However, for the second most favorable configuration, presented in figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_01} a), the amount of possibilities for this configuration is twice as high.
In this configuration the initial Si (I) and C (I) dumbbell atoms are displaced along \hkl<1 0 0> and \hkl<-1 0 0> in such a way that the Si atom is forming tetrahedral bonds with two silicon and two carbon atoms.
The carbon and silicon atom constituting the second defect are as well displaced in such a way, that the carbon atom forms tetrahedral bonds with four silicon neighbours, a configuration expected in silicon carbide.
The two carbon atoms spaced by 2.70 \AA{} do not form a bond but anyhow reside in a shorter distance as expected in silicon carbide.
The Si atom numbered 2 is pushed towards the carbon atom, which results in the breaking of the bond to atom 4.
The breaking of the $\sigma$ bond is indeed confirmed by investigating the charge density isosurface of this configuration.
However, for the second most favorable configuration, presented in figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_01} a), the amount of possibilities for this configuration is twice as high.
In this configuration the initial Si (I) and C (I) dumbbell atoms are displaced along \hkl<1 0 0> and \hkl<-1 0 0> in such a way that the Si atom is forming tetrahedral bonds with two silicon and two carbon atoms.
The carbon and silicon atom constituting the second defect are as well displaced in such a way, that the carbon atom forms tetrahedral bonds with four silicon neighbours, a configuration expected in silicon carbide.
The two carbon atoms spaced by 2.70 \AA{} do not form a bond but anyhow reside in a shorter distance as expected in silicon carbide.
The Si atom numbered 2 is pushed towards the carbon atom, which results in the breaking of the bond to atom 4.
The breaking of the $\sigma$ bond is indeed confirmed by investigating the charge density isosurface of this configuration.