4 views

Uploaded by Nga Bui

IPA-RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS AND LINEAR PROGRAMMING

- Example for Solution of Transportation Problem
- ch19
- Krajewski TIF Supplement E
- Stagger Chart
- QB_5
- Marketing1025
- Chapter_4_LP Duality and Sensitivity Analysis
- Linear Programming Formulation
- 73-220-Lecture03
- Technical Report
- SEEM 2420 OR
- Chemical v Sem
- PSK Method for Solving Intuitionistic Fuzzy Solid Transportation Problems
- Question Excel
- 611_render_ch02 (1)
- Chap006s
- OR Unit-1 with MCQ.pdf
- Simplex minimization problem
- A Primal Dual Integer Programming Algorithm
- Ip Extended Intro

You are on page 1of 5

CHAPTER 11

RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS AND LINEAR PROGRAMMING

ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS

11.1 Refer to Example 11-1 RCLP Inc LP problem.

(a)

Demonstrate that the optimal values for x 1 and x2 in the solution satisfy the

original constraints by substituting the values into the three constraints.

(b) Write the raw material A constraint by increasing its RHS value by 1 from 80

to 81, while keeping the rest of the values of the problem unchanged. Solve the

resulting new LP problem and demonstrate that the value of the objective

function will now increase by the amount of the relevant shadow price, which

is 30, from 3,900 to 3,930.

11.2 Refer to example 11.2 (capital rationing problem).

(a)

Represent the problem in graphical form and find the optimal solution

using the graphical method.

(b) Solve the capital rationing problem using Excel Solver and compare your

results with the solution details provided in Excel Work Book 11.2.

(c) Confirm that the objective function will increase by the value of the

shadow price of the by-product requirement constraint (0.175) by

appropriately reformulating the capital rationing problem and solving it.

11.1 Refer to example 11.3 (project portfolio selection problem).

(a)

terms of a set of linear equations.

(b) Solve the problem and compare your results with those provided in Work

Book11.3.

ANSWERS

Answer to Q 11.1

11.1 (a) Optimal values satisfy the constraints:

The original constraint equations in the Example 11.1 - Roclap product-mix problem from the chapter are:

availability of raw material

availability of ingredient

minimum contractual requirement

non-negativity condition

1 x1 + 1 x2 1,000 kg

x2 300 units

x1, x2 0

2

The Excel Solver Linear Programming solution shows that 400 units of product x1,

and 600 units of product x2, would maximise the objective function, giving $3,900 of

total contribution.

Substituting the solution values for x1 and , x2 into the four constraint equations we

have:

0.05 400 + 0.1 600 = 80 ( all raw material used up)

1 400 + 1 600

= 1,000 ( all of the ingredient used up)

600

400 and 600

> 0

( positive quantities of both x1, x2).

The solution is given in the Excel file titled Q 11.1 (b) Excel Solution.xls. In this

file, the original Linear Programming model has been repeated from the chapter, but

the constraint value on the right hand side of the equation for raw material has been

increased from 80 to 81 tonnes. The new objective function solution given by Excel

Solver is: $3,930 in cell A 6 of this workbook. (To get this solution, simply run Solver

on the new data, using the same conditions as existed in the original dialog box.)

11.2 (a) Capital Rationing Problem Graphical Presentation:

The graph is easily drawn by hand on graph paper. To make the graph more intuitive,

the amount of investment in Division 1 is set out on the x (horizontal) axis, and the

amount of investment in Division 2, on the y (vertical) axis. These axes will become

the non-negativity constraints for both Division 1 and Division 2 investment also.

The maximum possible amount of investment in Division 1, $3,000, is represented by

a vertical line from the $3,000 point on the x axis. Similarly, the maximum amount of

possible investment in Division2 is represented by a horizontal line from $1,900 on

the y axis. These are the volume limits, and mean that the feasible region will lie

within the area covered by the two lines.

The by product constraint can be drawn by setting the constraint up as a linear

equation, and then solving for two x,y points. The linear equation will be:

x1 + 2 x 2 = 0

and solving for two points on the x axis : x = 0, and x = 3,000, gives the

corresponding y values of : 0 and 1,500. That is, when x1 = 0 , x 2 (in this case the y

value) will equal 0, and when x1 = 3,000 , x 2 will equal 1,500. After this line is

drawn, the feasible region will be below and to the right of the by product constraint

line.

The corner, or extreme, points of the feasible region will be: 0,0 ; 3000,1500;

3000,0.

3

An objective function line, or iso-contribution line, is drawn by observing that the

scales along both the x and y axes are equal, and then selecting two x,y points at

random, and drawing in the line. The objective function equation is:

Z = $0.25 x1 + $0.35 x 2

For example, select x= 0 and y = 0: Z will equal $0, and one point of the line will be

at the origin. Select x = 3000 and y = 3000, Z will equal $1,800. As the scales on the

axes are equal the Z value of $1,800 can be set along the y axis at x = $3,000, so the

second point on the line is 3000; 1800. An iso-contribution line can then be drawn

running from 0,0; to 3000, 1800.

An iso-contribution line can be made to intersect a corner or boundary point in the

feasible region, by drawing a line parallel to the 0,0: 3000;1800 line. By inspection,

the optimum iso-contribution line is the parallel line which runs through 300,0:

3000,1500. This means that the original iso-contribution line has moved downwards

by 300 units.

The optimum investment levels are then: Division1, $3,000, and Division 2 $1,500,

and the optimum NPV of the overall investment is:

Z =$0.25 3000 +$0.35 1500

= $1,275.

The manual method of line drawing can be mechanised through an Excel spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet for this solution is in the Excel file titled Q 11.2 Excel

Solution.xls.This file has a number of sheets, and the answer to part (a) - graphical

solution is in the sheet titled Q 11.2 (a) Solution Graph. Several comments are

entered onto this spreadsheet to explain how the graph is drawn. The point of

mechanising the graph is to allow various solutions for changes in the constraints.

11.2 (b) Compare your results with solution provided:

If you have any difficulty to do this, get into Workbook 11.2 and resolve the problem.

The answer to this question is Workbook 11.2 mentioned in the text book, which is

available on the Web.

11.2 (c) Reformulation of the by-product requirement constraint:

This is not as straight forward and simple as the reformulation of other constraints. One way

to reformulate is to replace ' 0 ' by ' 1 '. This means that the investment in Division 1 must be

'at least twice the investment in Division 2 less one dollar', as stated in the text book. This

condition can be stated in algebraic form as follows:

x1 2x2 - 1 ;

1 2x2 - x1

or 2x2 - x1 1

If you solve the problem after inserting ' 1 ' in place of ' 0 ' for the by-product requirement

RHS value ( under the column titled 'supply' in the Excel model), then the new output will

show that the investment in Division 2 is equal to 1500.5 and the value of the objective

function will increase by 0.175 to 1,275.175. That means, if the investment in Division 2 is

4

increased from $1,500 to 1,501, all other parameters being unchanged, the total NPV will be

$1,275.175 as stated in the text book. You can see in the solution to the reformulated Excel

model, the new investment level in Division 2 is $1,500.5 and in Division 2 $3,000. Thus the

investment in Division 1 is 'twice the investment in Division 2 less one dollar', thus satisfying

the new condition imposed into the reformulation of the LP problem. Note that 1,500.5 x 2 =

3,001 and therefore 'twice the investment in Division 2 less one dollar (3,001 - 1) is 3,000.

This is what exactly you see in the new optimal solution, where the value for investment in

Division 1 appears as $3,000 (and not as 3,001).

Without calculation being undertaken, we generally say that if the RHS value of a constraint is

increased by one unit the objective function value will increase by the value of the shadow

price. Here the 'one unit' is used for simplicity and convenience and it holds true for most

cases. On that basis, the text book, as a general statement, has stated that if the investment

in Division 2 is increased from $1,500 to $1,501, all other things being unchanged, the total

NPV will be $1,275.175. However, that general statement is not valid for this particular case.

In this case, increase by one dollar is too much. The correct amount of increase is by 50

cents (or half a unit). You can test this for your interest, if you solve the problem after inserting

' 2 ' in place of ' 0 ' for the by-product requirement RHS value ( under the column titled 'supply'

in the Excel model),in the original example i.e. workbook 11.2. Then the new solution will

show the investment in Division 2 is equal to $1501, investment in Division 2 is $3,000 and

the value of the objective function is $1,275.35 (an increase of twice the value of the shadow

price 0.175 x 2 = 0.35).

Thus the shadow price in this particular case is valid only within a very restricted limit. Such a

phenomena is not unusual, depending upon the particular situation.

Answer to Q 11.3

Linear equations can be structured using the tableau layout from the example 11.3 and

its Workbook 11.3 in the chapter.

There are 9 independent investment projects. Each one of these can be designated as

the unknown value x, with an identifying trailing subscript 1 to 9. The co-efficient of

each of these xs is its respective NPV dollar payoff, so that the objective function can

be defined as:

MaximiseZ = 14 x1 + 17 x 2 + 17 x3 + 15 x 4 + 40 x5 + 12 x 6 + 14 x 7 + 10 x8 + 12 x9

12 x1 + 54 x 2 + 6 x3 + 6 x 4 + 30 x5 + 6 x 6 + 48 x7 + 36 x8 + 18 x9 50

21 x1 + 7 x 2 + 6 x3 + 2 x 4 + 35 x5 + 6 x 6 + 4 x7 + 3 x8 + 3 x9 20

In both these equations, the x coefficients represent the dollar amount of capital outlay

required for each project within each period.

The values for each x can range between zero and 1. The x values are restricted to 0 or

above, because a negative investment does not make economic sense. This is the nonnegativity condition.

The definition of x means that x is the proportion of each project being undertaken.

For example, if x = 1.00, then the complete project is undertaken, whilst if x = 0.75

means that only 75% of the project can be undertaken, and if x = 0.00, then that

project is not undertaken at all. In most capital budgeting situations, it would be

expected that either all or nothing of a project is undertaken, so this proportionate

acceptance approach is a little unusual. In this particular example though, the projects

have been economically defined as being proportionately acceptable. This means that

the standard algebraic layout of the constraints on the x values is:

xn 0

and

x n 1 , where n = 1 to 9.

standard solution, proportional values of x are designated by setting up the constraint

equations in the dialog box as: (cell references) >= 0, and (cell references) <= 1. In an

integer, ( all or nothing), solution the constraint equations are set up as: (cell

references) = integer. This integer programming is discussed in Chapter 12.

These equations are now sufficient to allow for a computer assisted solution. That solution is

shown in Workbook 11.3.

Q 11.3 (b) The Solution is held in Excel file titled Q 11.3 Excel Solutions.xls. These solutions

are the same as those given in the chapter.

- Example for Solution of Transportation ProblemUploaded byEmmanuel Kwame Ocloo
- ch19Uploaded byradislamy
- Krajewski TIF Supplement EUploaded byjabbott99
- Stagger ChartUploaded byprabs20069178
- QB_5Uploaded byatdi777
- Marketing1025Uploaded bytimothymaderazo
- Chapter_4_LP Duality and Sensitivity AnalysisUploaded byJazz Kaur
- Linear Programming FormulationUploaded byNitesh Ranjan
- 73-220-Lecture03Uploaded byapi-26315128
- Technical ReportUploaded byrehoboath
- SEEM 2420 ORUploaded byPat Tsang
- Chemical v SemUploaded byRakesh Krishnan
- PSK Method for Solving Intuitionistic Fuzzy Solid Transportation ProblemsUploaded byP.SENTHIL KUMAR
- Question ExcelUploaded byShuvo Sarkar
- 611_render_ch02 (1)Uploaded byJc Garcia
- Chap006sUploaded byRana Gaballah
- OR Unit-1 with MCQ.pdfUploaded byMansi Patel
- Simplex minimization problemUploaded byShreyasKamat
- A Primal Dual Integer Programming AlgorithmUploaded byJuan Sebastián Poveda Gulfo
- Ip Extended IntroUploaded byshalini4071979
- 00004262_Youssef_1988_Dynamic Solution of Distribution Planning in Intermediate Time RangeUploaded bylepton18
- Ch8-LP.docUploaded byparavp
- M8L1_LNUploaded byswapna44
- 01384742Uploaded byTata Sudiyanto
- chakor2016.pdfUploaded byAldiansyah Nasution
- Paper_2Uploaded bysonalz
- Man E paggawa ng desisyon.pptxUploaded byalro
- 5 New ApproachesUploaded bySalatyel Fellipe
- Application Dantzig1955Uploaded byEva Puspita Sari
- Articulo m-TSP1 (1).pdfUploaded byErick Palacios

