---
abstract: 'Power grids are traditionally dominated by synchronous generators (SGs) but are currently undergoing a major transformation through the increasing integration of inverter-based resources (IBRs). Application of the proposed method is illustrated in three cases with increasing scales, namely a single-SG-infinite-bus system, a single-IBR-weak-grid system, and a modified IEEE 14-bus SG-IBR composite system.'
author:
- 'Yitong Li, , Yunjie Gu, , Timothy C. Green,'
bibliography:
- 'Paper\_Port.bib'
---

\[

**Copyright Statements**

This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which this version may no longer be accessible.

\]

Port-Mapping, Electrical-Mechanical Two Port Network, Synchronous Generator, Inverter Based Resource, Composite Power System

Introduction {#Section:Introduction}
============

Power systems have traditionally been dominated by synchronous generators (SGs) @kundur1994power [@demarco1998design]. In recent years, due the drive towards renewable energy, power electronics and inverter-based resources (IBRs) have become increasingly common features of the power system @blaabjerg2006overview [@gu2019transfverter; @shair2019overview], and thus the power system is being transformed from SG-dominated to SG-IBR composite. This structural change results in new oscillation modes and the emergence of new stability problems @shair2019overview [@bialek2020does; @markovic2021understanding; @curi2017control].

\[Fig:NetworkModel\]

The paper is organized as follows. In <span><span>Section \[Section:PortCouplingMethod\]</span></span>, the concept of port-mapping is introduced and the detailed modelling procedure is illustrated on a SG and a IBR. <span><span>Section \[Section:GeneralPortCouplingMethod\]</span></span> links the port-based models in a SG-IBR composite grid to show the extra flexibility and insights provided by the proposed method in system dynamic analysis. <span><span>Section \[Section:CaseStudy\]</span></span> demonstrated the proposed method in three case studies. <span><span>Section \[Section:Conclusions\]</span></span> concludes the paper.

The Port-Mapping Method {#Section:PortCouplingMethod}
=======================

In this section, we introduce the fundamentals of the port-mapping method via the examples of a SG and an IBR.

Mechanical-Electrical Two-Port Network {#Section:PortCoupling_TwoPortModel}
--------------------------------------

Inspired by the two-port network theory in electrical circuits @boylestad2010introductory, we represent a SG as a mechanical-electrical two-port model as shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:InInteraction\]</span></span>. The mechanical port captures the mechanical dynamics between mechanical torque $T_m$ and rotor speed $\omega$ through the rotor shaft, and the electrical port captures the electrical dynamics between terminal voltage $v$ and current $i$ through stator windings. The two ports interact with each other via electrical-mechanical coupling between the rotor and the stator. The mathematical description of the mechanical-electrical two-port network can be formulated as a transfer function matrix $G$ whose diagonal elements represent the self dynamics of a port and the off-diagonal elements represent cross-port coupling, as illustrated in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:InInteraction\]</span></span> (b). The matrix can be readily obtained by linearizing the state equations of a SG as described in Appendix \[Appendix:Equ\_SG\].

Mechanical Dynamics Mapping to Electrical Ports {#Section:PortCoupling_Frame}
-----------------------------------------------

\[t!\]                                       

               

 

Our approach is based on the key observation that the mechanical dynamics of the rotor is identical to the frame dynamics of the electrical port, which offer a bridge for dynamic mapping across mechanical-electrical ports, as illustrated conceptually in the port-mapping flow in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (c) and shown in detail in the block diagram in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (e). We now give the mathematical details. The transformation from mechanical frame $dq$ to global frame $DQ$ for an arbitrary signal $u$ can be represented using the transformation matrix $T_\epsilon$ as $$\label{Equ:FrameDynamics_LargeSignal}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} u_{D} \\ u_{Q} \end{bmatrix}}_{u_{DQ}}
=
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} \cos{\epsilon} & -\sin{\epsilon} \\ \sin{\epsilon} & \cos{\epsilon}  \end{bmatrix}}_{T_{\epsilon}}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} u_d \\ u_q \end{bmatrix}}_{u_{dq}}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the angle difference between $dq$ and $DQ$ as indicated in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (a). By linearizing this equation, we get $$\label{Equ:FrameDynamics_SmallSignal}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} \Delta u_{D} \\ \Delta u_{Q} \end{bmatrix} }_{\Delta u_{DQ}}
=
T_{\epsilon_0}
\bigg(
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} \Delta u_d \\ \Delta u_q \end{bmatrix}}_{\Delta u_{dq}}
+
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix} -u_{q0} \\ u_{d0} \end{bmatrix}}_{U_0}
\Delta \epsilon
\bigg)$$ where the subscript $0$ denotes steady-state operating points and the prefix $\Delta$ denotes perturbation around the operating points. The angle perturbation $\Delta \epsilon$ is the integration of the mechanical speed, that is, $\Delta \epsilon = \Delta \omega / s$ where $s$ is Laplace operator so $1/s$ represents integration. This relationship is indicated by the blue arrows in the block diagram <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (e) and yields the transformation from $G$ to $G^\prime$, where the electrical port of $G^\prime$ is represented in the global $DQ$ frame so that it can be readily linked with other apparatuses in the electrical network. The detailed process of the transformation and the element-wise value of $G^{\prime \prime}$ can be found in Appendix \[Appendix:Step\_Frame\].

Electrical Dynamics Mapping to Mechanical Ports {#Section:PortCoupling_SG_Grid}
-----------------------------------------------

In the mechanical-electrical two-port model $G^\prime$ the terminal voltage $v_{DQ}$ is taken as an independence input. In reality, however, $v_{DQ}$ is affected by the current $i_{DQ}$ via the equivalent impedance $Z_{b}$ seen at the bus where the apparatus is connected. This yields an extra loop in the block diagram as indicated by the red arrow in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (e). Closing this loop yields the transformation from $G^{\prime}$ to $G^{\prime \prime}$ where the electrical impedance of the grid $Z_{b}$ is mapped into the two-port network. It should be noted that input voltage of $G^{\prime \prime}$ is changed from $v_{DQ}$ to $v_{bDQ}$ which is the equivalent voltage of the grid behind $Z_b$. The detailed process of the transformation and the element-wise value of $G^{\prime \prime}$ can be found in Appendix \[Appendix:Step\_SG\_Grid\].

Generalising to IBR
-------------------

The port-mapping methodology for a SG discussed in the previous sub-sections can be readily generalised to other apparatuses, such as an IBR, as illustrated in the right column in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span>. An IBR (grid-following) has a rotating angle in its phase-locked loop (PLL) which is used for synchronisation. The active power is regulated by the balancing of the dc-link voltage. The PLL and the dc-link in a grid following IBR roughly have the same function as the rotor in a SG, for synchronisation and power balancing. Therefore, an IBR is three-port apparatus where the PLL and dc-link port jointly serve as a virtual mechanical port. The port-mapping transformation from $G$ to $G^\prime$ and to $G^{\prime\prime}$ for an IBR can be obtained easily from the block diagrams in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (f).

Port-Based Analysis of SG-IBR Composite Grids {#Section:GeneralPortCouplingMethod}
=============================================

Having established a step-by-step procedure for dynamic mapping across ports in a SG and a IBR, we now use the derived port-based model to examine the stability of SG-IBR composite grids.

Linking SG-IBR Composite Grids
------------------------------

We first link the port-based SG and IBR models in a composite network. Taking the network in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortBasedNetworkModel\]</span></span> as an example, the corresponding block diagram is shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:BlockDiagram\_Network\]</span></span>. The port matrix $G$ for each apparatus is transformed to $G^\prime$ (this is done locally without the knowledge on the whole grid), and then appended on $G_{N}^{\prime}$ to represent the collective port matrices of all apparatuses. $G^\prime_N$ interact with the network impedance matrix $Z_{bN}$ to form the whole-system port model $G_{N}^{\prime\prime}$. $Z_{bN}$ is the inversion of nodal admittance matrix $Y_{bN}$ @gu2021impedance rather than a simple branch impedance. $Z_b$ is dynamic impedance formulated in the $s$-domain (not simply $R+jX$) so all EMT dynamics are preserved. The entire procedure for port-mapping and port-based modelling are summarized in the model derivation tree in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:ModelDerivationTree\]</span></span> for a clearer review.

![Port-mapping flow for a SG-IBR Composite power network.<span data-label="Fig:PortBasedNetworkModel"></span>](PortBasedNetworkModel)

\[t!\] ![image](BlockDiagram_Network)

![Model derivation tree: the procedure to get single-apparatus and multi-apparatus port matrices.<span data-label="Fig:ModelDerivationTree"></span>](ModelDerivationTree)

Port-Based System Bipartition {#Section:PortAnalysis}
-----------------------------

Now we explain the benefits of the port-mapping approach in whole-system stability studies. System bipartition is commonly used to investigate the interaction of sub-systems in a power system. For example, in the electrical-centric view, a power system is separated into sources and loads and their interaction is characterised by the impedance ratio between the source part and load part. This bipartition method can be naturally generalized in the port-based approach which turns out to provide additional flexibility in analyzing dynamic interaction from different views (mechanical-centric and electrical-centric).

For instance, we can split the system in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortModel\_Tw\]</span></span> at the $T\text{-}\omega$ (mechanical) port of SG1. The transfer function seen at this port is ${G_{T\omega11}^{\prime\prime}}$. We take out the rotor inertia from this port and model the dynamics the rest parts of the grid as a dynamic torque coefficient $K_{T1}$ $$K_{T1} = {G_{T\omega11}^{\prime\prime\, -1}} - s J_1.$$ The stability of the system is boiled down to the closed-loop interaction between rotor inertia $\frac{1}{sJ_1}$ and the dynamic torque coefficient $K_{T1}$, as shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortModel\_Tw\]</span></span>. $K_{T1}$ is an extension to the classic torque coefficient and it encodes the dynamics of the entire grid (including EMT) except the rotor of SG1. If $K_{T1}$ itself is stable, the whole-system stability can be evaluated by the loop gain of <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortModel\_Tw\]</span></span> via Nyquist criterion. Since $\frac{1}{sJ_1}$ has a constant phase shift of $-90^\circ$ along the Nyquist contour, the phase of $K_{T1}$ should be kept above $-90^\circ$ to ensure positive phase margin, which leads to a very simple stability index.

Similarly, we can also split the system in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortModel\_Tw\]</span></span> at the $i_{dc}\text{-}v_{dc}$ (dc-link) port of IBR3. We define the dc-link capacitance as the *electrical inertia* and takes it out from the port transfer function $G_{i_{dc}v_{dc}33}^{\prime\prime}$ to yield the closed-loop diagram in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortModel\_dc\]</span></span> where $$K_{i_{dc}3} = {G_{i_{dc}v_{dc}33}^{\prime\prime\,-1}} - s C_3$$ is called the *dc-current coefficient*. $K_{i_{dc}3}$ plays a similar role to $K_{T1}$ which are named *generalised torque coefficient* together.

It is possible to explore other ways of bipartition at different ports, e.g. an exciter port of a SG, or a $V\text{-}Q$ control port of an IBR. The port under investigation can be select to the point where oscillations stand out to provide insightful interpretations right on the spot. We can also split multiple ports simultaneously to investigate oscillations in which multiple apparatuses are participating.

![The bipartite system viewed from mechanical port of SG1.<span data-label="Fig:PortModel_Tw"></span>](PortModel_Tw)

![The bipartite system viewed from dc-link port of IBR3.<span data-label="Fig:PortModel_dc"></span>](PortModel_dc)

Practical Implementation
------------------------

The port-based method proposed in this paper can be formulated in either state-space or transfer-function format, although we use transfer functions in our formulation, mainly for brevity in illustration.

