Linear

Programming
SLACK VARIABLE AND SURPLUS
VARIABLE
 SLACK
VARIABLE
• There is a standard procedure for transforming inequality
constraints into equations. This transformation is achieved by
adding a new variable, called a slack variable, to each
constraint.
• represents unused resources.
For example:
For the pottery company example, the model constraints are

The addition of a unique slack variable, , to the labor constraint and to the
constraint for clay results in the following equations:
For example:
Consider a hypothetical solution of = 5 and Substituting these
values into the foregoing equations yields.
For example:
The ultimate instance of unused resources occurs at the origin, where =
and . Substituting these values into the equations yields
What is the effect of these new slack variables
on the objective function?
The objective function for our example represents the profit gained from the
production of bowls and mugs,

They contribute nothing to profit because they represent unused resources.

Profit is made only after the resources are put to use in making bowls and
mugs. Using slack variables, we can write the objective function as
As in the case of decision variables (x1 and x2 ), slack variables can have
only nonnegative values because negative resources are not possible.
Therefore, for this model formulation, x1, x2, s1, and s2 0.

The complete linear programming model can be written in what is

referred to as standard form with slack variables as follows:
The solution values, including the slack at each solution point, are
summarized as follows:
Figure 2.14 shows the graphical solution of this example,
with slack variables included at each solution point.
 SURPLUS
VARIABLE
• It is subtracted from a constraint to convert to an
equation (=).
• Represents an excess above a constraint requirement
level.
For Example:
Recall our fertilizer model, formulated as
For the nitrogen constraint, the subtraction of a surplus variable gives

As an example, consider the hypothetical solution

Substituting these values into the previous equation yields

In a similar manner, the constraint for phosphate is converted to an
equation by subtracting a surplus variable, :

Surplus variables contribute nothing to the overall cost of a model.

For example, putting additional nitrogen or phosphate on the field
will not affect the farmer’s cost; the only thing affecting cost is the
number of bags of fertilizer purchased. As such, the standard form
of this linear programming model is summarized as
Figure 2.19 shows the graphical solutions for our example,
with surplus variables included at each solution point.
SPECIAL CASES OF LINEAR
PROGRAMMING MODEL
UNIQUE OPTIMAL
SOLUTION
It is a distinctive in most cases linear programming problems. Figure 2.12
express the feasible area together with the objective function z (the arrow
specifies the improvement direction’s of the objective value). Unique optimal
solution is the corner point A.
MULTIPLE OPTIMAL
SOLUTION
A linear programming problem with two or more optimal solutions is said to
have alternative (or multiple) optimal solutions. This condition occurs in
graphical depiction of the model when the objective function line is parallel to
the borderline of one constraint, as can be shown in Figure 2.13.
MULTIPLE OPTIMAL SOLUTION – UNBOUNDED
FEASIBLE
Figure 2.14 AREA
shows an interesting alternative of just described case. The
difference is evident – the feasible area is unbounded and there is only one
optimal corner point D; the other optimal points lie on the borderline running to
infinity.
NO OPTIMAL SOLUTION
There is no optimal solution if the feasible solution area is unbounded and the
objective value is being enhanced in the direction of unboundedness, therefore,
the optimal solution is endless (see Figure 2.15). Since these instances are
uncommon in reality, this finding typically indicates mistake in formulation.
NO FEASIBLE SOLUTION
Infeasibility exists when no solution meets any of the constraints. There is no
common feasible area (no feasible solution) in case of two constraints graphed
in Figure 2.16.