Quantitative Analysis for Management Decision

Lecture 6
Linear programing (LP)
Mixed Constraints
Course leader : Shewayirga Assalf (Ass.Pro.)
Mixed constraints
Mixed constraints
 Initial non-optimal solution is written as follows:

simplex table I
Zj Cj 4 2 0 0 M M Ratio
BV Q x1 x2 s1 s2 A1 A2
M A1 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 1
M A2 6 4 3 -1 0 0 1 6/4
0 S2 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 3
Zj 9M 7M 4M -M 0 M M
Cj-Zj 4-7M 2-4M M 0 0 0
 X1= Q X1 X2 S1 S2 A2
3 3 1 0 0 0
3/3 3/3 1/3 0/3 0/3 0/3
new row= 1 1 1/3 0 0 0
 New row= old row – corresponding coefficient new tableau
in pivot column X row value

row A2, Q= 6-(4x1) = 2 S2, Q= 3-(1x1)= 2

X1= 4-(4x1)=0 X1= 1-(1x1)=0
X2= 3-(4x1/3)=5/3 X2= 2-(1x1/3)=5/3
S1= -1-(4x0)= -1 S1= 0-(1x0)=0
S2= 0-(4x0)= 0 S2= 1-(1x0)=1
A2= 1-(4x0)= 1 A2= 0-(1x0)=0
 Revised simplex table II

Zj Cj 4 2 0 0 M Ratio
BV Q x1 x2 s1 s2 A2
4 X1 1 1 1/3 0 0 0 3
M A2 2 0 5/3 -1 0 1 6/5
0 S2 2 0 5/3 0 1 0 6/5
Zj 4+2M 4 4/3+5/3M -M 0 M
Cj-Zj 0 2-5M/3 M 0 0

Select near to
the top
 X2= Q X1 X2 S1 S2
2 0 5/3 -1 0
2/5/3 0/5/3 5/3/5/3 -1/5/3 0/5/3
new row= 6/5 0 1 -3/5 0
 New row= old row – corresponding coefficient new tableau
in pivot column X row value

row X1, Q= 1-(1/3x6/5) = 9/15 S2, Q= 2-(5/3x6/5)= 0

X1= 1-(1/3x0)= 1 X1= 0-(5/3x0)= 0
X2= 1/3-(1/3x1)= 0 X2= 5/3-(5/3x1)= 0
S1= 0-(1/3x-3/5)= 1/5 S1= 0-(5/3x-3/5)=1
S2= 0-(1/3x0)= 0 S2= 1-(5/3x0)= 1
 Optimal solution simplex table III
Zj Cj 4 2 0 0
BV Q x1 x2 s1 s2
4 X1 9/15 1 0 1/5 0
2 X2 6/5 0 1 -3/5 0
0 S2 0 0 0 1 0
Zj 72/15 4 2 -2/5 0
Cj-Zj 0 0 0 0

This is the optimal solution, with X1= 3/5

X2= 2/5
S1= 2/5, and
total cost= 24/5
 Duality
 The mirror image of LPP
 A given LPP has two forms
1. The Primal: the original LP Model
2. The Dual: alternative
How to convert the primal to its dual and vice versa?
Maximization objective of the primal=
minimization objective of the Dual.
 The primal dual relationship

2
 Example:
 The doctor advises a patient visited him that the patient is weak
in his health due to shortage of two vitamins, i.e., vitamin X and
vitamin Y.
 He advises him to take at least 40 units of vitamin X and 50 units
of Vitamin Y everyday.
 He also advises that these vitamins are available in two tonics A
and B.
 Each unit of tonic A consists of 2 units of vitamin X and 3 units of
vitamin Y.
 Each unit of tonic B consists of 4 units of vitamin X and 2 units of
vitamin Y.
 Tonic A and Bare available in the medical shop at a cost of ETB 3
per unit of A and ETB 2.50 per unit of B.
 The patient has to fulfill the need of vitamin by consuming A and B
at a minimum cost.
 If we solve and get the solution of the primal problem, we
can read the answer of dual problem from the primal
solution.
Primal problem: Dual Problem:

Min C= 3X1+ 2.5X2 Max Z= 40Y1+ 50Y2

St: 2x+ 3y ≤3
st: 2X1+ 4X2 ≥40
4x+ 2y ≤2.50
3X1+ 2X2 ≥50
Y1, Y2 ≥0.
X1, X2≥0
 Solution to primal (minimization)
CJ 3 2.5 0 0 M M
Zj Bv Q X1 X2 S1 S2 A1 A2
2.5 X2 5/2 0 1 -3/8 1/4 3/8 -1/4
3 X1 15 1 0 1/4 -1/2 -1/4 1/2
Zj 51.25 3 2.5 -3/16 -7/8 3/16 7/8
Cj-Zj 0 0 3/16 7/8 M-3/16 M-7/8
Answer: X1= 15 X2= 2.5 cost= 51.25

Solution to dual (maximization)

CJ 40 50 0 0
Zj Bv Q Y1 Y2 S1 S2
50 Y2 7/8 0 1 1/2 -1/4
40 Y1 3/16 1 0 -1/4 3/8
Zj 51.25 3 2.5 15 5/8
Cj-Zj 0 0 -15 -5/2

Answer: Y1= 3/16 Y2= 7/8 profit= 51.25

 The patient has to minimize the cost by purchasing vitamin X and
Y and the shopkeeper has to increase his returns by fixing
competitive prices for vitamin X and Y.
 Minimum cost for patient is ETB 51.25 and the maximum returns
for the shopkeeper is ETB 51.25.
 The competitive price for tonics is ETB 3 and ETB 2.50.
 Here we can understand the concept of shadow price or economic
worth of Resources clearly.
 If we multiply the original elements on the right hand side of the
constraints with the net evaluation elements under slack or surplus
variables we get the values equal to the minimum cost of
minimization problem or maximum profit of the maximization
problem.
post optimality analysis

• Carried out after the optimal

solution is found
• Is begins with the final simplex
• Sensitivity analysis
tableau•
 Sensitivity analysis
 Examination of the impacts of changes of
parameters on the optimal solution.

 i.e. change of coefficient of the constraints, change

of coefficient of the objective function, change of
quantity or RHS values

 Starts with the final tableau of the LPP (simplex

tableau)
Example: 1. a change in the RHS
of a constraints
 Change in RHS or Q of one constraint is considered at a time

 Consider shadow price

 Shadow price: is a marginal value; it indicates the impact that a
one unit change in the value of the constraint would have on the
value of the objective function.

 Shadow prices are the values in the Zj-row of slack columns

 The LPM of the micro computer problem
above is:
Max Z: 60x1+50x2

Subject to:

Assembly time: 4X1+10x2≤100

Inspection time: 2x1+x2≤22

Storage space: 3x1+3x2≤39

x1, x2≥0
Basis Cj 60 50 0 0 0 Quantit
X1 X2 S1 S2 S3 y
S1 0 0 0 1 6 -16/3 24
X1 60 1 0 0 1 -1/3 9
X2 50 0 1 0 -1 2/3 4
Z 60 50 0 10 40/3 740

Cj-Z 0 0 0 10 -40/3

Shadow price
 From the above tableau; the shadow prices are $ 0 for S1, $10

for S2 and $40/3 for S3.

 for example, an increase of S1 by one unit will resulted

increment of objective value by $10.

 Similarly the opposite is true, i.e. decrease of 1 unit of S1 will

be resulted in reduction of objective value by $10.

 But to what extent this change hold true?
 Because we can’t increase or decrease the constraint infinitely,
there are upper and lower limits, i.e. allowable increase and
decrease.
Range of Feasibility (Right hand side range)

 The range of feasibility is the range over which the RHS

value of a constraint can be changed and still have the
same shadow prices.
Range of feasibility

 The range within which resources/constraints can changed

having the proportionate change in objective value
 Steps
Step 1. compute the ratio (feasibility ratio) quantity
respective slack value = Q/S

both –ve and +ve ratio are considered

Step 2. identify the smallest +ve ratio and –ve ratio closest to zero

Step 3. find the upper limit or allowable increase and lower limit
or allowable decrease (range of feasibility)

Upper limit= the original value + negative ratio

Lower limit= the original value – positive ratio Closest

For both max and to zero
Determine the range of feasibility for each of the constraints
in the ff LPP, whose final tableau

Cj 60 50 0 0 0
Zj Bv Q X1 X2 S1 S2 S3
0 S1 24 0 0 1 6 -16/3
60 X1 9 1 0 0 -1 -1/3
50 X2 4 0 1 0 -1 2/3
Zj 740 60 50 0 10 40/3
Cj-Zj 0 0 0 -10 -40/3
 Solution
1. Recall the original value of the resources
Original value constraints S1 S2 S3
100 S1 1 6 -16/3
22 S2 0 -1 -1/3
39 S3 0 -1 2/3
2. ratio = Q/respective slack values
S1= 24/1= 24 S2= 24/6= 4 S3= 24/-16/3= -4.5
9/0= undefined 9/-1= -9 9/-1/3= -27
4/0= undefined 4/-1= -4 4/2/3= 6
 3. Find the range of feasibility

Constrai Origina Lower limit Upper limit Range of

nts l value feasibility
S1 100 100-24= 76 100+∞= ∞ 76-∞
S2 22 22-4= 18 22+4= 26 18-26
S3 39 39-6 = 33 39+4.5= 43.5 33-43.5

Therefore:

Constraint one (assembly line): 100-24 up to 100+∞= 76-∞

Constraint two (inspection time): 22-4 up to 22-4= 18-26

Constraint three (storage space): 39-6 up to 39+4.5= 33-43.5

First constraint:
• Each hour decrease in assembly time will decrease the current
profit by Birr 0 (i.e no effect- indicated by shadow price) as long
as the decrease is up to 24 hours.
• But if the assembly time decreases by more than 24 hours (or if
the total available assembly time is lower than 76 hours), the
current shadow price will no longer be valid.
• That is, the profit will be affected.
• But available assembly time can increase indefinitely (=allowable
increase is ∞ ) without affecting the current profit level.
Second constraint:
 Similarly, Each hour increase or decrease in inspection
time will increase or decrease the current profit by $10,
respectively as long as the total inspection time is
between 18 and 26 hours.
 Out side the range of feasibility, the current shadow
price ($10) will not be valid.
Third constraint:
 Each cubic feet increase or decrease in storage space
results in an increase or decrease, respectively, of profit
by $13.33 (i.e 40/3) as long as the total storage space is
between 33 and 43.5 cubic feet.
 Example 2. A change of coefficient of objective function

 Two cases
1. Range of insignificance
the range over which the non basic variables objective function
coefficient can change without making these variables entering in
the solution
2.Range of optimality
the range over which the objective function coefficient of basic
variables can change without changing the optimal values i.e.
without changing basic and non basic variables but change the
optimal function value.
 Steps for range of optimality

For both max and min

problems
 Example
Cj 60 50
Zj BV Q X1 X2 S1 S2 S3 Solution
0 S1 24 0 0 1 6 -16/3
• Range of
60 X1 9 1 0 0 1 -1/3
50 X2 4 0 1 0 -1 2/3 insignificant for S2
Zj 740 60 50 0 10 40/3 = -∞ up to 10
Cj-Zj 0 0 0 -10 -40/3
• S3= ?

 Determine the range of insignificant for S2 and the

range of optimality for decision variables
 Solution


X1 Cj-Zj 0 0 0 -10 -40/3
X1 values in the
tableau
1 0 0 1 -1/3 X2 Cj-Zj 0 0 0 -10 -40/3

0 1 0 -1 2/3
∞ ∞ ∞ -10 40

• Upper limit= 60+40= 100 ∞ ∞ ∞ 10 -20

• Lower limit= 60-10= 50 • Upper limit= 50+10= 60

• Range of optimality of X1(1st DV)= 50-100 • Lower limit= 50-20= 30

• Range of optimality of X2(2nd DV)=

30-60
The END!