49 views

Uploaded by Akmal Gondal

w.b taylor

- 2002-05-15
- ch03
- UMA031 (2)
- Scan Doc0001
- LPOPF
- Development of Reservoir Operation Policies Using Integrated Optimization-Simulation Approach
- Balanced and Unbalanced Transportation Model
- Ampl Minos
- Optimization Report
- balas1965(2)
- IRJET-Analytical Method for Asphalt Concrete Job Mix Formula Design
- Linear Programming 2
- 157_37325_EA435_2013_4__2_1_Chap011
- 02 - Math Prog Formulations LP
- assignment01_soln
- XLSolverPractice2001
- Constraint Handling Improvements for Multiobjective Genetic
- OR AU QP 60 PAGES-1-10.pdf
- EE227A -- Convex Optimization SYLLABUS
- M3L4.ppt

You are on page 1of 6

PROBLEM SUMMARY

35.

1.

Maximization

36.

2.

Maximization

37.

3.

Minimization

38.

4.

39.

5.

Minimization

40.

6.

Maximization

41.

7.

42.

8.

43.

9.

44.

10.

45.

11.

46.

12.

47.

13.

48.

14.

49.

*15.

50.

51.

Infeasible problem

52.

Unbounded problem

16.

*17.

18.

19.

Standard form

20.

21.

Standard form

22.

PROBLEM SOLUTIONS

1.

x2

A: x1 = 0

x2 = 3

Z=6

12

10

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

B: x1 = 15/7

x2 = 16/7

Z = 152/7

8

6

*C: x1 = 5

x2 = 0

Z = 40

Point C is optimal

Z

0

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

C

2

10

12

subject to

10x1 + 10x2 100 (line 1, hr)

7x1 + 3x2 42 (line 2, hr)

x1,x2 0

14

x1

Wood

Sugar

2x1 + 6x2 36 lb

2(6) + 6(3.2) 36

12 + 19.2 36

31.2 36

36 31.2 = 4.8

2x1 + 4x2 16

2(0) + 4(4) 16

16 16

There is no sugar left unused.

8.

11.

x2

*A : x1 = 0

x2 = 9

Z = 54

12

is parallel to the constraint for labor, which

results in multiple optimal solutions. Points B

(x1 = 30/7, x2 = 32/7) and C (x1 = 6, x2 = 3.2)

are the alternate optimal solutions, each with a

profit of $4,000.

10 A

B : x1 = 4

x2 = 3

Z = 30

6

B

C : x1 = 4

x2 = 1

Z = 18

Point A is optimal

subject to

2x1 + 4x2 16 (sugar, lb)

x1 5 (demand for cakes)

x1,x2 0

10

6

A

4

2

0

10

8

x2 = 0

Z=5

10

12

14

Point B is optimal

C

0

substitute the optimal solution into the resource

constraints for flour and sugar and determine

how much of each resource is left over.

C : x1 = 3

x2 = 1

Z = 290

D : x1 = 6

x2 = 0

Z = 480

x1

10.

x1

12

10

Point A is optimal

A : x1 = 0

x2 = 6

Z = 300

* B : x1 = 1

x2 = 3

Z = 230

12

C : x1 = 5

B

x2

(b)

B : x1 = 2

x2 = 3

Z = 17

x1 + x2 4 (antibiotic 2, units)

2x1 + 6x2 12 (antibiotic 3, units)

x1,x2 0

*A : x1 = 0

x2 = 4

Z = 20

12

subject to

(b)

x2

10

12

14

subject to

Flour

2x1 + 4x2 20 (platinum, oz)

x2 4 (demand, bracelets)

x1,x2 0

5x1 + 5x2 25 lb

5(0) + 5(4) 25

20 25

25 20 = 5

There are 5 lb of flour left unused.

x1

and C'.

A:

x1 = 0

x2 = 30

Z = 1,200

*B':

x1 = 15.8

x2 = 20.5

Z = 1,610

C':

subject to:

3x1 + 5x2 + s1 = 50

2x1 + 4x2 + s2 = 40

x1 + s3 = 8

x1, x2 0

A: s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 8, s4 = 0

B: s1 = 0, s2 = 3.2, s3 = 0, s4 = 4.8

C: s1 = 26, s2 = 24, s3 = 0, s4 = 10

x1 = 24

x2 = 0

Z = 1,200

22.

x2

A : x1 = 8

x2 = 6

Z = 112

16

18.

x2

12

10

8

6

B

Z

14

* B : x1 = 4

10

x2 = 1

Z=7

10

12

14

23.

x1 + s2 = 4

x2 + s2 = 6

x1 + x2 + s3 = 5

x1, x2 0

20.

x2

A : x1 = 0

x2 = 10

Z = 80

12

A

* B : x1 = 8

8

x2 = 5.2

Z = 81.6

Point B is optimal

C : x1 = 8

x2 = 0

Z = 40

B

Z

2

C

0

x1

10

10

12

14

16

18

12

14

16

18

20

x1

20

(x1 = 8, x2 = 6, Z = 112), and the constraint,

x1 + x2 15, is no longer part of the solution

space boundary.

subject to

16x1 + 12x2 450 (claims)

x1 + x2 40 (workstations)

0.5x1 + 1.4x2 25 (defective claims)

x1, x2 0

A: s1 = 4, s2 = 1, s3 = 0

B: s1 = 0, s2 = 5, s3 = 0

C: s1 = 0, s2 = 6, s3 = 1

C : x1 = 15

x2 = 0

Z = 97.5

Point B is optimal

x1

subject to:

A

Z

10

*B : x1 = 10

x2 = 5

Z = 115

12

C : x1 = 4

x2 = 0

Z=6

Point B is optimal

4

2

A : x1 = 0

x2 = 5

Z=5

21.(b)

29.

x2

A : x1 = 2.67

x2 = 2.33

Z = 22

12

x2

50

10

45

A : x1 = 28.125

x2 = 0

Z = 1,800

40

*B : x1 = 20.121

x2 = 10.670

Z = 1,735.97

35

30

C : xx11 == 34.45

5.55

xx22 = 5.55

34.45

Z = 2,437.9

D : x1 = 40

x2 = 0

Z = 2,560

B : x1 = 4

x2 = 3

Z = 30

*C : x1 = 4

x2 = 1

Z = 18

4

B

A

2 Z

Point C is optimal

C

25

Point B is optimal

10

12

x1

20

15

30.

10

B

C

31.

A

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

D

40 45

50

x2

A : x1 = 4.8

12

x1

x2 = 2.4

Z = 26.4

10

*B : x1 = 6

25.

26.

processor from $64 to $54 will change the

solution to point A in the graphical solution

where x1 = 28.125 and x2 = 0, i.e., there will be

no part-time operators. Changing the pay for a

part-time operator from $42 to $36 has no

effect on the number of full-time and part-time

operators hired, although the total cost will be

reduced to $1,671.95

x2 = 1.5

Z = 31.5

6

4

A

Point B is optimal

Feasible

space

B

x1

10

12

14

x2

32.

would result in a new solution, x1 = 0 and x2 =

37.5, where only part-time operators would be

hired.

A : x1 = 4

12

x2 = 3.5

Z = 19

10

*B : x1 = 5

27.

enough workstations to handle the increase in

the volume of claims.

x2 = 3

Z = 21

C : x1 = 4

x2 = 1

Z = 14

B

2

28.

x2

12

Point B is optimal

10

2

4

C

6

10

12

6

8

C : x1 = 6

x2 = 0

Z = 48

x2 = 2

Z = 44

10

* B : x1 = 4

A : x1 = 2

x2 = 6

Z = 52

x1

10

10

Point B is optimal

12

x1

49.

fertilizer constraint changes to 20x1 + 20x2

800 tons. The new solution space is A'B'C'D'.

Two of the constraints now have no effect.

x1

1.5

x2

The solution is, x1 = 160, x2 = 106.67, Z = $568

x2

120

500

100

X2

450

80

*A: X1=106.67

A: X2=160

A: Z=568

400

350

B: X1=240

*A: X2=0

*A: Z=540

60

B

40

A

20

Point A is optional

300

250

200

20 D 40

60

80

x1

150

A

100

50

A':

x1 = 0

x2 = 37

Z = 11,100

*C':

x1 = 26

x2 = 14

Z = 14,600

B':

x1 = 3

x2 = 37

Z = 12,300

D':

x1 = 26

x2 = 0

Z = 10,400

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

X1

subject to

x1 + x2 50 (available land, acres)

10x1 + 3x2 300 (labor, hr)

8x1 + 20x2 800 (fertilizer, tons)

x1 26 (shipping space, acres)

x2 37 (shipping space, acres)

x1,x2 0

50.

x2

C : x1 = 33.33

A : x1 = 0

x2 = 6.67

x2 = 60

Z = 106,669

Z = 60,000

80

70

60

B : x1 = 10

D : x1 = 60

x2 = 30

x2 = 0

Z = 60,000

Z = 180,000

50

(b)

x2

120

100

80

60

40

A B

CD

20

E

F

0

20

* D : x1 = 21.4

A : x1 = 0

x2 = 28.6

x2 = 37

Z = 17,140

Z = 11,100

40

B : x1 = 7.5

E : x1 = 26

x2 = 37

x2 = 13.3

Z = 14,100

Z = 14,390

20

30

B

Multiple optimal solutions; A

and B alternate optimal.

10

C : x1 = 16.7

F : x1 = 26

x2 = 33.3

x2 = 0

Z = 16,680

Z = 10,400

C

D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

x1

Point D is optimal

40

60

80

x1

14

51.

x2

80

Infeasible Problem

70

60

50

40

30

3

A

2

20

Optimal point

10

0

0

10

20

52.

30

40

50

60

70

80

x1

Z = 0.05. This means that a patrol sector is 1.5

miles by 1 mile and the response time is 0.05

hr, or 3 min.

x2

80

70

CASE SOLUTION:

THE POSSIBILITY RESTAURANT

Unbounded Problem

60

50

40

subject to

30

x1 + x2 60

.25x1 + .50x2 20

x1/x2 3/2 or 2x1 3x2 0

x2/(x1 + x2) .10 or .90x2 .10x1 0

x1,x2 0

20

10

x1

20

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

x2

CASE SOLUTION:

METROPOLITAN POLICE PATROL

A : x1 = 34.3

100

x2 = 22.8

Z = $776.23

80

problem is

minimize Z = x/60 + y/45

subject to

2x + 2y 5

2x + 2y 12

y 1.5x

x,y 0

The objective function coefficients are

determined by dividing the distance traveled,

ie., x/3, by the travel speed, ie., 20 mph. Thus,

the x coefficient is x/3 20, or x/60. In the first

two constraints, 2x + 2y represents the formula

for the perimeter of a rectangle.

B : x1 = 40

70

x2 = 20

Z = $800

optimal

60

x1 + x2 60

2 x1 3 x2 0

50

C : x1 = 6

x2 = 54

Z = $744

40

30

Optimal point

A

20

.90 x2 .10 x1 0

10

0

15

.25 x1 + .50 x2 20

C

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

100

x1

- 2002-05-15Uploaded byapi-168623254
- ch03Uploaded bythemoonzone
- UMA031 (2)Uploaded byRahul Sehgal
- Scan Doc0001Uploaded byjonty777
- LPOPFUploaded bykinny1974
- Development of Reservoir Operation Policies Using Integrated Optimization-Simulation ApproachUploaded byRobert Aguedo
- Balanced and Unbalanced Transportation ModelUploaded byPhiaa Icasiano
- Ampl MinosUploaded byZobayer Tushar
- Optimization ReportUploaded byAliRaza
- balas1965(2)Uploaded byPablo
- IRJET-Analytical Method for Asphalt Concrete Job Mix Formula DesignUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Linear Programming 2Uploaded byArunava Basu Ray
- 157_37325_EA435_2013_4__2_1_Chap011Uploaded bycarlos
- 02 - Math Prog Formulations LPUploaded bygeorgemiller47
- assignment01_solnUploaded byKushal Bn
- XLSolverPractice2001Uploaded byapi-3740045
- Constraint Handling Improvements for Multiobjective GeneticUploaded byNiño Jhim Andrew
- OR AU QP 60 PAGES-1-10.pdfUploaded by_hrithik_rk
- EE227A -- Convex Optimization SYLLABUSUploaded byRohan Varma
- M3L4.pptUploaded bybrahmaiahpaladugu
- NEUTROSOPHIC MULTI-OBJECTIVE LINEAR PROGRAMMINGUploaded byMia Amalia
- LP Graphical MethodUploaded byInigo De La Torre
- Daftar Jurnal Program LinearUploaded byNADILLA
- Definitions of CEC2017 Benchmark Suite Final Version UpdatedUploaded bypc
- AARC 0Uploaded bycompadre97
- Planeacion y Reprogramacion Dinamicas de Produccion Para Montajes ComplejosUploaded byDiana Loaiza
- The Proposed Simplex Method for the Solution of Linear Programming ProblemsUploaded byjoe
- 00 OutlinefdfUploaded byLoady Das
- ProgramUploaded byYao Liang
- fmipw1-6.pdfUploaded byNguyễn Hữu Phấn

