---
abstract: 'In present study, we demonstrate results of extensive first principles calculations of the freestanding graphone, and graphone formed on the Ni(111) supported surface, by using of different vdW methods (Grimme corrected methods, vdW-DF functionals and random phase approximation RPA). We evaluate the formation of graphone on the ferromagnetic Ni(111) surface, showing that graphone prefer to be formed on the Ni(111) surface than in the vacuum conditions. Generally, our results for freestanding grahone shows two minima which stands for the chemical and physical adsorptions, whereas for the graphone on a Ni(111) surface only chemical adsorption occurs. In addition, we give an overview on the predictions of energetics and structural changes of different vdW approaches.'
address:
- 'Institute of Theoretical Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Poland'
- 'Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling (ICM), University of Warsaw, Pawinskiego 5a, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland'
author:
- Magdalena Birowska
- Maciej Marchwiany
- 'Jacek A. Majewski'
bibliography:
- 'bibliografia.bib'
title: ' How different approaches of van der Waals forces shape the structure and energetics of hydrogenated graphene (graphone) on Ni(111) surface?'
---

VdW interaction,*ab initio*,DFT ,graphene

Introduction
============

Graphene a two-dimensional material has attracted great deal of attention in recent years mostly due to remarkable properties and potential applications \[[@GeimNM]\]. However, it is zero band gap material which limits its potential electronic applications. One way of changing the electronic properties is the incorporation of heteroatoms (e.g., hydrogen, nitrogen, halogens) into graphene sheet. It has been recently reported that fully hydrogenated graphene, known as graphane, was successfully synthesized \[[@Yang2016154]\]. Moreover, it was theoretically predicted \[[@PhysRevB.75.153401]\] and then, experimentally confirmed \[[@Elias; @Yang2016154]\] that graphane exhibits non-magnetic behavior with a band gap around 4.5 eV.

Incomplete hydrogenation may also occur, especially interesting case is where one sublattice on is hydrogenated on one side. Such material is referred as graphone, and it was theoretically proposed by the authors \[Zhou et al. in 2009\] \[[@Zhou]\]. Moreover, it was predicted to be an indirect band gap semiconductor with a small band gap equals to 0.46 eV, very different from both the original graphene and graphane. In addition, graphone may exhibit magnetic properties as it was theoretically shown in Refs. \[[@Zhou; @Zhang]\]. The magnetic ordering as well as the band gap can be controlled by the hydrogenation patterns, which make hydrogenated graphene a promising material for future spintronics applications \[[@Ray]\]. Hydrogenation of graphene can also be important for various fields like hydrogen storage \[[@PhysRevB.77.035427]\], for production of an inexpensive graphene to large scale \[[@10.1021]\], or defect manipulation \[[@PhysRevB.77.035427; @10.1021]\] among others.

Hydrogenated graphene can be synthesized by couple of different ways \[see the review [@C3CS60132C]\]. One of the most common ways is to use supporting graphene on a substrate (such as Au/Ni(111) \[[@ADMA]\], Ir(111), Pt(111) \[[@10.1021/jp106361y]\], SiC \[[@10.1021/ja902714h]\] followed by the hydrogenation process. It has been recently shown that when graphene is grown on the Ni(111) substrate it is impossible for the Hydrogen atoms to diffuse though the graphene layer to from the double-sided hydrogenation, due to the strong interfacial carbon and Nickel bonding \[[@10.1021/jp106361y]\]. In addition, it has been recently demonstrated that graphone can be successfully synthesized on Ni(111) surface in reversible manner \[[@CHEM:CHEM201404938; @Bahn2017]\]. Reversible hydrogenation is crucial for hydrogen storage \[[@10.1021]\], as well as it allows for controlling the electrical transport in graphene \[[@Elias], PhysRevLett.103.056404\]. The important role of a substrate for the hydrogenation process has been proven to be crucial \[[@Ray; @CHEM:CHEM201404938; @10.1021/jp106361y]\], thus, the influence of the substrate on graphone formation is worth a theoretical considerations, and it is one of the subject of this paper. Moreover, in this paper we also focus on the different vdW approaches and justify their usage considering the hydrogenation of graphene supported on Ni(111) surface. It has been demonstrated so far that the vdW interaction are crucial for the proper description of the energetics of the layered materials \[[@APP2011.birowska]\] or graphene/substrate (metallic and isolating) systems \[[@PhysRevB.84.201401]\]. Moreover, for the adsorption processes, vdW interaction are also very important. Here we performed the calculations with computationally demanding vdW approach - random phase approximation, and compare its usage with less demanding available (phenomenological in their nature) vdW approaches. We have focused on the energetics and structural properties and have showed that the energy landscapes can be significantly changed depending on the vdW method used.

The aim of this paper is twofold. The primary aim is to compare and justify, which of the wide spectrum of available methods including the van der Waals interactions are suitable for good description of the adsorption of small molecules like H, F, etc. on layered materials. Hence, these investigations can be viewed as a benchmark for the functionalizations or intercalation of the other two-dimensional (2D) atomically thick materials like TMDs, hBN, and MXenes vertically stacked forming new class of widely studied nowadays so-called van der Waals heterostructures. Secondary aim is to determine, from the energetical and structural point of view, the substrate effect on the adsorption process of the examined structures.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present computational details. The results are presented and discussed in section 3. Here, we deal with the energetics and structural changes of single-sided hydrogenated graphene on the Ni(111) substrate and compare the results for freestanding graphone. Finally, the paper is concluded in section 4.

Computational details
=====================

![\[supercell\] The schematic diagram of the supercell used in the calculations. The supercell consists of six monolayers of Ni and one monolayer of graphene. The hydrogen atoms adsorbs on the top of carbon atom in graphene monolayer.](supercell.png){width="50.00000%"}

The calculations were performed within the spin polarized DFT \[[@PhysRev.136.B864; @PhysRev.140.A1133]\] state-of-the-art computational scheme as is implemented in the VASP package \[[@PhysRevB.47.558; @KRESSE199615]\]. The electron-ion interaction was modelled by using projector augmented wave pseudopotentials (PAW) \[[@PhysRevB.50.17953; @PhysRevB.59.1758]\] with GW potentials, which are believed to be important for RPA calculations, while the valence electrons were described with a plane wave basis set limited by a kinetic energy cutoff of 400 eV. The Brillouin Zone integration was done by using of $\Gamma$-centered $24\times24\times2$ Monkhorst-Pack sampling, for all of the methods except of the RPA for which $19\times19\times1$ Monkhorst-Pack sampling was used \[[@PhysRevB.84.201401]\]. For all of the calculations the same supercell was used, which dimensions are shown in Fig. \[supercell\]. We considered here single-sided hydrogenation where the hydrogen atoms fully occupied only one sublattice of graphene as it is presented in Fig. \[supercell\]B. In case of the substrate calculations, the Ni(111) surface was modelled by a slab consisting of six monolayers and a vacuum width of 14.5 Å thickness (see Fig. \[supercell\]). The convergence threshold was set at 10$^{-5}$ for the energy self-consistency and 0.002 eV/Å$^2$ for the forces for all of the methods except the RPA calculations for which the convergence criteria were adopted in Ref. \[[@PhysRevB.84.201401] and see the references therein\].

The structural optimization procedure was done in two steps, first we optimized the lattice constant of fcc Ni structure for each of the method alone (the RPA lattice constant was adopted from [@PhysRevB.84.201401]). Then, these Ni lattice constants (suitable for a given method) were used for all calculations performed in this paper. Due to the fact that the graphene can be grown epitaxially on the Ni surface, the graphene has been stretched in our calculations to match the relaxed lattice constant of bulk Ni fcc. The small lattice mismatch between graphene and the Ni surface allows for the epitaxial growth, keeping additional strain-induced small. The calculations were carried out for the top-fcc structure of graphene on Ni(111), which was found to be the most stable structure [@PhysRevB.84.201401; @CHEM:CHEM201404938]. The hydrogen atoms were always bound at the top of the carbon atoms and on the vacuum side. Moreover, the positions of atoms of three bottom monolayers of Ni were fixed at the ideal bulk positions, whereas the other atomic positions of three top most monolayers of Ni and one monolayer of graphene at the top on the surface were fully relaxed for each of the hydrogen-graphene distance (only the z-coordinates of both Hydrogen atom and Carbon atom above H atom were fixed)[^1]

The weak van der Waals forces were treated by three different computational approaches implemented in VASP package. We grouped them into three classes:

-   Force-field corrections based on method of Grimme (DFT-D), where the dispersion correction term is added to the conventional Kohn-Sham DFT energy \[[@Grimme]\]. In this class we took into account several parametrizations: (DFT-D3) \[[@DFT-D3]\], (DFT-D3-BJ) \[[@DFT-D3-BJ]\], (DFT-TS) \[[@PhysRevLett.102.073005]\]. The DFT-D2 denotes the method of Grimme throughout the paper.

-   Non-local correlation functional (vdW-DF) proposed by Dion *et. al.*\[[@PhysRevLett.92.246401]\]. Within this method, the correlation term of the exchange-correlation energy is separated into local and non-local contributions, where in the latter the vdW interactions are included. We used several versions of this method: vdW-DF2 functional of Langreth and Lundqvist groups \[[@PhysRevB.82.081101]\], and known as “opt” functionals (optPBE-vdW, optB88-vdW, and optB86b-vdW). In the latter, the exchange part of the functional were optimized for the correlation part \[[@KlimesCond]\].

-   Random phase approximation (RPA) to the correlation energy, in the computational scheme of Adiabatic-Connection Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (ACFDT) \[[@PhysRevB.13.4274; @PhysRevB.15.2884]\] were used. The ACFDT-RPA ground state energy is the sum of the ACFDT-RPA correlation energy and the Hartree-Fock energy evaluated non self-consistently using DFT orbitals. For detailed implementation and accuracy in VASP code see the papers \[[@PhysRevB.77.045136; @PhysRevLett.103.056401; @PhysRevB.81.115126]\].

We have extensively examined the above different theoretical approaches employing the van der Waals interaction and justifying theirs usage for the adsorption process of Hydrogen atoms on the freestanding graphene and graphene grown on the Ni(111) surface.

RESULTS
=======

Here we present the main results of our studies. First, in Sec. \[energy\] we describe the energetical and structural issues of freestanding graphone. Then in Sec. \[graphoneSub\], we examine the energetical and structural properties of graphone on the Ni(111) surface. Finally in Sec. \[comparison\], we compare the results in order to determine the role of the substrate.

Energetics and structural changes of freestanding graphone {#energy}
----------------------------------------------------------

![\[graphone\] Freestanding graphone - single-side hydrogenated graphene. Only one sublattice of carbon atoms is saturated by Hydrogen atoms (here indicated by the upper yellow plane, the second sublattice, hardly visible is within the orange lower plane). The dark grey balls, and the yellow balls indicate the Hydrogen and the Carbon atoms, respectively. $\Delta$ denotes the distance between two sublatices of carbon atoms after the absorption of Hydrogen atoms.](gr-H.png){width="50.00000%"}

![\[bariera\] Schematic diagram for the adsorption energy of Hydrogen atoms on the graphene sheet versus the distance $z$ between the Hydrogen and graphene layer. $E_1$, $E_2$ and $E_{barrier}$ denote the adsorption energy of chemisorption, physisorption and energy barrier, respectively. Two potential wells (two minima) are seen. Deep narrow well stands for the chemisorption, whereas wide shallow well corresponds to physisorption. For each of the $z$ distance between the Hydrogen and graphene, all of the positions of atoms of the slab were fully optimized. It is worth to mention that for the case of fixed calculations (all of the coordinates of atomic positions were fixed) we have obtained physisorption well deeper than the chemisorption one.](barier.png){width="50.00000%"}

![\[grHLDA\] Potential energy landscape for the adsorption of the Hydrogen atoms on the graphene layer for the semilocal functionals LDA and PBE. The $z$ value indicates the distance between the Hydrogen atoms and the graphene layer.](gr-H-LDA-PBE.png){width="50.00000%"}

The adsorption energy of the Hydrogen atoms is calculated as a difference between the total energy of graphone $E_{graphone}$ (see Fig. \[graphone\] and Fig. \[bariera\]) for a given distance $z_i$ and the total energy of the unbound graphene and hydrogen systems $E_{graphene+H}^{unbound}$ (see Fig. \[bariera\]) by using a formula: $$E_{ads}(z_i)=\frac{E_{graphone}(z_i)-E_{graphone+H}^{unbound}(z \mapsto \infty)}{N}$$ where N is the total number of atoms. By analogy, in case of the hydrogenation of the graphene/Ni(111) system, the adsorption energy has the form: $$E_{ads}(z_i)=\frac{E_{Ni-graphone}(z_i)-E_{Ni-graphene+H}^{unbound}(z \mapsto \infty)}{N}$$ where, $E_{Ni-graphone}$ denotes the total energy of the graphone on the Ni(111) surface, and $E_{Ni-graphene+H}^{unbound}$ indicates the unbound system of graphene/Ni(111) and Hydrogen atoms. The values $E_{graphone+H}^{unbound}$ and $E_{Ni-graphene+H}^{unbound}$ have been extrapolated from the tail data points. Throughout the paper, all of the $E_{ads}$ values are given in meV per atom. The negative values of the $E_{ads}$ indicate that system is bounded.

In the Fig. \[grHLDA\] we present the energy distance curve for hydrogenation of freestanding graphene using semilocal density functionals, such as local density approximation (LDA) \[[@PhysRevLett.45.566]\] and the gradient-corrected Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) \[[@PhysRevLett.77.3865]\]. Both the semilocal functionals show the chemisorption minimum (covalent interaction) with an adsorption energy of 108 meV (LDA), and 183 meV (PBE) per atom at the distance 1.21 Å and 1.18 Å, respectively (see Table \[tab:grHtable\]). The PBE functional shows no binding at the physisorption region ($>$ 2 Å), while the LDA predicts it at the distance 2.56 Å with physisorption energy equal to 29 meV/atom. This minimum is an artifact of the LDA functional connected to the wrong decay of Kohn-Sham potential and orbitals from the surface into the vacuum \[[@PhysRevB.84.201401]\]. It is well known theoretically, that for the semilocal functionals the interactions have wrong exponential decay, while the proper van der Waals long-range behavior should be of polynomial type \[[@PhysRevLett.90.066104; @PhysRevLett.96.073201]\].

![\[grH-vdW\] The adsorption energy curves for the Hydrogen atoms on the freestanding graphene for different vdW methods: (A) The total RPA energy (square data points) is separated into exchange (circle data points) and correlation (triangle data points) contributions; (B) DFT-D method of Grimme with four different parametrizations; and (C) four versions of non-local correlation functionals of the vdW-DF. Within each method (DFT-D or vdW-DF) the curves have the same shape and two minima are well distinguished.](grH-vdW.png){width="50.00000%"}

To assess the missing non-local correlations, in the Fig. \[grH-vdW\](A) we present their contribution by analyzing the results obtained in the framework of RPA approach. Our results reveal that inclusion of the non-local correlation effects lowers the chemical adsorption energy by 60 and 143 meV/atom in comparison to PBE and LDA functionals, respectively. Moreover, very shallow physisorpted minimum is obtained at the distance at 3.20 Å with a very small adsorption energy equal to 8 meV/atom (see Fig. \[grH-vdW\](A) and Fig. \[grH-all\](C)). It is worth to mention that such distances are typical values for the van der Waals adsorbed graphene on transition metals \[[@PhysRevLett.105.096801]\].

One can see in the Fig. \[grH-vdW\] that within each vdW methods the shape of the energy landscape is qualitatively unchanged. The energy values for the covalent binding of Hydrogen to graphene for the Grimme corrected methods are comparable with the PBE approximation (see Table \[tab:grHtable\] second column and Fig. \[grH-all\](B)), which is not suprising if one notes that the method added the dispersion correction term to the conventional Kohn-Sham DFT energy. In case of the various flavors of the vdW-DF method, the chemical adsorption energy is about 40 meV/atom smaller then obtained for the PBE functional. Moreover, for the RPA approach we obtained the smallest value of the chemical energy and the distance between covalently bounded Hydrogen and Carbon atoms equal to 243 meV/atom and 1.5 Å, respectively, in comparison to all of the methods taken into account in this paper.

When we compare the physical adsorption energies and distances, one can notice, that for the vdW-DF method we obtained two and four times smaller values than in DFT-D and RPA approaches, respectively. VdW-DF approach gives the smooth, wide and deep physisorption well than the other vdW methods (see Fig. \[grH-all\](C)). Moreover, all of the methods predicted the energy barriers between the chemisorption and physisorption (covalent and non-covalent binding). The greatest energy barriers we have obtained for DFT-D method, approximately two and four times greater than for the vdW-DF and for the RPA and semilocal functionals, respectively. Furthermore, the adsorption of the Hydrogen atoms causes the buckling of the graphene layer (the distance between two carbon sublattices constituting the graphene see Fig. \[graphone\]). This buckling does not depend on the method used in the calculations and is approximately equal to $\Delta = 0.26$ Å. What is more, it appears only for covalent binding, no buckling is observed for the physisorption region.

To the best of our knowledge there are no structural or energetical experimental data available for graphone system, thus we can only compare our findings with the theoretical predictions. The authors \[[@Zhou]\] using the PBE functional, predicted the length of the carbon-carbon bond of graphone to be 1.50 Å and carbon-hydrogen bond equal to 1.18 Å, which are comparable with our findings for PBE functional which are 1.50 Å and 1.16 Å, respectively.

\[tab:grHtable\]

    Methods    $E_1$ \[meV/atom\]   $d_{C-H}=z_1$ \[Å\]   $E_2$ \[meV/atom\]   $z_2$ \[Å\]   $E_{barrier}$ \[meV/atom\]   $\Delta$ \[Å\]
  ----------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ----------------
      GGA             -183                 1.18                   -                 -                    25                    0.25
      LDA             -108                 1.21                  -29              2.56                   27                    0.24
    DFT-D2            -185                 1.18                   -8              2.70                   87                    0.25
    DFT-D3            -175                 1.19                  -15              2.90                   78                    0.26
   DFT-D3-BJ          -174                 1.19                  -13              2.90                   20                    0.26
    DFT-TS            -166                 1.18                  -13              3.00                   66                    0.25
    Opt-PBE           -138                 1.18                  -36              2.90                   44                    0.27
    Opt-B88           -136                 1.19                  -41              2.80                   39                    0.26
   Opt-B86b           -119                 1.20                  -36              2.70                   39                    0.27
    vdW-DF2           -152                 1.17                  -26              3.00                   45                    0.33
      RPA             -243                 1.15                   -8              3.20                   23                     -

![image](grH-all.png){width="100.00000%"}

Energetics and structural changes of graphone on Ni(111) surface. {#graphoneSub}
-----------------------------------------------------------------

![\[barieraNi\] Graphone on the Ni(111) surface. The equilibrium parameters $d_{CH}$, $\Delta$ and $d_0$ denote the distance between the Hydrogen and Carbon atoms, buckling parameter and the distance between the graphene and Ni(111) surface, respectively.](Ni-gr-H.png){width="60.00000%"}

![\[NigrH-RPA\] The adsorption energy landscape for the Hydrogen atoms on the graphene supported Ni(111) substrate. The total RPA energy curve (square data points) separated into exchange (circle data points) and correlation (triangle data points) contributions.](Ni-gr-H-All-RPA.png){width="50.00000%"}

The adsorption energy landscape obtained for the RPA method (see Fig. \[NigrH-RPA\]), clearly depicted one potential well at 1.12 Å and suprisingly high energy barrier[^2] for chemisorption equal to 131 meV/atom in comparison to other methods (see Fig. \[NigrHall\]. Moreover, the RPA chemical adsorption energy has lower value than the semilocal functionals (similarly as in freestanding graphone), which reveals that the inclusion of the non-local correlation effects are important also for the energetics of covalent binding. In addition, one can notice that only different parametrization of the DFT-D approach predict small physical adsorption about few meV/atom at around 2.90 Å as well as energy barriers, whereas for the other approaches (even for the LDA) no binding in physisorption region and energy barriers are distinguished (see Fig. \[NigrHall\] and Table \[tab:tabNigrH\]). Moreover, the striking difference occurs in adsorption energy curve for vdW-DF2 in comparison to other flavors of the vdW-DF (see Fig. \[NigrHall\] (C) and (D)). Namely, the chemical adsorption energy is about 2.5 times smaller than for the other calculated methods and the physical adsorption minimum is obtained. Previously, it has been shown, that the vdW-DF or vdW-DF2 are too repulsive at short distances [@PhysRevLett.92.246401; @PhysRevB.84.201401].

Taking into account the structural properties, one can notice that the buckling of the graphene monolayer after chemical adsorption of the Hydrogen atoms does not depend on the method used in the calculations, and equals to 0.47 Å.

