Example 2.1 (The Mighty Silver Ball Co.

Maximization Problem)
The Mighty Silver Ball Company manufactures three kinds of pinball machines,
each requiring a different manufacturing technique. The Super Deluxe Machine
requires 17 hours of labor, 8 hours of testing, and yields a profit of $300.The Silver
Ball Special requires 10 hours of labor, 4 hours of testing, and yields a profit of
$200.The Bumper King requires 2 hours of labor, 2 hours of testing, and yields a
profit of $100. There are 1000 hours of labor and 500 hours of testing available.
In addition, a marketing forecast has shown that the demand for the Super Deluxe
is no more than 50 machines, demand for the Silver Ball Special is no more than
80, and demand for Bumper King is no more than 150.
The manufacturer wants to determine the optimal production schedule that will
maximize his total profit. Formulate this as a linear programming problem.
Resource Requirements
Hrs of
Labor
Super Deluxe Machine 17 hrs/unit

Hrs of
Testing
8 hrs/unit

Profit
$300/unit

Silver Ball Special

10 hrs/unit

4 hrs/unit

$200/unit

Bumper King

2 hrs/unit

2 hrs/unit

$100/unit

Restrictions

1000 hours of labor available

500 hours of testing available
Demand for Super Deluxe is no more than 50 machines
Demand for Silver Ball Special is no more than 80 machines
Demand for Bumper King is no more than 150 machines
Identify the decision variables
x1 =Number of Super Deluxe machines to produce
x2 =Number of Silver Ball Special machines to produce
x3 =Number of Bumper King machines to produce

Identify the restrictions

1. Labor restrictions
17x1+10x2+2x3 1000
2. Testing restrictions
8x1+4x2+2x3 500
3. Demand restrictions
0 x1 50
0 x2 80
0 x3 150
Identify the objective function
Maximize Z=300x1+200x2+100x3
The complete linear programming model for this problem can now be summarized
as follows:
Maximize Z=300x1+200x2+100x3
Subject to
17x1+10x2+2x3 1000
8x1+4x2+2x3 500
x1 50
x2 80
x3 150
x1, x2, x3 0

Example 2.2 (University Mines Inc. Minimization Problem)

Universal Mines Inc. operates three mines in West Virginia. The ore from each
mine is separated into two grades before it is shipped; the daily production
capacities of the mines, as well as their operating costs, are as follows:

Mine I
Mine II
Mine III

High-Grade Ore
Tons/day
4
6
1

Low-Grade Ore
Tons/day
4
4
6

Operating Cost
$1000/day
20
22
18

Universal has committed itself to deliver 54 tons of high-grade ore and 65 tons of
low grade ore by the end of the week. It also has labor contracts that guarantee
employees in each mine a full days pay for each day or fraction of a day the mine
is open. Determine the number of days each mine should be operated during the
upcoming week if Universal Mines is to fulfill its commitment at minimum total
cost.
Solution
Let x1, x2, and x3, respectively, represent the numbers of days that mines I, II, and
III will be operated during the upcoming week.
The complete linear programming model for this problem can be summarized as
follows:
Minimize Z=20,000x1+22,000x2+18,000x3
Subject to
4x1+6x2+x3 54
4x1+4x2+6x3 65
x1 7
x2 7
x3 7
x1, x2, x3 0

Example 2.3 (Maximization Problem)

Two products, A and B, are made involving two chemical operations for each.
Each unit of product A requires 2 hours on operation 1 and 3 hours on operation 2.
Each unit of product B requires 3 hours on operation 1 and 4 hours on operation 2.
Available time for operation 1 is 16 hours, and for operation 2, 24 hours.
The production of product B also results in a by-product C at no extra cost. Though
some of this by-product can be sold at a profit, the remainder has to be destroyed.
Product A sells for $4 profit per unit, while product B sells for $10 profit per unit.
By-product C can be sold at a unit profit of $3, but if it cannot be sold, the
destruction cost is $2 per unit. Forecasts show that up to 5 units of C can be sold.
The company gets 2 units of C for each unit of B produced.
The problem is to determine the production quantity of A and B, keeping C in
mind, so as to make the largest profit. Formulate this problem as an LP problem.
Solution
Resource Requirements
Product
A
B
Available

Operation-1
2
3
16

Operation-2
3
4
24

$ Profit/Unit
4
10

Product C:
$2 cost/unit for distraction
$3 profit/unit up to 5 units
Identify the decision variables
xA =Number of units of product A to produce
xB =Number of units of product B to produce
xC1 =Number of units of product C (up to 5 units) to produce
xC2 =Number of units of product C (grater than 5 units) to produce
Identify the restrictions
2xA + 3xB 16
3xA + 4xB 24

xC1 5
xC1+xC2 = 2xB
Identify the objective function
Maximize Z = 4xA + 10xB + 3xC1 2xC2
The complete linear programming model for this problem can now be summarized
as follows:
Maximize Z = 4xA + 10xB + 3xC1 2xC2
Subject to:
2xA + 3xB 16
3xA + 4xB 24
xC 5
xC1 +xC2 2xB = 0
xA, xB, xC1, xC2 0

Example 3.1 (Graphical Solution of a Minimization Model)

We follow the same basic steps in the graphical solution of a minimization model
as we did in a maximization model. This example will be used to demonstrate the
graphical solution of a minimization model. Solve the following minimization
linear programming problem graphically.

Minimize

Z = 6x1 + 3x2

Subject to:
2x1 + 4x2 16
4x1 + 3x2 24
x1, x2 0

x2
C

8
Feasible Solution Area

6
4
B

Points
A
B
C

x1
8
4.8
0

10

x2
0
1.6
8

x1

Z
48
33.6
24

Example 3.2 (Multiple optimal Solutions)

Consider the following linear programming model:
Maximize Z = 40x1 + 30x2
Subject to:
x1
+
4x1 +
x1, x2

2x2 40
3x2 120
0

x2
x1 = 0
x2 = 20
Z = 600

40
30

x1 = 24
x2 = 8
Z = 1200

20

x1 = 30
x2 = 0
Z = 1200

10

C
0

10

20

30

40

x1

The above graph shows that two optimal solutions at points B and C exist.
Graphical Solution of an Infeasible Model

Example 3.3 (Graphical Solution of an Infeasible Model)

In some cases a linear programming problem has no feasible solution area; thus
there is no solution to the problem. An example of an infeasible problem is
formulated next.
Maximize Z = 5x1 + 3x2
Subject to:
4x1 + 2x2 8
x1 4
x2 6
x1, x2 0
x2
8
6

4
2

Graphical Solution
Unbounded Model

10

x1

of an

Example 3.4 (Graphical Solution of an Unbounded Model)

In Some problems the feasible solution area formed by the model constraints is not
closed. In these cases it is possible for the objective function to increase
indefinitely without ever reaching a maximum value, since it never reaches the
boundary of the feasible solution area. An example of this type of problem is
formulated next.
Maximize Z = 4x1 + 2x2
Subject to:

x1 4
x2 2
x1, x2 0
x2
8
6

4
2

10

x1

Example 5.6 (Simplex method, unique optimal solution)

Solve the following problem by simplex method
Maximize

Z = x1+9x2+x3

Subject to:

x1+2x2+3x3 < 9
3x1+2x2+2x3 <15
x1, x2, x3 > 0

Converting the problem to standard form by adding additional slack variables, we

obtain
Maximize Z = x1+9x2+x3
Subject to:
x1+2x2+3x3 +s1 = 9
3x1+2x2 +2x3 + s2 = 15
x1, x2, x3, s1, s2 > 0
Iteration 1:

Cj
CB
0
0

BV
s1
s2

C Row

1
x1
1
3
1

9
x2
2
2
9

1
x3
3
2
1

0
s1
1
0
0

0
s2
0
1
0

RHS Ratio
9
9/2
15
15/2
Z=0

1
x1

2
-7/2

9
x2
1
0
0

1
x3
3/2
-1
-25/2

0
s1
1/2
-1
-9/2

0
s2
0
1
0

RHS Ratio
9/2
6
Z=81/2

Iteration 2:

Cj
CB
9
0

BV
x2
s2

C Row

The above solution is unique optimum.