- 883_Ch10ARQUploaded byNga Bui
- Sentence correct AnswerUploaded byNga Bui
- Nghiên cứu KH-C6Uploaded byNga Bui
- Nghiên cứu KH-C5Uploaded byNga Bui
- Ch10solUploaded byNga Bui
- Chapter 1 Memo From Esther NieldsUploaded byNga Bui
- 900_Ch16ARQUploaded byNga Bui
- 898_Ch15ARQUploaded byNga Bui
- EC-Ch01 Key WordsUploaded byNga Bui
- 888_Ch12ARQUploaded byNga Bui
- 896_Ch14ARQUploaded byNga Bui
- 895_Ch13ARQUploaded byNga Bui
- Der_Solution sampleUploaded byNga Bui
- EC- Ch03 Key WordsUploaded byNga Bui
- 856_Ch01ARQUploaded bytania_afaz2800
- Tham Dinh Mega CentreUploaded byNga Bui
- EC-Ch04 Key WordsUploaded byNga Bui
- MATH Summer2013 T1 SolutionsUploaded byNga Bui
- EC- Ch02 Key WordsUploaded byNga Bui
- CIPS Level 4 Effective NegotiationUploaded byNga Bui
- Chi-Square AloneUploaded byNga Bui
- Can Can Thanh ToanUploaded byNga Bui
- Final Exam Question No. 2Uploaded byNga Bui
- Final Exam Question No. 1Uploaded byNga Bui
- m48-ch01Uploaded bygiangcoitp89
- stat11t_Chapter2Uploaded byNga Bui
- stat11t_Chapter6Uploaded byNga Bui

- Furman 2008 ExamUploaded byBHAAJI0001
- ALGEBRA (1)Uploaded byjarpulaganesh
- DSP ManualUploaded bySuguna Shivanna
- History m.algebraUploaded bySyahira Yusof
- Www.ims4maths.com Coaching Files Mathemathematics Complete Information Brochure for Ias Ifos Csir Gate Ugc Net Aspirants IMS Institute of Mathematical Sciences 2014 15Uploaded byNaren Kumar
- A Fuzzy Rule Based ClusteringUploaded byIJASRET
- Introduction to hyperreal numbersUploaded byolympicus47
- Aod Assign ObjUploaded byRaju Sharma
- Ch02 ejercicios pre calculoUploaded bybiarca8361
- Fast Fourier TransformUploaded byManish Kumar
- Algorithms Design and Analysis Syllabus (1)Uploaded bySapna Vats
- Tutorial 3 Suggested AnswerUploaded byTing Sie Kim
- Abaqus User Subroutines Reference Manual (6Uploaded byMD Anan Morshed
- How to Analyze Time ComplexityUploaded bysaadhash286
- Omdm Project - VinayUploaded byRajagopalan Ganesan
- 2009_Paddy Field Algorithm a New Biologically Inspired Optimization AlgorithmUploaded bytricong09t3
- 012 Algebraic DivisionUploaded bybhawanasharma
- NUMBER SYSTEMUploaded byMehar Chand
- Sets Jeemain.guruUploaded byJitendra Karn Rajput
- exercises on Matlab functionsUploaded byUAE_bboy
- calculusUploaded byrpdemalade
- SOME EQUIVALENT CONDITIONS OF SMARANDACHE - SOFT NEUTROSOPHIC-NEAR RINGUploaded byDon Hass
- Math 2 - Advanced Segment 1Uploaded byACuomo-Yokel1
- 11-Maths-Sample-Papers-2018-2019-Set-2 (1)Uploaded bySumit Singh Thakur
- remainder_factor_theorems.docUploaded byJohn Goh
- 2012-11-26 Solving Basic Trig Equations and Graphing Basic Trig FunctionsUploaded bysamjshah
- Meshless PPTUploaded byesscindia
- MIT6 042JF10 FinalUploaded byJ ra
- Naive Set TheoryUploaded byEel Dde
- Laplace - TutorialUploaded byVimala Elumalai