Valence empirical

Hume-Rothery s rule The statement that the phase of many alloys is determined by the ratio.s of total valency electrons to the number of atoms in the empirical formula. See electron compounds. 

For this reason, there has been much work on empirical potentials suitable for use on a wide range of systems. These take a sensible functional form with parameters fitted to reproduce available data. Many different potentials, known as molecular mechanics (MM) potentials, have been developed for ground-state organic and biochemical systems [58-60], They have the advantages of simplicity, and are transferable between systems, but do suffer firom inaccuracies and rigidity—no reactions are possible. Schemes have been developed to correct for these deficiencies. The empirical valence bond (EVB) method of Warshel [61,62], and the molecular mechanics-valence bond (MMVB) of Bemardi et al. [63,64] try to extend MM to include excited-state effects and reactions. The MMVB Hamiltonian is parameterized against CASSCF calculations, and is thus particularly suited to photochemistry. 

The first point to remark is that methods that are to be incorporated in MD, and thus require frequent updates, must be both accurate and efficient. It is likely that only semi-empirical and density functional (DFT) methods are suitable for embedding. Semi-empirical methods include MO (molecular orbital) [90] and valence-bond methods [89], both being dependent on suitable parametrizations that can be validated by high-level ab initio QM. The quality of DFT has improved recently by refinements of the exchange density functional to such an extent that its accuracy rivals that of the best ab initio calculations [91]. DFT is quite suitable for embedding into a classical environment [92]. Therefore DFT is expected to have the best potential for future incorporation in embedded QM/MD. 

Most simple empirical or semi-empirical molecular orbital methods. including all ofthose ii sed in IlyperCh em, neglect inner sh ell orbitals and electrons and use a minimal basis se.i r>f valence Slater orbitals. 

The trends in chemical and physical properties of the elements described beautifully in the periodic table and the ability of early spectroscopists to fit atomic line spectra by simple mathematical formulas and to interpret atomic electronic states in terms of empirical quantum numbers provide compelling evidence that some relatively simple framework must exist for understanding the electronic structures of all atoms. The great predictive power of the concept of atomic valence further suggests that molecular electronic structure should be understandable in terms of those of the constituent atoms. 

Much of quantum chemistry attempts to make more quantitative these aspects of chemists view of the periodic table and of atomic valence and structure. By starting from first principles and treating atomic and molecular states as solutions of a so-called Schrodinger equation, quantum chemistry seeks to determine what underlies the empirical quantum numbers, orbitals, the aufbau principle and the concept of valence used by spectroscopists and chemists, in some cases, even prior to the advent of quantum mechanics. 

Empirical conformational energy program for peptides (ECEPP) is the name of both a computer program and the force field implemented in that program. This is one of the earlier peptide force fields that has seen less use with the introduction of improved methods. It uses three valence terms that are fixed, a van der Waals term, and an electrostatic term. 

Empirical force field (EFF) is a force field designed just for modeling hydrocarbons. It uses three valence terms, no electrostatic term and five cross terms. 

The introduction of a methyl substituent into the empirical calculations may be performed according to two main different models the pseudoheteroatomic model and the hyperconjugated model (161-166). Both approximations have been used in rr-electron methods (HMO, w, PPP). On the other hand, in the all-valence-electrons... 

Semi-empirical quantum mechanics methods have evolved over the last three decades. Using today s microcomputers, they can produce meaningful, often quantitative, results for large molecular systems. The roots of the methods lie in the theory of % electrons, now largely superseded by all-valence electron theories. 

The simplest many-electron wave function that satisfies the Exclusion Principle is a product of N different one-electron functions that have been antisymmetrized, or written as a determinant. Here, N is the number of electrons (or valence electrons) in the molecule. HyperChem uses this form of the wave function for most semi-empirical and ab initio calculations. Exceptions involve using the Configuration Interaction option (see page 119). HyperChem computes one-electron functions, termed molecular spin orbitals, by relatively simple integration and summation calculations. The many-electron wave function, which has N terms (the number of terms in the determinant), never needs to be evaluated. 

This equation is important in interpreting the results of calculations. In ab initio and semi-empirical calculations, atomic orbitals are functions of the x, y, and z coordinates of the electron that closely resemble the valence orbitals of the isolated atoms. 

HyperChem quantum mechanics calculations must start with the number of electrons (N) and how many of them have alpha spins (the remaining electrons have beta spins). HyperChem obtains this information from the charge and spin multiplicity that you specify in the Semi-empirical Options dialog box or Ab Initio Options dialog box. N is then computed by counting the electrons (valence electrons in semi-empirical methods and all electrons in fll) mitio method) associated with each (assumed neutral) atom and... 

This chapter presents the implementaiton and applicable of a QM-MM method for studying enzyme-catalyzed reactions. The application of QM-MM methods to study solution-phase reactions has been reviewed elsewhere [44]. Similiarly, empirical valence bond methods, which have been successfully applied to studying enzymatic reactions by Warshel and coworkers [19,45], are not covered in this chapter. 

TNT-equi valency methods express explosive potential of a vapor cloud in terms of a charge of TNT. TNT-blast characteristics are well known fiom empirical data both in the form of blast parameters (side-on peak overpressure and positive-phase duration) and of corresponding damage potential. Because the value of TNT-equiva-lency used for blast modeling is directly related to damage patterns observed in major vapor cloud explosion incidents, the TNT-blast model is attractive if overall damage potential of a vapor cloud is the only concern. 

This is taken to be the atomic valence state ionization energy, invariably written 0)i and treated as an empirical parameter to be determined by fitting an experimental result. 

The first step in reducing the computational problem is to consider only the valence electrons explicitly, the core electrons are accounted for by reducing the nuclear charge or introducing functions to model the combined repulsion due to the nuclei and core electrons. Furthermore, only a minimum basis set (the minimum number of functions necessary for accommodating the electrons in the neutral atom) is used for the valence electrons. Hydrogen thus has one basis function, and all atoms in the second and third rows of the periodic table have four basis functions (one s- and one set of p-orbitals, pj, , Pj, and Pj). The large majority of semi-empirical methods to date use only s- and p-functions, and the basis functions are taken to be Slater type orbitals (see Chapter 5), i.e. exponential functions. 

The main difference between the G2 models is tlie way in which tlie electron correlation beyond MP2 is estimated. The G2 method itself performs a series of MP4 and QCISD(T) calculations, G2(MP2) only does a single QCISD(T) calculation with tlie 6-311G(d,p) basis, while G2(MP2, SVP) (SVP stands for Split Valence Polarization) reduces the basis set to only 6-31 G(d). An even more pruned version, G2(MP2,SV), uses the unpolarized 6-31 G basis for the QCISD(T) part, which increases the Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) to 2.1 kcal/mol. That it is possible to achieve such good performance with tliis small a basis set for QCISD(T) partly reflects the importance of the large basis MP2 calculation and partly the absorption of errors in the empirical correction. 

The systems discussed in this chapter give some examples using different theoretical models for the interpretation of, primarily, UPS valence band data, both for pristine and doped systems as well as for the initial stages of interface formation between metals and conjugated systems. Among the various methods used in the examples are the following semiempirical Hartree-Fock methods such as the Modified Neglect of Diatomic Overlap (MNDO) [31, 32) and Austin Model 1 (AMI) [33] the non-empirical Valence Effective Hamiltonian (VEH) pseudopotential method [3, 34J and ab initio Hartree-Fock techniques. 

---