars, E.G. (2011). Semiempirical Calculations. In: Computational Chemistry. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3862-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation