The geometry and bonding nature of Cp(CO)
2W(C
![](/images/entities/tbd1.gif)
CH)(SiH
2) (
1) and the reaction leading tothe formation of
1 from
Cp(CO)2W(Si(H)2C
CH) (
9) were theoretically investigated with DFT, MP2 to MP4(SDTQ), and CCSD(T) methods, where
9 and
1 were adopted as models of the interesting new complexesreported recently,
Cp*(CO)2W(Si(Ph)2C
CtBu) and Cp*(CO)
2W(C
![](/images/entities/tbd1.gif)
C
tBu)(SiPh
2), respectively. Our computational results clearly indicate that
1 involves neither a pure silacyclopropenyl group nor pure silyleneand acetylide groups and that the silylene group strongly interacts with both the W center and the acetylidegroup. Frontier orbitals of
1 resemble those observed in the formation of silacyclopropene from silyleneand acetylene. The frontier orbitals, as well as the geometry, indicate that the (CCH)(SiH
2) moiety of
1 canbe understood in terms of an interesting intermediate species trapped by the W center in that formationreaction. Complex
1 is easily formed from
9 through Si-C
![](/images/gifchars/sigma.gif)
-bond activation with moderate activation barriersof 15.3, 18.8, and 15.8 kcal/mol, which are the DFT-, MP4(SDTQ)-, and CCSD(T)-calculated values,respectively. This reaction takes place without a change of the oxidation state of the W center. Intermediate
9 is easily formed from Cp(CO)
2W(Me)(H
3SiC
![](/images/entities/tbd1.gif)
CH) via Si-H oxidative addition, followed by C-H reductiveelimination. The bonding nature of
9 is also very interesting; the nonbonding
![](/images/gifchars/pi.gif)
-orbital of the H
2SiCCHmoiety is essentially the same as that of the propargyl group, but the
![](/images/gifchars/pi.gif)
-conjugation between Si and Catoms is very weak in the
![](/images/gifchars/pi.gif)
-orbital, unlike that in the propargyl group.