Basics of Quantum

Chemistry
 Quantum mechanical (QM) calculations:

spectroscopic properties
when electrons
transition structures
are involved
excited states

when a high degree energies and structures

of accuracy is required of reactive sites

to avoid extensive non standard systems

parameterizations (e.g. radicals)
 Which are the problems ?

Electron Post-HF methods

correlation Density functional theory

Linear scaling
electronic methods

Many degrees nuclear Hybrid methods

of freedom (solute) (QM/QM, QM/MM)

nuclear Continuum, cluster,

(solvent) molecular dynamics
Ab Initio Theory

Means “from first principles;” this implies that no (few)

assumptions are made, and that the method is “pure” from a
theoretical standpoint (in practice, may not be really true)

Even ab initio is based on approximate solutions to the

Schrödinger equation:

ĤΨ =EΨ

Exact solutions only for extremely simple systems!

 Schrödinger equation: HΨ = EΨ

H = Hamiltonion operator

Σ
nuclei

Σ ΣΣ
electrons nuclei electrons
_ h2 1 2 _ h2 2 _ e2 ZA
H = 8π2 MA A
8π2m a rAa
A a A a
kinetic energy (nuc.) kinetic energy (elect.)

ΣΣ
nuclei

ΣΣ
electrons
ZAZB 1
+ e2 + e2
rAB rab
A > B a > b

3 Coulombic energy terms;

one attractive, 2 repulsive
Generally one of the types:

Hartree-Fock
considers each electron to experience a combined
effect of all of other electrons

Correlated methods (several)

considers individual electron interactions
(to some extent)

Density Functional Theory (DFT)

CPU time scales as n3 to n4 where n = number of basis functions

Hartree-Fock Method

Main approximations introduced to allow “solution” of

many-electrons Schrödinger equation

Born-Oppenheimer approximation: electrons act

independently of nuclei

Hartree-Fock approximation: electrons experience the

average “field” generated by all other electrons as a
group, not individually

LCAO: molecular orbitals are constructed as linear

combinations of atom-centered orbitals
 Schrödinger equation after Born-
Oppenheimer approximation

Σ
nuclei

Σ ΣΣ
electrons nuclei electrons
_ h2 1 2 _ h2 2 _ e2 ZA
H = 8π2 MA A
8π2m a rAa
A a A a
kinetic energy (nuc.) kinetic energy (elect.)

ΣΣ
nuclei

ΣΣ
electrons
ZAZB 1
+ e2 + e2
rAB rab
A > B a > b

constant 2 Coulombic energy terms;

one attractive, 2 repulsive,
plus a constant for nuclei
 Density Functional Theory (DFT)

DFT models electron correlation as a functional of electron density (ρ)

→ Kohn-Sham equations

What is density ?

• Density provides information about how something is

distributed in space

• For a chemical system, electron density tells us where

the electrons are likely to exist

Allyl Cation:

ρ ∝ Ψ *Ψ
 Density Functional Theory (DFT)

within the KS formalism

E[ρ] = Tkin+ EN-e[ρ] + EJ[ρ] + EXC[ρ] approximate

∫
Exc[ρ] = Fxc(ρ,∇ρ)dr Fxc= exchange correlation functional

Tkin= kinetic energy term

EJ= electron-electron repulsion term

EN-e= potential energy

EXC = EX (quantum mechanical exchange energy) + EC (dynamic correlation energy)

Hybrid EX= aEXHF+ (1-a)EXDFT

 Behavior of HF and DFT

• By definition, HF has no electron correlation

As we will see shortly, this implies more serious errors

for stretched/distorted bonds, i.e. disfavors overcoordination

• Pure DFT overestimates correlation

Preference for overcoordination

• Hence success of hybrid functionals which add HF exchange

to DFT, e.g. B3LYP…

• Hartree-Fock alone is not very useful – barriers are usually

overestimated by more than DFT underestimates

Density functional theory: computational efficiency and (often)

satisfactory accuracy w.r.t. other ab inito methods
 Basis Sets

“Combinations of mathematical functions used to represent

atomic orbitals”

3 Minimal
H: 1s; C, N, O: 1s, 2s, 2px, 2py, 2pz

3 Slater type orbitals (STO)

too difficult to solve analytically when combined

3 Gaussian type orbitals (GTO)

simpler to manipulate mathematically; combinations of Gaussian function
[c xn ym zl exp (-αr2)] can approximate STO’s
 Basis functions: STO vs GTO
STO: more accurate near nuclei,
but computationally expensive

