## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

B

Q U A N T I T A T I V E M O D U L E

Linear Programming

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Students may select from eight LP applications given in the

introduction. These include school bus scheduling, police patrol

allocation, scheduling bank tellers, selecting product mix, picking

blends to minimize cost, minimizing shipping cost, developing

production schedules, and allocating space.

2. LP theory states that the optimum lies on a corner. All three

solution techniques make use of the “corner point” feature.

3. The feasible region is the area bounded by the set of problem

constraints. A feasible solution is any combination of x, y coordi-

nates (or x

1

, x

2

coordinates) that is in or on the feasible region.

4. Each LP problem that has been formulated correctly does

have an infinite number of possible solutions. Any point within

the feasible region is a solution that satisfies all constraints (al-

though it is not necessarily optimal). In addition, for any problem

in which the optimal solution lies on a constraint that is parallel to

the objective function, all points along that constraint are also

both feasible and optimal.

5. The objective function contains the profit or cost information

that enables us to determine whether one solution is better than an-

other solution. Our choice of best depends only on the objective.

6. Before activity values can be placed into the objective, they

must meet the constraints. Notice that the objective function has no

minimum-required profit level unless it is included as a constraint.

7. As long as the costs do not change, the diet problem always

provides the same answer. In other words, the diet is the same

every day. Unlike animals, people enjoy variety, and variety can-

not be included as a linear constraint.

8. The number of feasible solutions is infinite. We only need to

consider extreme points—corner points—to find the optimal solu-

tion. If we use isoprofit lines, we only need to examine one corner

point to determine the optimal solution.

9. Shadow price or dual: the value of one additional unit of a

resource, such as one more hour of a scarce labor resource or one

more dollar to invest.

10. The iso-cost line is moved down in a minimization problem

until it no longer intersects with any constraint equation. The last

point in the feasible region that the line touches is the optimal

corner point.

11. The corner point method examines the profit at every corner

point, whereas the iso-profit line method draws a series of parallel

profit lines until one line finally touches the last tip (corner point)

of the feasible region. That last point touched is the optimal solu-

tion, so other corner points need not be tested.

12. When two constraints do not cross at an axis, we use simul-

taneous equations—there is only one point where two linear equa-

tions (constraints) cross.

13. (a) Adding a new constraint will reduce the size of the feasi-

ble region unless it is a redundant constraint. It can never

make the feasible region any larger.

(b) A new constraint can only reduce the size of the feasible

region; therefore the value of the objective function will

either decrease or remain the same. If the original solu-

tion is still feasible, it will remain the optimal solution.

ACTIVE MODEL EXERCISE

ACTIVE MODEL B.1: LP Graph

1. By how much does the profit on Walkmans need to rise to

make it the only product manufactured?

If the profit per walkman is more than $10 per unit then

it is the only product that should be manufactured.

2. By how much does the profit on Walkmans need to fall to

stop manufacturing it?

At $6.66 and below we should not manufacture any

Walkmans.

3. What happens to the profit as the number of assembly hours

increases by 1 hour at a time? For how many hours does this

hold true?

The profit rises by $.50 per hour until we reach 120 hours

at which point the rise stops.

4. What happens if we can reduce the electronics time for

Watch-TVs to 2.5 hours?

The profit rises by $70.

286 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

END-OF-MODULE PROBLEMS

X Y Z = 4X + 6Y

0 0 0

4 0 16

0 4 24

1.33 3.33 25.33 (optimal)

Feasible corner points (x,y): (0,3), (0,10), (2.4,8.8), (6.75,3).

Maximum profit 100 at (0,10).

B.3 (a) The optimal solution of $26 profit lies at the point

X

1

= 2, X

2

= 3.

(b) If the first constraint is altered to 1X

1

+ 3X

2

s 8, the fea-

sible region and optimal solution shift considerably, as

follows.

B.1

B.2

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 287

B.4 (a) Corner points (0,50), (50,50), (0,200), (75,75), (50,150).

(b) Optimal solutions: (75,75) and (50,150). Both yield

profit of $3,000.

B.5

X Y Z = 24X + 15Y

0 20 300

11 0 264

3.86 4.54 160.86 (optimal)

B.6 (a) Let x

1

= number of liver flavored biscuits in a package

x

2

= number of chicken flavored biscuits in a package

Minimize x

1

+ 2x

2

Subject to x

1

+ x

2

> 40

2x

1

+ 4x

2

> 60

x

1

s 15

x

1

, x

2

> 0

(b) Corner points are (0,40) and (15,25). Optimal solution is

(15,25) with cost of 65.

(c) Minimum cost = 65 cents.

288 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

B.7

Let x

1

= number of air conditioners to be produced

x

2

= number of fans to be produced

Maximize 25x

1

+ 15x

2

Subject to 3x

1

+ 2x

2

s 240 (wiring)

2x

1

+ 1x

2

s 140 (drilling)

x

1

, x

2

> 0 (nonnegativity)

Profit:

@a: (x

1

= 0, x

2

= 0) Obj = $0

@b: (x

1

= 0, x

2

= 120) Obj = 25 × 0 + 15 × 120 = $1,800

@c: (x

1

= 40, x

2

= 60) Obj = 25 × 40 + 15 × 60 = $1,900*

@d: (x

1

= 70, x

2

= 0) Obj= 25 × 70 + 15 × 0 = $1,750

* The optimal solution is to produce 40 air conditioners and

60 fans each period. Profit will be $1,900.

B.8

Let x

1

= number of Model A tubs produced

x

2

= number of Model B tubs produced

Maximize 90x

1

+ 70x

2

Subject to 125x

1

+ 100x

2

s 25,000 (steel)

20x

1

+ 30x

2

s 6,000 (zinc)

x

1

, x

2

> 0 (nonnegativity)

Profit:

@a: (x

1

= 0, x

2

= 200) Obj = 90 × 0 + 70 × 200

= $14,000.00

@b: (x

1

= 85.71, x

2

= 142.86) Obj = 90 × 85.71 + 70 × 142.86

= $17,714.10

@c: (x

1

= 200, x

2

= 0) Obj = 90 × 200 + 70 × 0

= $18,000.00*

* The optimal solution is to produce 200 Model A tubs, and 0

Model B tubs. Profit will be $18,000.

B.9 (a) X

1

= number of mattresses

X

2

= number of box springs

Minimize cost = 20X

1

+ 24X

2

subject to X

1

+ X

2

> 30

X

1

+ 2X

2

> 40

X

1

= 20, X

2

= 10, cost = $640

B.10

Let x

1

= number of Alpha-4 computers

x

2

= number of Beta-5 computers

Maximize: 1200x

1

+ 1800x

2

Subject to 20x

1

+ 25x

2

= 800 (total hours)

x

1

> 10 (Alpha-4s)

x

2

> 15 (Beta-5s)

x

1

, x

2

> 0 (nonnegativity)

Profit:

@ a: (x

1

= 10, x

2

= 24) Obj = 1200 × 10 + 1800 × 24

= $55,200*

@ b: (x

1

= 21.25, x

2

= 15) Obj = 1200 × 21.25 + 1800 × 15

= $52,500

* The optimal solution is to produce 10 Alpha-4 and 24 Beta-5

computers per period. Profit is $55,200.

