LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODELS: GRAPHICAL AND COMPUTER METHODS

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Resources - typically include machinery, labor, money, time, warehouse space,
and 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.
- LP and the more general category of techniques called “mathematical”
programming have very little to do with computer programming.
- Programming – refers to modeling and solving a problem mathematically.
7.2 REQUIREMENTS OF A LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEM
PROPERTIES OF A LINEAR PROGRAMMING
1. One objective function
2. One or more constraints
3. Alternative courses of action
4. Objective function and constraints are linear—proportionality and divisibility.
5. Certainty
6. Divisibility
7. Nonnegative variables
Objective function of LP - all problems seek to maximize or minimize some
quantity, usually profit or cost. The major objective of a typical manufacturer is to
maximize dollar profits.
Constraints – limits the degree to which we can pursue our objective. We want to
maximize or minimize a quantity (the objective function) subject to limited
resources (the constraints).
Alternatives example:
- Should it devote all manufacturing capacity to make only the first product?
- Should it produce equal amounts of each product?
- Should it allocate the resources in some other ratio?
- If there were no alternatives to select from, we would not need LP.
Mathematical relationships are linear
- the objectives and constraints in LP problems must be expressed in terms of
linear equations or inequalities. It means that all terms used in the
objective function and constraints are of the first degree (i.e not squared, no
exponents, or appearing more than once). Example: 2A + 5B = 10.
- linear implies both proportionality and additivity. Proportionality
means that changes in one quantity result in corresponding proportional
changes in another. Additivity means that the total effect is the sum of the
individual effects from different factors or inputs.
Certainty assumption – that is, number in the objective and constraints are
known with certainty and do not change during the period being studied.
Divisibility assumption – solutions need not be in whole numbers (integers). They
are divisible and may take fractional value. Fractional value simply means that
there are work in progress. However, they do not make sense. If a fraction of a
product cannot be purchased, an integer programming problem exists.
Nonnegative – we assume that all answers and variables are nonnegative because
negative value of physical quantities are impossible.
7.3 FORMULATING LP PROBLEMS
Steps in formulating a linear program follow:
1. Completely understand the managerial problem being faced
2. Identify the objective and the constraints
3. Define the decision variables
4. Use the decision variables to write mathematical expressions for the
objective function and the constraints
Product Mix Problem – one of the most common LP applications. Two or more
products are usually produced using limited resources such as personnel, machines,
raw materials, and so on.
Profit contribution = Selling Price per unit – Variable cost per unit
Example:

The Flair Furniture Company produces inexpensive tables and chairs. The
production process for each is similar in that both require a certain number of hours
of carpentry work and a certain number of labor hours in the painting and
varnishing department. Each table takes 4 hours of carpentry and 2 hours in the
painting and varnishing shop. Each chair requires 3 hours in carpentry and 1 hour in
painting and varnishing. During the current production period, 240 hours of
carpentry time are available and 100 hours in painting and varnishing time are
available. Each table sold yields a profit of $70; each chair produced is sold for a
$50 profit.
 Flair Furniture’s problem is to determine the best possible combination of
tables and chairs to manufacture in order to reach the maximum profit. The firm
would like this production mix situation formulated as an LP problem.
Step 1: Objective – maximize profit
Step 2: 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.
Step 3: Decision variables:
Let T = number of tables to be produced per week
Let C = number of chairs to be produced per week
Step 4: Hence, Objective Function: Maximization Profit (Z) = $70T + $50C
Step 5: Develop mathematical relationship to describe the two constraints in this
problem:
One general relationship is that the amount of a resource used is to be less than or
equal to ( ) the amount of resource available.
First constraint:
(4 hours per table)(Number of tables produced) + (3 hours per chair)(Number of
chairs produced)
Carpentry time used Carpentry time available
4T + 3C 240 (hours of carpentry time)
Second constraint:
Painting and varnishing time used Painting and varnishing time available
2T + 1C 100 (hours of painting and varnishing time)
Nonnegative constraints:
T 0,C 0 or T,C 0
7.4 GRAPHICAL SOLUTION TO AN LP PROBLEM
Graphical procedure is useful only when there are two decision variables in the
problem. When there are more than two variables, it is not possible to plot the
solution on a two-dimensional graph and we must
turn more complex approaches.
Step 1 is to plot each of the problem’s
constraints on a graph. For instance, T(tables)
is plotted as the horizontal axis, and C(Chairs) is plotted as the vertical
axis.
The Nonnegative constraints mean that we are always working in the first (or
northeast) quadrant of the graph (Quadrant 2).

