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

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 103

C H A P T E R

**Linear Programming Modeling Applications: With Computer Analyses in Excel and QM for Windows
**

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS

Teaching Suggestion 8.1: Importance of Formulating Large LP Problems. Since computers are used to solve virtually all business LP problems, the most important thing a student can do is to get experience in formulating a wide variety of problems. This chapter provides such a variety. Teaching Suggestion 8.2: Note on Production Scheduling Problems. The Greenberg Motor example in this chapter is the largest problem in the book in terms of constraints, so it provides a good practice environment. An interesting feature to point out is that LP constraints are capable of tying one production period to the next. Teaching Suggestion 8.3: Solving Assignment Problems by LP. The example of the law ﬁrm of Ivan and Ivan in this chapter can clearly be solved more quickly using QM for Windows’ assignment program than by the LP program. Students should be asked why anyone would choose to use the LP approach. There are two answers: (1) many commercial LP programs do not contain assignment algorithms (which are more popular in academic software such as QM for Windows); and (2) the LP program can provide more sensitivity analysis and economic interpretation than is available in the assignment module. The assignment problem is treated in Chapter 10. Teaching Suggestion 8.4: Labor Planning Problem—Arlington Bank. This example is a good practice tool and lead-in for the Chase Manhattan Bank case at the end of the chapter. Without this example, the case would probably overpower most students. Teaching Suggestion 8.5: Ingredient Blending Applications. Three points can be made about the two blending examples in this chapter. First, both the diet and fuel blending problems presented here are tiny compared to huge real-world blending problems. But they do provide some sense of the issues to be faced. Second, diet problems that are missing the constraints that force variety into the diet can be terribly embarrassing. It has been said that a hospital in New Orleans ended up with an LP solution to feed each patient only castor oil for dinner because analysts neglected to add constraints forcing a well-rounded diet. shipped: sawing, sanding, assembly, and painting. The time requirements (in hours) are summarized in the tables below. The production time available in each department each week and the minimum weekly production requirement to fulﬁll contracts are as follows:

Minimum Production Level 100 50 50

8

Department Sawing Sanding Assembly Painting

Capacity (In Hours) 450 400 625 550

Product Chairs Benches Tables

Product Chairs Benches Tables

Sawing 1.5 1.5 2.0

Hours Required Sanding Assembly 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5

Painting 1.5 2.0 2.0

Unit Proﬁt $15 $10 $20

The production manager has the responsibility of specifying production levels for each product for the coming week. Let X1 X2 X3 Number of chairs produced Number of benches produced Number of tables produced 15X1 2.0X3 2.0X3 2.5X3 2.0X3 2.0X3 2.0X3 X3 X1, X2, X3 10X2 20X3

The objective function is Maximize proﬁt Constraints 1.5X1 1.0X1 2.0X1 1.5X1 X1 1.5X2 1.5X2 2.0X2 2.0X2 2.0X2 X2 450 hours of sawing available 400 hours of sanding available 625 hours of assembly available 550 hours of painting available 100 chairs 50 benches 50 tables 0

ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLES

Alternative Example 8.1: Natural Furniture Company manufactures three outdoor products, chairs, benches, and tables. Each product must pass through the following departments before it is

Alternative Example 8.2: A phosphate manufacturer produces three grades, A, B, and C, which cost the ﬁrm $40, $50, and $60 per kilogram, respectively. The products require the labor and materials per batch that are shown on the following page.

103

X4.2X4 .5X1) rewritten as 0. Let X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 dollars invested in Los Angeles municipal bonds dollars invested in Thompson Electronics dollars invested in United Aerospace dollars invested in Palmer Drugs dollars invested in Happy Days Nursing Homes 0.09X1 3X2 1X2 5X2 1 – 12 X2 1 – 2 X2 Objective: maximize revenue subject to 3X1 – 11 X1 2 3 –X 4 1 2X2 1X2 3 –X 4 2 360 hours (carpentry department) 200 hours (painting department) 125 hours (ﬁnishing department) 60 units (contract requirement) 60 units (contract requirement) 0 X1 X2 X1.4 (X1 X2 X3 X4 X5) (combination of electronics.000 kg Problem 8-2 solved by computer: $50.M.4X1 0.M. X2 Problem 8-1 solved by computer: Produce 60 French Provincial cabinets (X1) per day Produce 90 Danish Modern cabinets (X2) per day Revenue $3.6X4 0.068X2 X5 X2 .118X5 subject to X1 or X2 X1 Minimize cost subject to 2X1 1 – 2 X1 0.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08. Let X1 X2 X3 number of pounds of oat product per horse each day number of pounds of enriched grain per horse each day number of pounds of mineral product per horse each day 0.2X2 0. and drugs) 0.300.6X3 0. X3.049X3 0. 2. 4. aerospace.M.687 .000 40A 50B 60C number of workers reporting for start of work at period i (with i 1.084X4 Maximize return 0.930 8-2. X2.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 104 104 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS Grade A Labor hours Raw material #1 Raw material #2 4 200 600 Grade B 4 300 400 Grade C 5 300 500 Available Resources 80 hr 6.000 invested in Los Angeles municipal bonds (X1) $0 invested in Thompson Electronics (X2) $0 invested in United Aerospace (X3) $175.000 kg 5.M. we let X1 X2 number of French Provincial cabinets produced each day number of Danish Modern cabinets produced each day $28X1 $25X2 All variables 0 The computer solution is to hire 30 workers: 16 begin at 7 A. 9 begin at 7 P.M.M.17X3 $250.14X2 0.2 (X1 .000 invested in Palmer Drugs (X4) $25. 5. where Minimize staff size Xi X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 What mix of products would yield minimum cost? Objective function Minimize cost Constraints Labor: Raw material #1 Raw material #2 4A 200A 600A 4B 300B 400B 5C 300C 500C 80 6. 2 begin at 7 P.000 5. 2 begin at 3 P. X5 0 0 (nursing home as percent of bonds) X1 X2 X3 6 (maximum feed/day) All variables 0 – Solution: X1 11 3 X2 0 – X3 31 3 cost 0. Since the decision centers about the production of the two different cabinet models. An alternative optimum is 3 begin at 3 A.2X3 X4 X5) (bonds) .M. 9 begin at 7 A.000 (funds) X3 .M. 8-4.2X5 0 .4X5 0 0. 3.000 invested in Happy Days (X5) This produces an annual return on investment of $20. or 6) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X6 12 16 9 11 4 3 SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS 8-1.8X1 1X3 1 – 2 X3 6X3 2X3 1 – 12 X3 6 (ingredient A) 2 (ingredient B) 9 (ingredient C) 8 (ingredient D) 5 (ingredient E) 3X1 1X1 1 – 2 X1 X2 or (X5 X3 X4 .6X2 0. 7 begin at 11 A.5X1 X5 X1.M.M. 9 begin at 3 P. 3 begin at 11 P. 0 begin at 11 P. 8-3.053X1 X3 X4 0.

04X1 0. 6 100N 0 800T 400R 500B 100N 15.g. Let: X1 X2 Minimize cost subject to number of newspaper ads placed number of TV spots purchased $925X1 0.8X32 0.4X22 0.5X13 0. integer programming (see Chapter 11) could be used. 30 100 170 160 10 5-month leases in March 5-month leases in April 5-month leases in May 5-month leases in June 5-month leases in July All other variables equal 0. 0 otherwise 1.60 (exposure in northwest suburbs) Minimize cost Solving this on the computer results in the following solution: 5-month leases in March 5-month leases in April 4-month leases in May 5-month leases in May .4X14 0. Let Xij number of new leases in month i for j-months.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 105 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS 105 8-5. 4 stands for Des Moines.250. . Baker.9X31 0. If integer solutions are necessary.7X33 0.000X2 0.3X24 0. N 10.. X34 X15 X24 X25 X33 X34 X35 X43 X44 X45 X53 X54 X55 470 X25 X34 X35 X43 X44 X45 X53 X54 X55 X63 X64 X65 440 X15 X25 X35 X45 X55 X65 0. 3. Total P 2.3X42 0.7X21 0. and Wilson. Note that the problem is not limited to unduplicated exposure (e. The linear program has the same constraints as in problem 8-8.000N Subject to 800T 10 R 10 10 10 R 500B . X41 1. 3. respectively. X2 $2. 2. 2. Audience reached 722. R 10. R. Parker.03X1 X1.000T 22.100. 8-8. 4 stands for Jones.5X41 subject to X11 X21 X31 X41 X11 X12 X13 X14 8-6. not just the latter.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.8X12 0.500. 8-7. 6. i 1.000B X12 X22 X32 X42 X21 X22 X23 X24 X13 X23 X33 X43 X31 X32 X33 X34 1. Perhaps the paint store should consider a blend of TV and newspaper.000 X15 X25 X35 X45 X55 Total cost 8-9. . .40 (city exposure) 0. X23 X14 X24 X34 X44 X41 X42 X43 X44 1 (“Dead-Arm” Jones) 1 (“Spitball” Baker) 1 (“Ace” Parker) 1 (“Gutter” Wilson) 1 (Des Moines) 1 (Davenport) 1 (Omaha) 1 (Peoria) 1. 4. there are 440 cars remaining at the end of August.9 0. Problem 8-7 solved by computer: Buy 20 Sunday newspaper ads (X1) Buy 0 TV ads (X2) This has a cost of $18.8X34 0. Let T R B N number of TV ads number of radio ads number of billboard ads number of newspaper ads 30. where Let Xij i j 1 if pitcher i is scheduled to go against opponent j. 5 1260X13 1260X23 1260X33 1260X43 840X53 420X63 1600X14 1600X24 1600X34 1200X44 800X54 400X64 1850X15 1850X25 1480X35 1110X45 740X55 370X65 X13 X14 X15 420 390 X24 X25 X33 X34 X13 X14 X15 X23 X25 400 270 Objective: maximize sum of ratings 0.6X11 0. Omaha. j 3. respectively.05X2 0. and Peoria.8X23 0.03X2 0 0. and 1.2X44 Minimize cost subject to: X13 X14 X15 X23 X24 X34 X35 430 130 X14 X15 X23 X24 X25 X33 X35 X43 X44 X45 460 Solution: X12 1.000R 24.4X43 0. . . Davenport. B 9. one person seeing the Sunday newspaper three weeks in a row counts for three exposures).50(X13 X14 X15 X23 X24 X25 X33 X34 X35 X43 X44 X45 X53 X54 X55 X63 X64 X65) All variables 0 Solving this on the computer results in the following solution: Maximize total audience 8. As a result of this. $677.875. The objective function changes and is now: 1260(X13 1600(X14 1850(X15 X65) X15 X25 X34 X35 30 100 65 105 X23 X24 X25 X33 X34 X35 X43 X44 X45 X53 X54 X55 X63) X64) Solution: T 6.

REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.4.91 and meat.9X3 74X3 19X6 358X4 118X6 358X4 118X6 3.00/lb: price $1.75: price $1. The meal is fairly well-balanced (two meats.2X7 0.500 $0.000 rolls of Supertrex.679 lb 0.2X5 0.105 pound of spinach (X6) 0. number of students bused from sector i to school j 5XAB 0XBB 4XCB 7XDB 12XEB subject to XAB XBB XCB XDB XEB XAB XAC XAE XAC XBC XCC XDC XEC XBB XBC XBE XAE XBE XCE XDE XEE XCB XCC XCE 0 400 300 500 100 800 400 XAE XBB XCC XDC XEE Distance 8-11.296X2 81X2 28X5 0 394X3 394X3 .20⎫ ⎪ ⎬ (markup ranges) 0. X4 0 Problem 8-11 solved by computer: Spend $17. X2.42/meal Ground meat increases from $2.000 on advertising (X1).2X2 1. $752. Take a 20% markup.4X6 83X4 128X5 279X7 128X5 279X7 2.05X3 0) (ratio of displays to inventory) 0. 8-12.0988 lb 2.25 to $2. where 700 (number of students in sector A) 500 (number of students in sector B) 100 (number of students in sector C) 800 (number of students in sector D) 400 (number students in sector E) XDB XDC XDE XEB XEC XEE 900 (school B capacity) 900 (school C capacity) 900 (school E capacity) 8XAC 4XBC 0XCC 2XDC 7XEC 6XAE 12XBE 7XCE 5XDE 0XEE Let Xij This solution implies that no on-hand inventory or displays are needed to sell the product.17X6 subject to 295X1 295X1 .950.4. This problem is very sensitive to changing food prices. the solution is chicken milk potatoes ﬁsh spinach milk 0.891 lb 0. Perhaps a constraint indicating that X3 $3.000 of inventory should be held might be needed.60X1 0. The weight of each item is realistic.8X5 1.25/lb: price $2.15X3 Objective: minimize total travel miles Problem 8-12 solved by computer: The meal plan for the evening is No milk (X1 0) 0.133 lb 0. spinach.07 and meat leaves.499 pound of ground meat (X2) 0.75. probably due to an oversight on Mr. and a potato).000X4 X1 X2 X3 X4 dollars spent on advertising dollars spent on store displays dollars in inventory percent markup X3 $17. Kruger’s part. If chicken and meat are omitted. milk. and potatoes in solution Fish decreases from $2. ﬁsh. X3. .05X3 (or X2 0.5X4 7X5 14X6 63X7 8X7 26 50 14.762 pound of white potatoes (X7) Each meal has a cost of $1. and potatoes in solution If meat and ﬁsh are omitted from the problem. Minimize total cost 2.774 lb 1.35 to $2. a green vegetable.8X2 12X3 65. price $1.58X5 1.400 “student miles” Maximize number of rolls of Supertrex sold 20X1 6. chicken.25X4 0.93 and spinach leaves the optimal solution Ground meat increases to $5.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 106 106 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS X43 X53 Total cost 8-10.1X6 1.216X2 121.3X3 .188 lb 5.35X2 1.000 (budgeted) $3.2X1 16X1 16X1 22X1 All Xi 1.33X7 2.5X7 900 4 50 3. Spend nothing on in-store displays or on-hand inventory (X2 and X3).216X2 1. 160 10 3-month leases in June 3-month leases in July All other variables equal 0.45⎭ ⎪ X1. 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.000 (advertising constraint) X2 X4 X4 subject to X1 X1 X2 0. The store will sell 327.2X4 0.00/lb: no change Chicken increases to $3.173 pound of chicken (X3) No ﬁsh (X4 No beans (X5 0) 0) All variables Solution: XAB 0.

where a. need.9X24 2.000 bushels) 1.200 wheat in acres ( 110. j ∑ 3.41. 2 for alfalfa. 1) 0. Sept.000 (Oct.4 maximize proﬁt 200X1 260X6 35X1 revenue 120X2 25X2 180X3 40X3 Trainees Beginning 13.2 (actually 72) 0 0 170X5 60X6 15 12 18 7 X1 2 X1 3X 2 5X 2 5 X 1 1X 2 6 X 4 18 X 5 17 X 6 60 3 X 3 2 X 4 15 X 5 17 X 6 60 3X 3 2 X 4 9 X 5 2 X 6 60 12 X 3 Aug.55 internal modems 1.000X3 900Y2 2. of units of external modems produced per week no. $5. of units of internal modems produced per week no.800 tons) b.9 X 2.200 alfalfa in acres ( 1. 1) 0.05X1 (staff on Sept. The computer-generated results are: material cost 130X4 45X4 test cost 430X5 Month Trained Technicians Available 350 346. c. 3 for barley 1 to 5 for SE.000 (Nov.000X4 Minimize total salaries paid 2.000X1 2.9X21 2. Let X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 no. as explained in Chapters 7 and 9. 1) 2X4 60 15 X 5 17 X 6 2X4 60 Thus. NW. and $0.241.6 X1 j ∑ 2.5X35 5 This can be rewritten as maximize proﬁt subject to 7 X1 2 X1 3X 2 5X 2 6 X 4 18 X 5 17 X 6 120 hours 60 3 X 3 2 X 4 15 X 5 17 X 6 120 hours 60 3X 3 2 X 4 9 X5 2 X6 100 hours 60 12 X 3 $161. Dec.05X2 (staff on Oct.6X14 1.05X3 (staff on Nov. The solution is .000 (Aug.9X22 2.6X11 2. of units of ﬂoppy disk drives produced per week no. Let Xi Yi no.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 107 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS 107 8-13.6X15 5 5 X 1 1X 2 j ∑ 1.6X13 1. need) 45. 1) 0.5X3. a. Total salaries paid over the ﬁve-month period 8-15. per minute. need) 0. 400 1.6X12 1.000X2 900Y1 subject to 130X1 130X2 130X3 130X4 130X5 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 90Y1 90Y2 90Y3 90Y4 90Y5 X1 X2 X3 X4 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 900Y3 40. of units of circuit boards produced per week no.80X5 135. the objective function is 9X5 2X6 All Xi.000X5 900Y5 900Y4 2.75.400 acre-feet in N 800 acre-feet in NW 500 acre-feet in W 600 acre-feet in SW 7. a. for additional time on the three test devices are $21. need) 35. Let Xij i j Irrigation limits: 1.8 384. The shadow prices.7 (actually 14) 0 72. acres of crop i planted on parcel j 1 for wheat. and SW parcels 3. j 1 j 1 j 1 All variables X1 X2 X3 through X6 proﬁt 0 Sales limits: X11 X21 X12 X22 496.5X32 3. 1) Objective function analysis: First ﬁnd the time used on each test device: hours on test device 1 7 X 1 3 X 2 12 X 3 = hours on test device 2 2 X1 5 X 2 3X 3 hours on test device 3 5 X 1 1X 2 3 X 3 6X4 60 18 X 5 17 X 6 350 (starting staff on Aug.38 external modems 0 $195. of trainees beginning in month i $2. of trained technicians available at start of month i no. respectively.75X6 3. of units of memory boards produced per week 8-14.504.000 (Sept.50X3 191.6 365.9X25 5 $3. W.80 water acre-feet total X13 X23 X14 X24 X15 X25 2. Yi 0 b.2 328.5X33 3. Nov.5X31 3.5X34 3. N.279.95X2 249.200 acre-feet in SE 3.9X23 2. of units of hard drives produced per week no. Oct.35X1 82.000 (Dec.50X4 92. hours) 45. need) 50.05X4 (staff on Dec.627.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.

000) 0. carbide 2 (200 lb).1X1 1X1 2.12X1 0.03X4 0. 8-19.15X3 0.6X2 2.659 per year To convert X1 and X2 to number of medical versus surgical beds.105 patients)(5 days/patient) 10. Producing 1 ton from the materials is not possible. yielding $9.000) silicon quality: 0. The solution is to plant X12 X13 X14 X15 X25 X31 X32 1. Here is a chance for students to present management science results in a management format.05X5 0.105 surgical patients $9. Basically. and four deal with the weight availability limits for alloy 2 (300 lb).791 patients)(8 days/patient) 22.j ∑ ($50)(2.18X6 0.800 (operations/surgeries) 0 number of medical patients number of surgical patients $2.03X4 0. three carbides) that can be selected for the blend.850 (patient-days available 365 days 90 new beds) 15.12X3 0.26X3 0.853 days This represents 68% medical days and 32% surgical days. Vertullo.100 acres in W parcel 500 acres in SW parcel $2(50 bushels) X 1.26X3 0.25X8 101 (5.025X5 0.55X2 (2.91. Six of the constraints deal with maximum and minimum quality limits. carbide 1 (50 lb). The two issues are: 1.2X2 X2 X1. is an excellent exercise in report writing. there should be 61 medical and 29 surgical beds.025X5 0.328 days (2.01X2 0. ﬁnd the total number of hospital days for each type of patient: medical surgical total (2.15X1 0. which yields 61 medical beds and 29 surgical beds. Each student may take a different approach and other recommendations may result.70X1 0. Requiring at least 5.23X8 92 (4. X7 $83.25X7 0.55X2 (2.659 per year.01X4 0.3% of 2.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.12X3 0.03X1 0.10X4 0. c.25X7 0. Some investigative work is needed to track down the issues. we ﬁnd that constraints 5 and 11 still have artiﬁcial variables in the ﬁnal solution. need only 500 more water-feet.280X1 $1. This problem refers to Problem 8-16’s infeasibility.6 (alloy 2). From a ﬁnal simplex tableau.551.10X4 0.862.000 (x-rays) 2. X1 X2 subject to 8X1 3.515X2 Objective function: maximize proﬁt 5 j ∑ 5 1 j ∑ $40(1.01X4 0.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 108 108 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS X31 X32 X33 X34 X35 1.05X5 42 46 0.2 tons) X3. X6 50 lb (carbide 1).j 5 One-ton weight: The solution is infeasible. and X8 100 lb (carbide 3). two irons. Multiple optimal solutions exist. . X2 as number of beds. This problem.70X1 0.20X7 0.18X6 0.000 acres in SE parcel 2.03X1 0.000 barley in acres ( 2. Let X1 through X8 represent pounds of alloy 1 through pounds of carbide 3 to be used in the blend.09X4 0.35% of 2.300 acres in N parcel 600 acres in NW parcel 1. the following issues need to be addressed in any report: (a) As seen in Problem 8-18. 8-17.09X8 Problem 8-18 solved by computer: 2. Cost $34.10X6 0.20X7 0.551.25X8 107 (5.24X6 0.23X8 86 (4.30X2 0.05% carbon is not possible.07X5 0.) See the printout on the next page for the solution and sensitivity analysis.791 medical patients 2.5X2 2.000) carbon quality: 0.10.30X2 0. one deals with the 2. If constraints 5 and 11 are relaxed (or removed).250 acres of wheat in N parcel 500 acres of wheat in NW parcel 1 – 312 2 acres of wheat in W parcel 1 – 137 2 acres of wheat in SW parcel 131 acres of alfalfa in SW parcel 600 acres of barley in SE parcel 400 acres of barley in N parcel Maximize revenue Proﬁt will be $337. 8-18.000) 0.13X2 0.6% of 2.05% of 2.000 Acreage availability: X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 X31 X32 X33 X34 X35 2. 8-16.200 tons) Availability by weight: X2 X6 X7 X8 X1 300 50 200 100 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 2. (Note that an alternative approach would be to formulate with X1. Yes. suggested by Professor C.5 tons) X 2 . Minimize cost subject to manganese quality: 0.15X1 0. The eight variables correspond to the eight materials available (three alloys. and carbide 3 (100 lb).000 (lab tests) 7. one solution is X2 $83. 2.525 days 32.24X6 0.3% of 2.01X2 0. X2 X1 X2 revenue 32. j 1 j 1 b.000) 0.000 pound total weight restriction.12X7 0.6 (carbide 2). Amalgamated’s blending problem will have eight variables and 11 constraints.000) 0.1% of 2.

QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 109 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS 109 Printout for Problems 8-18 and 8-19 Sensitivity Analysis Printout for Problems 8-18 and 8-19 .REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.

REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08. One solution is to assign Smith to Job 2. 8-23. (d) The x-ray is used to its maximum and has a $65. 8-20. Jones to Job 4. 8-20. 6XA5 8XS1 11XA2 8XA3 Minimize time 12XA1 6XA6 6XG1 12XG2 7XG3 7XG4 5XG5 9XS2 6XS3 6XS4 7XS5 9XS6 XA1 XG1 XS1 XA2 XG2 XS2 XA1 XA2 XA3 XA4 XA5 XA6 All variables XA3 XG3 XS3 XG1 XG2 XG3 XG4 XG5 XG6 0 XA4 XG4 XS4 XS1 XS2 XS3 XS4 XS5 XS6 XA5 XG5 XS5 XA6 XG6 XS6 200 225 275 80 120 150 210 60 80 9XA4 8XG6 subject to Minimize cost subject to A1 B1 A2 B2 320 450 . 2. 3. and the new objective function is: Minimize cost 28A1 30A2 25B1 28B2 13X1 19X2 17Y1 22Y2 20Z1 21Z2 All variables 0. 2. The solution is the same as problem 8-21 except the value of the objective function is $34.45 shadow price. 4 A1 A2 X1 Y1 Z1 A1 B1 B2 X2 Y2 Z2 B1 500 500 240 330 X1 capacity at plant 1 capacity at plant 2 demand at Homeowners’ Headquarters demand at Hardware City Y1 Z1 units shipped into plant 1 must equal units shipped out of plant 1 Z2 units shipped into plant 2 must equal units shipped out of plant 2 200 demand at Builder’s Home A2 B2 X2 Y2 All variables 0 b. 4 1. All of these require a total of 31 days. 4 1. We add the processing cost in the objective function. Solving this on the computer. there are no empty beds. Minimum total cost 8-22. 3.160 All other variables equal 0. b. a. 2. we ﬁnd the following solution: A1 A2 B1 X1 Y1 Z1 Z2 50 270 450 200 240 60 270 tons of ore from mine A to plant 1 tons of ore from mine A to plant 2 tons of ore from mine B to plant 1 tons shipped to Builder’s Home from plant 1 tons shipped to Homeowners’ Headquarters from plant 1 tons shipped to Hardware City from plant 1 tons shipped to Hardware City from plant 2 $19. 3. and Nguyen to Job 3. 4 1. a.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 110 110 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS (b) Referring to the QM for Windows printout. 1 There are multiple optimal solutions. The formulation is the same as the formulation in problem 8-21 except for a change in the objective function.300. Davis to Job 1. 8-21. 2. Let Si Ji Di Ni 1 if Smith is assigned to Job i for i 0 otherwise 1 if Jones is assigned to Job i for i 0 otherwise 1 if Davis is assigned to Job i for i 0 otherwise 1 if Nguyen is assigned to Job i for i 0 otherwise Minimize days 4S1 10S2 8J3 10J4 4D1 13D2 11N2 7N3 11N4 Subject to S1 J1 D1 N1 S1 S2 S3 S4 S2 J2 D2 N2 J1 J2 J3 J4 S3 J3 D3 N3 D1 D2 D3 D4 S4 J4 D4 N4 N1 N2 N3 N4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8S3 9D3 9S4 5J1 14J2 12D4 5N1 1. Let A1 A2 B1 B2 X1 X2 Y1 Y2 Z1 Z2 tons of ore from mine A to plant 1 tons of ore from mine A to plant 2 tons of ore from mine B to plant 1 tons of ore from mine B to plant 2 tons shipped to Builder’s Home from plant 1 tons shipped to Builder’s Home from plant 2 tons shipped to Homeowners’ Headquarters from plant 1 tons shipped to Homeowners’ Headquarters from plant 2 tons shipped to Hardware City from plant 1 tons shipped to Hardware City from plant 2 6A1 8A2 7B1 10B2 13X1 17Y1 22Y2 20Z1 21Z2 supply at A supply at B 19X2 All the constraints are the same as in the previous problem. 3. (c) There are 876 lab tests of unused capacity. (e) The operating room still has 695 operations available.

95H 0.35 0.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 111 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS 111 Solution: Source (Station) 5A 5A 5A 3G 3G 3G 1S 1S Destination (Wing) 5 6 3 1 3 4 4 2 Number of Trays 60 80 60 80 90 55 155 120 A L L H H N N 1.11(0) 0.11X1 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Xi X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 0. . 5 A FA L FL 1.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in New Orleans) 6 (1. Solving this on the computer.95FL FH H FH (3 0.35 0. A L H N FA FL FH FN Let 0.95 FA FL 10.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in Atlanta 1.015 H FH N FN 0 for i 0 0.11 1.35) 0.000) b.13X5 return should be at least 11% no more than 35% in any single stock L FL (7 0.05(H FH 0.15A 4. This simpliﬁes to: 0.35) 0.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in Houston 1.05(A FA 24)) Optimal cost 4.05(L 0. . Multiple optimal solutions exist.13(0.05(N FN 0. .40X4 total of the proportions must add to 1 0.15X4 0.09X2 X4 X5 1 1. we ﬁrst add an activity G to represent the end of the project: Objective subject to: XA XB XC XD XF XA XB minimize XG 2 3 1 4 1 Minimize cost subject to A FA 24 minimum amount of fuel board when leaving Atlanta .15(0.000 gallons of fuel remaining when plane lands in Los Angeles) 1 (1.065X3 0.25L 4.2X1 0.95FH FN 2.18N Total cost SOLUTIONS TO INTERNET HOMEWORK PROBLEMS 8-26. we have Minimum beta Return 8-25.10625 0. The fuel consumed is 12 (thousand gallons) plus 5% of the excess above 24 (thousand gallons).55X3 1.95N 0. Let Xi proportion of investment invested in stock i for i 2. .25 9)) becomes 11)) becomes 0.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in Los Angeles 1.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in Los Angeles) 12 (1. .000 gallons of fuel remaining when plane lands in New Orleans) 112. To formulate this problem.45 ( 1. 5 Minimize beta subject to X1 X2 X3 0.825 minutes. 8-24. .45 0 All variables 1.95L 0.55 N FN (5 0.95A Similarly.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in New Orleans fuel remaining when plane lands in Atlanta fuel remaining when plane lands in Los Angeles fuel remaining when plane lands in Houston fuel remaining when plane lands in New Orleans 4.35 0.11 This says that the fuel on board when the plane lands in Los Angeles will equal the amount on board at take-off minus the fuel consumed on that ﬂight.25X5 0.09(0.065(0.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in Houston) 8 (1. 2.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.95FN FA 4.10625) 0. The optimal solution is 18 (1. .35 0. FH FN FA 0.19375) 0.35 0. FL FA FL FL FH FH FN FN A 36 15 23 9 17 11 20 FA maximum amount of fuel board when leaving Atlanta minimum amount of fuel board when leaving Los Angeles maximum amount of fuel board when leaving Los Angeles minimum amount of fuel board when leaving Houston maximum amount of fuel board when leaving Houston minimum amount of fuel board when leaving New Orleans maximum amount of fuel board when leaving New Orleans (12 0.8 FL 15)) becomes 6.000 gallons of fuel remaining when plane lands in Atlanta) 3 (1.000 gallons of fuel remaining when plane lands in Houston) 5 (1. .35 0.19375 b.10H 4.35 0.85X2 1.000 gallons of fuel to purchase in Atlanta) 6 (1.

IX2 A computer solution to this results in IX0 130. The total cost $267. 2. All variables Because a Chauncey (X1) is sweet vermouth. IY3 150. 125. X13 $4. X31 175. Davis does Job 1. it requires 1 oz of that resource (each drink totals 4 oz). Y2 420. So. 52 oz (bourbon limit) 38 oz (brandy limit) 64 oz (vodka limit) 24 oz (dry vermouth limit) 36 oz (sweet vermouth limit) 0 1 – 4 number of BR49 produced in month i. 3.50 (or 6 2) bourbon on the rocks (X3) number of BR49 units in inventory at end of month i. 2. Let X1 X2 X3 X4 subject to 1X1 1X1 1X1 1X2 1X1 4X3 1X2 2 – 23 X4 1 – 13 X4 Solution with QM for Windows: 2 10 6 6 11 11 11 11 number of Chaunceys mixed number of Sweet Italians mixed number of bourbon on the rocks mixed number of Russian martinis mixed X1 X2 X3 X4 Minimize days 4S1 5J1 11N2 8S3 8J3 9D3 subject to S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 J1 D1 N1 J1 J2 J3 J4 S2 J2 D2 N2 D1 D2 D3 D4 S3 J3 D3 N3 0 N1 N2 N3 N4 S4 J4 D4 N4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5N1 10S2 14J2 9S4 10J4 12D4 13D2 11N4 All variables Maximize total drinks Solving this with QM for Windows.525. 3. for i 0. IY0 50.028.95(IY1 IY2 IY3) Subject to: IX0 IY0 IX3 IY3 X1 50 50 100 150 Y1 Y2 Y3 IX0 IX1 IX2 IY0 IY1 1.50.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 112 112 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS XE XE XG XG XC XD XE XF 5 5 0 0 0 8-29. X3 470.99 (or 26) Chaunceys (X1) Mix 5. 0 otherwise.8(IX1 IX2 IX3) 0. 0 otherwise. 3. Minimize cost 80(X1 X2 X3) 95(Y1 Y2 Y3) 0. for i 0. Y3 630. 2. 1. 2. 0 otherwise. 4 Ji Di Ni 1 if Smith is assigned to Job i. we have S2 1. 2. 2. Minimize 6X11 8X12 4X31 5X32 12X33 subject to X11 X21 X31 X11 X12 X13 The solution is: X11 Cost 25. 2.75 drinks (in ﬁve iterations). 1. 3. Y1 400. All other variables 0. X23 175. 1. for i 1. Smith does Job 2. 8-28.25 (or 1 – 14 4 ) Russian martinis (X4) 10X13 7X21 11X22 11X23 This is a total of 51. 3. 3.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08. 8-30.00 (or 5) Sweet Italians (X2) 1 – Mix 6. 2. . for i 1 if Nguyen is assigned to Job i. 4 1. 4 4D1 7N3 All variables XA XB XC XD XE XF XG Z 8-27. J4 1. and N3 1. Jones does Job 4. 4 1 if Jones is assigned to Job i.100 1. X2 680. Yi IXi IYi Let Xi number of BR54 produced in month i. IX1 190.100 320 740 500 450 420 480 0 initial inventory of BR54 initial inventory of BR49 ending inventory of BR54 ending inventory of BR49 maximum production level in August maximum production level in September maximum production level in October IX1 BR54 requirements for August IX2 BR54 requirements for September IX3 BR54 requirements for October IY1 BR49 requirements for August IY2 BR49 requirements for September IY3 BR49 requirements for October Mix 14. for i 1 if Davis is assigned to Job i. Problem 8-27 solved by computer: Mix 25. IX3 100. X32 100 X12 X22 X32 X21 X22 X23 X13 X23 X33 X31 X32 X33 0 150 175 275 200 100 300 X2 X3 X1 X2 X3 Y1 Y2 Y3 IY2 All variables All variables 50. X1 460.100 1. D1 1. 0 otherwise. 3. for i 2X2 number of BR54 units in inventory at end of month i. for i 1. and Nguyen does Job 3. Let Si 1. for i 1. The total time is 31 days. 3.

. . Constraints 4 and 5 reﬂect the availability of grade A and grade B tomatoes.00 2. Note that because part-time employees must work a minimum of 4 hours. 2.074X6 subject to 1X1 1X2 1X3 1X1 1X2 1X1 3X2 3X3 All variables 0 1X3 14. Let F denote the number of full-time employees.000 225.REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08. and the last two constraints are the quality constraints. j 4. since the entire operation ends at 7 P. Finally. Twenty percent of the crop was grade A and the rest was grade B.M. and that is the last constraint. A sensitivity analysis indicates that up to an additional 600. Qj. which is 8.066X4 X1 0.000 pounds.000.52)/18 0. .000 additional pounds of grade A tomatoes.5 cents per pound for the 80.000 pounds of grade B tomatoes can be used. or shadow prices. The problem can be formulated using LP as follows: X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 pounds of whole A tomatoes pounds of whole B tomatoes pounds of juice A tomatoes pounds of juice B tomatoes pounds of paste A tomatoes pounds of paste B tomatoes 0.M.M. Thus not more than 600.. This includes an average of 8 points per pound for whole tomatoes and 6 points per pound for tomato juice. .0053. respectively.0822X2 0.M. the amount of grade A tomatoes cannot exceed 20% of 3 million pounds. 9 A. and 7 P.066X3 0.0822.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 113 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS 113 SOLUTION TO RED BRAND CANNERS CASE 1.000 cases of tomato juice and 80.0903.000 pounds to 680. Using this approach.M. with P1 being the number of workers beginning at 9 A. The solution of the linear programming problem is X1 X3 X5 525. F1. This would increase the amount of available grade A tomatoes from 600..M. Each additional pound of grade A tomatoes costing 8. For the remainder of the straight-time day: F F F F F F F P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P6 P2 P7 P3 P3 P5 P3 P7 P3 Q4 P4 P4 P6 P4 Q4 P4 Q5 P5 Q4 P5 Q5 Q4 Q5 Q6 55 60 51 29 P5 P6 Q6 Q7 . not more than 2. the remaining half go at noon. P7 at 3 P. Furthermore. some of the part-time employees begin to leave. . P2 at 10 A. The requirements that canned tomatoes must average at least 8 points means that at least three-fourths of the tomatoes must be grade A: Starting at 1 P. . they represent a sunk cost and are not part of the decision process.000 2.000. j 1.000 pounds of grade A tomatoes could be purchased without affecting the solution basis. none can start after 3 P...000-pound constraint and a price of 8. the unit proﬁt is (4. The shadow price for the slack variable in constraint 4 is 0. Since there are 18 pounds per case.5 cents will increase proﬁts by 0.000 1X4 1X5 1X5 1X4 1X4 1X6 1X6 1.000 0 X2 X4 X6 175. SOLUTION TO CHASE MANHATTAN BANK CASE This very advanced and challenging scheduling problem can be solved most expeditiously using linear programming.0850 0. 7. . 9.5F 0.000 The maximum proﬁt is $225. the maximum demand for tomato juice is 50. Similarly. of the full-time employees will work overtime between 6 P.M.340. and 10 A. Similar analyses hold for the other terms in the objective function.000 pounds of grade A tomatoes can be used.5F P1 P1 P2 P2 P3 P3 P4 26 38 The ﬁrst constraint refers to the 14 million pounds of whole tomatoes—800.5 cents per pound. Similarly. In setting up the constraints. the demand for 50.400.M. There will be seven sets of part-time employees. Since the tomatoes are already on hand (and no salvage appears to be possible). The variable cost (less the tomatoes) is $2. The overall objective is to maximize total sales less variable costs. the requirements that tomato juice must average at least 6 points means that at least one-fourth of the tomato juice must be grade A.75(X1 X2) X1 3X2 0 Similarly. For those hours: 0. a new formulation can be made using the new 680. The workforce requirements for the ﬁrst two hours. you compare the value of the 80. Another issue is whether or not to buy 80. Pj will be the number of part-time employees who begin their workday at hour j. Some number.400.000 cases at 20 pounds per case or 1 million pounds. .074X5 0.000 additional pounds of grade A tomatoes in the objective function.000 cases at 25 pounds per case or 2 million pounds. The main issue in this case is how to allocate 3 million pounds of tomatoes. There is no constraint for tomato paste. .M. and 6 P. A faster way to resolve this issue is to use postoptimality analysis.000 2. are: F F P1 P1 P2 14 25 Maximize: 0. preferably integer programming. half of the full-time employees go to lunch. and the maximum demand for tomato paste is 80.000 75. The demand for whole tomatoes is not a constraint in this problem.093 0.M.000 additional tomatoes with the cost.000 600. of them will work 1 hour of overtime between 5 P. . leave at the end of hour j.000 cases at 18 pounds per case—that constitutes maximum demand.M. some number of part-time employees.000 0 0 At 11 A. All of the grade A tomatoes are used. A case of whole tomatoes (grade A and grade B) sells for $4. .000 cases of tomato paste should be met. and these are constraints 2 and 3.M.400. To answer this question. Similarly.52.M. F2.000. minimum quality requirements should be met.0822X1 0. .000 2. These costs include production and selling expenses. 5. 2. each day and some number. The coefﬁcients in the objective function are the unit proﬁts.