(b)

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 289

B.11 Let: X

1

= number of pounds of compost in each bag

X

2

= number of pounds of sewage waste in each bag

Minimize cost = 5X

1

+ 4X

2

(in cents)

Subject to X

1

+ X

2

> 60 (pounds per bag)

X

1

> 30 (pounds compost per bag)

X

2

s 40 (pounds sewage per bag)

Corner point a:

(X

1

= 30, X

2

= 40) ¬ cost = 5(30) + (4)(40) = $3.10

Corner point b (which is optimal):

(X

1

= 30, X

2

= 30) ¬ cost = 5(30) + (4)(30) = $2.70

Corner point c:

(X

1

= 60, X

2

= 0) ¬ cost = 5(60) + (4)(0) = $3.00

B.12

The optimal point, a, lies at the intersection of the

constraints:

3x

1

+ 2x

2

> 120

x

1

+ 3x

2

> 90

To solve these equations simultaneously, begin by writing

them in the form shown below:

3x

1

+ 2x

2

= 120

x

1

+ 3x

2

= 90

Multiply the second equation by ÷3, and add it to the first:

3x

1

+ 2x

2

= 120 ĺ 3x

1

+ 2x

2

= 120

÷3(x

1

+ 3x

2

= 90) ĺ÷3x

1

÷ 9x

2

= ÷270

÷7x

2

= ÷150

Therefore, x

2

= 150/7 = 21.43. Given: 3x

1

+ 2x

2

= 120 then

3x

1

= 120 ÷ 2x

2

= 120 ÷ 2 × 21.43

and

= =

1

77.14

25.71

3

x

Thus, the optimal solution is: x

1

= 25.71, x

2

= 21.43

The cost is given by:

C = x

1

+ 2x

2

= 25.71 + 2 × 21.43 = $68.57

B.13 The last constraint is not linear because it contains the

square root of x and the objective function and first constraint are

not because of the x

1

x

2

term.

B.14 (a) Using software, we find that the optimal solution is:

x

1

= 7.95

x

2

= 5.95

x

3

= 12.60

Profit = $143.76

(b) There is no unused time available on any of the three

machines.

(c) An additional hour of time on the third machine would

be worth $0.26.

(d) Additional time on the second machine would be

worth $0.786 per hour for a total of $7.86 for the addi-

tional 10 hours.

B.15 (a)

290 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

(c) If X

1

’s profit coefficient was overestimated, but should

only have been $1.25, it is easy to see graphically that

the solution at point b remains optimal.

B.16 (a) Let X

ij

number of students bused from sector i to

school j. Objective:

subject to

700 (number students in sector )

500 (number students in sector )

100 (number students in sector )

800 (number students in sector )

400(number s

AB AC AE

BB BC BE

CB CC CE

DB DC DE

EB EC EE

X X X

A

X X X

B

X X X

C

X X X

D

X X X

tudents in sector )

900 (school capacity)

900 (school capacity)

900 (school capacity)

AB BB CB DB EB

AC BC CC DC EC

AE BE CE DE EE

E

X X X X X

B

X X X X X

C

X X X X X

E

d

d

d

(b) Solution: X

AB

400

X

AE

300

X

BB

500

X

CC

100

X

DC

800

X

EE

400

Distance 5,400 “student miles”

X

1

$ invested in Treasury notes

X

2

$ invested in bonds

Maximize ROI 0.08X

1

0.09X

2

X

1

t $125,000

X

2

d $100,000

X

1

X

2

$250,000

X

1

, X

2

t 0

Point a (X

1

150,000, X

2

100,000),

ROI $21,000 (optimal solution)

Point b (X

1

250,000, X

2

0), ROI $20,000

(b)

B.17

minimize total travel miles = 5 8 6

0 4 12

4 0 7

7 2 5

12 7 0

AB AC AE

BB BC BE

CB CC C E

DB DC DE

EB EC EE

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

**QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 291
**

B.18 Problem Data Solution

Period

Time Period

Workers

Required

Hire

Solution 1

Hire

Solution 2

Hire

Solution 3

1 3 AM–7 AM 3 0 3 3

2 7 AM–11 AM 12 16 9 14

3 11 AM–3 PM 16 0 7 2

4 3 PM–7 PM 9 9 2 7

5 7 PM–11 PM 11 2 9 4

6 11 PM–3 AM 4 3 0 0

_ = 30 _ = 30 _ = 30

Let x

i

= number of workers reporting for the start of work

in period i, where i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. The equations

become:

Objective:

x

1

+ x

2

+ x

3

+ x

4

+ x

5

+ x

6

(Minimize staff size)

Subject to:

1 2

2 3

3 4

4 5

5 6

1 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

12

16

9

11

4

3

, , , , , 0

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x x x

+ >

+ >

+ >

+ >

+ >

+ >

>

Note that three alternate optimal solutions are provided to

this problem. All solutions could be implemented using

only 30 staff members.

B.19 (a) Let X

1

= wren houses

X

2

= bluebird houses

Maximize Profit = 6X

1

+ 15X

2

4X

1

+ 2X

2

s 60

4X

1

+ 12X

2

s 120

Corner Points

X1 X2 Profit

0 0 0

15 0 90

0 10 150

12 6 162 (Optimal)

The maximum value of the objective is $162, obtained by

producing 12 wren houses and 6 bluebird houses.

B.20 The original equations are:

Objective: 9x

1

+ 12x

2

(maximize)

Subject to: x

1

+ x

2

s 10 (gallons, varnish)

x

1

+ 2x

2

s 12 (lengths, redwood)

where: x

1

= number of coffee tables/week

x

2

= number of bookcases/week

Optimal: x

1

= 8, x

2

= 2, Profit = $96

B.21 (a) Using the isoprofit line or corner point method, we see

that point b (where X

1

= 37.5 and X

2

= 75) is optimal if

the profit = $3X

1

+ $2X

2

.

(b) If the profit changes to $4.50 per unit of X

1

, the opti-

mal solution shifts to point c.

(c) If the objective function becomes P = $3X

1

+ $3X

2

, the

corner point b remains optimal.

B.22

(b)

292 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

The original equations are:

Objective: 4x

1

5x

2

(minimize)

Subject to: x

1

2x

2

t 80

3x

1

x

2

t 75

The optimal solution is found at the intersection of the two

constraints:

x

1

2x

2

t 80

3x

1

x

2

t 75

To solve these equations simultaneously, begin by writing

them in the form shown below:

x

1

2x

2

80

3x

1

x

2

75

Multiply the second equation by 2 and add it to the first:

1 2 1 2

1 2 1 2

2 80 2 80

2(3 75) 6 2 150

5 70 z

x x x x

x x x x

x

o

o

Thus, x

1

70/5 14. Given: x

1

2x

2

80,

2x

2

80 x

1

80 14 or x

2

66/2 33.

