6 views

Uploaded by Tsaone Fox

Simplex method versus Karmakur method

- MATH 341 - Operations Research I- Kamran Rashid
- 2.pdf
- A Run
- ME05436Notes-10
- 04PA_PW_1_4.pdf
- Notes - Helpful Definitions Linear Programming
- Linear Programming Example 1992 UG Exam
- Beales method
- course.docx
- Operations Research
- Solutions Linear Algebra App b
- -Design of Sanitary Sewer Systems by Dynamic Programming.pdf
- Block 2 MS 51 Unit 3
- Linear Programming Notes
- Lec 25 Linear Programming
- 10.1.1.22
- Bi-objective Project Portfolio Selection in Lean Six Sigma
- sensitivity analysis
- Ops Final Exams
- Ms

You are on page 1of 8

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajsp

doi: 10.11648/j.ajsp.20170201.11

Problem for Profit Maximization in Production Industries:

NBC Port-Harcourt Plant

Nsikan Paul Akpan, Okeh Chibuzor Ojoh

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Email address:

nsipaulakpan@gmail.com (N. P. Akpan), okehchibuzorojoh@gmail.com (O. C. Ojoh)

Nsikan Paul Akpan, Okeh Chibuzor Ojoh. Karmarkar’s Approach for Solving Linear Programming Problem for Profit Maximization in

Production Industries: NBC Port-Harcourt Plant. American Journal of Statistics and Probability. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-8.

doi: 10.11648/j.ajsp.20170201.11

Received: December 4, 2016; Accepted: February 13, 2017; Published: April 14, 2017

Abstract: In this work, the Karmarkar’s algorithm of the interior point method is compared to the simplex method by

ascertaining the effect of interior point algorithm on linear programming problem of high number of variables and study why it

is not so popularly used in solving linear programming problems. Six (6) products of coca-cola Hellenic Port Harcourt plant

(Coke 50cl, Coke35cl, Fanta 50cl, Fanta 35cl, Sprite 35cl and Schweppes 33cl) and their raw materials (Concentrates, Sugar,

Water and Carbon (iv) oxide) respectively were studied. The data were analysed using Scilab 5.5.2 software for Karmarmar’s

approach and Tora software for Simplex method and the results are compared. The Karmarkar’s algorithm gave a maximum

profit of N70,478,116.00 giving a breakdown that the company should produce 159300 crates of Coke 35cl, 64173 crates of

Fanta 50cl, 8419 crates of Coke 50cl, 4876 crates of Fanta 35cl, 1118 crates of Sprite and 7 crates of Schweppes from the

available resources to attain the optimal solution. The Simplex gave a maximum profit of N107,666,639.51 giving only the

production of about 339482 crates of Schweppes 33cl from the available resources to attain the optimal solution.

1. Introduction

Linear Programming according to Hoffman and Bradley requirements. Then in 1984, Karmarkar came up with

(1995) is a branch of mathematics that deals with an another interior point algorithm which he named after

important class of constrained Optimization problems in himself. This algorithm is generally accepted due to its

manufacturing industries for decision making. This is now ability to deal with huge number of variables and produce

very common in many areas of applied science. With this optimal solution. This prompt to the use of Karmarkar’s

vast application, Robere (2012) pointed out that there has algorithm in this work.

been interest in finding suitable algorithm to find the

solution to any linear programming problem. Having 1.1. Purpose of the Study

introduced linear programming by Leonid Kantorovich for To obtain the optimal solution of a linear programming

solving a production scheduling problem, the first problem using Karmarkar’s methods of an interior point

algorithm to solve this problem called the Simplex algorithm not a corner point algorithm.

Algorithm was introduced by Dantzig in 1947. This

algorithm has been working well in practice ever since it 1.2. Statement of Problem

was introduced but in the 1970s, it was found out that this

simplex algorithm work well in all possible linear programs. Linear programming models are concerned with the optimal

This lead to the introduction of the first interior point way in which available raw materials are utilized to produce

algorithm “Ellipsoid Method” by Khachiyan in 1979 the different products of a company. Whenever there is raw

though was criticised because of its inability to meet some material to be transformed into finished goods, there is need

2 Akpan Nsikan Paul and Ojoh Chibuzor Okeh: Karmarkar’s Approach for Solving Linear Programming

Problem for Profit Maximization in Production Industries: Nbc Port-harcourt Plant

sales. The problem becomes; what quantity of each product

to be produced from the available resources (raw materials) The method employed in this work is the interior point

to minimize costs of production and maximize profit. This algorithm of Karmarkar and the Simplex method. The

work tends to develop a better optimization tool that can Simplex method is widely known so will not be talked about

tackle this problem. This will enable companies to take extensively rather the new Karmarkar method will be

advantage of this opportunity to improve in their production. discussed.

