4.7 Article

Colocation Data Center Demand Response Using Nash Bargaining Theory

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 4017-4026

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSG.2016.2647246

Keywords

Colocation data centers; emergency demand response; Nash bargaining; sequential and concurrent bargaining

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [CNS-1343361, CNS-1350230, CPS-1646607]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61602358, 61373170]
  3. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0800601]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The huge yet flexible power consumption of data centers makes them promising resources for demand response, particularly for emergency demand response (EDR) which requires a certain amount of load curtailment during emergencies. However, current data centers often participate in EDR by starting up their backup diesel generators, resulting in both high costs and large carbon emissions. In this paper, we focus on cost-effective and eco-friendly demand response in colocation data centers by designing economic incentives for tenants to reduce their loads during emergency periods for EDR. In particular, we model and analyze the interaction among the data center operator and tenants by using Nash bargaining theory, and derive the optimal solutions for the load reduction and reimbursement for each tenant under two different bargaining protocols (i.e., sequential bargaining and concurrent bargaining). We prove that the derived solutions arc Pareto-efficient and fair, and therefore self-enforcing and satisfactory for all entities. Numerical results based on trace-driven simulations show that the proposed bargaining approach is beneficial to both the data center operator and tenants, while also reducing the carbon emissions to the environment from data center demand response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available