First constraint: 4T + 3C 240

We must first graph the equality portion of this, which is 4T + 3C = 240.
*linear equation in two variables is a straight line*
When Flair Furniture produces no tables, namely T = 0, it implies that
4(0) + 3C = 240
3C = 240
C = 80
If all the carpentry time available is used to produce chairs, 80 chairs could be
made.
When Flair Furniture produces no chairs, namely C = 0, it implies that
4T + 3(0) = 240
4T = 240
T = 60
If all the carpentry time available is used to produce tables, 60 tables could be
made.
However, the actual carpentry constraint was the inequality 4T + 3C 240. How
can we identify all of the solution points that satisfy this constraint? It turns out that
there are three possibilities.
First, we know that any point that lies on the line 4T
+ 3C = 240 satisfies the constraint. Now, we must
find the set of solution points that would use less
than (<) the 240 hours. The points that satisfy the <
portion of the constraint (i.e 4T + 3C < 240) will all
be the points on the one side of the line, while all
the points on the other side of the line will not
satisfy this condition.
For example, point (30, 20): 4(30) + 3(20) = 180.
Since 180 < 240, this point satisfies the constraint, and all points on this side of
the line will also satisfy the constraint.
To see what would happen if the point did not satisfy
the constraint, select a point on the other side of the
line, such as (70, 40): 4(70) + 3(40) = 400.
Since, 400 > 240, this point and every other point
on that side of the line would not satisfy this
constraint.

Second constraint: 2T + 1C 100

We must first graph the equality portion of this, which is 2T + 1C = 100.
When Flair Furniture does not paint and varnish tables, namely T = 0, it implies
that
2(0) + 1C = 100
1C = 100
C = 100
If all the painting time available is used to paint and varnish chairs, 100 chairs
could be made.
When Flair Furniture does not paint and varnish chairs, namely C = 0, it implies
that
2T + 1(0) = 100
2T = 100
T = 50
If all the painting time available is used to paint and varnish tables, 50 tables could
be made.
To find the points that require less than 100 hours, select a point on either side of
this line to see if the inequality portion of the
constraint is satisfied. Selecting (0,0), give us,
2(0) + 1(0) = 0 < 100
Now, we move on to the next step. In an LP
problem we need to find that set of solution
points that satisfies all of the constraints simultaneously. Hence, the constraints
should be redrawn on one graph (or superimposed one upon the other).
Area of feasible solutions or Feasible region – the shaded region that
represents the area of solutions that does not exceed either of the two constraints.
Any point in the region would be a feasible solution to the problem; any point
outside of the shaded area would represent an infeasible solution.
Hence, it would be feasible to manufacture 30 tables and 20 chairs (T = 30, C =
20) during a production period because both constraints are observed:
Carpentry constraint 4T + 3C 240 hours available
4(30) +3(20) = 180 hours used
Painting constraint 2T + 1C 100
2(30) + 1(20) = 80 hours used.
2 APPROACH TO SOLVING LP PROBLEMS
A. ISOPROFIT LINE SOLUTION METHOD
Now that the feasible region has been graphed, we may proceed to find the optimal
solution to the problem.
Optimal solution – the point lying in the feasible region that produces the highest
profit.
Isoprofit line method – speediest approach that can be taken in solving for the
optimal solution when the feasible region has been established graphically.
Iso – means “equal” or “similar”. Thus, an isoprofit line represents a line with all
profits the same.
For example, a profit of $2,100. This profit level that can be obtained easily
without violating either of the two constraints. The objective function can be
written as $2,100 = 70T + 50C. This expression is just the equation of a line; we
call it an isoprofit line. To plot the profit line, we proceed exactly as we did to plot
a constraint line.
Let T = 0, solve for C:
$2,100 = $70 (0) + $50C
C = 42 chairs
Let C = 0, solve for T:
$2,100 = $70T + 50(0)
T = 40 tables
Obviously, the isoprofit line for $2,100 does not produce the highest possible profit
to the firm.
For higher profit, let’s take $2,800 = $70T +
$50C.
When T = 0,
$2,800 = $70(0) + $50C
C = 56
When C = 0,
$2,800 = $70T + $50(0)
T = 40
The farther we move from the origin, the higher our profit will be. Another important
point is that these isoprofit lines are parallel. The highest profit line that still
touches some point of the feasible region pinpoints the optimal solution.
The last point that an isoprofit line would touch in
this feasible region is the corner point where two
constraint lines intersect, so this point will result in
the maximum possible profit. To find the coordinates
of this point, solve the two equations simultaneously:

