Chapter 7

Linear Programming Models:

Graphical and Computer
Methods

To accompany
Quantitative Analysis for Management, Tenth Edition,
by Render, Stair, and Hanna © 2008 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Power Point slides created by Jeff Heyl © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 Chapter Outline

7.1 Introduction
7.2 Requirements of a Linear
Programming Problem
7.3 Formulating LP Problems
7.4 Graphical Solution to an LP
Problem
7.5 Solving Minimization Problems
7.6 Four Special Cases in LP

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–2

 Introduction
 Many management decisions involve trying to
make the most effective use of limited resources
 Machinery, labor, money, time, warehouse space, raw
materials
 Linear programming (LP) is a widely used
mathematical modeling technique designed to
help managers in planning and decision making
relative to resource allocation
 Belongs to the broader field of mathematical
programming
 In this sense, programming refers to modeling and
solving a problem mathematically

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–3

 Requirements of a Linear
Programming Problem
 LP has been applied in many areas over the past
50 years
 All LP problems have 4 properties in common
1. All problems seek to maximize or minimize some
quantity (the objective function)
2. The presence of restrictions or constraints that limit the
degree to which we can pursue our objective
3. There must be alternative courses of action to choose
from
4. The objective and constraints in problems must be
expressed in terms of linear equations or inequalities

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–4

 LP Properties and Assumptions
PROPERTIES OF LINEAR PROGRAMS
1. One objective function
2. One or more constraints
3. Alternative courses of action
4. Objective function and constraints are linear
ASSUMPTIONS OF LP
1. Certainty
2. Proportionality
3. Additivity
4. Divisibility
5. Nonnegative variables
Table 7.1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–5
 Basic Assumptions of LP
 We assume conditions of certainty exist and
numbers in the objective and constraints are
known with certainty and do not change during
the period being studied
 We assume proportionality exists in the objective
and constraints
 We assume additivity in that the total of all
activities equals the sum of the individual
activities
 We assume divisibility in that solutions need not
be whole numbers
 All answers or variables are nonnegative

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–6

 Formulating LP Problems
 Formulating a linear program involves developing
a mathematical model to represent the managerial
problem
 The steps in formulating a linear program are
1. Completely understand the managerial
problem being faced
2. Identify the objective and constraints
3. Define the decision variables
4. Use the decision variables to write
mathematical expressions for the objective
function and the constraints

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–7

 Formulating LP Problems
 One of the most common LP applications is the
product mix problem
 Two or more products are produced using
limited resources such as personnel, machines,
and raw materials
 The profit that the firm seeks to maximize is
based on the profit contribution per unit of each
product
 The company would like to determine how
many units of each product it should produce
so as to maximize overall profit given its limited
resources

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–8

 Flair Furniture Company
 The Flair Furniture Company produces
inexpensive tables and chairs
 Processes are similar in that both require a
certain amount of hours of carpentry work and in
the painting and varnishing department
 Each table takes 4 hours of carpentry and 2 hours
of painting and varnishing
 Each chair requires 3 of carpentry and 1 hour of
painting and varnishing
 There are 240 hours of carpentry time available
and 100 hours of painting and varnishing
 Each table yields a profit of $70 and each chair a
profit of $50

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7–9

 Flair Furniture Company
 The company wants to determine the best
combination of tables and chairs to produce to
reach the maximum profit
HOURS REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE 1 UNIT
(T) (C) AVAILABLE HOURS
DEPARTMENT TABLES CHAIRS THIS WEEK
Carpentry 4 3 240

Painting and varnishing 2 1 100

Profit per unit

$70 $50

Table 7.2

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 10

 Flair Furniture Company
 The objective is to
Maximize profit
 The constraints are
1. The hours of carpentry time used cannot
exceed 240 hours per week
2. The hours of painting and varnishing time
used cannot exceed 100 hours per week
 The decision variables representing the actual
decisions we will make are
T = number of tables to be produced per week
C = number of chairs to be produced per week

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 11

 Flair Furniture Company
 We create the LP objective function in terms of T
and C
Maximize profit = $70T + $50C
 Develop mathematical relationships for the two
constraints
 For carpentry, total time used is
(4 hours per table)(Number of tables produced)
+ (3 hours per chair)(Number of chairs
produced)
 We know that
Carpentry time used ≤ Carpentry time available
4T + 3C ≤ 240 (hours of carpentry time)

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 12

 Flair Furniture Company
 Similarly
Painting and varnishing time used
≤ Painting and varnishing time
available
2 T + 1C ≤ 100 (hours of painting and varnishing time)
This means that each table produced
requires two hours of painting and
varnishing time

 Both of these constraints restrict production

capacity and affect total profit

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 13

 Flair Furniture Company
 The values for T and C must be nonnegative

T ≥ 0 (number of tables produced is greater

than or equal to 0)
C ≥ 0 (number of chairs produced is greater
than or equal to 0)
 The complete problem stated mathematically

Maximize profit = $70T + $50C

subject to
4T + 3C ≤ 240 (carpentry constraint)
2T + 1C ≤ 100 (painting and varnishing constraint)
T, C ≥ 0 (nonnegativity constraint)

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 14

 Graphical Solution to an LP Problem

 The easiest way to solve a small LP

problems is with the graphical solution
approach
 The graphical method only works when
there are just two decision variables
 When there are more than two variables, a
more complex approach is needed as it is
not possible to plot the solution on a two-
dimensional graph
 The graphical method provides valuable
insight into how other approaches work
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 15
 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
C

100 –
– This Axis Represents the Constraint T ≥ 0
Number of Chairs

80 –
–
60 –
–
40 – This Axis Represents the
– Constraint C ≥ 0
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.1 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 16

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
 The first step in solving the problem is to
identify a set or region of feasible
solutions
 To do this we plot each constraint
equation on a graph
 We start by graphing the equality portion
of the constraint equations
4T + 3C = 240
 We solve for the axis intercepts and draw
the line

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 17

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
 When Flair produces no tables, the
carpentry constraint is
4(0) + 3C = 240
3C = 240
C = 80
 Similarly for no chairs
4T + 3(0) = 240
4T = 240
T = 60
 This line is shown on the following graph

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 18

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
C
Graph of carpentry constraint equation
100 –
–
(T = 0, C = 80)
Number of Chairs

80 –
–
60 –
–
40 –
–
(T = 60, C = 0)
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.2 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 19

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
C  Any point on or below the constraint
plot will not violate the restriction
100 –  Any point above the plot will violate
– the restriction
Number of Chairs

80 –
–
60 –
–
(30, 40) (70, 40)
40 –
–
20 –
– (30, 20)
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.3 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 20

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
 The point (30, 40) lies on the plot and
exactly satisfies the constraint
4(30) + 3(40) = 240
 The point (30, 20) lies below the plot and
satisfies the constraint
4(30) + 3(20) = 180
 The point (30, 40) lies above the plot and
does not satisfy the constraint
4(70) + 3(40) = 400

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 21

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
C

100 – (T = 0, C = 100)
–
Number of Chairs

80 – Graph of painting and varnishing

– constraint equation
60 –
–
40 –
–
(T = 50, C = 0)
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.4 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 22

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint

 To produce tables and chairs, both

departments must be used
 We need to find a solution that satisfies both
constraints simultaneously
 A new graph shows both constraint plots
 The feasible region (or area of feasible
solutions) is where all constraints are satisfied
 Any point inside this region is a feasible
solution
 Any point outside the region is an infeasible
solution

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 23

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
C  Feasible solution region for Flair Furniture

100 –
–
Number of Chairs

80 – Painting/Varnishing Constraint
–
60 –
–
40 –
–
Carpentry Constraint
20 – Feasible
Region
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.5 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 24

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
 For the point (30, 20)

Carpentry 4T + 3C ≤ 240 hours available

constraint (4)(30) + (3)(20) = 180 hours used 
Painting 2T + 1C ≤ 100 hours available
constraint (2)(30) + (1)(20) = 80 hours used 

 For the point (70, 40)

Carpentry 4T + 3C ≤ 240 hours available

constraint (4)(70) + (3)(40) = 400 hours used 
Painting 2T + 1C ≤ 100 hours available
constraint (2)(70) + (1)(40) = 180 hours used 

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 25

 Graphical Representation of a
Constraint
 For the point (50, 5)

Carpentry 4T + 3C ≤ 240 hours available

constraint (4)(50) + (3)(5) = 215 hours used 
Painting 2T + 1C ≤ 100 hours available
constraint (2)(50) + (1)(5) = 105 hours used 

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 26

 Isoprofit Line Solution Method
 Once the feasible region has been graphed, we
need to find the optimal solution from the many
possible solutions
 The speediest way to do this is to use the isoprofit
line method
 Starting with a small but possible profit value, we
graph the objective function
 We move the objective function line in the
direction of increasing profit while maintaining the
slope
 The last point it touches in the feasible region is
the optimal solution

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 27

 Isoprofit Line Solution Method
 For Flair Furniture, choose a profit of $2,100
 The objective function is then
$2,100 = 70T + 50C
 Solving for the axis intercepts, we can draw the
graph
 This is obviously not the best possible solution
 Further graphs can be created using larger profits
 The further we move from the origin, the larger the
profit will be
 The highest profit ($4,100) will be generated when
the isoprofit line passes through the point (30, 40)

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 28

Isoprofit Line Solution Method
C  Isoprofit line at $2,100
100 –
–
Number of Chairs

80 –
–
60 –
–
(0, 42) $2,100 = $70T + $50C
40 –
–
(30, 0)
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.6 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 29

Isoprofit Line Solution Method
C  Four isoprofit lines
100 –
–
$3,500 = $70T + $50C
Number of Chairs

80 –
– $2,800 = $70T + $50C
60 –
– $2,100 = $70T + $50C
40 –
– $4,200 = $70T + $50C
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.7 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 30

Isoprofit Line Solution Method
C  Optimal solution to the
100 – Flair Furniture problem
–
Number of Chairs

80 –
Maximum Profit Line
–
60 – Optimal Solution Point
– (T = 30, C = 40)
40 –
– $4,100 = $70T + $50C
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.8 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 31

 Corner Point Solution Method
 A second approach to solving LP problems
employs the corner point method
 It involves looking at the profit at every
corner point of the feasible region
 The mathematical theory behind LP is that
the optimal solution must lie at one of the
corner points, or extreme point, in the
feasible region
 For Flair Furniture, the feasible region is a
four-sided polygon with four corner points
labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the graph
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 32
Corner Point Solution Method
C  Four corner points of
100 – the feasible region
2 –
Number of Chairs

80 –
–
60 –
–
3
40 –
–
20 –
–
1 |– | | | | | | | | | | |
0 20 40
4 60 80 100 T
Figure 7.9 Number of Tables

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 33

 Corner Point Solution Method
Point 1 : (T = 0, C = 0) Profit = $70(0) + $50(0) = $0
Point 2 : (T = 0, C = 80) Profit = $70(0) + $50(80) = $4,000
Point 4 : (T = 50, C = 0) Profit = $70(50) + $50(0) = $3,500
Point 3 : (T = 30, C = 40) Profit = $70(30) + $50(40) = $4,100

 Because Point 3 returns the highest profit, this

is the optimal solution
 To find the coordinates for Point 3 accurately we
have to solve for the intersection of the two
constraint lines
 The details of this are on the following slide

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 34

 Corner Point Solution Method
 Using the simultaneous equations method, we
multiply the painting equation by –2 and add it to
the carpentry equation
4T + 3C = 240 (carpentry line)
– 4T – 2C = –200 (painting line)
C = 40
 Substituting 40 for C in either of the original
equations allows us to determine the value of T
4T + (3)(40) = 240 (carpentry line)
4T + 120 = 240
T = 30
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 35
 Summary of Graphical Solution
Methods
ISOPROFIT METHOD
1. Graph all constraints and find the feasible region.
2. Select a specific profit (or cost) line and graph it to find the slope.
3. Move the objective function line in the direction of increasing profit (or
decreasing cost) while maintaining the slope. The last point it touches in the
feasible region is the optimal solution.
4. Find the values of the decision variables at this last point and compute the
profit (or cost).
CORNER POINT METHOD
1. Graph all constraints and find the feasible region.
2. Find the corner points of the feasible reason.
3. Compute the profit (or cost) at each of the feasible corner points.
4. select the corner point with the best value of the objective function found in
Step 3. This is the optimal solution.

Table 7.3

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 36

Solving Minimization Problems
 Many LP problems involve minimizing an
objective such as cost instead of maximizing a
profit function
 Minimization problems can be solved graphically
by first setting up the feasible solution region and
then using either the corner point method or an
isocost line approach (which is analogous to the
isoprofit approach in maximization problems) to
find the values of the decision variables (e.g., X1
and X2) that yield the minimum cost

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 37

 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
 The Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch is considering
buying two different brands of turkey feed and
blending them to provide a good, low-cost diet for
its turkeys
Let
X1 = number of pounds of brand 1 feed purchased
X2 = number of pounds of brand 2 feed purchased
Minimize cost (in cents) = 2X1 + 3X2
subject to:
5X1 + 10X2 ≥ 90 ounces (ingredient constraint A)
4X1 + 3X2 ≥ 48 ounces (ingredient constraint B)
0.5X1 ≥ 1.5 ounces (ingredient constraint C)
X1 ≥ 0 (nonnegativity constraint)
X2 ≥ 0 (nonnegativity constraint)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 38
 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch data

COMPOSITION OF EACH POUND

OF FEED (OZ.)
MINIMUM MONTHLY
REQUIREMENT PER
INGREDIENT BRAND 1 FEED BRAND 2 FEED TURKEY (OZ.)
A 5 10 90
B 4 3 48
C 0.5 0 1.5
Cost per pound 2 cents 3 cents
Table 7.4

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 39

 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
 Using the corner X2

point method –

 First we construct
the feasible 20 – Ingredient C Constraint

Pounds of Brand 2
solution region
 The optimal 15 – Feasible Region
solution will lie at a
on of the corners 10 –
as it would in a Ingredient B Constraint
maximization 5– Ingredient A Constraint
b
problem
| | | | c | |
0–
5 10 15 20 25 X1
Figure 7.10 Pounds of Brand 1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 40
 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
 We solve for the values of the three corner points
 Point a is the intersection of ingredient constraints
C and B
4X1 + 3X2 = 48
X1 = 3
 Substituting 3 in the first equation, we find X = 12
2
 Solving for point b with basic algebra we find X =
1
8.4 and X2 = 4.8
 Solving for point c we find X = 18 and X = 0
1 2

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 41

 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
 Substituting these value back into the objective
function we find

Cost = 2X1 + 3X2

Cost at point a = 2(3) + 3(12) = 42
Cost at point b = 2(8.4) + 3(4.8) = 31.2
Cost at point c = 2(18) + 3(0) = 36
 The lowest cost solution is to purchase 8.4
pounds of brand 1 feed and 4.8 pounds of brand 2
feed for a total cost of 31.2 cents per turkey

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 42

 Holiday Meal Turkey Ranch
 Using the isocost X2

approach –
Feasible Region
 Choosing an
initial cost of 54 20 –

Pounds of Brand 2
cents, it is clear
improvement is 15 –
=2
54
¢
Di
possible re
cti
X
1 +
on 3X
of 2 Is
10 – De oc
31 os
.2¢ cr tL
=2 ea ine
sin
X gC
1 +
5– 3X os
2 t
(X1 = 8.4, X2 = 4.8)
| | | | | |
0–
5 10 15 20 25 X1
Figure 7.11 Pounds of Brand 1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 43
 Four Special Cases in LP

 Four special cases and difficulties arise at

times when using the graphical approach
to solving LP problems
 Infeasibility
 Unboundedness
 Redundancy
 Alternate Optimal Solutions

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 44

 Four Special Cases in LP
 A problem with no feasible solution

X2

8–
–
6–
– Region Satisfying
4– Third Constraint
–
2–
–
0– | | | | | | | | | |
2 4 6 8 X1

Figure 7.12 Region Satisfying First Two Constraints

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 45

 Four Special Cases in LP
 Unboundedness
 Sometimes a linear program will not have a
finite solution
 In a maximization problem, one or more
solution variables, and the profit, can be made
infinitely large without violating any
constraints
 In a graphical solution, the feasible region will
be open ended
 This usually means the problem has been
formulated improperly

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 46

 Four Special Cases in LP
 A solution region unbounded to the right

X2

X1 ≥ 5
15 –

X2 ≤ 10
10 –

Feasible Region
5–
X1 + 2X2 ≥ 15
| | | | |
0– 5 10 15 X1

Figure 7.13
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 47
 Four Special Cases in LP
 Redundancy
 A redundant constraint is one that does not
affect the feasible solution region
 One or more constraints may be more binding
 This is a very common occurrence in the real
world
 It causes no particular problems, but
eliminating redundant constraints simplifies
the model

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 48

 Four Special Cases in LP
 A problem with X2
a redundant 30 –
constraint
25 –
2X1 + X2 ≤ 30

20 –
Redundant
Constraint
15 –
X1 ≤ 25

10 – X1 + X2 ≤ 20
Feasible
5– Region

| | | | | |
0–
Figure 7.14 5 10 15 20 25 30 X1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 49
 Four Special Cases in LP
 Alternate Optimal Solutions
 Occasionally two or more optimal solutions
may exist
 Graphically this occurs when the objective
function’s isoprofit or isocost line runs
perfectly parallel to one of the constraints
 This actually allows management great
flexibility in deciding which combination to
select as the profit is the same at each
alternate solution

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 50

 Four Special Cases in LP
 Example of
X2
alternate
8–
optimal
solutions 7–
A
6– Optimal Solution Consists of All
Combinations of X1 and X2 Along
5– the AB Segment
4–

3– Isoprofit Line for $8

2–
B Isoprofit Line for $12
1 – Feasible Overlays Line Segment AB
Region
0– | | | | | | | |
Figure 7.15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 51
 END!

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 7 – 52