The cost is given by:

C 4x

1

5x

2

4 u 14 5 u 33 221

B.23 Let x

1

the number of class A containers to be used

x

2

the number of class K containers to be used

x

3

the number of class T containers to be used

The appropriate equations are:

Maximize: 9x

1

7x

2

15x

3

Subject to: 2x

1

x

2

3x

3

d 130 (Material)

2x

1

6x

2

4x

3

240 (Time)

x

1

, x

2

, x

3

t 0 (nonnegativity)

Using software we find that the optimal solution is:

x

1

0, x

2

14.29, x

3

38.57

and

Profit $678.57

B.24 (a) The unit profit of the air conditioner must fall in the

range $22.50–$30.00

(b) The shadow price for the wiring constraint is $5.00,

and it holds within the range 210–280 hours.

Let: X

1

number of TV spots

X

2

number of newspaper ads

Maximize exposures 35,000X

1

20,000X

2

2

1

1

1

2

Subject to: 3,000 1, 250 $100,000

5

25

10

X X

X

X

X

d

t

d

t

1 2

1 2

1 2

Point ( 5, 10), exposure = 375,000

Point ( 5, 68), exposure = 175,000 + 1,360,000

= 1,535,000 (this is optimal)

Point ( 25, 20), exp

a X X

b X X

c X X

1 2

osure 875, 000 400, 000

1, 275,000

Point ( 25, 10), exposure 875,000 + 200,000

1,075,

d X X

000

B.26 (a) Minimize:

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

6 5 3 8 10 8 11 14 18

a b c a b c a b c

x x x x x x x x x

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

Subject to: 7

12

5

6

8

10

All variables 0

a a a

b b b

c c c

a b c

a b c

a b c

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

d

d

d

t

(b) Solution:

1

2

2

3

3

6

3

5

7

3

Cost $219

b

b

c

a

b

x

x

x

x

x

**An alternate solution, at the same $219 ($219,000) cost, is
**

1

1

2

3

3

1

5

8

7

3

b

c

b

a

b

x

x

x

x

x

**B.27 a) V1 Fertilizer shipped to Customer A from Warehouse W1
**

V2 Fertilizer shipped to Customer A from Warehouse W2

V3 Fertilizer shipped to Customer A from Warehouse W3

V4 Fertilizer shipped to Customer B from Warehouse W1

V5 Fertilizer shipped to Customer B from Warehouse W2

V6 Fertilizer shipped to Customer B from Warehouse W3

b) Z 7.5V1 6.25V2 6.5V3 6.75V4 7V5 8V6

B.25

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 293

d) How many of the constraints are binding? 4 (tell by non-

zero shadow prices)

e) How much slack/surplus is there with the non-binding

constraint(s)? 50 tons (600550)

f) The range of optimality on Variable V3? $6.25 to $7.25

(to get this look at Allowable Increase (.75) and De-

crease (.25) for V3. Add/subtract from C3 (6.5): 6.25

6.5 .25 & 7.25 6.5 .75. If we could ship 10 tons

less to Customer A, we might be able to save: $65

(shadow price $6.5/ton)

g) Cust B Shadow price is higher for filling Customer B’s

demand $7.25 > $6.5 and we are trying to minimize

costs.

B.28 Let x

1

number of medical patients

x

2

number of surgical patients

The appropriate equations are:

Maximize 2280x

1

1515x

2

1 2

1 2

1 2

2

1

Subject to: 8 5 32,850 (patient days available)

3.1 2.6 15,000 (lab tests)

1 2 7,000 (X rays)

2,800 (operations)

x x

x x

x x

x

x

d

d

d

d

2

, 0 (nonnegativity) x t

Optimal: x

1

2790, x

2

2104, Profit $9,551,659

or: 2790 medical patients, 2104 surgical patients,

Profit $9,551,659

Beds required:

Use: Medical: 8 2790 22, 320

Surgical: 5 2104 10,520

32,840

u

u

Medical uses:

22, 320

68% 61 beds

32,840

o

Surgical uses:

10,520

32% 29 beds

32,840

o

Here is an alternative approach that solves directly for the

number of beds:

Maximize revenues 104,025x

1

110,595x

2

d

d

d

d

d

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

2

Subject to: 90 beds

8 5 32,850 (patients/yr)

141.44 189.8 15, 000 (lab tests)

45.63 146 7,000 (x-rays)

73 2,800 (operations)

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

where x

1

no. of medical beds 61.17

x

2

no. of surgical beds 28.83

Revenue is $9,551,659, as before.

B.29 (a) Let X

1

no. of units of internal modems produced

per week

X

2

no. of units of external modems produced per week

X

3

no. of units of circuit boards produced per week

X

4

no. of units of floppy disk drives produced per week

X

5

no. of units of hard drives produced per week

X

6

no. of units of memory boards produced per week

Objective function analysis: First find the time used on

each test device:

hours on test device 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 3 12 6 18 17

60

X X X X X X

**hours on test device 2
**

1 2 3 4 5 6

2 5 3 2 15 17

60

X X X X X X

**hours on test device 3
**

1 2 3 4 5 6

5 1 3 2 9 2

60

X X X X X X

**Thus, the objective function is
**

maximize contribution per unit revenue material

cost test cost

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

200 120 180 130 430 260

35 25 40 45 170 60

7 3 12 6 18 17

15

60

2 5 3 2 15 17

12

60

5 1 3 2 9 2

18

60

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

**This can be rewritten as
**

1 2 3

4 5 6

maximize contribution

= $161.35 92.95 135.50

per unit

82.50 249.80 191.75

X X X

X X X

subject to

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 3 12 6 18 17

120 hours

60

2 5 3 2 15 17

120 hours

60

5 1 3 2 9 2

100 hours

60

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

d

d

d

c) -description- variables and coefficients? what type? RHS?

C1: Cust A’s demand formula: V1 V2 V3 >| 650 (either > or okay)

C2: Cust B’s demand formula: V4 V5 V6 >| 800 (either > or okay)

C3: W1’s Supply formula: V1 V4 < 400

C4: W2’s Supply formula: V2 V5 < 500

C5: W3’s Supply formula: V3 V6 < 600

294 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

= = ∴ = × + × =

= = ∴ = × + × =

= = ∴ = × + × =

1 2

1 2

1 2

@ : ( 0, 100) Obj 9 0 20 100 $2, 000.00

@ : ( 262.5, 25) Obj 9 262.5 20 25 $2,862.50*

@ : ( 300, 0) Obj 9 300 20 0 $2, 700.00

a x x

b x x

c x x

(b) The solution is

X

1

= 496.55 internal modems

X

2

= 1,241.38 external modems

X

3

through X

6

= 0

Profit = $195,504.80

(c) The shadow prices, as explained in Module B, for addi-

tional time on the three test devices are $21.41, $5.75,

and $0, respectively, per minute.