Example 5.7 (Simplex method, multiple optimal solutions)

Solve the following problem by simplex method

Maximize

Z = 40x1 + 30x2

Subject to:
x1 + 2x2 40
4x1 + 3x2 120
x1, x2 0
Converting the problem to standard form by adding additional slack variables, we
obtain
Maximize Z = 40x1+30x2
Subject to:
x1+2x2+s1
= 40
4x1+3x2
+ s2 = 120
x1, x2, s1, s2 > 0
Graphical Solution:
x2
x1 = 0
x2 = 20
Z = 600

40
30

x1 = 24
x2 = 8
Z = 1200

20

x1 = 30
x2 = 0
Z = 1200

10

C
0

Simplex Method Solution:

10

20

30

40

x1

Iteration 1:

Cj
CB
0
0

BV
s1
s2

C Row

40
x1
1
4
40

30
x2
2
3
30

0
s1
1
0
0

0
s2
0
1
0

RHS Ratio
40
40/1
120 120/4
Z=0

40
x1
0
1
0

30
x2
5/4
3/4
0

0
s1
1
0
0

0
s2
-1/4

-10

RHS Ratio
10
8
30
40
Z=1200

Iteration 2:

Cj
CB
0
40

BV
s1
x1

C Row

The above solution is optimal (at point C). Is it unique optimal? No

The non-basic variable x2 has a relative profit of zero. This means that any increase
in x2 will produce no change in the objective function value. In other words x 2 can
be made a basic variable and the resulting basic feasible solution will also have Z
as 1200. Thus, we have an alternate (multiple) optimal solution to this linear
program (see the above figure, points C and B)
If we continue solving, that is, x2 becomes basic variable.

Cj
CB
30
40

BV
x2
x1

C Row

40
x1
0
1
0

30
x2
1
0
0

0
s1
4/5
-3/5
0

0
s2
-1/5
2/5
-10

RHS Ratio
8
24
Z=1200

The new optimal solution is at point B. x1 =24, x2 = 8, Z= 1200.

Example 6.1 (The big M simplex method, minimization problem)

Minimize
Subject to:

Z = 80x1 + 60x2
0.2x1 + 0.32x2 < 0.25
x1 + x2
=1
x1, x2 >0

Standard form:
Minimize Z= 80x1+60x2+M R1
Subject to: 0.2x1+0.32x2 + s1
= 0.25
x1+x2
+R1=1
x1, x2, s1, R1 > 0
Iteration 1:

Cj
CB
0
M

BV
s1
R1

C Row

80
x1
0.2
1
80-M

60
x2
0.32
1
60-M

0
s1
1
0
0

M
R1
0
1
0

RHS Ratio
0.25
0.78
1
1
Z=M

Iteration 2:

Cj
CB
60
M

BV
x2
R1

C Row

80
60
x1
x2
0.625
1
0.375
0
42.5-.37M 0

0
s1
3.125
-3.125
3.12M

M
R1 RHS Ratio
0 0.781 1.249
1 0.218 0.581
0 Z=46.8+0.21M

Iteration 3:
Cj
CB
0
80

BV
x2
x1

C Row

80
x1
0
1
0

60
x2
1
0
0

0
s1
8.333
-8.33
166.6

M
R1
-

RHS Ratio
0.4167
0.5833
Z=71.67

The above solution is unique optimal with x1=0.5833, x2=0.4167, s1= R1= 0
z =71.67.