- Public Administartion Theory and Seperation of Powers- David H. RoosenbloomUploaded byAkmal Gondal
- MsiaGrowthExperience Dr -Ariff (1)Uploaded byAkmal Gondal
- PAM lec 9Uploaded byAkmal Gondal
- IKEAUploaded byAkmal Gondal
- malaysianairlinespowerpoint-140522134536-phpapp01Uploaded byAkmal Gondal
- Bauer and Ryser, 2004Uploaded byAkmal Gondal
- Sieg Mann 2009Uploaded byAkmal Gondal
- NHA-Act-2001.pdfUploaded byAkmal Gondal
- 2013 Human Resource Development . MPA. IV semester.pdfUploaded byAkmal Gondal
- guzette.pdfUploaded byAkmal Gondal
- Models of Policy Analysis.pptUploaded byAkmal Gondal
- Unilever Pakistan Sustainability Report 2012_tcm96-355078Uploaded byAkmal Gondal

- Assessment of the Effect of Combined MultimediaUploaded byAbad Salcedo
- DVB H SimulationUploaded byarulnambin
- chap06_8up- OptimizationUploaded byagcore
- IES CONV Electrical Engineering 2005Uploaded byjiten
- Shaw-The Cause of GravityUploaded bytheosophy2010
- Newport Projects in Optics - Good for Literature ReviewUploaded byEngr Salim
- strategic management 2mUploaded byqwertyuiop
- CNC CodeUploaded byMochammad Karim Al Amin
- High Speed Vlsi DesignUploaded byNarayana Swamy Ramaiah
- ABAQUS TutorialUploaded byJunsheng Wang
- Ad 712Uploaded bybladmorv
- EC312 Object Oriented ProgrammingUploaded byJazir Hameed
- RCC31 One-way Slabs (a&D)Uploaded byWanda Beasley
- 2011 Math Counts Chapter Competition CDRUploaded byEdward Wang
- Evolution What Are the OddsUploaded byRev Andrew Salinas
- Australia Math OlympiadUploaded bybabyu1
- Analysis of Bolt TorquingUploaded byAlessandro Serafini
- Logo Matching for Document Image Retrieval Using SIFT DescriptorsUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Controller PrincipleUploaded byPortia Shilenge
- Geophysical Inversion ModellingUploaded byRurry Elsa Lorenza
- Processinduced Stresses and Deformations in Woven Composites Manufactured by Resin Transfer MouldingUploaded byfkantonov
- IsotrophicUploaded byvemuri_sri
- MCSL 025 Lab Course(MCS-021,022,023,024)Uploaded bySumit Ranjan
- Tree ProofsUploaded byManuelAcosta98
- OTC 24041 Liuhua 11-1 FPS Dry-dock Upgrade and Life Extension - Mooring System Evaluation and OptimizationUploaded byatmu35
- Interview Q communicationsUploaded byaditi_nangia_1
- Excercise 10Uploaded bymehdi
- Lecture9_nofilmUploaded byTemesgen Tsegaye Bihonegn
- 155358 November 2012 Mark Scheme 32(Pure Mathematics)Uploaded byMcCalla
- Prestress Losses in wire Strands for Prestressed ConcreteUploaded byv