B.30 (a) Minimize total cost = $0.60X

1

+ 2.35X

2

+ 1.15X

3

+ 2.25X

4

+ 0.58X

5

+ 1.17X

6

+ 0.33X

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2

subject to

295 1,216 394 358 128 118 279

1,500

295 1,216 394 358 128 118 279

900

0.2 0.2 4.3 3.2 3.2 14.1 2.2 4

16 96 9 0.5 0.8 1.4 0.5 50

16 81

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X

+ + + + + +

≤

+ + + + + +

≥

+ + + + + + ≥

+ + + + + + ≤

+ +

3 4 5 6 7

1 5 6 7

74 83 7 14 8 26

22 28 19 63 50

All 0

i

X X X X X

X X X X

X

+ + + + ≥

+ + + ≤

≥

(b) Problem solved by computer:

The meal plan for the evening is

No milk (X

1

= 0)

0.499 pound of ground meat (X

2

)

0.173 pound of chicken (X

3

)

No fish (X

4

= 0)

No beans (X

5

= 0)

0.105 pound of spinach (X

6

)

0.762 pound of white potatoes (X

7

)

Each meal has a cost of $1.75.

(c) The meal is fairly well-balanced (two meats, a green vege-

table, and a potato). The weight of each item is realistic.

(d) This problem is very sensitive to changing food prices.

Sensitivity analysis when prices change:

Milk increases 10 cents/lb: no change in price or diet

Milk decreases 10 cents/lb: no change in price or diet

Milk decreases 30 cents/lb (to 30 cents): potatoes drop

out and milk enters, price = $1.42/meal

Ground meat increases from $2.35 to $2.75: price = $1.93

and spinach leaves the optimal solution

Ground meat increases to $5.25/lb: price = $2.07 and

meat leaves; milk, chicken and potatoes in solution

Fish decreases from $2.25 to $2.00/lb: no change

Chicken increases to $3.00/lb: price = $1.91 and meat,

fish, spinach, and potatoes in solution.

INTERNET HOMEWORK PROBLEMS

These problems (B.31–B.40) appear on our companion

web site at www.prenhall.com/heizer

B.31 Let x = number of standard model to produce

y = number of deluxe model to produce

Maximize 40x + 60y

Subject to 30 30 450

10 15 180

6

, 0

x y

x y

x

x y

+ ≤

+ ≤

≥

≥

Feasible corner points (x,y): (6,0), (15,0), (6,8), (9,6). Max-

imum profit is $720 by producing either 6 standard and

8 deluxe or 9 standard and 6 deluxe.

B.33

Let x

1

= number of benches produced

x

2

= number of tables produced

Maximize 9x

1

+ 20x

2

Subject to 4x

1

+ 6x

2

≤ 1,200 (hours)

10x

1

+ 35x

2

≤ 3,500 (board-feet)

x

1

, x

2

≥ 0 (nonnegativity)

Profit:

* The optimal solution is to make 262.5 benches and 25 tables per

period. Profit will be $2,862.50. Because benches and tables may

be matched (two benches per table), it may not be reasonable to

maximize profit in this manner. Also, this problem brings up the

proper interpretation of the statement that “One should make 262.5

(a fractional quantity) benches per period.”

B.32

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 295

Note that this problem has one constraint with a negative

sign. This may cause the beginning student some confu-

sion in plotting the constraint.

This would probably be a good time to stress the plot-

ting of equations of the form:

x

1

÷ 2x

2

s 10

found in this problem, and of the form:

3x

1

÷ 2x

2

s 0

The optimal point, a, lies at the intersection of the

constraints:

3x

1

+ 5x

2

s 150

5x

1

+ 3x

2

s 150

To solve these equations simultaneously, begin by writing

them in the form shown below:

3x

1

+ 5x

2

= 150

5x

1

+ 3x

2

= 150

Multiply the first equation by 5, the second by ÷3, and add

the two equations.

× + = ÷ + =

÷ × + = ÷ ÷ ÷ = ÷

=

1 2 1 2

1 2 1 2

2

5 (3 5 150) 15 25 750

3 (5 3 150) 15 9 450

16 300

x x x x

x x x x

x

Therefore, x

2

= 300/16 = 18.75.

Given: 3x

1

+ 5x

2

= 150 then

3x

1

= 150 ÷ 5x

2

= 150 ÷ 5 × 18.75

and

1

56.25

18.75

3

x = =

Thus, the optimal solution is: x

1

= 18.75, x

2

= 18.75

The profit is given by:

C = 4x

1

+ 4x

2

= 4 × 18.75 + 4 × 18.75 = $150

B.35 Because the decision centers about the production of the

two different cabinet models, let:

x

1

= number of French Provincial cabinets produced

per day

x

2

= number of Danish Modern cabinets produced each day

The equations become:

Objective: 28x

1

+ 25x

2

(Maximize revenue)

1 2

1 2

1 2

1

2

1 2

Subject to 3 2 360 (hours, carpentry)

1.5 1 200 (hours, painting)

0.75 0.75 125 (hours, finishing)

60 (units, contract)

60 (units, contract)

, 0 (nonnegativity)

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x

+ s

+ s

+ s

>

>

>

The solution is:

x

1

= 60, x

2

= 90, Revenue = $3930/day

Define the following variables:

x

1

= thousands of round tables produced per month

x

2

= thousands of square tables produced per month

The appropriate equations then become:

Objective: 10x

1

+ 8x

2

(minimize handling and storage costs)

Subject to x

2

> 5 (square tabletop contract)

2x

1

+ 1x

2

> 20 (total labor capacity)

x

1

, x

2

> 0 (nonnegativity)

Cost:

= = = × + × =

= = = × + × =

1 2

1 2

@ : ( 7.5, 5) Obj 10 7.5 8 5 $115*

@ : ( 0, 20) Obj 10 0 8 20 $160

a x x

b x x

* The optimal solution is to produce 7500 round tables and 5000

square tables, for a cost of $115,000.

B.34

B.36

B.37

296 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

The original equations are:

Objective: 3x

1

+ 5x

2

(maximize)

Subject to: x

2

≤ 6

3x

1

+ 2x

2

≤ 18

x

1

, x

2

≥ 0 (nonnegativity)

The optimal solution is found at the intersection of the two

constraints. Solving for the values of x

1

and x

2

at the inter-

section, we have:

x

2

= 6

2

1

18 2 18 2 6 6

2

3 3 3

x

x

− − ×

= = = =

Profit = 3x

1

+ 5x

2

= 3 × 2 + 5 × 6 = 6 + 30 = $36

B.38 Let x

1

= number of newspaper ads placed

x

2

= number of TV spots purchased

Given that we are to minimize cost, we may develop the

following set of equations:

Minimize: 925x

1

+ 2000x

2

Subject to: 0.04x

1

+ 0.05x

2

≥ 0.40 (city exposure)

0.03x

1

+ 0.03x

2

≥ 0.60 (exposure in

NW suburbs)

Note that the problem is not limited to unduplicated expo-

sure (for example, one person seeing the Sunday newspa-

per three weeks in a row counts for three exposures).