For a linear programming problem to be solved by

Karmarkar’s method manually, such problem must be in a

2. Literature Review homogenous form (Assumption 1 of karmarkar). The second

When the runtime of simplex method is compared with assumption says that the objective function at optimal has the

Karmarkar’s method, one can observe that neither of them is value zero (0).

faster than the other in all problems. The practical efficiency Consider the problem

of both Simplex and Karmarkar’s methods depend strongly Min

on the details of their implementation. The iterations

numbers required by Karmarkar’s method is higher than that Subject to =0

1 =1

of Simplex. The simplex method needs lesser iteration like

2n to 3n iterations, where n is the number of primal variables.

Thus, generally the Interior Point Methods are better for ≥0

large-scale problems Szabo and Kovacs (2003).

Karmarkar’s algorithm seems to work better on linear In the constraint, we observe that we don’t have (basic

programming problems with no initial feasible point (k=0) solution value) rather, we have 0 and the sum of all variables

and also on very large structural problems Lemire (1989). He is equal to 1.

went ahead to say that the Karmarkar’s algorithm is valid and So when the problem is not given in this form, we convert

it exhibits polynomial time complexity. Having used the it to Karmarkar’s form before we can solve it by karmarkar’s

algorithm to solve some problems, he found out that the method. Having the problem in homogeneous form, we can

algorithm produces speed ups over the simplex method. This now solve thus by the following steps:

counter-opposes the statement made by Szabo and Kovacs (a) Set k=0 {initial iteration}

that both methods have the same speed, none is faster. (b) Find = and = the product of and

( )

⇒

Further discussion on the outline of the algorithm and

(step length)

comment on the applications of this class of method by

(c) We transform the x-space problem to a problem in the

= = ( , ,…, )

Nemirovski and Todd in 2008 equally revealed that

Karmarkar’s algorithm is convenient for polynomial time and y-space. where

large constraints with variables which supports the statement = . !"#$" %&'. Then we get ( = )$"* ( ) =

made by szabo and kovacs. )$"* ( , , … , )

Vanderbei et al (1986) Concluded that Karmarkar’s (d) We get = coefficient of variables at objective

algorithm is formulated in the positive orthant instead of the function then, A = matrix of the coefficient of the

(

variables at the constraints. + = , -

simplex method. This makes it easier to conceptualize and

lead to computational simplicity. They said that this method’s 1

sliding-objective-function is replaced by a projected gradient (e) We get the Projection matrix .

. = [0 − + (++ ) +]

search for the optimum. Empirically, this leads to a decrease

in the number of iterations the algorithm requires to solve a

problem. (f) We find the projected steepest descent direction +3 (can

Karmarkar (1984) also stated in his work on “A equally be 4 ).

Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Linear Programming” that

the algorithm is not necessary to find the exact solution to all +3 = −.5

optimization problems rather it is useful to distinguish

between two types of approximate solutions. He gave an (g) The new value of y can now be obtained by =

9: ;<

instance that if X0 is the exact solution, X is the approximate 6 78 = − where ∥ +3 ∥ (norm of +3 ) =

∥ ;< ∥

solution and is the objective function also, that a strong

approximation (approximation in solution space) requires >( +3 )? + ( +3 ? )? + ⋯ + ( +3 )?

that X be close to X0 in some suitable norm. a weak (h) The Z (objective function) value will now be

approximation (approximation in objective function space) calculated as B = .

requires be close to . This weak approximation is The termination condition is as stated before: if the duality

sufficient to Karmarkar’s method and it is easier to achieve

gap is zero or negative then stop, otherwise obtain the next

numerically.

iteration until the termination condition is met.

American Journal of Statistics and Probability 2017; 2(1): 1-8 3

3.1. The Duality Gap at Optimal 6. An artificial variable is now introduced in all the

equations, such that the sum of the coefficients in each

− C homogeneous equation will be zero and the artificial

Where C = (+ ? + ) + ? where P takes values of the

variable in the last equation is one. These artificial

( variables are to be minimized. The artificial variable to

matrix above , - and ? = [)"$*( )]? and is as stated

1 be introduced here is ?RS? S

above.

If: 4. Data Presentation and Analysis

− C = 0 or negative{strong duality}

Then The data of this work was gotten from the production and

> C{weak duality} commercial department of Coca-cola plant of Port Harcourt.

The researcher’s interest is to ascertain the products and their

3.2. Converting Linear Programming Problem to quantities to be produced in other to make an optimal profit

Karmarkar’s Form using karmarkar and comparing to simplex. The Tora

software is used to analyse the data for Simplex and the

When the problem is in linear programming form or in

scilab software is used to analyse the data for Karmarkar

standard form, we can convert it to Karmarkar’s form before

since the data cannot be analysed manually because of the

we can solve the problem manually by Karmarkar’s method.

numerous number of variables. This lead to a matrix 4x9

There are steps to be followed in order to achieve this:

which is difficult to solve manually.

Let us consider the LPP below

Max B =

Table 1. Available raw materials in stock.

GH I&5J J ≤

Raw Materials Quantity Available

(i) {primal) 1. Concentrates 4332 (units)

≥0 2. Sugar 467012 (kg)

3. Water (H2O) 1637660 (litres)

1. Firstly, we get the dual of the primal given above as: 4. Carbon (iv) oxide (CO2) 8796 (vol. per pressure)

GH I&5J J L ≥ 5 (ii) {dual) Table 2. Available raw materials needed to produce a crate of each product.

L≥0

Carbon (iv)

Flavours Concentrates Sugar Water

oxide

Coke 50cl ( ) 0.00359 0.89 7.552 0.0135

2. We introduce the slack and surplus variables in the Coke 35cl ( ? ) 0.0042 1.12 6.539 0.0133

primal and dual problems, and then combine the Fanta 50cl ( ) 0.0021 1.044 7.671 0.007

problems. Fanta 35cl ( T ) 0.00419 0.86 6.822 0.005

3. We introduce a boundary constraint K such that any Sprite 35cl ( U ) 0.00359 0.73 6.12 0.0149

feasible solution to the equation gotten in step 2 above Schweppes 33cl ( V ) 0.00438 0.23 4.824 0.0156

will satisfy sum of all variables in the said equation less

than or equal to K and then add a slack variable to get Source: Coca-cola Port Harcourt Plant

something like: ∑ N + ∑ LN + ' = O Table 3. Available cost of production and selling price of a crate of each

4. We homogenize the equations gotten in step 3 above by

introducing a dummy variable ) (subject to the

product.

Average cost Average selling

Profit (N)

∑ N + ∑ LN + ' = O with the following equivalent

price (N) price (N)

Coke 50cl ( ) 760.55 1050 289.45

∑ LN + ' + ) = O + 1

Coke 35cl ( ? ) 679.51 980 300.49

Fanta 50cl ( ) 762.63 1050 287.37

5. Transform the equations in step 4 above to have one Fanta 35cl ( T ) 691.91 980 288.09

variable in all the equations instead of different Sprite 35cl ( U ) 689.67 980 290.33

variables. By this, we have Schweppes 33cl ( V ) 682.85 980 317.15

' = (O + 1) ?RS? S , ) = (O + 1) ?RS? S? Model Formulation:

0.00359 + 0.0042 ? + 0.0021 + 0.00419 T + 0.00359 U + 0.00438 V ≤ 4332

4 Akpan Nsikan Paul and Ojoh Chibuzor Okeh: Karmarkar’s Approach for Solving Linear Programming

Problem for Profit Maximization in Production Industries: Nbc Port-harcourt Plant

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V ≤ 1637660

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V ≤ 8796

Step 1: Get the dual of the above primal as:

Min B = 4332L + 467012L? + 1637660L + 8796LT

'H I&5J J :

0.00359L + 0.89L? + 7.552L + 0.0135LT ≥ 289.45

0.0042L + 1.12L? + 6.539L + 0.0133LT ≥ 300.49

0.0021L + 1.044L? + 7.671L + 0.007LT ≥ 287.37

0.00419L + 0.86L? + 6.822L + 0.005LT ≥ 288.09

0.00359L + 0.73L? + 6.12L + 0.0149LT ≥ 290.33

0.00438L + 0.23L? + 4.824L + 0.0156LT ≥ 317.15

L$Jℎ: "%% !"#$" %&' &*"J$!&

Step 2: We introduce the slack and surplus variables in the primal and dual problems, and then combine the problems.

0.00359 + 0.0042 ? + 0.0021 + 0.00419 T + 0.00359 U + 0.00438 V + a = 4332

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + b = 467012

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + c = 1637660

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V + = 8796

0.00359L + 0.89L? + 7.552L + 0.0135LT − LU = 289.45

0.0042L + 1.12L? + 6.539L + 0.0133LT − LV = 300.49

0.0021L + 1.044L? + 7.671L + 0.007LT − La = 287.37

0.00419L + 0.86L? + 6.822L + 0.005LT − Lb = 288.09

0.00359L + 0.73L? + 6.12L + 0.0149LT − Lc = 290.33

0.00438L + 0.23L? + 4.824L + 0.0156LT − L = 317.15

289.45 + 300.49 ? + 287.37 + 288.09 T + 290.33 U + 317.15 V

= 4332L + 467012L? + 1637660L + 8796LT

L$Jℎ: "%% !"#$" %&' &*"J$!&

Step 3: Introduce a boundary constraint K such that any feasible solution to the equation gotten in step 2 above will satisfy

sum of all variables in the said equation less than or equal to K and then add a slack variable to get something like: ∑ N +

∑ LN + ' = O

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + b = 467012

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + c = 1637660

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V + = 8796

0.00359L + 0.89L? + 7.552L + 0.0135LT − LU = 289.45

0.0042L + 1.12L? + 6.539L + 0.0133LT − LV = 300.49

American Journal of Statistics and Probability 2017; 2(1): 1-8 5

0.00419L + 0.86L? + 6.822L + 0.005LT − Lb = 288.09

0.00359L + 0.73L? + 6.12L + 0.0149LT − Lc = 290.33

0.00438L + 0.23L? + 4.824L + 0.0156LT − L = 317.15

289.45 + 300.49 ? + 287.37 + 288.09 T + 290.33 U + 317.15 V − 4332L − 467012L? − 1637660L − 8796LT = 0

d N + d LN + G = O

Ne Ne

Step 4: Homogenize the equations gotten in step 3 above by introducing a dummy variable ) (subject to the condition ) =

1). We then replace the equation ∑ N + ∑ LN + ' = O with the following equivalent equations: ∑ N + ∑ LN + ' − O) = 0 and

∑ N + ∑ LN + ' + ) = O + 1

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + b − 467012) = 0

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + c − 1637660) = 0

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V + − 8796) = 0

0.00359L + 0.89L? + 7.552L + 0.0135LT − LU − 289.45) = 0

0.0042L + 1.12L? + 6.539L + 0.0133LT − LV − 300.49) = 0

0.0021L + 1.044L? + 7.671L + 0.007LT − La − 287.37) = 0

0.00419L + 0.86L? + 6.822L + 0.005LT − Lb − 288.09) = 0

0.00359L + 0.73L? + 6.12L + 0.0149LT − Lc − 290.33) = 0

0.00438L + 0.23L? + 4.824L + 0.0156LT − L − 317.15) = 0

289.45 + 300.49 ? + 287.37 + 288.09 T + 290.33 U + 317.15 V − 4332L − 467012L? − 1637660L − 8796LT = 0

d N + d LN + G − O) = 0

Ne Ne

d N + d LN + G + ) = (O + 1)

Ne Ne

Step 5: Transform the equations in step 4 above to have one variable in all the equations instead of different variables. By

this, we have

N = N, $ = 1, 2, … , (Q + )

LN = RS SN , $ = 1, 2, … , (Q + )

'= ?RS? S ,) = ?RS? S?

Jℎ& " !& J#" ' #Q"J$ ' $&%) Jℎ& %% L$ * ' 'J&Q:

0.00359 + 0.0042 ? + 0.0021 + 0.00419 T + 0.00359 U + 0.00438 V + a − 4332 ?? =0

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + b − 467012 ?? =0

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + c − 1637660 ?? =0

6 Akpan Nsikan Paul and Ojoh Chibuzor Okeh: Karmarkar’s Approach for Solving Linear Programming

Problem for Profit Maximization in Production Industries: Nbc Port-harcourt Plant

0.00359 + 0.89 ? + 7.552 + 0.0135 T − U − 289.45 ?? =0

0.0042 + 1.12 ? + 6.539 + 0.0133 T − V − 300.49 ?? =0

0.0021 + 1.044 ? + 7.671 + 0.007 T − a − 287.37 ?? =0

0.00419 + 0.86 ? + 6.822 + 0.005 T − b − 288.09 ?? =0

0.00359 + 0.73 ? + 6.12 + 0.0149 T − c − 290.33 ?? =0

0.00438 + 0.23 ? + 4.824 + 0.0156 T − ? − 317.15 ?? =0

289.45 + 300.49 ? + 287.37 + 288.09 T + 290.33 U + 317.15 V − 4332 − 467012 ? − 1637660 − 8796 T =0

?

d N −O ?? =0

Ne

??

d N =1

Ne

Step 6: An artificial variable is now introduced in all the equations, such that the sum of the coefficients in each

homogeneous equation will be zero and the artificial variable in the last equation is one. These artificial variables are to be

minimized. The artificial variable to be introduced here is ?RS? S , we then have:

W$ $Q$f&: ?

GH I&5J J :

0.00359 + 0.0042 ? + 0.0021 + 0.00419 T + 0.00359 U + 0.00438 V + a − 4332 ?? + 4332.978 ? =0

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + b − 467012 ?? + 467008.126 ? =0

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + c − 1637660 ?? + 1637621.625 ? =0

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V + − 8796 ?? + 8796.931 ? =0

0.00359 + 0.89 ? + 7.552 + 0.0135 T − U − 289.45 ?? + 281.869 ? =0

0.0042 + 1.12 ? + 6.539 + 0.0133 T − V − 300.49 ?? + 293.814 ? =0

0.0021 + 1.044 ? + 7.671 + 0.007 T − a − 287.37 ?? + 279.646 ? =0

0.00419 + 0.86 ? + 6.822 + 0.005 T − b − 288.09 ?? + 274.577 ? =0

0.00359 + 0.73 ? + 6.12 + 0.0149 T − c − 290.33 ?? + 284.475 ? =0

0.00438 + 0.23 ? + 4.824 + 0.0156 T − ? − 317.15 ?? + 313.076 ? =0

?

d N −O ?? + (O − 21) ? =0

Ne

?

d N =1

Ne

This can now be solved using Scilab 5.5.2 software and then result will be obtained.

Analysis from Scilab of Karmarkar’s Method

The above data is analysed using scilab 5.5.2 for karmarkar’s method and the result is as below:

American Journal of Statistics and Probability 2017; 2(1): 1-8 7

Iter No. of iterations 56

Exitflag 1

Fopt Objective function 70478116

Xopt No. of crates

Coke 50cl 8419

? Coke 35cl 159300

Fanta 50cl 64173

T Fanta 35cl 4876

U Sprite 35cl 1118

V Schweppes 33cl 7

Model formation

W" B = 289.45 + 300.49 ? + 287.37 + 288.09 T + 290.33 U + 317.15 V + 0G + 0G? + 0G + 0GT

GH I&5J J :

0.00359 + 0.0042 ? + 0.0021 + 0.00419 T + 0.00359 U + 0.00438 V + G + 0G? + 0G + 0GT = 4332

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + 0G + G? + 0G + 0GT = 467012

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + 0G + 0G? + G + 0GT = 1637660

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V + G + 0G? + 0G + GT = 8796

W" B = 289.45 + 300.49 ? + 287.37 + 288.09 T + 290.33 U + 317.15 V + 0G + 0G? + 0G + 0GT

GH I&5J J :

0.00359 + 0.0042 ? + 0.0021 + 0.00419 T + 0.00359 U + 0.00438 V + G + 0G? + 0G + 0GT = 4332

0.89000 + 1.12000 ? + 1.04400 + 0.86000 T + 0.7300 U + 0.2300 V + 0G + G? + 0G + 0GT = 467012

7.5520 + 6.5390 ? + 7.67100 + 6.82200 T + 6.1200 U + 4.82400 V + 0G + 0G? + G + 0GT = 1637660

0.01350 + 0.01330 ? + 0.0070 + 0.0050 T + 0.01490 U + 0.01560 V + G + 0G? + 0G + GT = 8796

This can be solved with TORA software and results will be

obtained

5. Conclusion

Analysis from Tora of Simplex Method From the result above, it is shown that the production of

about 159300 crates of Coke 35cl, 64173 crates of Fanta

Table 5. Result from the analysis using Simplex Method.

