Taylor Chap 3 Answers

Chapter Three: Linear Programming: Computer Solution and Sensitivity Analysis
PROBLEM SUMMARY 35. Model formulation

1. QM for Windows 36. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–35)
2. QM for Windows and Excel 37. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–35)
3. Excel 38. Model formulation; computer solution
4. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis 39. Sensitivity analysis (3–38)
5. Model formulation 40. Model formulation; computer solution
6. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–5) 41. Sensitivity analysis (3–40)
7. Sensitivity analysis (3–5) 42. Model formulation
8. Model formulation 43. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–42)
9. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–8) 44. Model formulation
10. Sensitivity analysis (3–8) 45. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–44)
11. Model formulation 46. Model formulation
12. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–11) 47. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–46)
13. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–11) 48. Model formulation
14. Model formulation 49. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–48)
15. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–14) 50. Computer solution
16. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–14)
PROBLEM SOLUTIONS
17. Model formulation
18. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–17) 1.
x2
19. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–17) 110

100
21. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–20)
90
80
70
24. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–23)
25. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–23) 60
26. Model formulation 50 optimal

point:
27. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–26) 40
A
x1 = 15.29
B x2 = 38.24
28. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis (3–26) 30 Z = 4,205.88
20 C
30. Graphical solution; sensitivity analysis (3–29) Z
10
x1
32. Model formulation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
33. Model formulation; computer solution

34. Computer solution; sensitivity analysis
17
2. QM for Windows establishes a “template” for 6. x2
the linear programming model based on the *A: x1 = 0
300 x2 = 160
user’s specification of the type of objective Z = 2,560
function, the number of constraints and number 250
of variables, then the model parameters are B: x1 = 128.5
200 x2 = 57.2
input and the problem is solved. In Excel the
A Z = 2457.2
model “template” must be developed by the 150
user. C : x1 = 167
100 x2 = 0
Z = 2,004
3. Changing cells: B10:B12
B
Constraints: B10:B12 0 50
Z
Point A is optimal
G6 F6
x1
G7 F7 0 50 100 150 C 200 250 300 350
Profit: B10 * C4 B11 * D4 B12 * E4
4. The slope of the constraint line is –70/60. The (a) A: 3(0) + 2(160) + s1 = 500
optimal solution is at point A where x1 = 0 and s1 = 180
x2 = 70. To change the solution to B, c1 must 4(0) + 5(160) + s2 = 800
increase such that the slope of the objective s2 = 0
function is at least as great as the slope of the B: 3(128.5) + 2(57.2) + s1 = 500
constraint line, s1 = 0
4(128.5) + 2(57.2) + s2 = 800
–c1/50 = –70/60 s2 = 0
c1 = 58.33
C: 2(167) + 2(0) + s1 = 500
s1 = 0
Alternatively, c1 must decrease such that the
4(167) + 5(0) + s2 = 800
slope of the objective function is at least as great
s2 = 132
as the slope of the constraint line,
–30/c2 = –70/60
c2 = 25.71 (b) Z = 12x1 + 16x2
Thus, if c1 increases to greater than 58.33 or c2 and,
decreases to less than 25.71, B will become
x2 = Z/16 – 12 x1/16
optimal.
The slope of the objective function, –12/16,
5. (a) x1 = no. of basketballs would have to become steeper (i.e., greater)
x2 = no. of footballs than the slope of the constraint line
maximize Z = 12x1 + 16x2 4x1 + 5x2 = 800, for the solution to change.
subject to The profit, c1, for a basketball that would
3x1 + 2x2 ≤ 500 change the solution point is,
4x1 + 5x2 ≤ 800 4/5 = –c1/16
x1, x2 ≥ 0 5c1 = 64
c1 = 12.8
(b) maximize Z = 12x1 + 16x2 + 0s1 + 0s2
subject to Since $13 > 12.8 the solution point would
change to B where x1 = 128.5, x2 = 57.2. The
3x1 + 2x2 + s1 = 500 new Z value is $2,585.70.
4x1 + 5x2 + s2 = 800 For a football,
x1, x2, s1, s2 ≥ 0
–4/5 = –12/c2
4c2 = 60
c2 = 15
Thus, if the profit for a football decreased to
$15 or less, point B will also be optimal (i.e.,
multiple optimal solutions). The solution at B is
x1 = 128.5, x2 = 57.2 and Z = $2,400.
18
(c) If the constraint line for rubber changes to point A where x1 = 0, x2 = 160,
3x1 + 2x2 = 1,000, it moves outward, 3x1 + 2x2 = q1
eliminating points B and C. However, since A is 3(0) + 2(160) = q1
the optimal point, it will not change and the q1 = 320
optimal solution remains the same,
x1 = 0, x2 = 160 and Z = 2,560. There will be an For q2 the upper limit is at the point where the
increase in slack, s1, to 680 lbs. rubber constraint line (3x1 + 2x2 = 500)
intersects with the leather constraint line
If the constraint line for leather changes to (4x1 + 5x2 = 800) along the x2 axis, i.e., x1 = 0,
4x1 + 5x2 = 1,300, point A will move to a new x2 = 250,
location, x1 = 0, x2 = 250, Z = $4,000.
4x1 + 5x2 = q2
7. (a) For c1 the upper limit is computed as 4(0) + 5(250) = q2
q2 = 1,250
–4/5 = –c1/16
5c1 = 64 The lower limit is 0 since that is the lowest
c1 = 12.8 point on the x2 axis the constraint line can
decrease to.
and the lower limit is unlimited.
Summarizing,
For c2 the lower limit is,
320 ≤ q1 ≤ ∞
–4/5 = –12/c2 0 ≤ q2 ≤ 1,250
4c2 = 60
c2 = 15 (b)
and the upper limit is unlimited. Z = 2560.000
Summarizing, Variable Value Reduced Cost
∞ ≤ c1 ≤ 12.8 x1 0.00 0.800
15 ≤ c2 ≤ ∞
x2 160.000 0.000
For q1 the upper limit is ∞ since no matter how
much q1 increases the optimal solution point A Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
will not change.
c1 180.00 0.00
The lower limit for q1 is at the point where the
constraint line 3x1 + 2x2 = q1 intersects with c2 0.00 3.20
Objective Coefficient Ranges
Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Variables Limit Values Limit Increase Decrease
x1 No limit 12.000 12.800 0.800 No limit
x2 15.000 16.000 No limit No limit 1.000
Right Hand Side Ranges

