Journal of Computer Chemistry, Japan -International Edition
Online ISSN : 2189-048X
ISSN-L : 2189-048X
General Paper
Differences between Gaussian and GAMESS Basis Sets (II) ―6-31G and 6-31G*―
Munetaka TAKEUCHIMasafumi YOSHIDAUmpei NAGASHIMA
Author information
JOURNALS OPEN ACCESS FULL-TEXT HTML

2021 Volume 7

Details
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.

Information related to the author
© 2021 Society of Computer Chemistry, Japan

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ja
Previous article
feedback
Top