Solution:

x

1

= 20 ads, x

2

= 0 TV spots, cost = $18,500

Maximize: 57x

1

+ 55x

2

Subject to: x

1

+ x

2

≤ 390

2.5x

1

+ 2.4x

2

≤ 960

= = ∴ = × + ×

=

= = ∴ = × + ×

=

= = ∴ = × + ×

=

1 2

1 2

1 2

@( 384, 0) Obj 57 384 55 0

$21,888

@( 0, 390) Obj 57 0 55 390

$21, 450

@( 240, 150) Obj 57 240 55 150

$21,930*

x x

x x

x x

* The optimal solution occurs at x

1

= 240 boy’s bikes,

x

2

= 150 girl’s bikes, producing a profit of $21,930.

You should point out that the possible optimal solutions

are so close in profit that sensitivity analysis becomes an

important issue.

B.40 (a) maximize: 18.79x

1

+ 6.31x

2

+ 8.19x

3

+ 45.88x

4

+ 63x

5

+ 4.1x

6

+ 81.15x

7

+ 50.06x

8

+ 12.79x

9

+ 15.88x

10

+ 17.91x

11

+ 49.99x

12

+ 24x

13

+ 88.88x

14

+ 77.01x

15

const 1: 4x

2

+ 6x

3

+ 10x

4

+ 12x

5

+ 10x

7

+ 5x

8

+ 1x

9

+ 1x

10

+ 2x

12

+ 10x

14

+ 10x

15

≤ 980

const 2: 0.4x

1

+ 0.5x

2

+ 0.4x

4

+ 1.2x

5

+ 1.4x

6

+ 1.4x

7

+ 1x

8

+ 0.4x

9

+ 0.3x

10

+ 0.2x

11

+ 1.8x

12

+ 2.7x

13

+ 1.1x

14

≤ 400

const 3: 0.7x

1

+ 1.8x

2

+ 1.5x

3

+ 2x

4

+ 1.2x

5

+ 1.5x

6

+ 7x

7

+ 5x

8

+ 1.5x

12

+ 5x

13

+ 5.8x

14

+ 6.2x

15

≤ 600

const 4: 5.8x

1

+ 10.3x

2

+ 1.1x

3

+ 8.1x

5

+ 7.1x

6

+ 6.2x

7

+ 7.3x

8

+ 10x

9

+ 11x

10

+ 12.5x

11

+ 13.1x

12

+ 15x

15

≤ 2500

const 5: 10.9x

1

+ 2x

2

+ 2.3x

3

+ 4.9x

5

+ 10x

6

+ 11.1x

7

+ 12.4x

8

+ 5.2x

9

+ 6.1x

10

+ 7.7x

11

+ 5x

12

+ 2.1x

13

+ 1x

15

≤ 1800

const 6: 3.1x

1

+ 1x

2

+ 1.2x

3

+ 4.8x

4

+ 5.5x

5

+ 0.8x

6

+ 9.1x

7

+ 4.8x

8

+ 1.9x

9

+ 1.4x

10

+ 1x

11

+ 5.1x

12

+ 3.1x

13

+ 7.7x

14

+ 6.6x

15

≤ 1000

const 7: 1x

1

≥ 0

const 8: 1x

2

≥ 20

const 9: 1x

3

≥ 10

const 10: 1x

4

≥ 10

const 11: 1x

5

≥ 0

const 12: 1x

6

≥ 20

const 13: 1x

7

≥ 10

const 14: 1x

8

≥ 20

const 15: 1x

9

≥ 50

const 16: 1x

10

≥ 20

const 17: 1x

11

≥ 20

const 18: 1x

12

≥ 10

const 19: 1x

13

≥ 20

const 20: 1x

14

≥ 10

const 21: 1x

15

≥ 10

Solution Value = 9683.229

Optimal Reduced Original Lower Upper

Value Cost Coefficient Limit Limit

x1 0.00 1.32373 18.79 −Infinity 20.11373

x2 20.00 0.00 6.31 −Infinity 52.49662

x3 10.00 0.00 8.19 −Infinity 34.64475

x4 10.00 0.00 45.88 −Infinity 48.41532

x5 11.507 0.00 63.00 59.01673 77.38298

x6 20.00 0.00 4.10 −Infinity 31.47013

x7 10.00 0.00 81.15 −Infinity 115.1911

x8 20.00 0.00 50.06 −Infinity 82.73582

x9 50.00 0.00 12.79 −Infinity 24.539

x10 20.00 0.00 15.88 −Infinity 26.7216

x11 20.00 0.00 17.91 −Infinity 27.28386

x12 54.945 0.00 49.99 47.34072 56.43208

x13 20.00 0.00 24.00 −Infinity 53.243

x14 12.202 0.00 88.88 80.82936 126.4764

x15 10.00 0.00 77.01 −Infinity 125.8801

B.39

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 297

Solution Value = 9683.229

Shadow Slack or Original Lower Upper

Prices Surplus RHS Limit Limit

const 1 2.711812 0.00 980.00 861.5504 1024.236

const 2 0.00 113.866 400.00 286.1337 Infinity

const 3 10.6486 0.00 600.00 587.7851 608.5712

const 4 2.182708 0.00 2500.00 1889.72 2534.683

const 5 0.00 258.885 1800.00 1541.115 Infinity

const 6 0.00 8.52954 1000.00 991.4705 Infinity

const 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 Infinity 0.00

const 8 46.1866 0.00 20.00 17.91737 41.84552

const 9 26.4548 0.00 10.00 5.041353 19.9601

const 10 2.53532 0.00 10.00 0.00 16.993

const 11 0.00 11.5072 0.00 Infinity 11.50722

const 12 27.37 0.00 20.00 16.50255 37.096

const 13 34.041 10.00 10.00 3.532913 12.01538

const 14 32.6758 0.00 20.00 17.09391 23.00434

const 15 11.75 0.00 50.00 39.20661 116.4478

const 16 10.8416 0.00 20.00 14.30611 79.923

const 17 9.37385 0.00 20.00 15.88757 68.822

const 18 0.00 44.95 10.00 Infinity 54.94591

const 19 29.243 0.00 20.00 15.45261 22.44298

const 20 0.00 2.20215 10.00 Infinity 12.20215

const 21 48.87 0.00 10.00 8.355577 12.84913

The optimal solution provides a profit of $9683. Note that

only product A158 is not produced.

(b) The shadow prices are given in the table above.

(c) There is no value to adding more workers because those

available are not yet fully occupied.

(d) Two tons of steel at a total cost of $8,000 implies a cost per

pound of $2.00. Forty-four pounds of it should be pur-

chased because the shadow price is $2.71 and the upper

limit is 1,024 pounds.

