Differences between Gaussian and GAMESS Basis Sets (II) ―6-31G and 6-31G*―

  • TAKEUCHI M
  • YOSHIDA M
  • NAGASHIMA U
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Gaussian and GAMESS, which are calculation codes for the ab initio molecular orbital method, can be used by simply specifying a basis set name such as 6-31G. However, if an individual basis set with a common name does not have the same parameter set, the calculations with the two codes will each produce a different result. Previously , we used Gaussian and GAMESS for STO-3G calculations of hydrides containing third-period elements and compared the results [J. Comput. Chem. Jpn., 18, 194 (2019)]. In this study, we used 6-31G and 6-31G* for 36 molecules containing a first-to fourth-period element (H, Be, N, Ne, Na-Kr) and compared the results calculated using the two codes. For molecules containing a first-to third-period element (H, Be, N, Ne, Na-Ar) except Si, the optimized structure and total energy obtained with Gaussian and GAMESS were almost the same, whereas the two codes gave different results for K, Ca, and Ga-Kr because the basis parameters used in the two codes are different. On the other hand, the results for the Sc-Zn were in agreement. When the results calculated using Gaussian and GAMESS codes are compared or combined, it is necessary to severe check whether or not the input data produces a sufficiently accurate calculation result.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

TAKEUCHI, M., YOSHIDA, M., & NAGASHIMA, U. (2021). Differences between Gaussian and GAMESS Basis Sets (II) ―6-31G and 6-31G*―. Journal of Computer Chemistry, Japan -International Edition, 7(0), n/a. https://doi.org/10.2477/jccjie.2020-0010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free