Profit = $70T + $50C

= 70(30) + 50(40)
= $4,100
So, producing 30 tables and 40 chairs yields the maximum profit of
$4,100.
B. CORNER POINT SOLUTION METHOD
Corner point method – this technique is simpler conceptually than the isoprofit
line approach, but it involves looking at the profit at every corner point of the
feasible region.
The mathematical theory behind LP states that an optimal solution to any problem
(that is, the values of T, C that yield the maximum profit) will lie at a corner point,
or extreme point, of the feasible region.
Step 1: Graph the constraints and find the feasible region.
Step 2: Find the corner points of the feasible region. The fourth corner point is
where the two constraints lines intersect, and the coordinates must be found
algebraically by solving the two equations simultaneously for two variables.
Elimination method:
Thus, the last corner point is (30, 40). The
next step is to calculate the value of the
objective function at each of the corner
points. The final step is to select the corner
with the best value, which would be the
highest profit in this example. The highest
profit is found to be $4,100, which is obtained
when 30 tables and 40 chairs are produced.
This is exactly what was obtained using the
isoprofit method.

SLACK AND SURPLUS

In addition to knowing the optimal solution to a linear program, it is helpful to know
whether all of the available resources are being used.
Slack – used for the amount of a resource that is not used. For a less-than-or-
equal-to constraint,
 Slack = (Amount of resource available) – (Amount of resource used)
In the Flair Furniture example, there were 240 hours of carpentry time available. If
the company decided to produce 20 tables and 25 chairs instead of the optimal
solution, the amount of carpentry time used (4T + 3C) would be 4(20) + 3(25) =
155. So,
Slack time in carpentry = 240 -155 = 85
For the optimal solution (30, 40) to the Flair Furniture problem, the slack is 0 since
all 240 hours are used.
Surplus – used with greater-than-or-equal-to constraints to indicate the amount
by which the right-hand side (RHS) of a constraint is exceeded. For greater-than-
or-equal-to constraint,
Surplus = (Actual amount) – (Minimum amount)
Suppose there had been a constraint in the example that required the total number
of tables and chairs combined to be at least 42 units (i.e., T + C ≥ 42), and the
company decided to produce 20 tables and 25 chairs. The total amount produced
would be 20 + 25 = 45, so the surplus would be
Surplus = 45 – 42 = 3
meaning that 3 units more than the minimum were produced. For the optimal
solution (30, 40) in the Flair Furniture problem, if this constraint had been in the
problem, the surplus would be 70 - 42 = 28.
So, the slack and surplus represent the difference between the left-hand side (LHS)
and the right-hand side (RHS) of a constraint.
Binding constraint – a constraint that has zero slack or surplus for the optimal
solution
Nonbinding constraint – a constraint with positive slack or surplus for the optimal
solution
7.5 SOLVING FLAIR FURNITURE’S LP PROBLEM USING QM FOR WINDOWS
AND EXCEL
7.6 SOLVING MINIMAZATION 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 an analogous to the isoprofit approach in maximization
problems) to find the values of the decision variables (i.e X1 ,X2) that yield the
minimum cost.
For example:
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. Each feed
contains, in varying proportions, some or all of the three nutritional ingredients
essential for fattening turkeys. Each pound of brand 1 purchased, for example,
contains 5 ounces of ingredient A, 4 ounces of ingredient B, and 0.5 ounce of
ingredient C. Each pound of brand 2 contains 10 ounces of ingredient A, 3 ounces
of ingredient B, but no ingredient C. The brand 1 feed costs the ranch 2 cents a
pound, while the brand 2 feed costs 3 cents a pound. The owner of the ranch would
like to use LP to determine the lowest-cost diet that meets the minimum monthly
intake requirement for each nutritional ingredient.

