• Volume/Page
  • Keyword
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
   
 
 
 

You Tube Flickr Twitter UniPHY Group iResearch App Facebook

J. Chem. Phys. 113, 10512 (2000); doi:10.1063/1.1323257 (12 pages)

Critical assessment of the performance of the semiempirical divide and conquer method for single point calculations and geometry optimizations of large chemical systems

Arjan van der Vaart, Dimas Suárez, and Kenneth M. Merz

Department of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, 152 Davey Laboratory, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-6300

(Received 4 August 2000; accepted 15 September 2000)

We present a detailed analysis of the performance of the semiempirical divide and conquer method as compared with standard semiempirical MO calculations. The influence of different subsetting schemes involving dual buffer regions on the magnitude of the errors in energies and computational cost of the calculations are discussed. In addition, the results of geometry optimizations on several protein systems (453 to 4088 atoms) driven by a quasi-Newton algorithm are also presented. These results indicate that the divide and conquer approach gives reliable energies and gradients and suggest that protein geometry optimization using semiempirical methods can be routinely feasible using current computational resources. © 2000 American Institute of Physics.

© 2000 American Institute of Physics

RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article, you need to log in.

KEYWORDS and PACS

PACS

  • 31.15.bu

    Semi-empirical and empirical calculations (differential overlap, Hückel, PPP methods, etc.)

  • 87.15.B-

    Structure of biomolecules

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:

0021-9606 (print)  
1089-7690 (online)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in.
    S. Goedecker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1085 (1999).

    X.-P. Li, R. W. Nunes, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 47, 10891 (1993).

    R. W. Nunes and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17611 (1994).

    A. D. Daniels, J. M. Millam, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 425 (1997)JCPSA6000107000002000425000001.

    J. M. Millam and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 5569 (1997)JCPSA6000106000013005569000001.

    M. Challacombe, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 2332 (1999)JCPSA6000110000005002332000001.

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1438 (1991).

    W. Yang and T.-S. Lee, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 5674 (1995)JCPSA6000103000013005674000001.

    S. L. Dixon and K. M. Merz, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 104, 6643 (1996)JCPSA6000104000017006643000001.

    S. L. Dixon and K. M. Merz, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 107, 879 (1997)JCPSA6000107000003000879000001.

    R. McWeeny, Rev. Mod. Phys. 32, 335 (1960).

    V. Gogonea, L. M. Westerhoff, and K. M. Merz, Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 113, 1 (2000)JCPSA6000113000001000001000001.

    Q. Zhao and W. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 9598 (1995)JCPSA6000102000024009598000001.

    W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrasekhar, J. Madura, R. W. Impey, and M. L. Klein, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926 (1983)JCPSA6000079000002000926000001.

    D. M. York, T.-S. Lee, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5011 (1998).

    O. Farkas and H. B. Schlegel, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 10806 (1999)JCPSA6000111000024010806000001.

    O. Farkas and H. B. Schlegel, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 7100 (1998)JCPSA6000109000017007100000001.


For access to citing articles, you need to log in.



Close
Google Calendar
ADVERTISEMENT

close