GTO: less accurate near nuclei,

but computationally cheaper

One uses then several GTO’s grouped into « contracted

gaussianss » (CG). Each CG is a linear combination of
« primitives » (PG)

™ Optimal combinations of Gaussian functions have been developed and are

generally employed in ab initio work.
Split Basis Sets
Minimal (small) basis sets such as STO-3G do not adequately describe non-
spherical (anisotropic) electron distribution in molecules

™ ”Split” valence basis sets (3-21G; 6-31G, etc.) were developed to

overcome this problem: “each split valence atomic orbital is composed of
a variable proportion of two (or more) functions of different size or radial
extent”

for a "loos er" a + b =

bon d:
( b > a)

for a "tighter"
a + b =
bon d:
( a > b)
3-21G → commonly used simple split basis set

™ good for HF geometry calculations on 1st row elements, not good for heavier
elements or for accurate energies

™ 3 primitive Gaussian functions for inner core (subvalence) electrons

™ 2 Gaussians for contracted (small) valence orbitals
™ 1 Gaussian for extended (large) valence orbitals

6-31G, 6-311G (the latter has two different sizes of extended Gaussian
functions for valence orbitals)
 Polarization functions → 6-31G(d), or 6-31G(d,p) (a.k.a. 6-31G* and 6-31G**)

™ adds ‘d’ function to ‘heavy’ atoms, ‘p’ function to H

a + b =

Diffuse functions
→ 6-31+G
™ adds an additional, larger p function to heavy (non-hydrogen or helium)
atoms; indicated by + before G
→ 6-31++G
™ adds an additional, larger p function to heavy (non-hydrogen or helium)
atoms and an additional larger s function to light elements (hydrogen and
helium)

Diffuse functions are useful to describe anions, molecules with lone pairs, excited states, TS

+ d =
Example : (p diffuse orbital added)
 Basis Sets: Common combinations

6-31G(d) Common ‘moderate’ basis set

6-31G(d,p)

6-31+G(d,p) Good compromise

6-31++G(d,p)

Many other basis sets are in use, and basis sets

can be modified/customized/optimized easily
 Alphabet of Basis Sets

After > 30 years, only a handful of basis sets still used:

•STO-3G – The last MBS standing…

•“Pople-style” – m-n1…nXG X-zeta
m = # prim in core ni = # prim in ith valence AO
3-21G – Pathologically good geometries for closed-
shell molecules w/HF (cancellation of errors)
6-31G, 6-31G*, 6-31G**, 6-31+G, 6-31++G
* = polarization on non-H ** = polarization on all
+ = diffuse on non-H ++ = diffuse on all
•cc-pvXz, aug-cc-pvXz – X-zeta - “correlation-consistent”
best, but tend to be larger than Pople sets
 Physical Interpretation
• Could just say more functions = more complete, but
this gives no insight…

n-zeta:

csmall + clarge

Allows orbitals to “breathe,”

i.e. to change their radial extent
 Physical Interpretation II
Polarization functions:

cs +cp

It should be clear that

extra valence and
polarization functions Example is for H atom;
will be most important in general, polarization
when bonds are stretched functions allow orbitals
or atoms are overcoordinated to “bend”
 Optimization
To optimize basis set parameters, one relies on the principle that HF
theory is variational; that is, it converges to the “true” value of the
energy and will never go below that value.

The constants and exponents that describe the Gaussian functions are
varied sequentially until the lowest energy is obtained.
DATA SIMULATION
Input Data

Hypothesis of Minimization
Chemical Model

bad
Fitness Test

good

Output Data

Graphical Presentation of Results

 Setup
Direct SCF

Form Fock
Evaluate Integrals
Matrix

no

Density
converged?

yes

Populations,...
 PES Topography
Transition State

Conical
Intersection

Global Local Minima

Minimum
 Summary of choices:

infinite basis set Schrodinger

6-311++G**

6-311G** increasing accuracy,

increasing cpu time
6-311G* increasing
size of
3-21G* basis set

3-21G

STO-3G

STO increasing level of theory

full e-
HF CI QCISD QCISDT MP2 MP3 MP4 correlation
 Continuum Solvent Models (e.g. PCM)