Constraints Limit Values Limit Increase Decrease
c1 320.000 500.000 No limit No limit 180.000
c2 0.000 800.000 1250.000 450.000 800.000
19
(c) The shadow price for rubber is $0. Since there is (b) The constraint line 12x1 + 4x2 = 60 would move
slack rubber left over at the optimal point, extra inward resulting in a new location forpoint B at
rubber would have no marginal value. x1 = 2, x2 = 4, which would still be optimal.
The shadow price for leather is $3.20. For each (c) In order for the optimal solution point to change
additional ft.2 of leather that the company can from B to A the slope of the objective function
obtain profit would increase by $3.20, up to the must be at least as flat as the slope of the
upper limit of the sensitivity range for leather constraint line, 4x1 + 8x2 = 40, which is –1/2.
(i.e., 1,250 ft.2). Thus, the profit for product B would have to be,
8.(a) x1 = no. of units of A –9/c2 = –1/2
x2 = no. of units of B c2 = 18
maximize Z = 9x1 + 7x2 If the profit for product B is increased to $15 the
subject to optimal solution point will not change, although
Z would change from $57 to $81.
12x1 + 4x2 ≤ 60
4x1 + 8x2 ≤ 40 If the profit for product B is increased to $20 the
x1,x2 ≥ 0 solution point will change from B to A, x1 = 0, x2
= 5, Z = $100.
(b) maximize Z = 9x1 + 7x2 + 0s1 + 0s2
subject to 10.(a) For c1 the upper limit is computed as,
12x1 + 4x2 + s1 = 60 –c1/7 = –3
4x1 + 8x2 + s2 = 40 c1 = 21
x1, x2, s1, s2 ≥ 0
and the lower limit is,
9. –c1/7 = –1/2
x2 c1 = 3.50
A: x1 = 0
30 x2 = 5 For c2 the upper limit is,
Z = 35
25 –9/c2 = –1/2
*B: x1 = 4
x2 = 3 c2 = 18
20
Z = 57
and the lower limit is,
15
C: x1 = 5
x2 = 0 –9/c2 = –3
10 Z = 45 c2 = 3
5
A Summarizing,
B Point B is optimal
C x1 3.50 ≤ c1 ≤ 21
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 –3 ≤ c2 ≤ 18
(b)
(a) A: 12(0) + 4(5) + s1 = 60
s1 = 40 Z = 57.000
4(0) + 8(5) + s2 = 40
s2 = 0 Variable Value Reduced Cost
B: 12(4) + 4(3) = 60 x1 4.000 0.000
s1 = 0
x2 3.000 0.000
4(4) + 8(3) + s2 = 40
s2 = 0
Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
C: 12(5) + 4(0) + s1 = 60
c1 0.000 0.550
s1 = 0
4(5) + 8(0) + s2 = 40 c2 0.000 0.600
s2 = 20
20

x1 3.500 9.000 21.000 12.000 5.500
x2 3.000 7.000 18.000 11.000 4.000

c1 20.000 60.000 120.000 60.000 40.000
c2 20.000 40.000 120.000 80.000 20.000
(c) The shadow price for line 1 time is $0.55 per (a) 5.0(456) + 7.5(510) + s1 = 6,500
hour, while the shadow price for line 2 time is s1 = 6,500 – 6,105
$0.60 per hour. The company would prefer to s1 = 395 lbs.
obtain more line 2 time since it would result in 3.0(456) + 3.2(510) + s2 = 3,000
the greatest increase in profit. s2 = 0 hrs.
510 + s3 = 510
11.(a) x1 = no. of yards of denim
s3 = 0
x2 = no. of yards of corduroy
therefore demand for corduroy is met.
maximize Z = $2.25x1 + 3.10x2
(b) In order for the optimal solution point to change
subject to
from B to C the slope of the objective function
5.0x1 + 7.5x2 ≤ 6,500 must be at least as great as the slope of the con-
3.0x1 + 3.2x2 ≤ 3,000 straint line, 3.0x1 + 3.2x2 = 3,000, which is –3/3.2.
x2 ≤ 510 Thus, the profit for denim would have to be,
x1, x2 ≥ 0 –c1/3.0 = –3/3.2
(b)maximize Z = $2.25x1 + 3.10x2 + 0s1 + 0s2 + 0s3 c1 = 2.91
subject to If the profit for denim is increased from $2.25 to
$3.00 the optimal solution would change to
5.0x1 + 7.5x2 + s1 = 6,500 point C where x1 = 1,000, x2 = 0, Z = 3,000.
3.0x1 + 3.2x2 + s2 = 3,000
Profit for corduroy has no upper limit that
x2 + s3 = 510
would change the optimal solution point.
x1, x2, s1, s2, s3 ≥ 0
(c) The constraint line for cotton would move
inward as shown in the following graph where
12.
x2 point C is optimal.
A: x1 = 0 x2
1600 x2 = 510
Z = $1,581 1600
1400
*B: x1 = 456 1400
1200 x2 = 510
Z = $2,607 1200
1000
C: x1 = 1,000
1000 C, optimal
x2 = 0
800 Z = $2,250 x1 = 1,000
800 x2 = 0
600 A Z = $2,250
600 A
B
400
B C
400
200
200
C x1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 D x1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
21
13.
Z = 2607.000
Variable Value Reduced Cost
x1 456.000 0.000
x2 510.000 0.000
c1 395.000 0.000
c2 0.000 0.750
c3 0.000 0.700

x1 0.000 2.250 2.906 0.656 2.250

c2 1632.000 3000.000 3237.000 237.000 1368.000
c3 0.000 510.000 692.308 182.308 510.000
(a) The company should select additional 15.

