+\begin{figure}[h]
+\begin{center}
+\begin{minipage}[t]{5cm}
+a) \underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-2.16\text{ eV}$}
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{00-1dc/2-16.eps}
+\end{center}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}[t]{5cm}
+b) \underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-1.90\text{ eV}$}
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{00-1dc/1-90.eps}
+\end{center}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}[t]{5cm}
+c) \underline{$E_{\text{b}}=-2.05\text{ eV}$}
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{00-1dc/2-05.eps}
+\end{center}
+\end{minipage}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Relaxed structures of defect complexes obtained by creating a a) \hkl<1 0 0> and b) \hkl<0 1 0> dumbbell at position 2 and a c) \hkl<0 0 1> dumbbel at position 3.}
+\label{fig:defects:comb_db_02}
+\end{figure}
+Figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_02} shows the next three most energetically favorable configurations.
+The relaxed configuration obtained by creating a second \hkl<1 0 0> dumbbell at position 2 is shown in figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_02} a).
+A binding energy of -2.16 eV is observed.
+After relaxation the second dumbbell is aligned along \hkl<1 1 0>.
+The bond of the silicon atoms 1 and 2 does not persist.
+Instead the silicon atom forms a bond with the initial carbon interstitial and the second carbon atom forms a bond with silicon atom 1 forming four bonds in total.
+The carbon atoms are spaced by 3.14 \AA, which is very close to the expected C-C next neighbour distance of 3.08 \AA{} in silicon carbide.
+Figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_02} c) displays the results of another \hkl<0 0 1> dumbbell inserted at position 3.
+The binding energy is -2.05 eV.
+Both dumbbells are tilted along the same direction remaining parallely aligned and the second dumbbell is pushed downwards in such a way, that the four dumbbell atoms form a rhomboid.
+Both carbon atoms form tetrahedral bonds to four silicon atoms.
+However, silicon atom 1 and 3, which are bond to the second carbon dumbbell interstitial are also bond to the initial carbon atom.
+These four atoms of the rhomboid reside in a plane and, thus, do not match the situation in silicon carbide.
+The carbon atoms have a distance of 2.75 \AA.
+In figure \ref{fig:defects:comb_db_02} b) a second \hkl<0 1 0> dumbbell is constructed at position 2.
+An energy of -1.90 eV is observed.
+The initial dumbbell and especially the carbon atom is pushed towards the silicon atom of the second dumbbell forming an additional fourth bond.
+Silicon atom number 1 is pulled towards the carbon atoms of the dumbbells accompanied by the disappearance of its bond to silicon number 5 as well as the bond of silicon number 5 to its next neighboured silicon atom in \hkl<1 1 -1> direction.
+The carbon atom of the second dumbbell forms threefold coordinated bonds to its silicon neighbours.
+A distance of 2.80 \AA{} is observed for the two carbon atoms.
+Again, the two carbon atoms and its two interconnecting silicon atoms form a rhomboid.
+C-C distances of 2.70 to 2.80 \AA{} seem to be characteristic for such configurations, in which the carbon atoms and the two interconnecting silicon atoms reside in a plane.
+
+Configurations obtained by adding a second dumbbell interstitial at position 4 are characterized by minimal changes from their initial creation condition during relaxation.
+There is a low interaction of the dumbbells, which seem to exist independent of each other.
+This, on the one hand, becomes evident by investigating the final structure, in which both of the dumbbells essentially retain the structure expected for a single dumbbell and on the other hand is supported by the observed binding energies which vary only slightly around zero.
+This low interaction is due to the larger distance and a missing direct connection by bonds along a crystallographic direction.
+Both carbon and silicon atoms of the dumbbells form threefold coordinated bonds to their next neighbours.
+The energetically most unfavorable configuration ($E_{\text{b}}=0.26\text{ eV}$) is obtained for the \hkl<0 0 1> interstitial oppositely orientated to the initial one.
+A dumbbell taking the same orientation as the initial one is less unfavorble ($E_{\text{b}}=0.04\text{ eV}$).
+Both configurations are unfavorable compared to far-off isolated dumbbells.
+Nonparallel orientations, that is the \hkl<0 1 0>, \hkl<0 -1 0> and its equivalents, result in binding energies of -0.12 eV and -0.27 eV, thus, constituting energetically favorable configurations.
+The reduction of strain energy is higher in the second case where the carbon atom of the second dumbbell is placed in the direction pointing away from the initial carbon atom.