Let X1 = number of pounds of brand 1 feed purchased

X2 = number of pounds of brand 2 feed purchased
Formulate linear programming problem:
Minimize cost (in cents) = 2X1 + 3 X2
Subject to these constraints:
5X1 + 10X2 ≥ 90 ounces (Ingredient A constraint)
4X1 + 3X2 ≥ 48 ounces (Ingredient B constraint)
0.5X1 ≥ 1.5 ounces (Ingredient C constraint)
X1 ≥ 0 (Nonnegative constraint)
X2 ≥ 0 (Nonnegative constraint)
Three key points:
a. the third constraint requires brand 1 feed for nutritional C
b. the solution determines the best mix of brands 1 and 2 per turkey
c. greater-than-or-equal-to constraints define the feasible area.
USING THE CORNER POINT METHOD ON A MINIMIZATION PROBLEM
We first construct the feasible solution region.
This is done by plotting each of the three
constraint equations. The optimal solution will
lie at one of the corners as it would in a
maximization problem.
There are 3 corner points: a, b and c.
For point a, we find the coordinates at the
intersection of the ingredient C and B
constraints, that is, where the line X1 = 3 into
the B constraint equation, we get,
4(3) + 3X2 = 48
X2 = 12
Thus, point a has the coordinates (X1 = 3, X2 = 12).
For point b, we solve the equations 4X1 + 3X2 = 48 and 5X1 + 10X2 = 90
simultaneously.
To eliminate X1, we multiply the first equation by 5 and the second equation by 4.
We get,
20X1 + 15X2 = 240
20X1 + 40X2 = 360
Subtract them we get,
-25X2 = -120
X2 = 4.8
Substitute the value of X2 to either of the equation and this will yield (X1 = 8.4, X2
= 4.8).
For point c, it can be seen in the graph to be (X1 = 18, X2 = 0).
We now evaluate the objective function, and we get,
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
Hence, we can conclude that the minimum cost solution is to purchase 8.4 pounds
of brand 1 and 4.8 pounds of brand 2 feed per turkey per month. This will yield a
cost of 31.2 cents per turkey.
ISOCOST LINE APPROACH
Isocost line approach – a series of parallel
cost lines. It is analogous to the isoprofit line
method we used on maximization problems.
The lower cost line (that is, the one closest in
toward the origin) to touch the feasible region
provides us with the optimal solution corner.
For example, we start by drawing a 54-cent
cost line, namely 54 = 2X1 + 3X2. Obviously,
there are many points in the feasible region
that would yield a lower total cost. We
proceed to move our isocost line toward the
lower left, in a plane parallel to the 54-cent
solution line. The last point we touch while still in contact with the feasible region is
the same as corner point b. It has the coordinates (X1 = 8.4, X2 = 4.8) and an
associated cost of 31.2 cents.
COMPLUTER APPROACH
Step 1.

Step 2.
Step 3.

7.7 FOUR SPECIAL CASES IN LP

Infeasible
When there is no solution to an LP problem that satisfies all of the constraints given,
then no feasible solution exists. Graphically, it means that no feasible solution
region exists— a situation that might occur if the problem was formulated with
conflicting constraints.

For example, if one constraint is supplied by the marketing manager, who states that at
least 300 tables must be produced (namely, X1 ≥ 300) to meet

sales demand, and a second restriction is supplied by the production manager, who insists

that no more than 220 tables be produced (namely, X1 ≤ 220) because of a lumber short

age, no feasible solution region results.

As a further graphic illustration of this, let us consider the following three constraints:

X1 + 2X2 ≤ 6

2X1 + X2 ≤ 8

X1 ≥ 7

UNBOUNDEDNESS

Sometimes a linear program will not have a finite solution. This means that in a
maximization problem, for example, one or more solution variables, and the profit,
can be made infinitely large without violating any constraints

Maximize profit = $3X1 + $5X2

subject to X1 ≥ 5

X2 ≤ 10

X1 + 2X2 ≥ 10

X1, X2 ≥ 0

Redundancy
The presence of redundant constraints is another common situation that occurs in large LP
formulations. Redundancy causes no major difficulties in solving LP problems graphically,
but you should be able to identify its occurrence.

Maximize profit = $1X1 + $2X2

subject to X1 + X2 ≤ 20

2X1 + X2 ≤ 30

X1 ≤ 25

X1, X2 ≥ 0

The third constraint, X1 ≤ 25, is less binding, but the first two constraints are indeed more
restrictive constraints.

Alternate Optimal Solutions

An LP problem may, on occasion, have two or more alternate optimal solutions.
Graphically, this is the case when the objective function’s isoprofit or isocost line runs
perfectly parallel to one of the problem’s constraints—in other words, when they have the
same slope.

Managers of a firm noticed the presence of more than one optimal solution when they

formulated this simple LP problem:

Maximize profit = $3X1 + $2X2

subject to 6X1 + 4X2 ≤ 24

X1 ≤ 3

X1, X2 ≥ 0

7.8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

CHANGES IN THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION COEFFICIENT
QM FOR WINDOWS AND CHANGES IN OBJECTIVE FUNCTION COEFFICIENTS
EXCEL SOLVER AND CHANGES IN OBJECTIVE FUNCTION COEFFICIENTS
CHANGES IN THE TECHNOLOGICAL COEFFICIENTS
CHANGES IN THE RESOURCES OR RIGHT-HAND-SIDE VALUES
DM FOR WINDOWS AND CHANGES IN RIGHT-HAND-SIDE VALUES
EXCEL SOLVER AND CHANGES IN RIGHT-HAND-SIDE VALUES