processing time, with a shadow price of $0.75 x2
per hour. Cotton has a shadow price of $0
8
because there is already extra (slack) cotton A: x1 = 0 *C: x1 = 4
available and not being used so any more would x2 = 6 x2 = 0
7 Z = 42,000
have no marginal value. Z = 24,000
A
6 B: x1 = 1
(b) 0 ≤ c1 ≤ 2.906 6,105 ≤ q1 ≤ ∞
x2 = 3
2.4 ≤ c2 ≤ ∞ 1,632 ≤ q2 ≤ 3,237 5 Z = 27,000
0 ≤ q3 ≤ 692.308
The demand for corduroy can decrease to zero 4
or increase to 692.308 yds. without changing the B
3
current solution mix of denim and corduroy. If
the demand increases beyond 692.308 yds., then 2
denim would no longer be produced and only
corduroy would be produced. 1
14. x1 = no. of days to operate mill 1 C x1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
x2 = no. of days to operate mill 2
minimize Z = 6,000x1 + 7,000x2
subject to
6x1 + 2x2 ≥ 12
2x1 + 2x2 ≥ 8
4x1 + 10x2 ≥ 5
x1, x2 ≥ 0
22
(a) 6(4) + 2(0) – s1 = 12 does not change the optimal variable mix. B
s1 = 12 remains optimal but moves to a new location, x1
2(4) + 2(0) – s2 = 8 = 0.5, x2 = 3.5, Z = $27,500.
s2 = 0
4(4) + 10(0) – s3 = 5 16.
s3 = 11
Z = 24000
(b) The slope of the objective function, –6000/7,000
must become flatter (i.e., less) than the slope of Variable Value
the constraint line,
x1 4.000
2x1 + 2x2 = 8, for the solution to change. The
cost of operating Mill 1, c1, that would change x2 0.000
the solution point is,
–c1/7,000 = –1
c1 = 7,000 c1 12.000 0.000
Since $7,500 > $7,000, the solution point will c2 0.000 –3000.000
change to B where x1 = 1, x2 = 3, Z = $28,500. c2 11.000 0.000
(c) If the constraint line for high-grade aluminum
changes to 6x1 + 2x2 = 10, it moves inward but

x1 0.000 6000.000 7000.000 1000.000 6000.000

c1 No limit 12.000 24.000 12.000 No limit
(a) There is surplus high-grade and low-grade 17. x1 = no. of acres of corn
aluminum so the shadow price is $0 for both. x2 = no. of acres of tobacco
The shadow price for medium-grade aluminum maximize Z = 300x1 + 520x2
is $3,000 indicating that for every ton that this subject to
constraint could be reduced, cost will decrease
x1 + x2 ≤ 410
by $3,000.
105x1 + 210x2 ≤ 52,500
(b) 0 ≤ c1 ≤ 7,000 ∞ ≤ q1 ≤ 24 x2 ≤ 100
6,000 ≤ c2 ≤ ∞ 4 ≤ q2 ≤ ∞ x1, x2 ≥ 0
∞ ≤ q3 ≤ 16
(c) There will be no change.
23
18. x2 The profit for corn must be greater than $520
A: x1 = 0 *C: x1 = 320 for the Bradleys to plant only corn.
600 x2 = 100 x2 = 90
Z = 52,000 Z = 142,800 (c) If the constraint line changes from x1 + x2 = 410
500 to x1 + x2 = 510, it will moveoutward to a
B: x1 = 300 D: x1 = 410
x2 = 100 x2 = 0 location which changes the solution to the point
400
Z = 142,000 Z = 123,000 where 105x1 + 210x2 = 52,500 intersects with
300 the axis. This new point is x1 = 500, x2 = 0,
Z = $150,000.
200
(d) If the constraint line changes from x1 + x2 = 410
A
100
C
to x1 + x2 = 360, it moves inward to a location
B Point C is optimal which changes the solution point to the
x1 intersection of x1 + x2 = 360 and 105x1 +
0 100 200 300 400D 500 600 700 800
210x2 = 52,500. At this point x1 = 260, x2 = 100
and Z = $130,000.
(a) x1 = 320, x2 = 90
320 + 90 + s1 = 410 19.
s1 = 0 acres uncultivated
Z = 142800.000
90 + s3 = 100
s3 = 10 acres of tobacco allotment
Variable Value
unused
x1 320.000
(b) At point D only corn is planted. In order for
point D to be optimal the slope of the objective x2 90.000
function will have to be at least as great
(i.e., steep) as the slope of the constraint line, x1 Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
+ x2 = 410, which is –1. Thus, the profit for
c1 0.000 80.000
corn is computed as,
c2 0.000 2.095
–c/520 = –1
c1 = 520 c3 10.000 0.000

x1 260.000 300.000 520.000 220.000 40.000
x2 300.000 520.000 600.000 80.000 220.000

c1 400.000 410.000 500.000 90.000 10.000
c2 43050.000 52500.000 53550.000 1050.000 9450.000
24
(a) No, the shadow price for land is $80 per acre (a)x1 = 300, x2 = 100, Z = $230
indicating that profit will increase by no more .10(300) + s1 = 30
than $80 for each additional acre obtained. The s1 = 0 left over sausage
maximum price the Bradley’s should pay is $80 .15(100) + s2 = 30
and the most they should obtain is at the upper s2 = 15 lbs. left over ham
limit of the sensitivity range for land. This limit .01(300) + .024(100) + s4 = 6
is 500 acres, or 90 additional acres. Beyond 90 s4 = 0.6 hr.
acres the shadow price would change. (b) The slope of the objective function, –6/5, must
become flatter (i.e., less) than the slope of the
(b) The shadow price for the budget is $2.095. constraint line, .04x1 + .04x2 = 16, for the
Thus, for every $1 dollar borrowed they could solution to change. The profit for ham, c2, that
expect a profit increase of $2.095. If they would change the solution point is,
borrowed $1,000 it would not change the
amount of corn and tobacco they plant since the –0.6/c2 = –1
sensitivity range has a maximum allowable c2 = .60
increase of $1,050. Thus, an increase in profit for ham of 0.60 will
create a second optimal solution point at C
20. x1 = no. of sausage biscuits where x1 = 257, x2 = 143 and Z = $225.70.
x2 = no. of ham biscuits (Point D would also continue to be optimal, i.e.,
maximize Z = .60x1 + .50x2 multiple optimal solutions.)
subject to (c) A change in the constraint line from, .04x1
+ .04x2 = 16 to .04x1 + .04x2 = 18would move
.10x1 ≤ 30 the line outward, eliminating both points C and
.15 x2 ≤ 30 D. The new solution point occurs at the
.04x1 + .04x2 ≤ 16 intersection of 0.01x1 + .024x2 = 6 and .10x =
0..01x1 + .024x2 ≤ 6 30. This point is x1 = 300, x2 = 125, and Z =
x1, x2 ≥ 0 $242.50.
22.
21.
Z = 230.000
x2
A: x1 = 0 C: x1 = 257
600 x2 = 200 x2 = 143 Variable Value
Z = 100 Z = 225.70
500 x1 300.000
B: x1 = 120 *D: x1 = 300
x2 = 200 x2 = 100 x2 100.000
400
Z = 172 Z = 230
300 Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
E: x1 = 300
A B x2 = 0 c1 0.000 1.000
200
C Z = 180
Point D is optimal c2 15.000 0.000
100
D
E
c3 0.000 12.500
x1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
c4 0.600 0.000

x2 0.000 0.500 0.600 0.100 0.500
25

c1 25.714 30.000 40.000 10.000 4.286
c3 12.000 16.000 17.000 1.000 4.000
(a) The shadow price for sausage is $1. For every (a) The optimal point is at B where x1 = 27.5 and
additional pound of sausage that can be obtained x2 = 20. The slope of the objective function
profit will increase by $1. The shadow price for –50/70, must become greater (i.e., steeper) than
flour is $12.50. For each additional pound of the slope of the constraint line, 80x1 + 40x2 =
flour that can be obtained, profit will increase by 3,000, for the solution point to change from B to
this amount. There are extra ham and labor hours A. The cost of a telephone interviewer that would
available, so their shadow prices are zero, change the solution point is,
indicating additional amounts of those resources
–c1/70 = –2
would add nothing to profit.
c1 = 140
(b) The constraint for flour, indicated by the high
This is the upper limit of the sensitivity range for
shadow price.
c1. The lower limit is 0 since as the slope of the
(c) .50 ≤ c1 ≤ ∞ objective function becomes flatter, the solution
25.714 ≤ q1 ≤ 40 point will not change from B until the objective
The sensitivity range for profit indicates that the function is parallel with the constraint line. Thus,
optimal mix of sausage and ham biscuits will 0 ≤ c1 ≤ 140
remain optimal as long as profit does not fall
below $0.50. The sensitivity range for sausage Since the constraint line is vertical, it can
indicates the optimal solution mix will be increase as far as point B and decrease all the
maintained as long as the available sausage is way to the x2 axis before the solution mix will
between 25.714 and 40 lbs. change. At point B,
23. x1 = no. of telephone interviewers 80(27.5) = q1
x2 = no. of personal interviewers q1 = 2,200
minimize Z = 50x1 + 70x2
At the axis,
subject to
80(0) = q1
80x1 + 40x2 ≥ 3,000
q1 = 0
80x1 ≥ 1,000
40x2 ≥ 800 Summarizing,
x1, x2 ≥ 0
0 ≤ q1 ≤ 2,200
24. x2
(b) At the optimal point, B, x1 = 27.5 and x2 = 20.
80
A: x1 = 12.5 80(27.5) – s2 = 1,000
x2 = 50
70 s2 = 1,200 extra telephone interviews
Z = 4,125
40(20) – s3 = 800
60 *B: x1 = 27.5 s3 =0
A x2 = 20
50 Z = 2,775 (c) A change in the constraint line from 40x2 = 800
to 40x2 = 1,200, moves the lineup, but it does not
40
change the optimal mix. The new solution values
30
are x1 = 22.5, x2 = 30, Z = $3,225.
B
20
10 Point B is optimal
x1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
26
25.
Z = 2775.000
Variable Value
x1 27.500
x2 20.000

c1 0.000 –0.625
c2 1200.000 0.000
c3 0.000 –1.125

x1 0.000 50.000 140.000 90.000 50.000

c3 0.000 800.000 2000.000 1200.000 800.000
(a) Reduce the personal interview requirement; it 27. x2

will reduce cost by $0.625 per interview, while a A: x1 = 266.7
600 x2 = 133.3
telephone interview will not reduce cost; i.e., it
Z = 1,333.20
has a shadow price equal to $0. 500
*B: x1 = 333.3
(b) 25 ≤ c2 ≤ ∞ 400 x2 = 166.7
1,800 ≤ q1 ≥ ∞ Z = 1,666
300
26. x1 = no. of gallons of rye
200
x2 = no. of gallons of bourbon B
Feasible
maximize Z = 3x1 + 4x2 solution line
100 A
subject to Z Point B is optimal
x1
x1 + x2 ≥ 400 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
x1 ≥ .4(x1 + x2)
x2 ≤ 250
x1 = 2x2
x1 + x2 ≤ 500
x1, x2 ≥ 0
27
(a) Optimal solution at B: x1 = 333.3 and x2 = 166.7 30.
(333.3) + (166.7) – s1 = 400 x2
s1 = 100 extra gallons of
160
blended whiskey produced
.6(333.33) – .4(166.7) – s2 = 0 140 A: x1 = 0
s2 = 133.3 extra x2 = 66,666.7
gallons of rye in 120 Z = $86,667
the blend *B: x1 = 70,833.33
100 x2 = 24,166.67
(166.7) + s3 = 250 Z = $116,416.67
80
s3 = 83.3 fewer gallons of A C: x1 = 95,000
bourbon than the maximum x2 = 0
60
Z = $114,000
(333.3) + (166.7) + s4 = 500
s4 = 100 gallons of blend 40
production capacity left over B
20
(b) Because the “solution space” is not really an C

area, but a line instead, the objective function 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 x1
coefficients can change to any positive value and
the solution point will remain the same, i.e.,
point B. Observing the graph of this model, no (a) The optimal solution point is at B where
matter how flatter or steeper the objective x1 = $70,833.33, and x2 = $24, 166.67. The slope
function becomes, point B will remain optimal. of the objective function, –1.2/1.3, must become
flatter than the slope of the constraint line, .18x1
+ .30x2 = 20,000, for the solution point to
28. change to A (i.e., only cattle). The return on
cattle that will change the solution point is
Z = 1666.667
–1.2/c2 = –.18/30
c2 = 2
Variable Value
Thus, the return must be 100% before Alexis
x1 333.333
will invest only in cattle.
x2 166.667
(b) Yes, there is no slack money left over at the
optimal solution.
(c) Since her investment is $95,000, she could
c1 100.000 0.000
expect to earn $21,416.67.
c2 133.333 0.000
c3 83.333 0.000
c5 0.000 3.333
29. x1 = $ amount invested in land

x2 = $ amount invested in cattle
maximize Z = 1.20x1 + 1.30x2
subject to
x1 + x2 ≤ 95,000
.18x1 + .30x2 ≤ 20,000
x1, x2 ≥ 0
28

x1 –2.000 3.000 No limit No limit 5.000

c4 –250.000 0.000 500.000 500.000 250.000
c5 400.000 500.000 750.000 250.000 100.000
(a)–2.0 ≤ c1 ≤ ∞ must be solved again on the computer, which

