An automated protocol to construct flexibility parameters for classical forcefields: applications to metal–organic frameworks

Abstract

In this work, forcefield flexibility parameters were constructed and validated for more than 100 metal–organic frameworks (MOFs). We used atom typing to identify bond types, angle types, and dihedral types associated with bond stretches, angle bends, dihedral torsions, and other flexibility interactions. Our work used Manz's angle-bending and dihedral-torsion model potentials. For a crystal structure containing N_atoms in its unit cell, the number of independent flexibility interactions is 3(N_atoms − 1). Because the number of bonds, angles, and dihedrals is normally much larger than 3(N_atoms − 1), these internal coordinates are redundant. To reduce (but not eliminate) this redundancy, our protocol prunes dihedral types in a way that preserves symmetry equivalency. Next, each dihedral type is classified as non-rotatable, hindered, rotatable, or linear. We introduce a smart selection method that identifies which particular torsion modes are important for each rotatable dihedral type. Then, we computed the force constants for all flexibility interactions together via LASSO regression (i.e., regularized linear least-squares fitting) of the training dataset. LASSO automatically identifies and removes unimportant forcefield interactions. For each MOF, the reference dataset was quantum-mechanically-computed in VASP via DFT with dispersion and included: (i) finite-displacement calculations along every independent atom translation mode, (ii) geometries randomly sampled via ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD), (iii) the optimized ground-state geometry using experimental lattice parameters, and (iv) rigid torsion scans for each rotatable dihedral type. After training, the flexibility model was validated across geometries that were not part of the training dataset. For each MOF, we computed the goodness of fit (R-squared value) and the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) separately for the training and validation datasets. We compared flexibility models with and without bond–bond cross terms. Even without cross terms, the model yielded R-squared values of 0.910 (avg across all MOFs) ± 0.018 (st. dev.) for atom-in-material forces in the validation datasets. Our SAVESTEPS protocol should find widespread applications to parameterize flexible forcefields for material datasets. We performed molecular dynamics simulations using these flexibility parameters to compute heat capacities and thermal expansion coefficients for two MOFs.