Phenylboronic acids in crystal engineering: Utility of the energetically unfavorable syn,syn-conformation in co-crystal design

Phenylboronic acids can exist, in principle, in three different conformers (syn,syn; syn,anti and anti,anti) with distinct energy profiles. In their native state, these compounds prefer the energetically favored syn, anti-conformation. In molecular complexes, however, the functionality exhibits conformational diversity. In this paper we report a series of co-crystals, with N-donor compounds, prepared by a design strategy involving the synthons based on the syn, syn-conformation of the boronic acid functionality. For this purpose, we employed compounds with the 1,2-diazo fragment (alprazolam, 1H-tetrazole, acetazolamide and benzotriazole), 1,10-phenanthroline and 2,2'-bipyridine for the co-crystallization experiments. However, our study shows that the mere presence of the 1,2-diazo fragment in the coformer does not guarantee the successful formation of co-crystals with a syn, syn-conformation of the boronic acid. [GRAPHICS] The -B(OH)(2) fragment makes unsymmetrical O-H center dot center dot center dot N heterosynthons with alprazolam (ALP) and 1,10-phenanthroline (PHEN). In the co-crystals of phenylboronic acids with 1H-tetrazole (TETR) and 2,2'-bipyridine (BPY), the symmetrical boronic acid dimer is the major synthon. In the BPY complex, boronic acid forms linear chains and the pyridine compound interacts with the lateral OH of boronic acid dimers that acts as a connector, thus forming a ladder structure. In the TETR complex, each heterocycle interacts with three boronic acids. While two boronic acids interact using the phenolic group, the third molecule generates O-H center dot center dot center dot N hydrogen bonds using the extra OH group, of -B(OH)(2) fragment, left after the dimer formation. Thus, although molecules were selected retrosynthetically with the 1,2-diazo fragment or with nearby hetero-atoms to induce co-crystal formation using the syn,syn-orientation of the -B(OH)(2) functionality, co-crystal formation is in fact selective and is probably driven by energy factors. Acetazolamide (ACET) contains self-complementary functional groups and hence creates stable homosynthons. Phenylboronic acids being weak competitors fail to perturb the homosynthons and hence the components crystallize separately. Therefore, besides the availability of possible hydrogen bond acceptors in the required position and orientation, the ability of the phenyl-boronic acid to perturb the existing interactions is also a prerequisite to form co-crystals. This is illustrated in the table below. In the case of ALP, PHEN and BPY, the native structures are stabilized by weak interactions and may be influenced by the boronic acid fragment. Thus phenylboronic acids can attain co-crystals with those compounds, wherein the cyclic O-H center dot center dot center dot N hydrogen bonds are stronger than the individual homo-interactions. This can lower the lattice energy of the molecular complex as compared with the individual crystals. [GRAPHICS] Phenylboronic acids show some selectivity in the formation of co-crystals with N-heterocycles. The differences in solubility of the components fall short to provide a possible reason for the selective formation of co-crystals only with certain compounds. These compounds, being weak acids, do not follow the Delta pK(a) analysis and hence fail to provide any conclusive observation. Theoretical results show that of the three conformers possible, the syn,anti conformer is the most stable. The relative stabilities of the three conformers syn,anti,syn,syn and anti,anti are 0.0, 2.18 and 3.14 kcal/mol, respectively. The theoretical calculations corroborate the fact that only energetically favorable synthons can induce the formation of heterosynthons, as in ALP and PHEN complexes. From a theoretical and structural analysis it is seen that phenylboronic acids will form interactions with those molecules wherein the heterocyclic and acidic fragments can interrupt the homosynthons. However, the energy profile is shallow and can be perturbed easily by the presence of competing functional groups (such as OH and COOH) in the vicinity. [GRAPHICS] .

Frequency response analysis of layered ground in Ahmedabad during Bhuj earthquake

This paper presents the results of seismic response analysis of layered ground in Ahmedabad City during the earthquake in Bhuj on 26(th) January 2001. An attempt has been made to understand the reasons for the failure of multistoreyed buildings founded on soft alluvial deposits in Ahmedabad. Standard Penetration test at a site very close to the Sabarmati river belt was carried out for geotechnical investigations. The program SHAKE91, widely used in the field of earthquake engineering for computing the seismic response of horizontally layered soil deposits, was used to analyse the soil profile at the selected site considering the ground as one dimensional layered elastic system. The ground accelerations recorded at the ground floor of the Regional Passport Staff Quarters building, which is very close to the investigated site, was used as input motion. Also, Finite Element Analysis was carried out for different configurations of multistorey building frames for evaluating their natural frequencies and is compared with the predominant frequency of the layered soil system. The results reveal that the varying degree of damage to multistorey buildings in the close proximity of Sabarmati river area was essentially due to the large amplification of the ground and the near resonance condition.

Error, Confidence, and Cost in Engineering Computations

The questions that one should answer in engineering computations - deterministic, probabilistic/randomized, as well as heuristic - are (i) how good the computed results/outputs are and (ii) how much the cost in terms of amount of computation and the amount of storage utilized in getting the outputs is. The absolutely errorfree quantities as well as the completely errorless computations done in a natural process can never be captured by any means that we have at our disposal. While the computations including the input real quantities in nature/natural processes are exact, all the computations that we do using a digital computer or are carried out in an embedded form are never exact. The input data for such computations are also never exact because any measuring instrument has inherent error of a fixed order associated with it and this error, as a matter of hypothesis and not as a matter of assumption, is not less than 0.005 per cent. Here by error we imply relative error bounds. The fact that exact error is never known under any circumstances and any context implies that the term error is nothing but error-bounds. Further, in engineering computations, it is the relative error or, equivalently, the relative error-bounds (and not the absolute error) which is supremely important in providing us the information regarding the quality of the results/outputs. Another important fact is that inconsistency and/or near-consistency in nature, i.e., in problems created from nature is completely nonexistent while in our modelling of the natural problems we may introduce inconsistency or near-inconsistency due to human error or due to inherent non-removable error associated with any measuring device or due to assumptions introduced to make the problem solvable or more easily solvable in practice. Thus if we discover any inconsistency or possibly any near-inconsistency in a mathematical model, it is certainly due to any or all of the three foregoing factors. We do, however, go ahead to solve such inconsistent/near-consistent problems and do get results that could be useful in real-world situations. The talk considers several deterministic, probabilistic, and heuristic algorithms in numerical optimisation, other numerical and statistical computations, and in PAC (probably approximately correct) learning models. It highlights the quality of the results/outputs through specifying relative error-bounds along with the associated confidence level, and the cost, viz., amount of computations and that of storage through complexity. It points out the limitation in error-free computations (wherever possible, i.e., where the number of arithmetic operations is finite and is known a priori) as well as in the usage of interval arithmetic. Further, the interdependence among the error, the confidence, and the cost is discussed.

Vertical uplift capacity of a group of two coaxial anchors in a general c-phi soil

The vertical uplift resistance of a group of two horizontal coaxial strip anchors, embedded in a general c-phi soil (where c is the unit cohesion and phi is the soil friction angle), has been determined by using the lower bound finite element limit analysis. The variation of uplift factors F-c and F-gamma, due to the components of soil cohesion and unit weight, respectively, with changes in depth (H)/width (B) has been established for different values of vertical spacing (S)/B. As compared to a single isolated anchor, the group of two anchors provides a significantly greater magnitude of F-c for phi <= 20 degrees and with H/B >= 3. The magnitude of F-c becomes almost maximum when S/B is kept closer to 0.5H/B. On the other hand, with the same H/B, as compared to a single anchor, hardly any increase in F-gamma occurs for a group of two anchors.