Hello Dit is the number of trapped charges at the interface divided by energy. See for example: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-1101(00)00119-2 You need to have electron/hole traps at the interface in order to have non-zero Dit and I guess it only makes sense to look at this within the band gap. It is not the density of interface states per se that originate just from the disruption of the bulk periodicity. The latter can be traps or they can be resonant with the bulk states or whatnot. Anyway, what you should do is to look at the DOS only within the band gap. If you have traps at band gap energies also within the bulk regions, then perhaps local DOS for some region near the interface can be sufficient. If this is indeed what you already did, then perhaps your model needs improvement. It should be possible to construct Si/SiO2 interface model without any trap/gap states, I think.
Regards, Hannu-Pekka Komsa EPFL > 1. I was wondering whether the sum of all LDOS calculated from projected > wavefunction on the Si at the interface can give me the density of > interface > states. The question is whether the sum of LDOS of projected wavefunction > on > the inter-facial atoms is equivalent to planar local density of state at > the > interface. > 2. If positive, the sum of LDOS of all projected wavefunction on all > atoms at the interface divided by the surface of the interface is by far > higher than the Dit reported from experiment. Actually, I am thinking, no > matter how big the structure is, the Dit is still very high. I was > wondering > whether I miss any point to consider for calculation.