–6.0 ≤ c2 ≤ ∞ results in the following solution output.
Because there is only one effective solution
point the objective function can take on any
Z = 1625.000
negative (downward) slope and the solution
point will not change. Only “negative”
Variable Value
coefficients that result in a positive slope will
move the solution to point A, however, this x1 375.000
would be unrealistic.
x2 125.000
(b)The shadow price for production capacity is Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
$3.33. Thus, for each gallon increase in
c1 100.000 0.000
capacity profit will increase by $3.33.
c2 175.000 0.000
(c)This new specification changes the constraint, c3 125.000 0.000
x1 – 2x2 = 0, to x1 – 3x2 = 0. This change to a
constraint coefficient cannot be evaluated with c5 0.000 3.250
normal sensitivity analysis. Instead the model


c4 –500.000 0.000 500.000 500.000 500.000
c5 400.000 500.000 1000.000 500.000 100.000
29
31.
Z = 116416.667
Variable Value
x1 70833.333
x2 24166.667

c1 0.000 1.050
c2 0.000 0.833

x1 0.780 1.200 1.300 0.100 0.420
x2 1.200 1.300 2.000 0.700 0.100

c1 66666.667 95000.000 111111.111 16111.111 28333.333
c2 17100.000 20000.000 28500.000 8500.000 2900.000
(a) The shadow price for invested money is be solved again using the computer, as follows.
$1.05.Thus, for every dollar of her own money
Alexis invested she could expect a return of $0.05 Z = 86666.667
or 5%. The upper limit of the sensitivity range is Variable Value
$111,111.11, thus, Alexis could invest
$16,111.11 of her own money before the shadow x1 0.000
price would change. x2 66666.667
(b) This would change the constraint, .18x1 + .30x2
= 20,000 to .30x1 + .30x2 = 20,000. In order to Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
assess the effect of this change the problem must c1 28333.33 0.000
c2 0.000 4.333


c2 0.000 20000.000 28500.000 8500.000 20000.000
30
32. maximize Z = 140x1 + 205x2 + 190x3 + 0s1 + 0s2 Z = 9765.596
+ 0s3 + 0s4
subject to Variable Value Reduced Cost
10x1 + 15x2 + 8x3 +s1 = 610 x1 22.385 0.000
x1 – 3x2 + s2 = 0
x2 16.789 0.000
.6x1 – .4x2 – .4x3 – s3 = 0
x2 – x3 – s4 = 0 x3 16.789 0.000
x1, x2, s1, s2, s3, s4 ≥ 0
c1 0.000 16.009
c2 27.982 0.000
c3 0.000 –33.486
c4 0.000 –48.532

x1 –237.857 140.000 171.739 31.739 377.857
x2 132.000 205.000 325.227 120.227 73.000

c2 –27.982 0.000 No limit No limit 27.982
c3 –21.217 0.000 11.509 11.509 21.217
c4 –20.890 0.000 28.154 28.154 20.890
33. (a) and (b) (c)

minimize Z = $400x1 + 180x2 + 90x3
subject to Z = 206000.000
x1 ≥ 200 Variable Value

x2 ≥ 300
x3 ≥ 100 x1 200.000
4x3 – x1 – x2 ≤ 0 x2 600.000
x1 + x2 + x3 = 1,000
x1, x2, x3 ≥ 0 x3 200.000

c1 0.000 –220.000
c2 500.000 0.000
c3 100.000 0.000
c4 0.000 18.000
31

x2 90.000 180.000 400.000 220.000 90.000

c1 0.000 200.000 700.000 500.000 200.000
c4 –500.000 0.000 2500.000 2500.000 500.000
34.(a) x1 36.7142 36.

x2 58.6371 18
x3 0 B: x1 8,000
x4 63.5675 16 x2 10,000
Z 9,177.85 14 Z $11,500
12
(b) 34.6871 q1 61.5335 Optimal
x2 (1000s)
43.0808 q2 71.2315 10 B
q3 65.4686 8
55 q4 A C
529.0816 c1 747.9999 6
350.3345 c2 4
3,488.554 c3
2
1,363.636 c4 1,761.476
20.132 c5 64.4643 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
x1 (1000s)
(c) process 1 time is the most valuable with a dual
value of $7.9275
(d) Product 3(x3) is not produced; it would require (a) c2 .50
a profit of $65.4686 to be produced.
(b) s1 $140
35. Maximize Z $0.50x1 0.75x2
subject to: (c) There would be no feasible solution.
$0.17x1 0.25x2 $4,000 (printing budget)

x1 x2 18,000 (total copies, rack
space)
x1 8,000 (entertainment
guide)
x2 8,000 (real estate guide)
x1, x2 0
32
37. x1 8,000 the original solution with a 140,000 ft2 store,
x2 10,000 thus, given these conditions, Mega-Mart should
Z $11,500 not purchase the land.
(a) The dual value of rack space is 0.75 so an 40.(a) Maximize Z $0.97x1 0.83x2 0.69x3
increase in rack space to accommodate an subject to:
additional 500 copies would result in increased
advertising revenue of $375. An increase in rack x1 x2 x3 324 cartons
space to 20,000 copies would be outside the x3 x1 x2
sensitivity range for this constraint and require x1 + x 2 + x3 ≤ 324 cartons
the problem to be solved again. The new solution x3 ≥ x1 + x 2
is x1 8,000, x2 10,560 and Z $11,920 x3
≥3
x1
(b) 7,000 is within the sensitivity range for the x 2 ≤ 120
entertainment guide (6,250 q3 10,000). The
(b) x1 = 54,x2 = 108,x3 = 162,Z 5 $253.80
dual value is $0.25 thus for every unit the
distribution requirement can be reduced, revenue
41.(a) The shadow price for shelf space is $0.78 per
will be increased by $0.25, or $250. Thus, Z
carton, however, this is only valid up to 360
$11,750
cartons, the upper limit of the sensitivity range
for shelf space.
38. (a) Maximize Z 4.25x1 5.10x2 4.50x2
5.20x4 4.10x5 4.90x6 3.80x7 (b)The shadow price for available local dairy
subject to: cartons is $0 so it would not increase profit to
increase the available amount of local dairy
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 milk.
140,000
(c) The discount would change the objective
xi 15,000, i 1, 2, …,7
function to,
xi ≥ 15, 000, i = 1, 2, … , 7
xi maximize Z 0.86x1 0.83x2 0.69x3
≤ .20, i = 1, 2, … , 7
Σxi and the constraint for relative demand would
change to
x8
= .10 x3
x 4 + x6 + x 7 ≥ 1.5
x1
xi ≥ 0
the resulting optimal solution is,
(b) x1 15,000
x2 26,863 x1 = 108, x2 = 54, x3 = 162, Z $249.48
x3 20,588.24
x4 26,862.75 Since the profit declines the discount should not
x5 15,000 be implemented.
x6 15,000
x7 15,000 42. x1 = road racing bikes
x8 5,686 x2 = cross country bikes
Z $625,083 x3 = mountain bikes
maximize Z 600x1 400x2 300x3
39.(a) A 20,000 ft2 increase in store size to 160,000 ft2 subject to
would increase annual profit to $718,316. This is
a $93,233 increase in profit. Given the price of 1,200x1 1,700x2 900x3 $12,000
the land ($190,000) relative to the increase in x1 x2 x3 20
profit, it would appear that the cost of the land 8x1 12x2 16x3 120
would be offset in about 2 years, therefore the x3 2(x1 x2)
decision should be to purchase the land. x1, x2, x3 0
(b) The decrease in profit in all departments would 43. x1 = 3

result in a new solution with Z $574,653. This x3 = 6
is a reduction of $50,430 annually in profit from Z 3,600
33
(a) More hours to assemble; the dual value for 47. x1 20
budget and space is zero, while the dual value x2 33.3334
for assembly is $30/hour. x3 26.6667
(b) The additional net sales would be $900. Since Z $703,333.40
the cost of the labor is $300, the additional profit (a) The sensitivity range for x2 is 7,500 c2
would be $600. 8,774.999. Since $7,600 is within this range the
(c) It would have no effect on the original solution. values for x1, x2, and x3 would not change, but
$700 profit for a cross country bike is within the the profit would decline to $683,333.30 (i.e., less
sensitivity range for the objective function the difference in profit, ($600)(x2 33.3334)
coefficient for x2.
(b) One ton of grapes; the dual value is $23,333.35
44. Maximize Z $0.35x1 0.42x2 0.37x3 (c) Grapes: (0.5)($23,333.35) $11,666.68
subject to: Casks: (4)($3,833.329) $15,333.32
Production: $0
0.45x1 0.41x2 0.50x3 960 Select the casks.
x1 x2 x3 2,000
(d) $6,799; slightly less than the lower band of the
x1 200
sensitivity range for cj.
x2 200
x3 200
x1 x2 x3 48. Minimize Z $37x11 37x12 37x13
x1, x2, x3 0 46x21 46x22 46x23 50x31 50x32
50x33 42x41 42x42 42x43
45. x1 1,000 subject to:
x2 800 .7x11 .6x21 .5x31 .3x41 400 tons
x3 200 .7x12 .6x22 .5x32 .3x42 250 tons
Z $760 .7x13 .6x23 .5x33 .3x43 290 tons
x11 x12 x13 350 tons
(a) Increase vending capacity by 100 sandwiches. x21 x22 x23 530 tons
There is already excess assembly time available x31 x32 x33 610 tons
(82 minutes) and the dual value is zero whereas x41 x42 x43 490 tons
the dual value of vending machine capacity is
$0.38. $38 in additional profit.
49. x13 350 tons
x21 158.333 tons
(b) x1 1,000
x22 296.667 tons
x2 1,000
x23 75 tons
Z $770
x31 610 tons
The original profit is $760 and the new solution x42 240 tons
is $770. It would seem that a $10 difference Z $77,910
would not be worth the possible loss of customer
goodwill due to the loss of variety in the number Mine 1 350 tons
of sandwiches available. Mine 2 530 tons
Mine 3 610 tons
(c) Profit would increase to $810 but the solution Mine 4 240 tons
values would not change. If profit is increased to
$0.45 the solution values change to x1 1,600, Multiple optimal solutions exist
x2 200, x3 200.
(a) Mine 4 has 240 tons of “slack” capacity.
46.(a) Maximize Z 7,500x1 8,200x2 10,500x3
subject to: (b) The dual values for the 4 constraints
representing the capacity at the 4 mines show
.21x1 .24x2 .18x3 17 that mine 1 has the highest dual value of $61, so
x1 x2 x3 80 its capacity is the best one to increase.
12x1 14.5x2 16x3 2,500
x3 (x1 x2)/2 (c) The sensitivity range for mine 1 is 242.8571
x1, x2, x3 0 c1 414.2857, thus capacity could be increased
34
by 64.2857 tons before the optimal solution .16x1 + .20x2 + s3 = 40
point would change. 32.8x1 + 20x2 + s4 = 6,000
x1, x2, s1, s2, s3, s4 ≥ 0
(d) The effect of simultaneous changes in objective
function coefficients and constraint quality
(c)
values cannot be analyzed using the sensitivity
ranges provided by the computer output. It is
necessary to make both changes in the model x2
and solve it again. Doing so results in a new A: x1 = 0 D: x1 = 136.36
x2 = 181.03 x2 = 76.36
solution with Z $73,080, which is $4,830 less 400
Z = $43,447.20 Z = $44,234.80
than the original solution, so Exeter should 350 *B: x1 = 56.70 E: x1 = 182.93
make these changes. x2 = 154.64 x2 = 0
300 clay Z = $47,886.60 Z = $34,756.70
50. minimize Z = 8.2x1 + 7.0x2 +6.5x3 + 9.0x4 + C : x1 = 100
0s1 + 0s2 + 0s3 + 0s4 250 x2 = 120
molding
subject to Z = $47,800
200
A
6x1 + 2x2 + 5x3 + 7x4 – s1 = 820
150 B
.7x1 – .3x2 – .3x3 – .3x4 – s2 = 0
–.2x1 + x2 + x3 – .2x4 + s3 = 0 C
100
x3 – x1 – x4 –- s4 = 0 baking
50 D
***** Input Data ***** glazing
Max. Z = 8.2x1 + 7.0x2+ 6.5x3 + 9.0x4 0 50 100 150 E 200 250 300 350 400 x1
Subject to (d)x1 = 56.70, x2 = 154.64