one would expect different patterns to present themselves on different days. and the other 2 at 4 P.M. In addition.M. Q4 Q4 P1 P2 Q4 Q5 Q5 P3 Q5 Q6 Q Q7 Q7 Q8 Q8 P1 Q9 P2 P1 P2 P3 P5 P6 P7 Q6 Q7 Q8 Finally. Total overtime for a full-time employee is restricted to 5 hours or less.M.M. This solution is not unique—other work assignments can be found that result in this same cost. 0. Eleven part-timers would begin at 11 A. The total daily labor cost which must be minimized is Z 8(10. for those leaving at the end of the fourth hour.28 per day. an average of 1 hour or less per day per employee. and the other 15 would take it at noon. making certain that none of the constraints have been violated. to ensure that all part-time employees leave at some time: P4 P5 P6 P7 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 If the left-hand sides of these 10 constraints are added..REVISED M08_REND6289_10_IM_C08.M. P1 P2 P3 Q7 Q8 To ensure that all part-timers who began at 9 A. The least-cost solution requires 29 full-time employees. The optimal solution results in a considerable amount of idle time. Fourteen of the full-time workers would take lunch at 11 A. Thus the number of overtime hours worked per day cannot exceed the number of full-time employees: F1 Q4 F2 P1 F Since part-time employees must work at least 4 hours per day. the linear programming problem can be solved and the solution rounded. those leaving must be drawn from the P1 Q4 remaining plus the P2 that arrived at the start of the second hour: Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 Q4 P3 P3 P3 Q4 P4 P4 P4 Q5 Q4 P5 P5 Q5 Q4 P6 Q6 Q5 Q4 Q6 Q5 Q7 Q6 Similarly. partly caused by the restriction that employees can start at the beginning of an hour and leave at the end. and 5 would work from 2 P.QXD 5/7/08 2:26 PM Page 114 114 CHAPTER 8 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELING APPLICATIONS For the two overtime hours: F1 F1 F2 F1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P3 P7 P3 Q4 P4 Q4 P4 Q5 P5 Q5 P6 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 14 9 Similarly. Fridays are usually much busier bank days than the others. the person-hours required for each hour of the day are assumed to be deterministic.11)F 8. for example. Fifteen part-time employees would work from noon until 4 P. until 6 P. and the other half at noon will have to be altered by assigning the extra employee to the appropriate hour.. If integer programming software is not available. At the end of the ﬁfth hour. Note that the integer programming solution might also need to be adjusted—if F is an odd integer. In fact.M.M. In a real situation. 9 of whom work two hours of overtime per day. In actuality. and 126 hours of part-time work is $3. Eliminating this restriction might yield better results at the risk of increasing the problem size. for the remainder of the day. This also leads to the objective function. 18 of the full-time employees would work overtime on two different days and 9 would work overtime on one day. and the total number of part-time hours is 10P1 9P2 5Q5 8P3 4Q6 7P4 6P5 5P6 3Q7 2Q8 Q9 4P7 6Q4 128. The resulting cost of 232 hours of straight time. 2.08(F1 7P4 6P5 5P6 3Q7 2Q8 Q9) F2) 4P7 7. 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.M.476. with 9 of them leaving at 3 P. 1.82(10P1 9P2 8P3 6Q4 5Q5 4Q6 The resulting problem has 16 integer variables and 22 constraints.M. wide ﬂuctuations will be experienced in a stochastic manner.5F will not be an integer and the requirement that “half” of the full-time employees go to lunch at 11 A. do not work more than 7 hours: Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 P1 .4 which is 40% of the day’s total requirement of 321 person-hours. The same stafﬁng would be used every day. 18 hours of overtime.

- Christmas Napkins Romania 2011
- Minolta c 28220130621094914
- Factoring Import Clicom
- Codul_etic_2011
- TVA la incasare
- Modul 9 Business Development
- Rasfoire Teste Grila. Editia a II-A, Revazuta Si Adaugita
- Curs Audit
- IFRS Romana
- IFRS romana.pdf
- 75
- Index
- D205_V101_2011
- bogdanbv
- Somatie de Plata - Model
- OMFP 1850 Din 2004 Privind Registrele Si Formularele Financiar Contabile
- 301 Decont Special Tva 01041521
- Chap 08
- statut srl
- Case de Marcat
- Case de Marcat
- statut
- Management Guga _ Antonoaie
- Test de Personal It Ate

- Case Study
- M09_REND6289_10_IM_C09
- tut7(2)
- Chapter 11 Answers
- Notes Lagrange
- LFCH7
- 03 Graphical Methods
- LFCH14
- Dr. Fito.pdf
- LFCH10
- Appendix
- M05_REND6289_10_IM_C05
- SSC _Mains_ Paper-I 04-09-2011
- M13_REND6289_10_IM_C13
- MB0048-spring-2016.docx
- Chapter 04 Answers
- Lecture5 Econ 100A
- LFCH6
- Unit 4. Inventory analysis and Control.ppt
- Forecasting Solutions
- Session 5 Synthesis
- Chapter 03 Answers(1)
- Grade6-LCM-and-HCF.pdf
- M12_REND6289_10_IM_C12
- Alejandro M. Manelli, Optimal Procurement
- M15_REND6289_10_IM_C15
- How to Do Hamiltonians
- Z06_REND6289_10_IM_MOD6
- Costing Group Assignment
- M02_REND6289_10_IM_C02

Are you sure?

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

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd