Linear Programming

Models; Graphical and

Simplex Methods
 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.
History Behind Linear Programming
Linear programming was conceptually developed before World War II by the
outstanding Soviet Mathematician A. N. Kolmogorov.

Another Russian Mathematician, Leonid Kantorovich, developed it during

World War II as a way to plan expenditures and returns so as to reduce
costs to the army and increase losses incurred by the enemy.

He won the Nobel prize for advancing the

concepts of optimal Planning.
 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 or some quantity (the

2. The presence of restrictions or 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 equations or
 Development of a production schedule that
will
◦ satisfy future demands for a firm’s production
◦ while total production and inventory costs

 Determination of grades of petroleum products to yield

the
profit

 Selection of different blends of raw materials to feed

mills to produce finished feed combinations at
cost

 Determination of a distribution system that will

total shipping cost from several warehouses to various
market locations
 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
 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 hours 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
 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

 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

 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)

 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

 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)
 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

 C

100 –
– This Axis Represents the Constraint T ≥ 0
80 –

Number of Chairs
–
60 –
–
40 – This Axis Represents the
– Constraint C ≥ 0
20 –
–
|–

T
|
Figure 7.1 Number of Tables
|
 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
 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
 C
•
Graph 100 –
of carpentry
equation
constraint

•–
•
(T = 0, C = 80) 80 –
Number of Chairs •–
• 60 –
•–
• 40 –(T = 60, C = 0)
•–
• 20 – T

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

• 100 –
•–
Number of Chairs
Graph of painting and varnishing
80 – equation
• constraint
•–
• 60 –
•– (T = 50, C = 0)
• 40 –
•– T

Figure 7.4 • 20 –
Number of Tables
•–
• | | | | | | | | | | | |
–
 To produce tables and chairs, both departments
must be used
 We need to find a solution that satisfies
both constraints
 A new graph shows both constraint plots
 The (or ) is
where all constraints are satisfied
 Any point inside this region is a solution
 Any point outside the region is an
solution
 C  Feasible solution region for Flair
Furniture
• 100 –
•–
Number of Chairs
Painting/Varnishing Constraint
• 80 –
•–
• 60 –
–
•Feasible Carpentry Constraint
Region • 40 –
•– T

Figure 7.5 • 20 –
Number of Tables
•–
• | | | | | | | | | | | |
–
For the point (30,
20)
Carpentry 4T + 3C ≤ 240 hours available
(4)(30) + (3)(20) = 180 hours used 
constraint
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 
 For the point
(50, 5)
Carpentry 4T + 3C ≤ 240 hours available
(4)(50) + (3)(5) = 215 hours used 
constraint
Painting 2T + 1C ≤ 100 hours available
constraint (2)(50) + (1)(5) = 105 hours 
used
 A second approach to solving LP problems employs
the

 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 or

, 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
 C

100 –  Four corner points of the feasible region

2 –
80 –

Number of Chairs
–
60 –
–
3
40 –
–
20 –
–
|– | | | | | | | | | |
1
| T
0 20 40 60 80 100
4
Figure 7.9 Number of Tables
Point Profit = $70(0) + $50(0) = $0
1 : (T = 0, C = 0)
Profit = $70(0) + $50(80) =
2 : (T = 0, C = 80)
Point $4,000 Profit = $70(50) + $50(0)
Point 4 : (T = 50, C = 0) = $3,500
Point Profit = $70(30) + $50(40) =
3 : (T = 30, C = 40)
 Because Point $4,100 the highest profit,
3 returns
is the optimal solution
this
 To find the coordinates for Point 3 accurately
have
we to solve for the intersection of the two
constraint lines
 The details of this are on the following slide
 Using the , 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=
 First select the Linear Programming module
 Specify the number of constraints (non-negativity
is assumed)
 Specify the number of decision variables
 Specify whether the objective is to be maximized
or minimized
 For the Flair Furniture problem there are two
constraints, two decision variables, and the objective is
to maximize profit
 Computer screen for input of data
 Computer screen for input of data
 Computer screen for input of data
 Graphical output of solution
 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
 Four special cases and difficulties arise at times when
using the graphical approach to solving LP problems
◦ Infeasibility
◦ Unboundedness
◦ Redundancy
◦ Alternate Optimal Solutions
 No feasible solution
◦ Exists when there is no solution to the problem
that satisfies all the constraint equations
◦ No feasible solution region exists
◦ This is a common occurrence in the real world
◦ Generally one or more constraints are relaxed until
a solution is found
  A problem with X1+2X2 <=6
no feasible 2X1+X2 <=8
X
solution 2 X1 >=7

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

Figure 7.12 Region Satisfying First Two Constraints

 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
 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
 Redundancy
◦ A redundant constraint is one that does not affect
the
feasible solution region
◦ This is a very common occurrence in the real world
◦ It causes no particular problems, but eliminating
redundant constraints simplifies the model
 X2
30 –
 A problem with a
redundant 25 –
constraint 2X1 + X2 ≤ 30
20 –
Redundant
Constraint
15 –
X1 ≤ 25

10 –
X1 + X2 ≤ 20

5– Feasible
Region

0– | | | | |
|
5 10 15 20 25 30 X1
 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
  Example of X2
alternate
8–
optimal
solutions 7–

6 –A Optimal Solution Consists of All

Combinations of X1 and X2 Along
Maximize 3X1 + 2X2 Subj. 5– the AB Segment
To: 6X1 + 4X2 < 24 4–
X1 <3 3– Isoprofit Line for $8
X 1, X 2 > 0
2–
B Isoprofit Line for $12
Overlays Line Segment AB
1 – Feasible
Region
0– | | | | | | | |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X1
• Optimal solutions to LP problems thus far have been found
under what are called

• This means that we assume complete certainty in the data

• and relationships of a problem
• But in the real world, conditions are dynamic and changing
• We can have ,a deterministic solution is to changes in
the assumptions of the model
This is called