50cl, 8419 crates of Coke 50cl, 4876 crates of Fanta 35cl,

Variables Explanations Values 1118 crates of Sprite and 7 crates of Schweppes with that

No. of iterations 2 available resources in the Port Harcourt plant of the Coca-

Objective function 107666640 cola company will make an optimal profit of N70,478,116.00

No. of crates Looking at the result, Coke 35cl is the most significant

Coke 50cl 0.0000 product that will push up profit while the production of

? Coke 35cl 0.0000 Schweppes is almost insignificant. Then the result shows that

Fanta 50cl 0.0000

the coca-cola plant in Port Harcourt should produce about

T Fanta 35cl 0.0000

339482 crates of Schweppes only with the available

U Sprite 35cl 0.0000

resources in other to make an optimal profit of

V Schweppes 33cl 339481.76

N107,666,640.00 By observation, it is noticed that the other

'ga Slack 2845.07

'gb Slack 388931.20

products were not put into consideration as to how many

'g Slack 3500.08 crates to be produced.

8 Akpan Nsikan Paul and Ojoh Chibuzor Okeh: Karmarkar’s Approach for Solving Linear Programming

Problem for Profit Maximization in Production Industries: Nbc Port-harcourt Plant

method for Optimization” Cambridge University Press,

Since Karmarkar’s approach gave a better result from the United Kingdom.

data analysed, the production team of Coca-cola Port [10] Nimrod Megiddo (1986) “Linear Programming” IBM

Harcourt is encourage to adopt this method for better Resaerch, Statistics Department, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

decision making. However, it is still uncertain as to how

problems that produce dense A matrix or dense factorizations [11] Ponnambalam et al (1989) “An Application of Karmarkar’s

Interior-point linear programming algorithm for multi-

could be solved efficiently using the Karmarkar’s algorithm, reservior operations optimization” University of Waterloo,

the direction for future research include (i) development of Ontario, Canada.

better methods to determine the initial feasible interior-point

and (ii) decomposition methods for essentially sparse [12] Richard B. and Govindasami N. (1997) “Schaum’s Outline

Operations Research” 2nd Edition. MC Graw-Hill Inc. USA.

problems but with a few dense rows/columns. If these are

achieve, solving linear problems by Karmarkar’s algorithm [13] Robere Robert (2012) “interior point methods and Linear

manually will be easier and a good alternative to Simplex Programming” University of Toronto.

method would have equally been achieved. [14] Schrijver A. (1986) “The new linear programming Method of

karmarkar” Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

References [15] Sharma J. K (2013) “Operations Research: Theory and

[1] Barnes E. R (1995) “A Variation on Karmarkar’s Algorithm Applications” 5th Edition. Mac Millan Publishers india ltd.

for Solving Linear Programming Problems” yorktown heights, India.

New York. [16] Shirish K. Shevade (2012) “Numerical Optimization” An

[2] Dantzig G. B (1947) “Linear Programming and Extension” online lecture of Indian Institute of Science. Bangalore, India.

Princeton University Press. New Jessey. [17] Szabo Zsuzsanna and Kovacs Marta (2003) “Interior-Point

[3] Gill et al (1986): On projected Newton barrier methods for Methods And Simplex Method In Linear Programming” St.

linear programming and an equivalence to Karmarkar's Univ. Ovidius constanta vol. 11 (2), 2003, 155–162. Petru

projective method, Math. Programming, 36, 183-209. Maior University of TgMures, Romania.

[4] Hoffman L. D. and Bradley G. L. (1995) “Finite Mathematics [18] Taha H. A. (2008) “Operations Research: An Introduction”

with Calculus” page (153). MC Graw Hill Inc. New York. Eight Edition. Pearson press, Dorling Kindershey (india) pvt.

Ltd. India.

[5] Jessen P. A. and Bard J. F. (2000) LP Methods: Interior point

Method. [19] Todd M. J. (1991) “The Affine-scalling Direction for Linear

Programming is a limit of projection scalling directions”

[6] Karmarkar N. (1984) “A New Polynomial-time Algorithm for Cornell University, Upson Hall Ithaca, New York.

Linear programming” AT&T Bell Laboratories murray Hill,

USA. [20] Vanderbei R. J. (1986) “Convex optimization: Interior Point

Methods and Applications.” Princeton University Press.

[7] Khachiyan, L. G. (1979): “A polynomial algorithm in linear

programming”. Sou. Math. Dokl. 20: 191-94. [21] Vanderbei, R. J, Meketon M. J, Freedman, B. A (1986) “A

Modification of Karmarkar’s Linear Programming Algorithm.

[8] Korte & Vygen on www. Wikipedia.com.

- MATH 341 - Operations Research I- Kamran RashidUploaded byIMSAAAD
- 2.pdfUploaded byabhay
- A RunUploaded byPadam Garg
- ME05436Notes-10Uploaded bypraveenaarao
- 04PA_PW_1_4.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Notes - Helpful Definitions Linear ProgrammingUploaded byjuggler2020
- Linear Programming Example 1992 UG ExamUploaded byDhyz Quinquilleria
- Beales methodUploaded byAbani
- course.docxUploaded byBasavasai Sunkara
- Operations ResearchUploaded byfazakaspeter
- Solutions Linear Algebra App bUploaded byHugo Ramírez
- -Design of Sanitary Sewer Systems by Dynamic Programming.pdfUploaded bydeepika77
- Block 2 MS 51 Unit 3Uploaded byAdi Angel
- Linear Programming NotesUploaded bysmurfieblue1890
- Lec 25 Linear ProgrammingUploaded byMuhammad Bilal Junaid
- 10.1.1.22Uploaded byAmit Sharma
- Bi-objective Project Portfolio Selection in Lean Six SigmaUploaded byIslamSharaf
- sensitivity analysisUploaded byalif
- Ops Final ExamsUploaded byVinny Devnani
- MsUploaded byAnand Vamsi
- Algoritmo OPF Security Por Si AcasoUploaded bymaxcopernico
- Simplex MethodUploaded byanvity
- Fekri SecondUploaded bysf111
- What is Monte Carlo SimulationUploaded byHarsh Sri
- Crown in Shield, Brand - 1981 - A Physiologically Based Criterion of Muscle Force Prediction in Locomotion-AnnotatedUploaded bynicososol
- Chapter 07Uploaded byricha
- PaperUploaded bySurya Mishra
- Transportation Statistics: 2003 06Uploaded byBTS
- 611_render_ch02 (1)Uploaded byJc Garcia
- MS60 TutorialUploaded bymechanicemre

- Writing Chemistry Lab Reports 16Uploaded byMaxxaM8888
- Maths Olympiad SolutionUploaded bycommandodhruv123
- Gear Cutting PracticeUploaded byFrancisco Daniel Colimba
- 2 4 differentiableUploaded byapi-299265916
- visualUploaded byHazman Rostam
- 5th IOAA Planetarium Observation Competition Final VersionUploaded bycrimsonsnow
- Set 8 QuestionUploaded bysapientaqqq
- Fortran User ModelUploaded bykingbobo
- CodingChecklist_082411Uploaded byRomneil Cruzabra
- Engels - dialectics_of_nature_partUploaded byCommunist Party
- D 3967 – 95a R01__(ingles).pdfUploaded byFrancis
- Autodesk Inventor Pro 9 Stress Analysis[1]. Getting StartedUploaded bytumpalpnainggolan
- Binomial DistributionUploaded bytdona
- Worksheet 2 (Sol)Uploaded byCarlos Arranz
- 2011_Book_WebTechnologiesAndApplications.pdfUploaded byAxilleas Pasias
- File No 43-13-03!09!2015 Jr & Sr Midterm Exam Syllabus & Time-tableUploaded byAkash Kadali
- 1_8Uploaded byomar9a
- Tutorial on PSpiceUploaded byud54
- Book 1 ESO GeometricUploaded byurgazu
- Calc_sr_ffUploaded byFinoJaya
- 182358_Organizational Alternatives for Project ManagementUploaded bySyed Solihin Jamalullail
- Interview QuestionsUploaded byHarshal Ambatkar
- 634_864-21Uploaded byciopar
- mos.docxUploaded bysvkarthik83
- Natural FrequencyUploaded byJonathan Majaw
- z88maneUploaded bydf_campos3353
- chap12Uploaded byMehmet Kurt
- Analizador de Redes Mpr52sUploaded byJuan Arteaga Henao
- ALI-GHANIM.pdfUploaded byMuhannad AbdulRaouf
- Leader Follower Formation Control of Ground Vehicles Using Dynamic Pixel Count and Inverse Perspective MappingUploaded byIJMAJournal