(e) Change coefficient for variable x

14

in objective function

from 88.88 to 8.88. The following results:

Solution Value = 8865.5

Optimal Reduced Original Lower Upper

Value Cost Coefficient Limit Limit

x1 0.00 1.23911 18.79 Infinity 20.02911

x2 20.00 0.00 6.31 Infinity 51.68507

x3 10.00 0.00 8.19 Infinity 32.86478

x4 16.993 0.00 45.88 38.60427 60.25521

x5 7.056 0.00 63.00 42.61333 71.26741

x6 20.00 0.00 4.10 Infinity 30.43315

x7 10.00 0.00 81.15 Infinity 106.3944

x8 20.00 0.00 50.06 Infinity 76.83481

x9 50.00 0.00 12.79 Infinity 26.18145

x10 20.00 0.00 15.88 Infinity 28.52473

x11 20.00 0.00 17.91 Infinity 29.29111

x12 57.697 0.00 49.99 47.574 91.778

x13 20.00 0.00 24.00 Infinity 45.986

x14 10.00 0.00 8.88 Infinity 80.82936

x15 10.00 0.00 77.01 Infinity 119.6576

298 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

Solution Value = 8865.5

Shadow Slack or Original Lower Upper

Prices Surplus RHS Limit Limit

const 1 2.74856 0.00 980.00 913.6641 993.1374

const 2 0.00 113.879 400.00 286.1211 Infinity

const 3 9.197201 0.00 600.00 587.7851 601.577

const 4 2.343288 0.00 2500.00 2342.00 2512.443

const 5 0.00 266.934 1800.00 1533.066 Infinity

const 6 0.00 2.36523 1000.00 997.6348 Infinity

const 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 Infinity 0.00

const 8 45.3751 0.00 20.00 19.45971 41.84552

const 9 24.6748 0.00 10.00 8.988791 19.9601

const 10 0.00 6.993 10.00 Infinity 16.993

const 11 0.00 7.05643 0.00 Infinity 7.056433

const 12 26.3331 0.00 20.00 19.15507 37.096

const 13 25.2444 0.00 10.00 9.459686 12.01538

const 14 26.7748 0.00 20.00 19.5257 23.00434

const 15 13.3914 0.00 50.00 39.20661 62.76064

const 16 12.6447 0.00 20.00 17.28464 31.80706

const 17 11.3811 0.00 20.00 18.28127 32.64

const 18 0.00 47.70 10.00 Infinity 57.69793

const 19 21.986 0.00 20.00 19.46232 22.44298

const 20 71.9494 0.00 10.00 9.155032 12.20215

const 21 42.6476 0.00 10.00 9.67822 12.84913

Note that the profit declines to $8,865, with the reduction

in contribution to $8.88.

(f) Constraints 7 through 11 become: x

1

t 0, x

2

t 0, x

3

t 0,

x

4

t 0, x

5

t 0. The following results:

Solution Value = 9380.23

Optimal Reduced Original Lower Upper

Value Cost Coefficient Limit Limit

x1 0.00 7.90441 18.79 Infinity 26.69441

x2 0.00 16.81 6.31 Infinity 23.1219

x3 0.00 10.9491 8.19 Infinity 19.1391

x4 0.00 2.75734 45.88 Infinity 48.63734

x5 28.72255 0.00 63.00 61.75618 63.859

x6 20.00 0.00 4.10 Infinity 12.95034

x7 10.00 0.00 81.15 Infinity 86.86531

x8 37.51722 0.00 50.06 49.69948 71.07961

x9 50.00 0.00 12.79 Infinity 23.18852

x10 20.00 0.00 15.88 Infinity 20.73238

x11 33.94098 0.00 17.91 17.22904 18.570

x12 37.485 0.00 49.99 48.67592 51.016

x13 20.00 0.00 24.00 Infinity 24.49456

x14 10.00 0.00 8.88 Infinity 70.86956

x15 10.27741 0.00 77.01 75.18908 77.47366

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 299

Solution Value = 9380.234

Shadow Slack or Original Lower Upper

Prices Surplus RHS Limit Limit

const 1 1.494825 0.00 980.00 969.9414 1202.002

const 2 0.00 120.755 400.00 279.2448 Infinity

const 3 0.7247843 0.00 600.00 598.0171 811.0541

const 4 0.8810187 0.00 2500.00 2492.973 2917.931

const 5 0.0234673 0.00 1800.00 1530.888 1805.481

const 6 6.716568 0.00 1000.00 918.2866 1002.674

const 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 Infinity 0.00

const 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 Infinity 0.00

const 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 Infinity 0.00

const 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Infinity 0.00

const 11 0.00 28.7226 0.00 Infinity 28.72255

const 12 8.85034 0.00 20.00 17.19764 40.10845

const 13 5.71531 0.00 10.00 0.00 25.09986

const 14 0.00 17.5172 20.00 Infinity 37.51723

const 15 10.3985 0.00 50.00 42.69018 75.98374

const 16 4.85238 0.00 20.00 0.00 38.00887

const 17 0.00 13.94 20.00 Infinity 33.94098

const 18 0.00 27.4846 10.00 Infinity 37.485

const 19 0.494562 0.00 20.00 1.392963 21.02138

const 20 61.9896 0.00 10.00 0.7036638 10.96196

const 21 0.00 0.2774 10.00 Infinity 10.27741

1

Profit increases to $9,380, and none of the products

beginning with A–D remain.

Previously, only A158 was not produced.

CASE STUDY

GOLDING LANDSCAPE AND PLANTS, INC.

Let x

1

pounds of C - 30

x

2

pounds of C - 92

x

3

pounds of D - 21

x

4

pounds of E - 11

Given that we are to produce a 50-pound bag, we may develop the

following set of equations:

Maximize: 12x

1

9x

2

11x

3

4x

4

1 2 3 4

4

1 2

2 3

Subject to: 50.0 (50 pounds)

7.5 (E - 11)

22.5 (C - 92, C - 30)

15.0 (D

x x x x

x

x x

x x

t

t

d

1 2 3 4

- 21, C - 92)

, , , 0 (nonnegativity) x x x x t

Note that if we wish to change the size of the bag of fertilizer, we

must change all four constraints to reflect the new size.

A more general set of equations can be developed:

Maximize: 12x

1

9x

2

11x

3

4x

4

1 2 3 4

4 1 2 3 4

1 2 1 2 3 4

Subject to: 50 (50 pounds)

0.15( ) (E - 11)

0.45( ) (C - 92,

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x x

t

t

2 3 1 2 3 4

C - 30)

0.30( ) (D - 21,

x x x x x x d

1 2 3 4

C - 92)

, , , 0 (nonnegativity) x x x x t

These equations can be rewritten as:

Maximize: 12x

1

9x

2

11x

3

4x

4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

Subject to: 50.0 (50 pounds)

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.85 0 (E - 11)

0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45 0 (C - 92, C - 30)

0.30 0.70 0.70 0.30 0 (D - 21, C - 92)

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x

d

d

t

1 2 3 4

, , , 0 (nonnegativity) x x x x t

Now, if the size of the bag is changed, only the first constraint

must be modified.

The solution requires 4 iterations:

1

2

3

4

Optimal solution: 7.5 (C - 30)

15.0 (C - 92)

0.0 (D - 21)

27.5 (E - 11)

Cost $3.35

x

x

x

x

INTERNET CASE STUDIES*

MEXICANA WIRE WORKS

1. Maximize P = 34W75c 30W33c 60W5x 25W7x

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

t

t

Subject to: 1 75 1400

1 33 250

1 5 1510

1 7 1116

1 75 2 33 0 5 1 7 4, 000

1 75 1 33 4 5 1 7 4,200

1 75 3 33 0 5 0 7 2, 000

1 75 0 33 3 5 2 7 2, 300

1 75 150

1 7 600

W c

W c

W x

W x

W c W c W x W x

W c W c W x W x

W c W c W x W x

W c W c W x W x

W c

W x

*Solutions to cases that appear on our companion web site

(www.prenhall.com/heizer).

300 QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG

2

3

Solution:

Produce: 1100 units of W75c—backorder 300 units

250 units of W33c—backorder 0 units

0 units of W5x—backorder 1,510 units

600 units of W7x—backorder 516 units

Maximized profit will be $59,900.

By addressing quality problems listed earlier, we could increase

our capacity by up to 3 percent reducing our backorder level.

2. Bringing in temporary workers in the Drawing Department

would not help. Drawing is not a binding constraint. However, if

these former employees could do rework, we could reduce our

rework inventory and fill some of our back orders, thereby in-

creasing profits. We have about a third of a month’s output in

rework inventory. Expediting the rework process would also free

up valuable cash.

3. The plant layout is not optimum. When we install the new

equipment, an opportunity for improving the layout could arise.

Exchanging the locations of Packaging and Extrusion would cre-

ate a better flow of our main product. Also, as we improve our

quality and reduce our rework inventory, we could capture some

of the space now used for rework storage and processing and put

it to productive use.

Our machine utilization of 63% is quite low. Most manufac-

turers strive for at least an 85% machine utilization. If we could

determine the cause(s) of this poor utilization, we might find a key

to a dramatic increase in capacity.

COASTAL STATES CHEMICAL

This case illustrates the use of linear programming in production

planning.

1. To develop the model:

Let: x

1

= tons of phosphoric acid produced per day

x

2

= tons of urea produced per day

x

3

= tons of ammonium phosphate produced per day

x

4

= tons of ammonium nitrate produced per day

x

5

= tons of chlorine produced per day

x

6

= tons of caustic soda produced per day

x

7

= tons of vinyl chloride monomer produced per day

x

8

= tons of hydrofluoric acid produced per day

The appropriate model equations then become:

Maximize: 60x

1

+ 80x

2

+ 90x

3

+ 100x

4

+ 50x

5

+ 50x

6

+ 65x

7

+ 70x

8

Subject to: Demand Constraints:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

320

200

270

300

480

600

300

320

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

Supply constraint (with no curtailment):

5.5x

1

+ 7x

2

+ 8x

3

+ 10x

4

+ 15x

5

+ 16x

6

+ 12x

7

+ 11x

8

s 36,000

(a) Supply constraint (20 percent gas curtailment):

5.5x

1

+ 7x

2

+ 8x

3

+ 10x

4

+ 15x

5

+ 16x

6

+ 12x

7

+ 11x

8

s 28,800

(Note: 36000 cu. ft. × 10

3

× 0.80 = 28,800 cu. ft. × 10

3

)

(b) Supply constraints (40 percent gas curtailment):

5.5x

1

+ 7x

2

+ 8x

3

+ 10x

4

+ 15x

5

+ 16x

6

+ 12x

7

+ 11x

8

s 21,600

(Note: 36000 cu. ft. × 10

3

× 0.60 = 21,600 cu. ft. × 10

3

)

With a 20 percent natural gas curtailment, the optimal pro-

duction schedule, in tons/day, is:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

320

200

270

300

Profit: $174,650

480

385

300

320

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

= ¹

¦

=

¦

¦

=

¦

=

¦¦

`

=

¦

¦

=

¦

= ¦

¦

= ¦

)

With a 40 percent natural gas curtailment, the optimal

production schedule, in tons/day, is:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

320

200

270

300

Profit: $151,933.50

410.67

0

300

320

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

= ¹

¦

=

¦

¦

=

¦

=

¦¦

`

=

¦

¦

=

¦

= ¦

¦

= ¦

)

2. Obviously, those products that have high energy consumption

factors must undergo extensive scrutiny to conserve energy. These

products include chlorine (15.0) and caustic soda (16.0). Energy

consumption is high for these chemicals because they are pro-

duced by electrolytic cell operation. The caustic soda also requires

extensive steam heated evaporation beyond production at the cells.

Energy conservation measures include elimination of steam leaks

as well as electrical ground and proper insulation of equipment.

3. These products are all produced by large-volume, capital-

intensive plants. Emergency shutdowns often result in loss of raw

materials, pollution, potential personnel hazards, and equipment

damage. These plants are staffed for normal operations, and

emergency rate reductions often require operator manpower be-

yond normal staffing. Consequently, these plants may be “out of

control” during unplanned and drastic rate reductions.

4. Normal profit: $185,400/day

Profit with a 20 percent curtailment: $174,650/day

Profit with a 40 percent curtailment: $151,933/day

CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

This scheduling problem can be solved most expeditiously using

linear programming. Let F denote the number of full-time employ-

ees. Some number, F1, of them will work one hour of overtime

between 5 PM and 6 PM each day and some number, F2, of the full-

time employees will work overtime between 6 PM and 7 PM. There

will be seven sets of part-time employees who begin their work

day at hour j, j = 1, 2, . . . ,7, with P1 being the number of workers

beginning at 9 AM, P2 at 10 AM, . . . , P7 at 3 PM. Note that because

part-time employees must work a minimum of four hours, none

QUANTITATIVE MODULE B LI NEAR PROGRAMMI NG 301

can start after 3 PM because the entire operation ends at 7 PM.

Similarly, some number of part-time employees, Qj, leave at the

end of hour j, j = 4, 5, . . . , 9.

The workforce requirements for the first two hours, 9 AM and

10 AM, are:

F + P1 ≥ 14

F + P1 + P2 ≥ 25

At 11 AM half of the full-time employees go to lunch; the re-

maining half go at noon. For those hours:

0.5F + P1 + P2 + P3 ≥ 26

0.5F + P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 ≥ 38

Starting at 1 PM, some of the part-time employees begin to

leave. For the remainder of the straight-time day:

1 2 3 4 5 4 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 29

F P P P P P Q

F P P P P P P Q Q

F P P P P P P P Q Q Q

F P P P P P P P Q Q Q Q

+ + + + + − ≥

+ + + + + + − − ≥

+ + + + + + + − − − ≥

+ + + + + + + − − − − ≥

For the two overtime hours:

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 4 5 6 7 8 14

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 4 5 6 7 8 9 9

F P P P P P P

P Q Q Q Q Q

F P P P P P P

P Q Q Q Q Q Q

+ + + + + +

+ − − − − − ≥

+ + + + + +

+ − − − − − − ≥

If the left-hand sides of these 10 constraints are added, one

finds that 7F hours of full-time labor are used in straight time

(although 8F are paid for), F1 + F2 full-time labor hours are used

and paid for at overtime rates, and the total number of part-time

hours is:

10 1 9 2 8 3 7 4 6 5 5 6 4 7

6 4 5 5 4 6 3 7 2 8 9 128.4

P P P P P P P

Q Q Q Q Q Q

+ + + + + +

− − − − − − ≤

which is 40% of the day’s total requirement of 321 person hours.

This also leads to the objective function. The total daily labor

cost, which must be minimized, is:

8(10.11) 8.08( 1 2)

7.82(10 1 9 2 8 3 7 4 6 5 5 6 4 7

6 4 5 5 4 6 3 7 2 8 9)

Z F F F

P P P P P P P

Q Q Q Q Q Q

= + +

+ + + + + + +

− − − − − −

Total overtime for a full-time employee is restricted to five

hours or less, an average of one hour or less per day per employee.

Thus, the number of overtime hours worked per day cannot exceed

the number of full-time employees:

F1 + F2 ≤ F

Because part-time employees must work at least four hours

per day,

Q4 ≤ P1

for those leaving at the end of the fourth hour. At the end of the

fifth hour, those leaving must be drawn from the P1 − Q4 remain-

ing plus the P2 that arrived at the start of the second hour:

Q5 ≤ P1 + P2 − Q4

Similarly, for the remainder of the day:

6 1 2 3 4 5

7 1 2 3 4 4 5 6

8 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8

Q P P P Q Q

Q P P P P Q Q Q

Q P P P P P Q Q Q Q

Q P P P P P P Q Q Q Q Q

≤ + + − −

≤ + + + − − −

≤ + + + + − − − −

≤ + + + + + − − − − −

To ensure that all part-timers who began at 9 AM do not work

more than seven hours:

Q4 + Q5 + Q6 + Q7 ≥ P1

Similarly:

Q4 + Q5 + Q6 + Q7 + Q8 ≥ P1 + P2

Q4 + Q5 + Q6 + Q7 + Q8 + Q9 ≥ P1 + P2 + P3

Finally, to ensure that all part-time employees leave at some time:

P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 + P5 + P6 + P7 = Q4 + Q5 + Q6 + Q7

+ Q8 + Q9

The resulting problem has 16 variables and 22 constraints. If inte-

ger programming software with sufficient capacity is not avail-

able, the linear programming problem can be solved and the solu-

tion rounded, making certain that none of the constraints have

been violated. Note that the integer programming solution might

also need to be adjusted—if F is an odd integer, 0.5F will not be

an integer and the requirement that “half” of the full-time employ-

ees go to lunch at 11 AM and the other half at noon will have to be

altered by assigning the extra employee to the appropriate hour.

1. The least-cost solution requires 29 full-time employees, 9 of

whom work two hours of overtime per day. In actuality, 18 of the

full-time employees would work overtime on two different days and

9 would work overtime on one day. Fourteen of the full-time work-

ers would take lunch at 11 AM and the other 15 would take it at

noon. Eleven part-timers would begin at 11 AM with 9 of them leav-

ing at 3 PM and the other 2 at 4 PM. Fifteen part-time employees

would work from noon until 4 PM and 5 would work from 2 PM until

6 PM. The resulting cost of 232 hours of straight time, 18 hours of

overtime, and 126 hours of part-time work is $3,476.28 per day.

This solution is not unique—other work assignments can be

found that result in this same cost.

2. The same staffing would be used every day. In fact, one

would expect different patterns to present themselves on different

days; for example, Fridays are usually much busier bank days

than the others. In addition, the person hours required for each

hour of the day are assumed to be deterministic. In a real situation,

wide fluctuations will be experienced in a stochastic manner.

The optimal solution results in a considerable amount of idle

time, partly caused by the restriction that employees can start at the

beginning of an hour and leave at the end. Eliminating this restriction

might yield better results at the risk of increasing the problem size.

- Operations Management Stevenson Chapter06s
- Render
- Application of Linear Programming Techniques to Practical
- 1986-02_HP Journal Papers
- Linear Programming _Graph (1)
- benders (4)
- LPP_MCQ_1
- ch 3 ex
- 201502271502582 GRAPHICAL LP.ppt
- linprog_F07
- sup10_MOD
- SMDA6e Chapter 04
- 1-s2.0-S0968090X99000182-main
- Basic Operation Research (in)
- 611_render_ch02 (1)
- Warehouse Design Review
- Management Model
- operating room scheduliing
- AJCEB_Vol2_No2_28-11-02
- Allocation of Agricultural Land to the Major Crops of Saline Track by Linear Programming Approach a Case Study
- Writing Engineering Abstracts(40)
- Tool for Opt
- Sketching Reality TOG
- Fault Diagnosis of Power Electronic
- Op Tim Ization
- solu10
- Linear Prog
- Mixed integer optimization
- 3assgRA1811A08
- Optimization Programming Problems For Control And Management Of Bacterial Disease With Two Stage Growth/Spread Among Plants

Skip carousel

- tmp5578.tmp
- tmp24DB.tmp
- UT Dallas Syllabus for hcs7372.005.08f taught by Michael Kilgard (kilgard)
- Tmp 3586
- Quotations from Georg Ebers
- tmp6B94
- tmpBD5D.tmp
- Quotations from the PG Collected Works of Gilbert Parker by Parker, Gilbert, 1860-1932
- LSD experience revealed by multimodal neuroimaging
- tmp240
- tmpB37.tmp
- tmpBDB7
- Discrete Mathematics
- tmp3970
- tmpA775
- tmpF292.tmp
- tmpD26C
- tmpC82D
- tmpAF9
- tmpFD51.tmp
- Widger's Quotations from the Project Gutenberg Editions of the Court Memoirs of France by Various
- Quotations from the Project Gutenberg Editions of the Collected Works of George Meredith by Meredith, George, 1828-1909
- tmpC81
- USC Neuroimage Study
- tmp61BF
- tmpA2D2.tmp
- tmpE219
- tmp9B11.tmp
- tmpCCA2.tmp
- tmpD1B4.tmp

- Schumacher
- ejise-volume12-issue2-article557.pdf
- BanaskanthaDistrictCo-operativeMilkproducersUnionLtdPalanpu
- Session 2- Advanced MR
- hi
- Financial Times Top 50 Journals Used in Business School Research Rankings | McMaster University Library, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Banas Dairy
- summaryofkotlersmarketingmanagementbook-101221122910-phpapp02
- Caso Newcoke
- Factor Analysis
- Lecture 6
- Olympic Marketing Fact File 2012
- Fall 2010 Group 8 Marketing Myopia
- Ch02-IntrotoBusiness
- 15 Great Thoughts by Chanakya
- Choice
- 44167441
- The Evolution of Learning Theories John Craig Graded
- Green Marketing

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading