0 views

Uploaded by AniKelbakiani

- paper 3
- junior-7
- 5- Staffing Multi-skill Call Centers via Search Methods and a Performance Approximation
- L4-Lp Standard Form
- Optim 1 Introduction 2016
- LPP
- notes1
- Gurobi Manual
- PCBC_QuadraticProgrammingApplications
- Decision Models for Management
- Management Science
- Problem Formulation (LP Section1)
- Transportation
- b 04110710
- Dynamic Capacitated Lot Sizing Problems a Classification and Review of Solution Approaches
- Main Paper
- Best - Fuel Cycle CCHP-Powered Community
- evangelopoulos2014.pdf
- EOLreport
- 7eCh15

You are on page 1of 7

1. ABC Bike is a small seller of both regular and mountain bikes. The company makes a profit of $30.00

for each regular bike it sells and $45.00 for each mountain bike sold. Each regular bike requires 1 hour to

assemble and 1 hour to tune, while each mountain bike requires 1 hour to assemble and 2 hours to tune.

Due to its labor constraint, this company can only supply 40 hours of assembling, and 60 hours of tuning

per week. Based on past demand, ABC Bike needs to sell at least 10 regular bikes and 8 mountain bikes

each week. How many regular and mountain bikes should the company sell to maximize profits?

(a) What is the linear programming model for this problem? You need to define the decision variables

clearly.

Answer:

X1 = number of regular mountain bikes sold,

X2 = number of mountain bikes sold,

s.t. 1X1 + 1X2 ≤ 40 assembling constraint (AC)

1X1 + 2X2 ≤ 60 tuning constraint (TC)

1X1 ≥ 10 lower bound on # of regular bikes (LR)

1X2 ≥ 8 lower bound on # of mountain bikes (LM)

Answer:

Optimal solution is to sell 20 regular bikes and 20 mountain bikes. The LINDO code would be:

MAX 30 X1 + 45 X2

SUBJECT TO

X1 + X2 <= 40

X1 + 2X2 <= 60

X1 >= 10

X2 >= 8

LP OPTIMUM FOUND AT STEP 0

1) 1500.000

X1 20.000000 0.000000

X2 20.000000 0.000000

2) 0.000000 15.000000

3) 0.000000 15.000000

4) 10.000000 0.000000

5) 12.000000 0.000000

NO. ITERATIONS= 0

1

OBJ COEFFICIENT RANGES

VARIABLE CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

COEF INCREASE DECREASE

X1 30.000000 15.000000 7.500000

X2 45.000000 15.000000 15.000000

ROW CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

RHS INCREASE DECREASE

2 40.000000 12.000000 5.000000

3 60.000000 10.000000 12.000000

4 10.000000 10.000000 INFINITY

5 8.000000 12.000000 INFINITY

(c) What are the values and interpretations of all slacks and surpluses associate with each constraint at

the optimal solution?

Answer:

The slack for the AC constraint is 0. This means we used all of the assembling time.

The slack for the TC constraint is 0. This means we used all tuning time.

The surplus for the LR constraint is 10. This means we sold 10 more regular bikes than the minimum

requirement.

The surplus for the LM constraint is 12. This means we sold 12 more mountain bikes than the minimum

requirement.

(d) Which constraints are binding at the optimal solution?

Answer:

The AC and TC constraints are binding. (slack/surplus = 0)

2. Solve the following linear program using the graphical method and answer all questions. You should submit

the picture file of your graphical solution and show your calculations or reasons to answer the questions

below. You may consider to verify your solutions and answers by LINDO (no need to submit your LINDO

verification).

Max 2x1 +3x2

s.t x1 + x2 ≤ 10

2x1 + x2 ≥ 6

x1 + 3x2 ≤ 24

3x1 + x2 ≤ 26

x1 , x 2 ≥ 0

Graphical Solution:

x2 ≥ 0

x1 + x2 ≤ 10

2x1 + x2 ≥ 6

x1 + 3x2 ≤ 24

0 x1 ≥ 0

3x1 + x2 ≤ 26

2

Based on the graphical solution, the optimal solution is (x1 , x2 ) = (3, 7) and the optimal objective value

can be obtained by plug the optimal solution to the objective function: 2 ∗ 3 + 3 ∗ 7 = 27.

LINDO Solution:

1) 27.00000

X1 3.000000 0.000000

X2 7.000000 0.000000

2) 0.000000 1.500000

3) 7.000000 0.000000

4) 0.000000 0.500000

5) 10.000000 0.000000

NO. ITERATIONS= 1

VARIABLE CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

COEF INCREASE DECREASE

X1 2.000000 1.000000 1.000000

X2 3.000000 3.000000 1.000000

ROW CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

RHS INCREASE DECREASE

2 10.000000 2.500000 2.000000

3 6.000000 7.000000 INFINITY

4 24.000000 6.000000 10.000000

5 26.000000 INFINITY 10.000000

(a) Compute the ranges of c1 and c2 (one coefficient is fixed at a time) of the objective function coefficients

for x1 and x2 , for the current optimal solution to remain optimal.

Answer: Based on the LINDO solution, the ranges of c1 and c2 are (1, 3) and (2, 6), respectively. You

may also obtain these ranges graphically as follows:

x2

0 x1

From the graph above, as long as the slope of our objective function stays in the range of [-1, -1/3], the

current solution will remain optimal. For simplicity, we can keep the intercept of objective function to

3

be zero. To calculate the range of c1 , first we can get the slope in terms of c1 :

c1 x1 + 3x2 = 0

3x2 = −c1 x1

−c1

x2 = − x1

3

Then, using the range of slope, we can get the range of c1 ,

−c1 1

−1 ≤ − ≤−

3 3

c1 1

1≥ ≥

3 3

3 ≥ c1 ≥ 1

Similarly, we can determine the range of c2 to be [2, 6]. Remember if you put x2 on the vertical axis,

you should keep x2 on the left hand side of the equation while calculating the slope.

(b) Suppose c1 is increased from 2 to 2.5 and c2 is increased from 3 to 3.5. Will the current optimal

solution change?

Answer: The solution will not change since the 100% rule holds: for x1 : (2.5 − 2)/1 = 50%; while for

x2 : (3.5 − 3)/3 = 16.7%; and 50% + 16.7% = 66.7% < 100%.

(c) Suppose c1 is increased from 2 to 2.5. What is the new optimal solution?

Answer: The optimal solution will remain unchanged because 2.5 is in the allowable range of c1 (1, 3).

(d) Suppose c2 is decreased from 3 to 1. What is the new optimal solution?

Answer: Since 1 is outside of the allowable range of c2 , the optimal solution will change. You may

obtain the new solution by re-running LINDO with the new data. Alternatively, you may obtain the

new solution graphically. The new optimal solution will change to a new corner point as following:

x2 ≥ 0

x1 + x2 ≤ 10

2x1 + x2 ≥ 6

x1 + 3x2 ≤ 24

0 x1 ≥ 0

3x1 + x2 ≤ 26

(e) Compute the dual prices and the associated ranges for constraints 1 and 2 and interpret them.

Answer: The dual price of a constraint is the increase in the objective function if we relax the right

hand side of that constraint by one unit. Using the LINDO output, the dual prices of the first two

constraints are 1.5 and 0, respectively. You may also obtain the dual prices graphically as follows.

For constraint one, if we relax it from x1 + x2 ≤ 10 (the black dashed line) to x1 + x2 ≤ 11 (the thick

black line), then our new solution will move from (3,7) to (4.5,6.5) and our objective function will

increase from 27 to 28.5, so the dual price of constraint one is 1.5.

4

x2 ≥ 0

x1 + x2 ≤ 11

New Solution (4.5,6.5)

x1 + 3x2 ≤ 24

0 x1 ≥ 0

The dual price for constraint 2 is 0, because the relaxation of this constraint will not change the optimal

solution.

x2 ≥ 0

x1 + x2 ≤ 10

2x1 + x2 ≥ 6

2x1 + x2 ≥ 5

x1 + 3x2 ≤ 24

0 x1 ≥ 0

3x1 + x2 ≤ 26

3. RMC Inc. is a firm that produces chemical-based products. Three raw materials are used to produce two

products. The material requirements per ton are shown below.

Fuel additive 1/5 0 4/5

Solvent base 2/5 1/5 2/5

For the current production period, RMC has available the following quantities of each raw material. Because

of spoilage, any materials not used for current production must be discarded.

Available 14 5 32

If the contribution to profit is $50 for each ton of fuel additive and $40 for each ton of solvent base, how

many tons of each product should be produced in order to maximize the total contribution to profit? Solve

the RMC problem by LINDO and answer the following questions based on the solution output.

Decision variables:

X1 = fuel additive produced.

X2 = solvent base produced.

LINDO input:

5

Max 50X1+40X2 ! profit

ST

0.2X1 + 0.4X2 <= 14 ! material 1 constraint

0.2X2 <= 5 ! material 2 constraint

0.8X1 + 0.4X2 <= 32 ! material 3 constraint

End

LINDO output:

1) 2300.000

X1 30.000000 0.000000

X2 20.000000 0.000000

2) 0.000000 50.000000

3) 1.000000 0.000000

4) 0.000000 50.000000

NO. ITERATIONS= 2

VARIABLE CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

COEF INCREASE DECREASE

X1 50.000000 30.000000 30.000000

X2 40.000000 60.000000 15.000000

ROW CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

RHS INCREASE DECREASE

2 14.000000 1.500000 6.000000

3 5.000000 INFINITY 1.000000

4 32.000000 24.000000 6.000000

(a) How much material 2 has been used in the current production plan?

Answer: 5 − 1 = 4, because the slack of material 2 constraint is 1.

(b) How much are you willing to pay an additional unit of material 1, 2, and 3?

Answer: $50 for material 1, $0 for material 2, and $50 for material 3, which are dual prices of these

materials.

(c) Are you willing to pay $100 for additional 2 units of material 1?

Answer: No. Allowable increase of R.H.S in material 1 constraint is 1.5. After that, the dual price of

material 1 will decrease.

(d) Are you willing to sell 4 units of material 3 for $60 each unit?

Answer: Yes. Because 4 is less than 6, the allowable decrease of R.H.S. in material 3; while $60 is

larger than the dual price of material 3.

(e) Will you be interested in producing a new product, each of which sells for $50 and requires 0.6 unit of

material 1, 0.4 unit of material 2 and 0.5 unit of material 3?

Answer: No. According to the dual price of each material, the break-even price for this new product

should be 0.6 × $50 + 0.4 × $0 + 0.5 × $50 = $55 > $50.

(f) If the price of fuel additive increases to $55 per unit, do you suggest change the current production

plan?

Answer: No. 55 is within the price range for fuel additive (20, 80).

6

(g) If the prices of fuel additive and solvent change to $55 and $45, respectively, do you suggest change

the current production plan?

Answer: No. Using the 100% rule, for fuel additive: (55 − 50)/30 = 16.67%; while for solvent base:

(45 − 40)/60 = 8.33%; and 16.67% + 8.33% = 25% < 100%.

4. An XYZ company produces products X, Y, and Z. The company sets up the following LP to decide the

production level of the three products.

MAX 4X + 4Y + 3Z

SUBJECT TO

2X + 6Y + 4Z <= 26 ! labor constraint

3X + 2Y + Z <= 14 ! material constraint

X <= 7

Y <= 3

Z <= 6

where objective coefficients 4, 4, and 3 are unit profits of X, Y, and Z. The first two constraints are labor

availability and material availability constraints, respectively, and the last three rows are market share

constraints. Due to a printer problem, some data in the LP output are missing. Supply the missing data

and provide calculations or explanations for your answer.

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION VALUE

1) (a)

VARIABLE VALUE REDUCED COST

X 3.000000 (b)

Y 0.000000 (c)

Z 5.000000 0.000000

2) (d) 0.500000

3) 0.000000 1.000000

4) (e) 0.000000

5) 3.000000 0.000000

6) 1.000000 (f)

VARIABLE CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

COEF INCREASE DECREASE

X 4.000000 5.000000 2.500000

Y 4.000000 1.000000 (g)

Z 3.000000 5.000000 0.714286

(b) 0. Since the value of variable X is 3, already a positive number, its reduced cost should be zero.

(c) 1.0. Reduced cost is the improvement of the coefficient needed so that the variable becomes positive in

the optimal solution. From the allowable increase of Y’s unit profit, we can tell that if the unit profit

of Y is increased by more than $1.0, quantity of product Y produced will be no longer zero and we

will start to produce it.

(d) 0. Since the dual price of labor is $0.50 (nonzero), we can tell that the labor is a binding constraint

and all labor resources are used in current production plan. The slack or surplus should be zero.

(e) 4. Since the market share constraint of X is X ≤ 7, and X = 3, there is 7 − 3 = 4 leftover. In other

words, the slack of market share of X is 4.

(f) 0. Because there is a slack of 1.0 for Z, the market share of Z is not a binding constraint, its dual price

should be zero.

(g) Infinity. Since product Y is unattractive (production = 0) at the unit profit of $4, it will be even less

attractive as its price decreases. Therefore, the associated allowable decrease of Y’s prices would be

Infinity.

- paper 3Uploaded byAshish Kotwal
- junior-7Uploaded bynpnbkck
- 5- Staffing Multi-skill Call Centers via Search Methods and a Performance ApproximationUploaded bytarek999m2109
- L4-Lp Standard FormUploaded byErwin D. Osorio
- Optim 1 Introduction 2016Uploaded byGerardo Valencia
- LPPUploaded byvikas singh
- notes1Uploaded byAhmed Gouda
- Gurobi ManualUploaded bySeda Toy
- PCBC_QuadraticProgrammingApplicationsUploaded bycapitan_barboza
- Decision Models for ManagementUploaded byNikhil Boggarapu
- Management ScienceUploaded byHaseeb Ahmed
- Problem Formulation (LP Section1)Uploaded bySwastik Mohapatra
- TransportationUploaded byAbhinav Khanduja
- b 04110710Uploaded byInternational Journal of Engineering Inventions (IJEI)
- Dynamic Capacitated Lot Sizing Problems a Classification and Review of Solution ApproachesUploaded byYunuem Reyes Zotelo
- Main PaperUploaded bykuttiyar
- Best - Fuel Cycle CCHP-Powered CommunityUploaded byISSSTNetwork
- evangelopoulos2014.pdfUploaded bySoumyabrata Barik
- EOLreportUploaded byBecirspahic Almir
- 7eCh15Uploaded byAnonymous ZZdC9CJG
- Acoustic-Diffuser-Optimization-Arqen.pdfUploaded byRay Zap
- DifferentialUploaded byRagu Raman
- Mcq in BBA Principles of ManagementUploaded bySubrataTalapatra
- 19Uploaded byHicham Mahfoudi
- approx-faclocUploaded bypostscript
- Design OptimizationUploaded bynguyenngochoa
- Load DistributionUploaded byJohan Tadlas
- ESAPCUploaded byAlexis Veru Diaz
- Multilevel Capacitated Lotsizing ComplexityUploaded byzawadzahin
- Ch02 SolutionsUploaded byAnonymous bf1cFDuepP

- LogUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- LP practise problems.docUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- LP practise problems.docUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- LP practise problems.docUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Hints for HW 1.docxUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Final Exam 2017 Questions and AnswersUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- hw1_2019_answer.pdfUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- final review.docxUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Formulas Midterm 2Uploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Ch16 Payout PolicyUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Chapter 12 SolutionsUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Test AUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- i. Javaxishvilis Saxelobis Tbilisis Saxelmwifo Universiteti 2012Uploaded byAniKelbakiani
- Trian Makes Case to Break Up DuPont - WSJUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- GMAT Vocabulary ListUploaded bySushant Satyal
- Nelson Peltz Launches Proxy Fight Against DuPont - WSJUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- VSH ENG_2003Uploaded byAniKelbakiani
- 2011_Sagranto_nimushiUploaded byAlexi Amniashvili
- Dow, DuPont Deal Cements Activists’ Rise - WSJUploaded byAniKelbakiani
- DuPont Defeats Peltz, Trian in Board Fight - WSJUploaded byAniKelbakiani

- Procurement of ICT in TanzaniaUploaded byMichael Malabeja
- CasesUploaded byvini2710
- Advanced Marketing ResearchUploaded bycmukherjee
- Questionnaire on customer satisfaction at reliance retail.Uploaded byMrinal Gautam
- Arbitrage Trade AnalysisUploaded byVeeravalli Aparna
- Agritech LimitedUploaded byMateen Ansari
- R&D Management Conference 2011Uploaded byEbru Y.yiğit
- Rfp Apb&Ocwwb(1)[1]Uploaded bywk
- Art. 1385 Goldenrod v. CA GumanaUploaded byCattleya
- Hero-Motor-Corp.docxUploaded byfm949
- Formation of ContractsUploaded byLiliana Mihnevska
- Pricing StrategyUploaded byNaman
- Groupe Ariel caseUploaded byPaco Colín
- Game Theory AssignmentUploaded byExpertsmindEdu
- Revised Poripatra (DPP Format)Uploaded bygazi sharif
- PPL-Electric-Utilities-Corp-Large-General-Service-at-12,470-voltsUploaded byGenability
- Value at RiskUploaded bySameer Kumar
- Fundamental and Technical Analysis of Mutual FundsUploaded byAzm Nakhuda
- In+Defense+of+Consumerism (2)Uploaded byFahad Awan
- Defining Purchasing,Procurement, Supply Management, Materials Management & SCMUploaded byaharish2246
- SariUploaded byY D Amon Ganzon
- Wolfsberg Trade Principles Paper II (2011)Uploaded byAsif Rahman
- Barry Tickets Announces No Service Fees on Internet OrdersUploaded byPR.com 2
- derrell ness nesscorp resumeUploaded byapi-290868353
- Banking & Capital MarketsUploaded byHaresh Patel
- InitialOrderERCCaseNo2017-044RCUploaded bySid Angelo Bautista
- Full Text 12cUploaded byLamptey Albert
- Aggregate Supply Aggregate Demand Analysis a HistoryUploaded byGianni Elia
- case reportUploaded byNasir Uddin
- Competitive Advantage of BusinessUploaded byphilsantos86