![image](NigrHAll.png){width="100.00000%"}

\[tab:tabNigrH\]

    Methods    $E_1$ \[meV/atom\]   $d_{C-H}=z_1$ \[Å\]   $E_2$ \[meV/atom\]   $z_2$ \[Å\]   $E_{barrier}$ \[meV/atom\]   $d_0$ \[Å\]   $\Delta$ \[Å\]
  ----------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ------------- ----------------
      GGA             -213                 1.14                   -                 -                    32                  1.75            0.47
      LDA             -198                 1.15                   -                 -                    -                   1.70            0.47
    DFT-D2            -229                 1.14                   -3              2.90                   17                  1.73            0.47
    DFT-D3            -223                 1.15                   -5              2.70                   29                  1.74            0.46
   DFT-D3-BJ          -224                 1.14                   -6              2.90                   15                  1.74            0.47
    Opt-PBE           -197                 1.14                   -                 -                    -                   1.78            0.47
    Opt-B88           -198                 1.14                   -                 -                    -                   1.77            0.47
   Opt-B86b           -202                 1.15                   -                 -                    -                   1.74            0.47
    vdW-DF2           -79                  1.15                  -11              2.90                   13                  2.92            0.47
      RPA             -219                 1.12                   -                 -                   131                    -              -

### How the substrate influence on formation of graphone? - comparison of the results {#comparison}

\[tab:NigrHdist\]

    Methods    $\Delta E$   $\Delta d_{C-H}=d_{C-H}^{Ni-gr-H}-d_{C-H}^{gr-H}$   $\frac{\Delta_{Ni-gr-H}}{\Delta_{gr-H}}$   $\Delta d_{C-C}=d_{C-C}^{Ni-gr-H}-d_{C-C}^{gr-H}$   $\Delta d_{0}=d_{0}^{Ni-gr-H}-d_{0}^{Ni-gr}$
  ----------- ------------ --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
      GGA         -30                            -0.04 Å                                          1.9                                           0.05 Å                                           -0.40 Å
      LDA         -90                            -0.07 Å                                          1.9                                           0.06 Å                                           -0.37 Å
    DFT-D2        -46                            -0.04 Å                                          1.9                                           0.03 Å                                           -0.42 Å
    DFT-D3        -48                            -0.05 Å                                          1.8                                           0.05 Å                                           -0.45 Å
   DFT-D3-BJ      -50                            -0.05 Å                                          1.8                                           0.05 Å                                           -0.45 Å
    DFT-TS        -25                            -0.05 Å                                          1.9                                           0.04 Å                                           -0.48 Å
    Opt-PBE       -59                            -0.04 Å                                          1.7                                           0.06 Å                                           -0.46 Å
    Opt-B88       -62                            -0.05 Å                                          1.8                                           0.05 Å                                           -0.45 Å
   Opt-B86b       -83                            -0.05 Å                                          1.8                                           0.05 Å                                           -0.41 Å
    vdW-DF2        40                            0.00 Å                                           1.1                                           0.00 Å                                           -0.78 Å
      RPA          24                               -                                              -                                               -                                                -

The influence of the substrate on the adsorption of single-sided hydrogenation on graphene can be inferred when we compare the energetics and structural properties of freestanding graphone and graphone supported Ni(111) surface.

In general the Ni(111) substrate lowers the adsorption energy by (30-90) meV/atom depending on the method used in our calculations, revealing the preferable formation of the graphone on the substrate than in the vacuum. In addition, generally the various flavors of the vdW-DF method do not predict any energy barriers for the chemical adsorption of Hydrogen atoms on graphene/Ni(111) surface [^3], while the different parametrizations of the DFT-D method predicted the energy barriers to be very small. These results even strengthens our findings that graphone formation favors the substrate than the vacuum conditions. Surprisingly the RPA approach gives qualitatively different picture, namely, favors the formation of the freestanding graphene. It is worth to point out that the DFT-D method was based on the parametrizations of entirely atomic quantities, renormalized by fitting to a set of molecules.

Now let us compare the structural properties of freestanding graphone, graphone supported Ni(111), as well as graphene on Ni(111) surface. When we compare freestanding graphone with the graphone formed on the Ni(111) surface (see Table \[tab:NigrHdist\]), the carbon-carbon bond length increases by 0.05 Å, while the carbon-hydrogen bond is shortened by 0.04-0.07 Å, in comparison to freestanding graphone. Moreover, adsorption of Hydrogen atoms on graphene/Ni(111) surface causes approximately 2 times larger buckling effect of carbon sublattices of graphene than in case of the freestanding graphone, which might have significant consequences in the graphene band structure, known to be sensitive to deformations of any kind. Furthermore, the distance between the Ni(111) surface and graphene layer decreases approximately by 0.5 Å after graphone is formed on the Ni(111) surface, and the smaller values we have obtained for the vdW methods than for semilocal functionals.

Conclusions
===========

In summary, we have investigated the energetical and structural properties of the freestanding graphone, and graphone formed on the Ni(111) supported surface, by using of different vdW approaches. The methods under investigation were the semilocal functionals, semi-empirical force fields (DFT-D), non-local van der Waals density functionals (vdW-DF) and the random-phase approximation (RPA).

In general, our theoretical considerations showed that graphone preferred to be formed on the Ni(111) substrate than on freestanding graphene, for the DFT-D and vdW-DF as well as semilocal functionals, in contradiction to RPA results.

Closer examination of the Hydrogen adsorption energy curves on freestanding graphene layer reveals two potential wells, referred to chemical and physical adsorptions, and energy barrier for LDA and all of the considered here vdW methods. In comparison to adsorption on the graphene/Ni(111) surface, generally, only one deep potential well have been obtained with no energy barrier for the chemical adsorption.

Our results have shown, that the inclusion of the non-local correlation effects are important not only for physisorption region (long range behavior) but also for the energetics of the covalent binding, namely, we have obtained the lower RPA chemical adsorption energies than for the semilocal functionals). It was previously shown, that the RPA covalent binding energies are at least as accurate as GGA functional for solids \[[@PhysRevB.81.115126]\]. In addition, one can also notice that the vdW-DF functionals predicted relatively smaller chemical adsorption energies than the standard PBE functional, the latter is known to reproduce quite well the covalent binding. This finding strongly indicates that the inclusion of the non-local correlation cannot be viewed only in the long range part of the correlation and be neglected with respect to the covalent interactions, similarly as previously mentioned in \[[@0953-8984-24-42-424218]\].

In addition, our results corroborate the well known fact, that the structural parameters for the chemical adsorption do not depend on the inclusion of the non-local correlation effects (vdW forces). In case of the Hydrogen adsorption, our results cannot confirm the fact, that the vdW-DF method (different flavors) might seen to be promising candidate to reproduce qualitatively the same results as more demanding RPA approach[^4], as it was previously mentioned in paper \[[@PhysRevB.84.201401]\], for the case of the graphene on the Ni(111) surface. Moreover, our results have demonstrated that the DFT-D or vdW-DF methods did not follow the trends of the long range behavior of the RPA approach (see Fig. \[grH-all\]), which is known from the fundamental theoretical considerations to correctly reproduce the long range behavior of the vdW interaction \[[@0953-8984-24-7-073201]\].

Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============

This work was supported by National Research Council (NCN) through the grant HARMONIA DEC-2013/10/M/ST3/00793. We made use of computing facilities of PL-Grid Polish Infrustructure for Supporting Computational Science in the European Research Space, and acknowledge the access to the computing facilities of the Interdisciplinary Centre of Modeling, University of Warsaw.

References {#references .unnumbered}
==========

[^1]: Within the RPA approach no relaxation of the position of atoms was done. The relaxation of the atoms have been performed for the Opt-B88 vdW functional for all of the calculated distances between Hydrogen and the graphene (graphene/Ni(111)) systems, and then recalculated within the RPA method.

[^2]: We want to note here that the values of energy barriers have to be treated with care, they depend on the position of the maximum of the adsorption energy curve and the number of calculated data points, there are just approximate values.

[^3]: Except for vdW-DF, for which the energy barrier is two times smaller in comparison to freestanding graphone

[^4]: The computational load of the RPA approach - widely reported in literature \[[@PhysRevB.87.075111; @APP2016.Birowska]\], in the case of the graphone/Ni(111) surface causes the slowing down of our calculations approximately by 16 and 23 times, in comparison to vdW-DF and DFT-D approaches, respectively.
