Theoretica chimica acta

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 111–122 | Cite as

Configuration interaction calculations on the propane radical cation, C3H 8 +

  • Sten Lunell
  • David Feller
  • Ernest R. Davidson


Proton isotropic hyperfine coupling constants have been calculated for three low-energy nuclear conformations on the ground state potential surface of the propane cation, using a multireference singles and doubles configuration interaction (MR-SDCI) wave function. The lowest point found on the potential surface hadC2v symmetry and the electronic wave function at this point had2B2 symmetry. At this point, the largest isotropic coupling constant is calculated to be 88.6 G, which is in fair agreement with the experimental value of 98 G obtained in an SF6 matrix at 4 K. No support is found for a “long-bond” ground state of lower symmetry thanC2v. AnotherC2v minimum on the ground state potential energy surface was found at which the wave function had2B1 symmetry. At this point, two large coupling constants of 198 G and 35 G were calculated. AC2v stationary point was also found on the ground state potential surface at which the wave function had2A1 symmetry. At this point, couplings of 86 G and 25 G were obtained. None of these agree closely with the other experimental result of couplings at both 100–110 G and 50–52.5 G which was obtained in freon matrices. It is suggested that the latter spectra might correspond to a dynamical average of two distorted2A' states inCs symmetry.

Key words

Propane cation Configuration interaction Hyperfine coupling constants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and notes

  1. 1.
    For a recent review, see: Lund A, Lindgren M, Lunell S, Maruani J (1989) In: Maruani J (ed) Molecules in physics, chemistry, and biology, vol 3, pp 259–300Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker D, Plante K, Sevilla MD (1983) J Phys Chem 87:1648Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toriyama K, Nunome K, Iwasaki M (1982) J Chem Phys 77:5891Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lunell S, Huang MB, Lund A (1984) Faraday Discuss Chem Soc 78:35Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Feller D, Davidson ER (1984) J Chem Phys 80:1006; Theor Chim Acta 68:57 and references thereinGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    The MELD suite of programs was developed by Davidson ER and coworkers, Department of Chemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    Van Duijneveldt FB (1971) IBM Technical Report RJ945Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Tanaka K, Davidson ER (1979) J Chem Phys 70:2904Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Feller D, Davidson ER (1981) J Chem Phys 74: 3977Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    GAUSSIAN 82, Binkley JS, Frisch MJ, DeFrees DJ, Raghavachari K, Whiteside RA, Schlegel HB, Fluder EM, Pople JA (1980) Department of Chemistry, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  11. 12.
    Davidson ER, Silver DW (1977) Chem Phys Letters 52:403Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Bouma WJ, Poppinger D, Radom L (1983) Israel J Chem 23:21Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Lunell S, Huang M-B (1989) J Chem Soc Chem Comm 1931Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Bellville DJ, Bauld NL (1982) J Am Chem Soc 104:5700Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Feller D, Huyser, ES, Borden WT, Davidson ER (1983) J Am Chem Soc 105:1459Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Frey RF, Davidson ER (1988) J Chem Phys 88:1775; Paddon-Row MN, Fox DJ, Pople JA, Houk KN, Pratt DW (1985) J Am Chem Soc 107:7696Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sten Lunell
    • 1
  • David Feller
    • 2
  • Ernest R. Davidson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Quantum ChemistryUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Batelle Pacific Northwest LaboratoriesRichlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations