Calculations were performed with the MMCmodel potential for structures of a number of HCN–(HCCH)n clusters through n ¼ 12. There are increasing numbers of low-lying minima with an increasing number of acetylene molecules. All the structures found could be understood or rationalized as arrangements where individual pairs
are to a good extent either T-shaped or linear, the latter only for HCN–HCCH pairs. A consistent qualitative result of these calculations is that HCN being a replacement for an acetylene in a pure cluster leads to fairly small structural changes. This is especially clear for the pentamer. In Fig. 2, a ghost image of ðHCCHÞ5 is included with the Fig. 1. Minimum energy structures (I–IV) of HCN–(HCCH)2 obtained from geometry optimization at the cc-pVTZ/MP2 level.
Structure I, the global minimum energy structure, is planar
and cyclic, whereas II, III, and IV have a C2 symmetry axis and
are simple juxtapositions of T-shaped and linear forms of the
corresponding dimer subunits. The orientation angles for I and
the separation distances (AA) between monomer mass centers for
I–IV determined at the cc-pVTZ/MP2 level are shown for each
structure. Corresponding values from the MMC model potential
are shown in parentheses.
Table 2
Calculated stabilities and three-body interaction energies for
ðHCCHÞ2HCN
Structurea Stability Three-body contribution
(cm1) (cm1)
I 1808 169
II 1686 71
III 1247 )58
IV 1110 )86
a See Fig. 1 for definitions of structure designations I–IV.
W.P. Schroeder et al. / Chemical Physics Letters 373 (2003) 8–14 11
picture of HCN–ðHCCHÞ4, keeping the overhead
acetylenes coincident. There are only very small
orientation changes. Fig. 3 shows the three lowest
energy n ¼ 12 structures. Comparison of the
HCN–ðHCCHÞ12 clusters with the optimum
ðHCCHÞ13 cluster [15] shows slight differences,
with such differences being greatest among acetylenes
that are the nearest neighbors to the HCN. In
a rough sense, HCN takes the place of an acetylene
into an otherwise pure acetylene cluster without
significant structural alteration.
The effect of counterpoise correction [23], isolated
in values collected in Table 1, remains important
even with the aug-cc-pVTZ basis. The results of
the DFT calculations are about midway between
cc-pVDZ/MP2 and cc-pVTZ/MP2 results.