6
$\begingroup$

I am trying to optimize the geometry of excited state NH3 and get the corresponding normal modes for excited states. I am trying to get the frequencies as mentioned in this reference. They claim to use CC2/TZVPP for calculations. I am trying to re-create their results with my script but there is a big mismatch between the values they report and I am getting.

Their reported values: Normal mode frequencies for excited state of NH3

I am able to get their ground state frequencies but not the excited state. My GAMESS script for excited state calculation:

!   File created for NH3 Excited states
 $BASIS GBASIS=TZV $END
 $CONTRL SCFTYP=RHF RUNTYP=OPTIMIZE CCTYP=CCD $END
 $SCF DIRSCF=.TRUE. $END
 $STATPT  OPTTOL=0.0001 NSTEP=20 HSSEND=.T. $END
 $FORCE METHOD=FULLNUM VIBSIZ=0.001 VIBANL=.TRUE. PURIFY=.TRUE. $END
 $eominp nstate(1)=1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 iroot(1)=2 ccprpe=.true.
         minit=2 noact=3 nuact=5 $end
 $DATA
Title
C1
N     7.0    -0.00000    -0.00000     0.05500
H     1.0    -0.01280    -0.96010    -0.25500
H     1.0     0.83790     0.46900    -0.25500
H     1.0    -0.82510     0.49110    -0.25500
 $END

The resultant frequencies that I get after running this is: {364.17, 1680.03, 1686.99, 3658.94, 3866.18, 3867.96} Could you help in fixing the issue?

Edit:

Based on one of the answers, I updated the input file. Resulting frequencies with EOM-CCSD and TZVPP basis functions are, {237.63, 875.84, 982.98, 3508.41, 3524.99, 3533.73} Still way off than what is being reported. But it looks like moving in the right direction.

!   File created for NH3 Excited states
 $BASIS GBASIS=TZVPP $END
 $CONTRL SCFTYP=RHF RUNTYP=OPTIMIZE CCTYP=EOM-CCSD $END
 $SCF DIRSCF=.TRUE. $END
 $STATPT  OPTTOL=0.0001 NSTEP=20 HSSEND=.T. $END
 $FORCE METHOD=FULLNUM VIBSIZ=0.001 VIBANL=.TRUE. PURIFY=.TRUE. $END
 $eominp nstate(1)=1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 iroot(1)=2 ccprpe=.true.
         minit=2 noact=3 nuact=5 $end
 $DATA
Title
C1
N     7.0    -0.00000    -0.00000     0.05500
H     1.0    -0.01280    -0.96010    -0.25500
H     1.0     0.83790     0.46900    -0.25500
H     1.0    -0.82510     0.49110    -0.25500
 $END
$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

This is not a full answer, because it does not solve the problem. But I hope to shed some light on why you are not getting the correct frequencies.

Short answer: I suspect there is a bug in GAMESS

Long answer:

First of all I would advise you to go through the manual of GAMESS. There are lots of problems in the input file, and most of them can be easily fixed by looking at the manual.

  1. You are using EOM-CCSD, so you have to use CCTYP=EOM-CCSD.
  2. This method does not have analytic gradients, so you must add NUMGRD=.t. in $CONTRL. Your input file as of now, calculates the analytic gradient of the RHF part only, and produces the wrong result. (EOM-CCSD calculation has three parts—ground state RHF, ground state CCSD, excited state EOM-CCSD)
  3. You cannot use PURIFY=.t. without internal coordinates! Since you are using Cartesian coordinates, the correct keyword is PROJCT=.t.
  4. The basis set and method problem has been already mentioned in the answer by @Tyberius. The basis set you are looking for is def2-TZVPP, which is not available in GAMESS. (GBASIS=KTZVPP is not the same basis) . You will have to input it from outside. (As a blatant self-plug, I have written a blog post about using outside basis sets here. It's too long to write here anyways)
  5. The nstate(1)=1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 keyword request for only one symmetric excited state. You should use iroot(1)=1,1. The first number in iroot(1)=indicates the symmetry (1 for completely symmetric i.e. A). The second number indicates the state (1 for first excited state). (Your current input file requests a state that does not exist)
  6. The ccprpe=.true. keyword calculates the EOM-CCSD density matrix for properties. Unless you need properties (like dipole moment etc.) I would suggest you turn this off. Remember, the density matrix is calculated at every stage of geometry optimization and numerical differentiaion for gradient, so it's clearly wasting cpu resources.

Finally, GAMESS cannot run numerical optimizations and numerical hessians in the same run (i.e. you cannot use HSSEND=.t. with NUMGRD=.t.). Therefore, you have to optimize first, with NUMGRD=.t., then take that optimized structure and then calculate its hessian with RUNTYP=HESSIAN and METHOD=FULLNUM.

Even after fixing all of this, when I try to calculate the hessian of the excited $\ce{NH3}$, I get 3 imaginary frequencies. Which is odd, because I just optimized it! I believe the numeric hessian code of GAMESS is not using the EOM-CCSD first excited state energy values, but is instead using the ground state CCSD or RHF energy values for calculating the hessian. I am not completely sure if this is a bug, or whether some keyword needs to be changed. The good news is that at least the gradient calculation run correctly (I am getting a planar optimized structure for the excited state).

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

I can see two major problems:

  1. CCD != CC2 and I'm not certain if CC2 is available in GAMESS. CC2 is an approximation of CCSD, which is available in GAMESS. You may be able to use this since $\ce{NH3}$ is a fairly small molecule, though I don't know how time consuming this will be relative to your initial CCD calculation.

  2. TZV != TZVPP. The def2-TZVPP basis set has two sets of polarization functions added to it relative to def2-TZV (TZV denotes an entirely different basis set in GAMESS). The def2 basis sets are actually not available by default in GAMESS and must be pulled from an external source (the KTZV and KTZVPP in GAMESS are the older def basis sets). Using a different basis set will significantly affect the results.

I haven't used GAMESS, so there could be other issues with your input.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! Both the comments definitely help but even with these, I am unable to get the matching results. $\endgroup$ – madhusudana Mar 26 at 1:22
  • $\begingroup$ Would you be able to add the data for the updated calculation to your question? Based on what you have right now, it looks like the frequencies you are getting are roughly the ground state frequencies (with some error due to the difference in method basis set). You may need to do cctyp=eom-ccsd in order to compute excited state properties. $\endgroup$ – Tyberius Mar 26 at 4:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I just updated the answer with output I get after incorporating your recommendations. Still large differences off but closer than before. $\endgroup$ – madhusudana Mar 26 at 4:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tyberius @Hitarth Minor point, but I believe the KTZVPP basis set in GAMESS is actually one of the older def-series basis sets. The paper that was mentioned in the question uses the newer def2 basis set, which is not available by default in GAMESS, and it has to be manually entered into the input file. $\endgroup$ – Shoubhik R Maiti Mar 26 at 9:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ShoubhikRMaiti that makes sense. It looks like you have this detail included in your answer, but I will update mine to avoid any confusion. $\endgroup$ – Tyberius Mar 26 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.