Case Studies {#Section:CaseStudy}
============

In this section, the effectiveness of port-mapping modeling is illustrated through analyzing system stability in cases. The first two case, (a) single-SG-infinite-bus system and (b) single-IBR-weak-grid system revisit well-known stability concerns in very simple set-ups but with new insights. The third case, (c) modified IEEE 14-bus SG-IBR composite system, illustrates modelling of composite systems. The parameters and models of all three cases, generated from the procedures in <span><span>Section \[Section:PortCouplingMethod\]</span></span> and <span><span>Section \[Section:GeneralPortCouplingMethod\]</span></span>, are available at @FuturePowerNetworks.

Case 1: Single-SG-Infinite-Bus System {#Section:Case_SG}
-------------------------------------

![Case 1: whole-system pole locus with increasing $R_b$ from to .<span data-label="Fig:Case_SG_PoleLocus"></span>](Case_SG_PoleLocus)

![Case 1: vector diagram of torque coefficient $K_T$ when increasing the line resistance from to .<span data-label="Fig:Case_SG_Complex_K"></span>](Case_SG_Complex_K)

A single-SG-infinite-bus system and the familiar swing-dynamics are used to illustrate the effect of changing the damping at the stator electrical port, i.e., the line resistance $R_b$, on the dynamics at the rotor mechanical port. The poles of whole-system model $G_{N}^{\prime\prime}$ are shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_SG\_PoleLocus\]</span></span> including a sweep of $R_b$ from to . The electrical flux modes are damped and shifted leftward when $R_b$ increases, as expected because $R_b$ is in series with the inductor of the relevant flux. The zoomed-in pole locus in the lower part of <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_SG\_PoleLocus\]</span></span> shows that the swing modes, in contrast, move to rightward: the increase of electrical damping through $R_b$ decreases the damping of the swing oscillation, i.e., decreases the mechanical damping, eventually causing instability when the SG's own damping coefficient $K_D$ is inadequate (at here). This can be further examined using the port bipartition method in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:PortModel\_Tw\]</span></span> by calculating the torque coefficient $K_T$ inclusive of network effects. As shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_SG\_Complex\_K\]</span></span>, as $R_b$ is increased from to , the vector $K_T$ moves into the third quadrant with its phase decreasing to $<-90^{\degree}$ which implies negative $K_{T,D}$ and an unstable swing.

The time-domain simulation results of <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_SG\_Simulation\]</span></span> confirm that when line resistance $R_b$ is increased from to at $0~s$ leads to a swing oscillation which is damped when at , the mechanical damping $K_D$ of the SG is increased from to .

![Case 1: simulation results of SG dynamics. At , line resistance $R_b$ is increased from to which destabilizes the swing mode. At , $K_D$ of SG is increased from to which re-stabilizes the swing mode.<span data-label="Fig:Case_SG_Simulation"></span>](Case_SG_Simulation)

Case 2: Single-IBR-Weak-Grid System {#Section:Case_IBR}
-----------------------------------

![Case 2: whole-system pole locus when reducing the SCR from to .<span data-label="Fig:Case_IBR_PoleLocus"></span>](Case_VSI_PoleLocus)

![Case 2: vector diagram of dc-current coefficient $K_{i_{dc}}$ when reducing the SCR from to .<span data-label="Fig:Case_IBR_Complex_K"></span>](Case_VSI_Complex_K)

It is known that the stability of a grid-following IBR is degraded when connected to a weak grid, i.e., a grid with large impedance and low short-circuit ratio (SCR) . The port-separation method will again be used to identify how changed at the ac electrical port mapped to the dc-link port. The whole-system pole map in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_IBR\_PoleLocus\]</span></span> illustrates that when the SCR was reduced from to , the mode became unstable. The plot of the dc-current coefficient vector $K_{i_{dc}}$ in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_IBR\_Complex\_K\]</span></span> reveals the same onset of instability as a change in the angle of the vector.

The time-domain simulation results of <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_IBR\_Simulation\]</span></span> confirm that when the gird is weakened with SCR reduced from to at , a unstable oscillation begins. At , SCR is increased back to , which re-stabilizes the system.

![Case 2: simulation results of IBR dynamics. At , SCR is reduced from to which leads to the instability. At , SCR is increased back to which re-stabilizes the system.<span data-label="Fig:Case_IBR_Simulation"></span>](Case_VSI_Simulation)

Case 3: Modified IEEE 14-Bus SG-IBR Composite System {#Section:Case_Composite}
----------------------------------------------------

![Case 3: IEEE 14-bus SG-IBR composite power system.<span data-label="Fig:Case_Composite_14Bus"></span>](Case_Composite_14Bus)

![Case 3: whole-system pole locus with reducing the IBR power-frequency-related control bandwidth (dc-link and PLL) from to .<span data-label="Fig:Case_Composite_PoleLocus"></span>](Case_Composite_PoleLocus)

![Case 3: Bode diagram of $T\omega$ port closed-loop transfer function (i.e., the mechanical impedance $G_{T\omega}^{\prime\prime}$ in $G_{N}^{\prime\prime}$) for each SG.<span data-label="Fig:Case_Composite_Bode_Tw"></span>](Case_Composite_Bode_Tw)

To analyze the power-frequency interaction between SGs and IBRs, a modified IEEE 14-bus power system is investigated next, as shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_Composite\_14Bus\]</span></span>. The same layout of the IEEE standard 14-bus system is retained but two SGs are replaced by IBRs. <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_Composite\_PoleLocus\]</span></span> shows the poles of the whole system when bandwidth of the power-frequency controllers (i.e., dc-link and PLL) of the IBRs are reduced from to . The zoomed-in figure shows the loci of the swing modes. These can be classified into two groups: stable poles and unstable poles. The port-separation method can be used here to obtain the torque coefficient $K_N$ of each SG, as shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_Composite\_Bode\_K\]</span></span>, where the bode plot is used here so that we can investigate the magnitude and phase of the torque coefficient vectors at both swing mode frequencies in same figure. Results for control bandwidths of are in and in . A phase of $K_T$ smaller than $-90^{\degree}$ can be observed at the swing point for bandwidth of which agrees with the pole loci.

The corresponding time-domain simulation results are shown in <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:Case\_Composite\_Simulation\]</span></span>. At , the IBR power-frequency bandwidth is reduced from to and the unstable swing oscillation begins. At , the damping torque coefficient $K_{D2}$ of the critical SG2 is increased from to , which re-stabilizes the system.

![Case 3: simulation results. At , the power-frequency control bandwidth of IBR (dc-link and PLL) is reduced from to , which destabilizes the swing mode. At , the damping torque coefficient $K_{D2}$ of SG2 is increased from to , which re-stabilizes the system.<span data-label="Fig:Case_Composite_Simulation"></span>](Case_Composite_Simulation)

Conclusions {#Section:Conclusions}
===========

A port-mapping method has been put forward for stability analysis of composite power systems with mixtures of SGs and IBRs. The proposed method maps the dynamics between multi-physical-domain ports and gives more insights on whole system stability. It unifies the mechanical- and electrical-centric analysis of power systems in a single model. The mechanical rotational dynamics are mapped to the electrical impedance or admittance, and meanwhile the electrical dynamics are also mapped to the mechanical torque coefficient. This united cross-domain methodology enables more flexible bipartition of power systems to allow for more interpretative investigation into the interaction amongst sub-systems, which yields new stability indices such as generalised torque coefficients.

State Equations of Synchronous Generator {#Appendix:Equ_SG}
========================================

State equations of a SG with considering both stator electrical dynamics and rotor mechanical dynamics (in convention) are @kundur1994power [@gu2021impedance] $$\label{Equ:SG}
\begin{aligned}
v_{d} & = \dot{\psi}_{d} - R i_{d} - \omega \psi_{q}\\
v_{q} & = \dot{\psi}_{q} - R i_{q} + \omega \psi_{d}\\
J\dot{\omega} & = T_{m}- T_{e} - K_D{\omega}\\
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{Equ:SG_T}
\psi_d = - L i_d,~\psi_q = - L i_q - \psi_f,~T_e = \psi_f i_d$$ where $\psi_d$ and $\psi_q$ are $dq$-axis flux linkages respectively; $\psi_f$ is the field flux linkage; $v_d$ and $v_q$ are $dq$-axis stator voltages; $i_d$ and $i_q$ are $dq$-axis stator currents; $\omega$ is the rotor speed; $J$ is the rotor inertia; $T_m$ and $T_e$ are the mechanical and electromagnetic torque respectively; $K_D$ is the damping torque coefficient; $R$ and $L$ are stator resistance and inductance respectively.

Model Derivation of Port-Mapping Method {#Appendix:Step}
=======================================

$G$ (Mechanical Frame) $\rightarrow$ $G^\prime$ (Global Frame) {#Appendix:Step_Frame}
--------------------------------------------------------------

According to <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (e), the element relationship between $G$ (mechanical frame) and $G^\prime$ (electrical frame) can be obtained as $$\label{Equ:FrameDynamicsEmbedding}
\begin{aligned}
& G_{vi}^{\prime} 
= 
T_{\epsilon_0}
\bigg(
G_{vi} + (I_0 - G_{vi} V_0)\underbrace{(s+G_{v\omega} V_0)^{-1}G_{v\omega}}_{G_{v\omega}^{\prime}T_{\epsilon_0}/s}
\bigg)
T_{\epsilon_0}^{-1}
\\ 
& G_{Ti}^{\prime}
= 
T_{\epsilon_0}
\bigg(
G_{Ti} + (I_0 - G_{vi} V_0)\underbrace{(s+G_{v\omega} V_0)^{-1}G_{T\omega}}_{G_{T\omega}^{\prime}/s}
\bigg)
\\
& G_{v\omega}^{\prime} 
= 
\bigg(
s(s+G_{v\omega} V_0)^{-1}G_{v\omega}
\bigg)
T_{\epsilon_0}^{-1}
\\ 
& G_{T\omega}^{\prime} 
= 
s(s+G_{v\omega} V_0)^{-1}G_{T\omega}
\end{aligned}$$ where $I_0 = [-i_{q0};i_{d0}]$ and $V_0 = [-v_{q0};v_{d0}]$ are the steady-state operating points at the electrical port; $T_{\epsilon_0}$ is the frame transformation matrix with the steady-state angle $\epsilon_0$. The first equation in <span><span>(\[Equ:FrameDynamicsEmbedding\])</span></span> builds the relationship between $G_{vi}$ (admittance in mechanical frame) and $G_{vi}^\prime$ (admittance in electrical frame), which correspond to the impedance-based analysis in @gu2021impedance [@li2020interpreting] albeit that they focus on the electrical domain only.

$G^{\prime}$ (Apparatus Model) $\rightarrow$ $G^{\prime\prime}$ (Whole System Model) {#Appendix:Step_SG_Grid}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to <span><span>Fig. \[Fig:SingleMachineInfiniteBus\]</span></span> (e), the element relationship between $G^\prime$ (apparatus model) and $G^{\prime\prime}$ (whole system model for the single-SG-infinite-bus system) can be obtained as $$\label{Equ:G_Relationship_Impedance}
\begin{aligned}
& G_{vi}^{\prime\prime} = (I-G_{vi}^{\prime} Z_b)^{-1} G_{vi}^{\prime}
\\
& G_{Ti}^{\prime\prime} = (I-G_{vi}^{\prime} Z_b)^{-1} G_{Ti}^{\prime}
\\
& G_{v\omega}^{\prime\prime} = G_{v\omega}^{\prime} + G_{v\omega}^{\prime} Z_b \underbrace{(I - G_{vi}^{\prime} Z_b)^{-1} G_{vi}^{\prime}}_{G_{vi}^{\prime\prime}}
\\
& G_{T\omega}^{\prime\prime} = G_{T\omega}^{\prime} + G_{v\omega}^{\prime} Z_b \underbrace{(I - G_{vi}^{\prime} Z_b)^{-1} G_{Ti}^{\prime}}_{G_{Ti}^{\prime\prime}}
\end{aligned}$$

{'source': 'arXiv_out/2105'}