In principle, it is straightforward:
Draw whatever you wish to investigate in a structure editor. Run a geometry optimization in the quantum chemistry software of your choice using the method your want to do. Load the resulting optimized geometry back in your structure editor and read out the distances you need.
The question is: how good does this have to be? Every QC method has its errors, so you will have over- or underbinding in any case, except you are lucky and have a scenario in which the errors cancel out each other.
Therefore it wouldn't be that blasphemical to say that simply taking a well-investigated structure like Coronene or a cutout of bulk graphene and extrapolating linearly from there would probably have a similar accuracy.
I have never used GaussView, doesn't it have a structure builder? Some editors have default starting structures, e.g. in this case a graphene layer would lend itself to the issue from which you simply cut the section you need and saturate it with hydrocarbons.
Otherwise, some theory papers have supplements with geometric structure files.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Crystallography
- X-ray Diffraction