“Real” solvent distribution function g(r)

g

homogeneous distribution 1
0

R r

™ sharp reduction of degrees of freedom

™ implicit average on accessible solvent conformations:

make use of ε(T)

™ both electrostatic and non-electrostatic contributions

can be included
A sharp boudary (“cavity”) is defined between solute and solvent

solvation
charges
 The molecular (free) energy in solution comes from
three distinct contributions:

also included in the

™ electrostatic solute-solvent
molecular Hamiltonian
interactions (affecting electronic
properties)

™ cavitation energy (entropic)

“classical”
description
™ non-electrostatic (dispersion-repulsion)
interactions
Solvation free energies computed with great accuracy:

neutral ionic
4 -50

2 -60

0
-70
-2

PCM
PCM

-80
-4
-90
-6
-100
-8
-110
-10
-110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Experimental Experimental
 The procedure is also applicable to very large systems

CPU times (sec) to build the cavity

(w.r.t. the number of surface tesserae)

120
Previous version
100
New version CPU times (sec) to compute the solvation charges
80 (w.r.t the number of surface tesserae)

60
350
40 Matrix inversion
300
20 New iterative
250
0 200
2000 4000 8000 15000 35000
150

100

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
 Solvent as a continuum?

Sharp reduction of the degrees of freedom Possibly inadequate for the first
solvation layer of polar solutes
Very accurate description of the solute in protic solvents

Implicit averaging of accessible solvent Solvent molecules taking part

conformations (at a given temperature) to reactions

Good reproduction of bulk effect

A mixed
discrete/continuum
model
Chemical shifts calculations
The Spin Hamiltonian

H = S ⋅ g ⋅ B + ∑ S ⋅ A⋅ IN + S ⋅ D ⋅ S EPR
N

∑ I ⋅ (1 − σ ) ⋅ B + ∑ I ⋅ (D
N
N N
N ,M
N NM + K NM ) ⋅ I M NMR

g, A, D, σ can be expressed as 2nd derivatives of the energy

with respect to the external field and/or electron/nuclear spin

∂ 2E
< X >=
∂λ∂γ

For instance ∂ 2E
g=
∂B∂s

Find the terms of the electronic Hamiltonian that depends on

external field and/or spin
Nuclear shielding calculated at DFT level with good accuracy for
small molecules (GIAO/PBE0/6-311+G(2d,p))

On heavy atoms (C, N) ... σcalc (ppm) PBE0

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
σexp (ppm)

On hydrogen ... σcalc (ppm) PBE0

35

30

25

20
20 25 30 35
σexp (ppm)
 To evaluate a proposed signal assignment:
• E.g. 13C-NMR of phenoxazones and pyridophenoxazones
(related to the ommochromes, pigments of insects and crustaceans):
200 200
9 1 2

8
9a N 10a
2 3
N
180 7
180 11
11a N 12a
1a
4
5a
O 4a 3 O 10
4a
6 4
c alc ulated (ppm )

c alc ulated (ppm )

9
7a
O 6a
O
8 6

160 160

140 140

120 120
in vac uo: c orrelation c oeffic ient = 0.9978 in vac uo: c orrelation c oeffic ient = 0.9979
PCM: c orrelation c oeffic ient = 0.9983 PCM: c orrelation c oeffic ient = 0.9982
100 100
100 120 140 160 180 200 100 120 140 160 180 200
experim ental (ppm ) experim ental (ppm )

200
2

1 3

1a
180
11
11a N 12a N
10
4a
c alc ulated (ppm )

9
7a
O 6a
O
8 6

160 PBE0/6-311+G(d,p) // PBE0/6-31G(d);

140 reference compound benzene
120
in vac uo: c orrelation c oeffic ient = 0.9969
PCM: c orrelation c oeffic ient = 0.9986
100
100 120 140 160 180 200
experim ental (ppm )
Solvent effects on NMR spectra

17O isotropic shielding in N-methyl-formamide

Simple continuum model:

protic
80
solvents
Solvent shift on nuclear σ (ppm)

70

60
with respect to CCl4

50

40

30

20
Exp.
10
Dielectric constant PCM
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
chcl3

ethanol
methanol

water
acetone
toluene

ch3cn
dmso