Energy main-group compound bonding

The method has been confined to main-group compounds presumably because of irregularities expected with unsymmetrical charge distributions in transition metal ions. The noble gas compounds remain outside the scope of the method because of the way in which electronegativity is defined (atom compactness relative to interpolated noble atom compactness). The main weakness of the method when applied to fluorides is in the somewhat arbitrary choice of fluorine bond energies. 

The exceptions to the octet rule described in the previous section, the xenon compounds and the tri-iodide ion, are dealt with by the VSEPR and valence bond theories by assuming that the lowest energy available d orbitals participate in the bonding. This occurs for all main group compounds in which the central atom forms more than four formal covalent bonds, and is collectively known as hypervalence, resulting from the expansion of the valence shell This is referred to in later sections of the book, and the molecular orbital approach is compared with the valence bond theory to show that d orbital participation is unnecessary in some cases. It is essential to note that d orbital participation in bonding of the central atom is dependent upon the symmetry properties of individual compounds and the d orbitals. 

In this chapter we summarize our systematic investigations of the namre of the chemical bond in transition metal (TM) molecules [17-37] and main group compounds [37-43] employing an energy decomposition analysis (EDA) which was originally developed by Morokuma [44] for ab initio methods and by Ziegler and Rank [45] for DFT methods. The EDA method has been further developed by Baerends and coworkers... 

Bond energy variations over the periodic table will be subject to perturbations which reflect the underlying atomic configurations. Compounds derived from main-group elements of Period 4, for example, will show discontinuities in properties from those of Period 3 because of the extra d-electron shell. Conversely, the insertion of an f-electron shell brings together the properties of the second and third transition series, especially in the earlier groups. 

Initially, the level of theory that provides accurate geometries and bond energies of TM compounds, yet allows calculations on medium-sized molecules to be performed with reasonable time and CPU resources, had to be determined. Systematic investigations of effective core potentials (ECPs) with different valence basis sets led us to propose a standard level of theory for calculations on TM elements, namely ECPs with valence basis sets of a DZP quality [9, 10]. The small-core ECPs by Hay and Wadt [11] has been chosen, where the original valence basis sets (55/5/N) were decontracted to (441/2111/N-11) withN = 5,4, and 3, for the first-, second-, and third-row TM elements, respectively. The ECPs of the second and third TM rows include scalar relativistic effects while the first-row ECPs are nonrelativistic [11], For main-group elements, either 6-31G(d) [12-16] all electron basis set or, for the heavier elements, ECPs with equivalent (31/31/1) valence basis sets [17] have been employed. This combination has become our standard basis set II, which is used in a majority of our calculations [18]. 

---