c1 6x1 + 2x2 + 5x3 + 7x4 ≥ 820 .30(56.7) + .25(154.64) + s1 = 60
c2 .7x1 – .3x2 – .3x3 – .3x4 ≥ 0 s1 = 4.33 hr. of molding time
c3 –.2x1 + 1x2 + 1x3 – .2x4 ≤ 0 .27(56.7) + .58(154.64) + s2 = 105
c4 –1x1 + 1x3 – 1x4 ≥ 0 s2 = 0 hr. of baking time
.16(56.7) + .20(154.64) + s3 = 40
***** Program Output *****
s3 = 0 hr. of glazing time
Infeasible Solution 32.8(56.7) + 20(154.64) + s4 = 6,000
s4 = 1,047.42 lbs. of clay
because Artificial variables remain in the final
tableau. (e)The optimal solution is at point B. For point C

to become optimal the profit for a large
tile, x1, would have to become steeper, than the
CASE SOLUTION: constraint line for glazing, .16x1 + .20x2 = 40:
MOSAIC TILE COMPANY
–c1/240 = .16/.20
(a)maximize Z = $190x1 + 240x2 c1 = 192
subject to
This is the upper limit for c1. The lower limit is
.30x1 + .25x2 ≤ 60 hr.– molding at point A which requires an objective function
.27x1 + .58x2 ≤ 105 hr. – baking slope flatter than the constraint line for baking,
.16x1 + .20x2 ≤ 40 hr.– glazing
32.8x1 + 20x2 ≤ 6,000 lb. – clay –c1/240 = .27/.58
x1, x2, ≥ 0 c1 = 111.72
Thus, 111.72 ≤ c1 ≤ 192

(b)maximize Z = $190x1 + 240x2 + 0s1 + 0s2 + The same logic is used to compute the
0s3 + 0s4 sensitivity range for c2. The lower limit is
subject to computed as,
.30x1 + .25x2 + s1 = 60 –190/c2 = –.16/.20
.27x1 + .58x2 + s2 = 105 c2 = 237.5
35
The upper limit is, For the clay constraint the upper limit is ∞
–190/c2 = .27/.58 since the constraint can increase indefinitely.
The lower limit is at the point where the
c2 = 408.15
constraint line intersects with point B:
The sensitivity ranges for the constraint
At B: 32.8(56.7) + 20(154.64) = q4
quantity values are determined by observing the
q4 = 4,952.56
graph and seeing where the new location of the
constraint lines must be to change the solution Thus,
point.
4,952.56 ≤ q4 ≤ ∞
For the molding constraint, the lower limit of
the range for q1 is where the constraint line (f) The slope of the objective must be flatter than
intersects with point B, the slope of the constraint that intersects with
.30(56.7) + .25(154.64) = q1 the x2 axis at point A, which is the baking
q1 = 55.67 constraint,
The upper limit is ∞ since it can be seen that –190/c2 = .27/.58

this constraint can increase indefinitely without c2 = $408.14
changing the solution point.
Thus, (g)
55.67 ≤ q1 ≤ ∞ Problem Title: Case Problem: Mosaic Tile Company

For the baking constraint the lower limit of the ***** Input Data *****
range for q2 is where point C becomes optimal,
and the upper limit is where the baking Max. Z = 190x1 + 240x2
constraint intersects with the x2 axis (x2 = 200).
Subject to
At C: .27(100) + .58(120) = q2
q2 = 96.6 c1 .30x1 + .25x2 ≤ 60
At x2 axis: .27(0) + .58(200) = q2 c2 .27x1 + .58x2 ≤ 105
q2 = 116 c3 .16x1 + .20x2 ≤ 40
c4 32.8x1 + 20x2 ≤ 6000
Thus,
***** Program Output *****
96.6 ≤ q2 ≤ 116
Final Optimal Solution At Simplex Tableau : 2
For the glazing constraint the lower limit of the
range for q3 is at point A, and the upper limit is Z = 47886.598
where the glazing constraint line, .16x1 + .20x2
= 40, intersects with the baking and molding Variable Value
constraints (i.e., x1 = 80.28 and x2 = 143.68).
x1 56.701
At A: .16(0) + .20(181.03) = q3
x2 154.639
q3 = 36.21
At intersection of constraints: Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price
.16(80.28) + .20(143.68) = q3 c1 4.330 0.000

q3 = 41.58 c2 0.000 10.309
Thus, c3 0.000 1170.103
36.21 ≥ q3 ≥ 41.58 c4 1047.423 0.000
36

x1 111.724 190.000 192.000 2.000 78.276
x2 237.500 240.000 408.148 168.148 2.500

c2 96.600 105.000 116.000 11.000 8.400
c3 36.207 40.000 41.577 1.577 3.793
(h)Since there is already slack molding hours left CASE SOLUTION:

over, reducing the time required to mold a batch “THE POSSIBILITY” RESTAURANT ––
of tiles will only create more slack molding CONTINUED
time.
Thus, the solution will not change. The solution is,
x1 40
(i) Additional clay will have no effect on the x2 20
solution since there is already slack clay left. Z $800
Thus, Mosaic should not agree to the offer (A)The question regarding a possible advertising
of extra clay. expenditure of $350 per day requires that the
sensitivity range for q1 be computed.
(j) Although an additional hour of glazing has the q1:
highest shadow price of $1,170.103, the upper s3: 20 + 7 0 s4: 14 – 1.1 0
limit of the sensitivity range for glazing hours 7 20 1.1 14
is 41.577. Thus, with an increase of only 1.577 7 2.86 1.1 12.72
hours the solution will change and a new s1: 40 – 2 0 s2: 20 – 0
shadow price will exist. In order to assess the 2 40 20
full impact of a 20 hour increase in glazing 7 20 20
hours the problem should be solved again using Summarizing,
the computer with this change. This new
solution results in a profit of $49,732.39 an –20 2.86 12.72 20
increase in profit of only $1,845.79. The reason and,
for this small increase can be observed in the
graphical solution; as the glazing constraint 2.86 12.72
increases it quickly becomes a “non-binding” Since q1 = 60 + , = q1 – 60. Therefore,
constraint with a new solution point.
–26 ≤ q1 – 60 ≤ 12.72
57.14 ≤ q1 ≤ 72.72
(k)A reduction of 3 hours is within the sensitivity
range for kiln hours. However, the shadow price Thus, an increase of 10 meals does not affect the
for kiln hours is $1,170.103 per hour. Thus, a shadow price for mean demand, which is $800. An
loss of 3 kiln hours will reduce profit by increase of 10 meals will result in increased profit
(3)(1,170.103) = $3,510.31. of ($8)($10) = $80, which exceeds the advertising
expenditure of $30. The ad should be purchased.
37
(B)The reduction in kitchen staff from 20 to 15 CASE SOLUTION:
hours requires the computation of the JULIA’s FOOD BOOTH
sensitivity range for q2.
q2: (A)x1 = pizza slices, x2 = hot dogs,
s3: 20 – 10 0 s4: 14 + 4 0 x3 = barbeque sandwiches
– 20 20 4 14 The model is for the first home game,
70 1 4 –3.5
s1: 40 – 40 0 s2: 20 + 4 0 maximize Z $0.75x1 1.05x2 1.35x3
– 40 40 4 20 subject to:
70 1 4 –5
Summarizing, $0.75x1 .0.45x2 0.90x3 1,500
24x1 16x2 25x3 55,296 in2 of oven
–5 3.5 1 10 space.
and, x1 x2 + x3
x2
3.5 1
≥ 2.0
x3
Since q2 = 20 + , = q2 – 20. Therefore,
x1, x2, x3 0
–3.5 ≤ q2 – 20 ≤ 1
16/5 ≤ q2 ≤ 21 *Note that the oven space required for a pizza
slice was determined by dividing the total
A reduction of 5 hours to 15 hours would exceed space required by a pizza, 14 x 14 = 196 in2,
the lower limit of the sensitivity range. This would by 8, or approximately 24 in2 per slice. The
result in a change in the solution mix and the total space available is the dimension of a
shadow price, so the impact could not be totally shelf, 36 in. x 48 in. = 1,728 in2, multiplied by
ascertained from the optimal simplex tableau. 16 shelves, 27,648 in2, which is multiplied by
solving the model again with q2 = 15 results in the 2, the times before kickoff and halftime the
following new solution. oven will be filled = 55,296 in2.
s1 5.45
Solution: x1 = 1,250 pizza slices
s3 81.82
x2 = 1,250 hot dogs
x1 49.09
x3 = 0 barbecue sandwiches
x2 5.45
Z = $2,250
Z $676.36
Notice that simply using the shadow price of $16 Julia should receive a profit of $2,250 for the
for staff time (hr) would have indicated a loss in first game. Her lease is $1,000 per game so that
profit of only (5hr)(16) = $80, or Z = $720. The leaves her with $1,250. Her cost of leasing a
actual reduction in profit to $676.36 is greater. The warming oven is $100 per game, thus she will
final question concerns an increase in the make a little more than what she needs to, i.e.,
coefficient for c1 from $12 to $14. This requires $1,000, for it to be worth her while to lease the
the computation of the range for c1. booth.
(C)The final question concerns an increase in the A “tricky” aspect of the model formulation is
coefficient for c1 from $12 to $14. This requires the $1,500 used to purchase the ingredients.
the computation of the range for c1. Since the objective function reflects net profit,
the $1,500 is recouped and can be used for the
c1, basic:
next home game to purchase food ingredients;
–8 –2 0 – 16 + 4 0
thus, it’s not necessary for Julia to use any of
–8 –2 8 – 16 + 4 16
her $1,150 profit to buy ingredients for the next
–8 –2 –4 – 16 + 4 4
game.
–4 4
Since c1 = 12 + , = c1 – 12. Therefore, (B) Yes, she would increase her profit; the dual
value is $1.50 for each additional dollar. The
–4 c1 – 12 4
upper limit of the sensitivity range for budget
–8 c1 16
is $1,658.88, so she should only borrow
Since c1 = $14 is within this range the price
approximately $158. Her additional profit
increase could be implemented without affecting
would be $238.32 or a total profit of $2,488.32.
Pierre’s meal plans.
38
(C) Yes, she should hire her friend. It appears
impossible for her to prepare all of the food
items given in the solution in such a short
period of time. The additional profit she would
get if she borrowed more money as indicated
in part B would offset this additional
expenditure.
(D) The biggest uncertainty is the weather. If the
weather is very hot or cold, fans might eat less.
Also, if it is rainy weather for a game or
games, the crowd might not be as large, even
though the games are all sellouts. The model
results show that Julia will reach her goal of
$1,000 per game - if everything goes right. She
has little slack in her profit margin, thus it
seems unlikely that she will achieve $1,000 for
each game.
39

Taylor Chap 3 Answers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor Chap 3 Answers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Three: Linear Programming: Computer Solution and Sensitivity Analysis

PROBLEM SUMMARY 35. Model formulation

20. Model formulation

26. Model formulation 50 optimal

33. Model formulation; computer solution

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Variable Value Reduced Cost

Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

(a) The company should select additional 15.

14. x1 = no. of days to operate mill 1 C x1

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

(a) Reduce the personal interview requirement; it 27. x2

(b) Because the “solution space” is not really an C

29. x1 = $ amount invested in land

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

(a)–2.0 ≤ c1 ≤ ∞ must be solved again on the computer, which

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Objective Coefficient Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

33. (a) and (b) (c)

x1 ≥ 200 Variable Value

Constraint Slack/Surplus Shadow Price

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

Right Hand Side Ranges

Lower Current Upper Allowable Allowable

$0.17x1 0.25x2 $4,000 (printing budget)