M

O
L

D
E

7
Linear Programming: The Simplex Method
Teaching Suggestions
Teaching Suggestion M7.1: Meaning of Slack Variables.
Slack variables have an important physical interpretation and represent a valuable commodity,
such as unused labor, machine time, money, space, and so forth.
Teaching Suggestion M7.2: Initial Solutions to LP Problems.
Explain that all initial solutions begin with X1 = 0, X2 = 0 (that is, the real variables set to zero),
and the slacks are the variables with nonzero values. Variables with values of zero are called
nonbasic and those with nonzero values are said to be basic.
Teaching Suggestion M7.3: Substitution Rates in a Simplex Tableau.
Perhaps the most confusing pieces of information to interpret in a simplex tableau are
substitution rates. These numbers should be explained very clearly for the first tableau because
they will have a clear physical meaning. Warn the students that in subsequent tableaus the
interpretation is the same but will not be as clear because we are dealing with marginal rates of
substitution.
Teaching Suggestion M7.4: Hand Calculations in a Simplex Tableau.
It is almost impossible to walk through even a small simplex problem (two variables, two
constraints) without making at least one arithmetic error. This can be maddening for students
who know what the correct solution should be but cant reach it. We suggest two tips:
1. Encourage students to also solve the assigned problem by computer and to request the
detailed simplex output. They can now check their work at each iteration.
2. Stress the importance of interpreting the numbers in the tableau at each iteration. The 0s
and 1s in the columns of the variables in the solutions are arithmetic checks and balances
at each step.
Teaching Suggestion M7.5: Infeasibility Is a Major Problem in Large LP Problems.
As we noted in Teaching Suggestion 7.6, students should be aware that infeasibility commonly
arises in large, real-world-sized problems. This module deals with how to spot the problem (and
is very straightforward), but the real issue is how to correct the improper formulation. This is
often a management issue.

M71

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Alternative Examples
Alternative Example M7.1: Simplex Solution to Alternative Example 7.1 (see Chapter 7 of
Solutions Manual for formulation and graphical solution).
1st Iteration
Cj

Solution
Mix

3
X1

0
0

S1
S2
Zj
Cj Z j
2nd Iteration
Cj

1
1
0
3
3
X1

Solution
Mix
X2

S2

Zj

Cj Z j

4
2
4
4

9
X2

0
S1

4
2
0
9

0
S2

1
0
0
0

0
1
0
0

9
X2
1
0
9
0

Quantity
24
16
0

0
S1
1

4
1
2

0
S2
0

Quantity
6

54

4
9
4

This is not an optimum solution since the X1 column contains a positive value. More profit
remains ($

per #1).

3rd/Final Iteration
Cj

9
3

Solution
Mix
X2

3
X1
0

9
X2
1

0
S1

0
S2

12

X1
Zj

1
3

0
9

Cj Z j

2
3
2

2
3
2

Quantity
4
8
60

This is an optimum solution since there are no positive values in the Cj Zj row. This says to
make 4 of item #2 and 8 of item #1 to get a profit of $60.

M72

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Alternative Example M7.2: Set up an initial simplex tableau, given the following two
constraints and objective function:
Minimize Z = 8X1 + 6X2
2X1 + 4X2 8

Subject to:

3X1 + 2X2 6
The constraints and objective function may be rewritten as:
Minimize = 8X1 + 6X2 + 0S1 + 0S2 + MA1 + MA2
2X1 + 4X2 1S1 + 0S2 + 1A1 + 0A2 = 8
3X1 + 2X2 + 0S1 1S2 + 0A1 + 1A2 = 6
The first tableau would be:
Cj

Solutio
n
Mix
M
A1
M
A2
Zj
Cj Z j
The second tableau:
Cj

8
X1

6
X2

2
3
5M
8 5M

4
2
6M
6 6M

8
X1

6
X2

Solutio
n
Mix
X2

A2

Zj

3+
2M

5 2M

Cj Z j

0
S1

0
S2

1
0
M
M
0
S1

M
12

0
1
M
M

1
0
M
0

0
S2

M
A1

4
12
3 1
2
2

32

M
A1

M
M

32

M
A2
0
1
M
0

Quantity
8
6
14M

M
A2

M
3

Quantity
2

12 + 2M

The third and final tableau:

Cj

8
X1

6
X2

Solutio
n
Mix
X2

X1

Zj

Cj Z j

0
S1

0
S2

M
A1

M
A2
Quantity

4
1
4
1
4

4
12
52
5
2

8
14
1
4
1

1
5
4

M73

2
2
5

A minimal, optimum cost of 17 can be achieved by using 1 of a type #1 and

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

17
2

of a type #2.

Alternative Example M7.3: Referring back to Hal, in Alternative Example 7.1, we had a
formulation of:
Maximize Profit = $3X1 + $9X2
Subject to: 1X1 + 4X2 24 clay
1X1 + 2X2 16 glaze
where X1 = small vases made
X2 = large vases made
The optimal solution was X1 = 8, X2 = 4. Profit = $60.
Using software (see the printout), we can perform a variety of sensitivity analyses on this
solution.

M74

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Alternative Example M7.4: Levine Micros assembles both laptop and desktop personal
computers. Each laptop yields $160 in profit; each desktop $200.
The firms LP primal is:
Maximize profit = $160X1 + $200X2
subject to: 1X1 + 2X2 20 labor hours
9X1 + 9X2 108 RAM chips
12X1 + 6X2 $120 royalty fees
where X1 = no. laptops assembled daily
X2 = no. desktops assembled daily
Here is the primal optimal solution and final simplex tableau.
Cj

200

Solution
Mix
X2

$160
X1
0

$200
X2
1

0
S1
1

160

X1

S3
Zj

0
160

0
200

6
40

Cj Z j

40

0
S2

0
S3
0

Quantity
8

2
13 1 3

1
0

24
$2,240

13 1 3

19
9

or X1 = 4, X2 = 8, S3 = $24 in slack royalty fees paid

Profit = $2,240/day
Here is the dual formulation:
Minimize Z = 20y1 + 108y2 + 120y3
subject to: 1y1 + 9y2 + 12y3 160
2y1 + 9y2 + 6y3 200
Here is the dual optimal solution and final tableau.
Cj

108
20

Solution
Mix
y2

y1
Zj
Cj Z j
This means

20
y1
0

108
y2
1

120
y3
2

1
20
0

0
108
0

6
96
+24

0
S1
29
1
4
+4

0
S2
1

y1 = marginal value of one more labor hour = $40

y2 = marginal value of one more RAM chip = $13.33
y3 = marginal value of one more $1 in royalty fees = $0
M75

1
8
+8

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Quantity
13 1 3
40
$2,240

Solutions to Discussion Questions and Problems

M7-1. The purpose of the simplex method is to find the optimal solution to LP problems in a
systematic and efficient manner. The procedures are described in detail in Section M7.3.
M7-2. Differences between graphical and simplex methods: (1) Graphical method can be used
only when two variables are in model; simplex can handle any dimensions. (2) Graphical method
must evaluate all corner points (if the corner point method is used); simplex checks a lesser
number of corners. (3) Simplex method can be automated and computerized. (4) Simplex method
involves use of surplus, slack, and artificial variables but provides useful economic data as a byproduct.
Similarities: (1) Both methods find the optimal solution at a corner point. (2) Both methods
require a feasible region and the same problem structure, that is, objective function and
constraints.
The graphical method is preferable when the problem has two variables and only two or three
constraints (and when no computer is available).
M7-3. Slack variables convert constraints into equalities for the simplex table. They represent
a quantity of unused resource and have a zero coefficient in the objective function.
Surplus variables convert constraints into equalities and represent a resource usage above
the minimum required. They, too, have a zero coefficient in the objective function.
Artificial variables have no physical meaning but are used with the constraints that are = or
. They carry a high coefficient, so they are quickly removed from the initial solution.
M7-4. The number of basic variables (i.e., variables in the solution) is always equal to the
number of constraints. So in this case there will be eight basic variables. A nonbasic variable is
one that is not currently in the solution, that is, not listed in the solution mix column of the
tableau. It should be noted that while there will be eight basic variables, the values of some of
them may be zero.
M7-5. Pivot column: Select the variable column with the largest positive Cj Zj value (in a
maximization problem) or smallest negative Cj Zj value (in a minimization problem).
Pivot row: Select the row with the smallest quantity-to-column ratio that is a nonnegative
number.
Pivot number: Defined to be at the intersection of the pivot column and pivot row.
M7-6. Maximization and minimization problems are quite similar in the application of the
simplex method. Minimization problems usually include constraints necessitating artificial and
surplus variables. In terms of technique, the Cj Zj row is the main difference. In maximization
problems, the greatest positive Cj Zj indicates the new pivot column; in minimization problems,
its the smallest negative Cj Zj. The Zj entry in the quantity column stands for profit
contribution or cost, in maximization and minimization problems, respectively.
M7-7. The Zj values indicate the opportunity cost of bringing one unit of a variable into the
solution mix.

M76

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M7-8. The Cj Zj value is the net change in the value of the objective function that would result
from bringing one unit of the corresponding variable into the solution.
M7-9. The minimum ratio criterion used to select the pivot row at each iteration is important
because it gives the maximum number of units of the new variable that can enter the solution. By
choosing the minimum ratio, we ensure feasibility at the next iteration. Without the rule, an
infeasible solution may occur.
M7-10. The variable with the largest objective function coefficient should enter as the first
decision variable into the second tableau for a maximization problem. Hence X3 (with a value of
$12) will enter first. In the minimization problem, the least-cost coefficient is X1, with a $2.5
objective coefficient. X1 will enter first.
M7-11. If an artificial variable is in the final solution, the problem is infeasible. The person
formulating the problem should look for the cause, usually conflicting constraints.
M7-12. An optimal solution will still be reached if any positive Cj Zj value is chosen. This
procedure will result in a better (more profitable) solution at each iteration, but it may take more
iterations before the optimum is reached.
M7-13. A shadow price is the value of one additional unit of a scarce resource. The solutions to
the Ui dual variables are the primals shadow prices. In the primal, the negatives of the Cj Zj
values in the slack variable columns are the shadow prices.
M7-14. The dual will have 8 constraints and 12 variables.
M7-15. The right-hand-side values in the primal become the duals objective function
coefficients.
The primal objective function coefficients become the right-hand-side values of dual
constraints.
The transpose of the primal constraint coefficients become the dual constraint coefficients,
with constraint inequality signs reversed.
M7-16. The student is to write his or her own LP primal problem of the form:
maximize profit = C1X1 + C2X2
subject to A11X1 + A12X2 B1
A21X1 + A22X2 B2
and for a dual of the nature:
minimize cost = B1U1 + B2U2
subject to A11U1 + A21U2 C1
A12U1 + A22U2 C2

M77

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M7-17. a.

b. The new optimal corner point is (0,60) and the profit is 7,200.
c. Theshadowprice=(increaseinprofit)/(increaseinrighthandsidevalue)
= (7,200 2,400)/(240 80)
= 4,800/160
= 30
d. With the additional change, the optimal corner point in part B is still the optimal corner
point. Profit doesnt change. Once the right-hand side went beyond 240, another
constraint prevented any additional profit, and there is now slack for the first constraint.
M7-18. a. See the table below.
Table for Problem M7-18
Cj

0
0

Solution
Mix
S1
S2
Zj
Cj Z j
b.

$900
X1
14
10
0
900

$1,500
X2
4
12
0
1,500

$0
S1
1
0
0
0

$0
S2
0
1
0
0

Quantity
3,360
9,600
0

14X1 + 4X2 3,360

10X1 + 12X2 9,600
X1, X2 0

c.

Maximize profit = 900X1 + 1,500X2

d.

Basis is S1 = 3,360, S2 = 9,600.

e.

X2 should enter basis next.

f.

S2 will leave next.

g.

800 units of X2 will be in the solution at the second tableau.

h.

Profit will increase by (Cj Zj)(units of variable entering the solution)

M78

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

= (1,500)(800) = 1,200,000
M7-19. a. Maximize earnings = 0.8X1 + 0.4X2 + 1.2X3 0.1X4 + 0S1 + 0S2 MA1 MA2
subject to
X1 + 2X2 + X3 + 5X4 + S1 = 150
X2 4X3 + 8X4 + A1 = 70
6X1 + 7X2 + 2X3 X4 S2 + A2 = 120
b. See initial simplex tableau in Table M7-19b below.
Table for Problem M7-19b
Cj

0
M
M

Solution
Mix
S1
A1
A2
Zj
Cj Zj

0.8
X1
1
0
6
6M
0.8 + 6M

0.4
X2
2
1
7
8M
0.4 + 8M

1.2
X3
1
4
2
2M
1.2 2M

0.1
X4
5
8
1
7M
0.1 + 7M

0
S1
1
0
0
0
0

0
S2
0
0
1
M
M

M
A1
0
1
0
M
0

M
A2
0
0
1
M
0

Quantity
150
70
120
190M

150, A1 = 70, A2 = 120, all other variables = 0

M7-20. First tableau:
Cj

$0
$0

Solution
Mix
S1
S2
Zj
Cj Z j
Second tableau:

$3
X1
0
3
$0
$3

Cj

$5
$0

$5
X2
1
2
$0
$5

$0
S1
1
0
$0
$0

$0
S2
0
1
$0
$0

Quantity
6
18
$0

Quantity
6
6
$30

Solution
$3
Mix
X1
X2
0
S2
3
Zj
$0
Cj Z j
$3
Third and optimal tableau:

$5
X2
1
0
$5
$0

$0
S1
1
2
$5
$5

$0
S2
0
1
$0
$0

Cj

$5
$3

$5
X2
1
0

$0
S1
1
23

$0
S2
0

$3
$3

$1
$1

Solution
Mix
X2
X1

$3
X1
0
1

Zj
$3
$5
Cj Z j
$0
$0
X1 = 2, X2 = 6, S1 = 0, S2 = 0, and profit = $36

M79

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Quantity
6
2
$36

c.
S
1

Graphical solution to Problem M7-20:

M7-21. a.

b.
Cj

0
0

Solution
10
Mix
X1
S1
4
S2
1
Zj
0
Cj Z j
10
This represents the corner point (0,0).

8
X2
2
2
0
8

0
S1
1
0
0
0

0
S2
0
1
0
0

c. The pivot column is the X1 column. The entering variable is X1.

d. Ratios:

Row 1: 80/4 = 20
Row 2: 50/1 = 50

These represent the points (20,0) and (50,0) on the graph.

M710

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Quantity
80
50
0

e. The smallest ratio is 20, so 20 units of the entering variable (X1) will be brought into the
solution. If the largest ratio had been selected, the next tableau would represent an
infeasible solution since the point (50,0) is outside the feasible region.
f. The leaving variable is the solution mix variable in row with the smallest ratio. Thus, S1
is the leaving variable. The value of this will be 0 in the next tableau.
g.
Second iteration
Solution
Cj
Mix

10
X1
0
S2
Zj
Cj Z j
Third iteration

10
X1
1
0
10
0

8
X2
0.5
1.5
5
3

0
S1
0.25
0.25
2.5
2.5

Cj

10
8

0
S2
0
1
0
0

Quantity
20
30
200

Solution
10
8
0
0
Quantity
Mix
X1
X2
S1
S2
X1
1
0
0.3333
0.3333
10
X2
0
1
0.1667
0.6667
20
Zj
10
8
2
2
260
Cj Z j
0
0
2
2
h.
The second iteration represents the corner point (20,0). The third (and final) iteration
represents the point (10,20).
M7-22. Basis for first tableau: A1 = 80
A2 = 75
(X1 = 0, X2 = 0, S1 = 0, S2 = 0)
Second tableau:
A1 = 55
X1 = 25
(X2 = 0, S1 = 0, S2 = 0, A2 = 0)
Graphical solution to Problem M7-22:

M711

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

Third tableau:

X1 = 14
X2 = 33

(S1 = 0, S2 = 0, A1 = 0, A2 = 0)
Cost = $221 at optimal solution
M7-23. This problem is infeasible. All Cj Zj are zero or negative, but an artificial variable
remains in the basis.
M7-24. At the second iteration, the following simplex tableau is found:
Cj

6
0

Solution
Mix
X1

6
X1
1

3
X2
1

S2

0
S1
1
1

0
S2
0

Quantity
1

Zj
6
6
3
0
6
Cj Z j
0
9
3
0
At this point, X2 should enter the basis next. But the two ratios are 1/1 = negative and 2/0 =
undefined. Since there is no nonnegative ratio, the problem is unbounded.
M7-25. a. The optimal solution using simplex is X1 = 3, X2 = 0. ROI = $6. This is illustrated in
the problems final simplex tableau:
Tableau for Problem M7-25a
Cj

0
2

Solution
Mix
S1

2
X1
0

3
X2

0
S1

X1

0
S2
1

M
A1
1

Quantity
6

Zj
2
3
1
0
0
$6
Cj Z j
0
0
1
0
M
b. The variable X2 has a Cj Zj value of $0, indicating an alternative optimal solution
exists by inserting X2 into the basis.
c. The alternative optimal solution is found in the tableau in the next column to be X1 =
3

= 0.42, X2 =

12

= 1.7, ROI = $6.

Tableau for Problem M7-25c

Cj

3
2

Solution
Mix
X2

2
X1
0

3
X2
1

X1

Zj

Cj Z j

0
S1

0
S2

M
A1

7
1 21
1
3
1
3

M712

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

21
1
7

Quantity
12
3

$6

d. The graphical solution is shown below.

Alternative optimums at a and b, Z = $6.

M7-26. This problem is degenerate. Variable X2 should enter the solution next. But the ratios are
as follows:
X 3 row

5
5
1

X 1 row

12
unacceptable
3

S2

10
5
2

Since X3 and S2 are tied, we can select one at random, in this case S2. The optimal solution is
shown below. It is X1 = 27, X2 = 5, X3 = 0, profit = $177.
Cj

6
X1

$5

Solutio
n
Mix
X3

3
X2

5
X3

0
S1

$6

X1

$3

X2

Zj
Cj Z j

6
0

3
0

5
0

2
2
2

13
13

M713

0
S2

3
1

0
S3
7

8
8

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

2
1
2
1
2

13
13

Quantity
0
27
5
$177

M7-27. Minimum cost = 50X1 + 10X2 + 75X3 + 0S1 + MA1 + MA2

subject to
1X1 1X2 + 0X3 + 0S1 + 1A1 + 0A2 = 1,000
0X1 + 2X2 + 2X3 + 0S1 + 0A1 + 1A2 = 2,000
1X1 + 0X2 + 0X3 + 1S1 + 0A1 + 0A2 = 1,500
First iteration:
Cj

M
M
0

Solution
Mix

50
X1
1
0
1
M
M + 50

10
X2
1
2
0
M
M + 10

Solution
Mix
A1
X3

50
X1
1
0

S1
Zj
Cj Zj

A1
A2
S1
Zj
Cj Zj

75
X3
0
2
0
2M
2M + 75

0
S1
0
0
1
0
0

M
A1
1
0
0
M
0

M
A2
0
1
0
M
0

10
X2
1
1

75
X3
0
1

0
S1
0
0

M
A1
1
0

M
A2
0

1
M

0
M + 75

0
75

1
0

0
M

M + 50

M 65

Quantity
1,000
2,000
1,500
3,000M

Second iteration:
Cj

M
75
0

37
M

Quantity
1,000
1,000

1,500
1,000M + 75,000

2
37 1

Third iteration:
Cj

50
75
0

Solution
Mix
X1
X3

50
X1
1
0

10
X2
1
1

75
X3
0
1

0
S1
0
0

M
A1
1
0

M
A2
0

S1
Zj

0
50

1
25

0
75

1
0

1
50

Cj Zj

15

M 50

X1
X3

50
X1
1
0

10
X2
0
0

75
X3
0
1

0
S1
1
1

M
A1
0
1

M
A2
0

X2
Zj

0
50

1
10

0
75

1
15

1
65

Cj Zj

15

M 65

37 1 2
M

Quantity
1,000
1,000
500
$125,000

37 1 2

Fourthandfinaliteration:
Cj

50
75
10

Solution
Mix

X1 = 1,500, X2 = 500, X3 = 500, Z = $117,500

M714

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

37 1 2
M

37 1 2

Quantity
1,500
500
500
$117,500

M7-28. X1 = number of kilograms of brand A added to each batch

X2 = number of kilograms of brand B added to each batch
Minimize costs = 9X1 + 15X2 + 0S1 + 0S2 + MA1 + MA2
subject to X1 + 2X2 S1 + A1 = 30
X1 + 4X2 S2 + A2 = 80
Cj

M
M

Solution
Mix
A1
A2
Zj
Cj Z j

$9
X1
1
1
2M
2M + 9

$15
X2
2
4
6M
6M + 15

$0
S1
1
0
M
M

$0
S2
0
1
M
M

M
A1
1
0
M
0

M
A2
0
1
M
0

Quantity
30
80
110M

Firstiteration:
Cj

15
M

Solution
Mix
X2

A2
Zj

15

Cj Z j

Second iteration:
Solution
Cj
Mix

15
X2
0

$9
X1

S1
Zj
Cj Z j

+M

$9
X1
1

4
1
2
15
4
21
4

$15
X2
1

$0
S1

0
15

15

15

$0
S2
0

2
2

1
M

+ 2M

2M

$15
X2
1

$0
S1
0

$0
S2

15

2
15
4
15
4

Third and final iteration:

X1 = 0 kg, X2 = 20 kg, cost = $300
M7-29. X1 = number of mattresses
X2 = number of box springs
Minimize cost = 20X1 + 24X2
subject to X1 + X2 30
X1 + 2X3 40
X1, X2 0
M715

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M
A1
1

2
15

2M

3M

15

M
A2
0

Quantity
15

1
M

20
225 + 20M

M
A1
0

M
A2

0
M

2
15
4
15

Quantity
20
10
$300
4

Initial tableau:
Cj

M
M

Solution
Mix
A1
A2
Zj
Cj Z j
Second tableau:
Cj

Solution
Mix
A1

$24

X2

$20
$24
X1
X2
1
1
1
2
2M
3M
2M + 20 3M + 24
$20
X1
1
1

Zj

Cj Z j

12

$0
S1
1
0
M
M

$0
S1
1

24

$24
X2
0

M + 12
M + 12

$0
S2
0
1
M
M
$0
S2

M
A2
0
1
M
0

M
A1
1

M
A1
1
0
M
0

2
1
2

M
A2

M 12
M + 12

12

Quantity
30
40
70M

Quantity
10
20

M + 12

10M + 480

M 12

Final tableau:
Cj

$20
$24

Solution
$20
Mix
X1
X1
1
X2
0
Zj
20
Cj Z j
0
X1 = 20, X2 = 10, cost = $640

$24
X2
0
1
24
0

$0
S1
2
1
16
16

$0
S2
1
1
4
4

M
A1
2
1
16
M 16

M
A2
1
1
4
M4

Quantity
20
10
$640

M7-30. Maximize profit = 9X1 + 12X2

subject to X1 + X2 10
X1 + 2X2 12
X1, X2 0
Initial tableau:
Cj

$0
$0

Solution
Mix
S1
S2
Zj
Cj Z j

$9
X1
1
1
0
9

$12
X2
1
2
0
12

M716

$0
S1
1
0
0
0

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

$0
S2
0
1
0
0

Quantity
10
12
$0

Second tableau:
Cj

$0

Solution
Mix
S1

$12

X2

$9
X1

$12
X2
0

$0
S1
1

6
3

12
0

0
0

6
6

Solution
$9
Mix
X1
X1
1
X2
0
Zj
9
Cj Z j
0
X1 = 8, X2 = 2, profit = $96

$12
X2
0
1
12
0

$0
S1
2
1
6
6

$0
S2
1
1
3
3

1
1

Zj
Cj Z j

2
2

$0
S2

Quantity
4

$72

Final tableau:
Cj

$4
$12

Quantity
8
2
$96

M7-31. Maximize profit = 8X1 + 6X2 + 14X3

subject to 2X1 + X2 + 3X3 120
2X1 + 6X2 + 4X3 = 240
X1, X2 0
Initial tableau:
Cj

0
M

Solution
Mix
S1
A2
Zj
Cj Z j
Second tableau:
Cj

$0
$6

$8
X1
2
2
2M
8 + 2M

$6
X2
1
6
6M
6 + 6M

Solution
Mix
S1

$8
X1

$6
X2
0

X2

Zj
Cj Z j

2
6

3
3

$14
X3
3
4
4M
14 + 4M
$14
X3
7

6
0

4
10

M717

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

0
S1
1
0
0
0
0
S1
1
0
0
0

M
A1
0
1
M
0

Quantity
120
240
240M

M
A1

1
M 1

Quantity
80
40
$240

Final tableau:
Cj

$14

Solution
Mix
X3

$6

X2
Zj
Cj Z j
X 1 0, X 2

$8
X1
5

7
17
64
7

1.1

$6
X2
0

$14
X3
1

14

0
S1

M
A1

7
27
30
7
30
7

(which is X1 = 0, X2 = 17.14, X3 = 34.29, profit = $582.86)

M7-32. a.
X1 = number of deluxe one-bedroom units converted
X2 = number of regular one-bedroom units converted
X3 = number of deluxe studios converted
X4 = number of efficiencies converted
Objective: maximum profit = 8,000X1 + 6,000X2 + 5,000X3 + 3,500X4
subject to
1,100X1 + 1,000X2 + 600X3

+ 500X4 $35,000

700X1

+ 300X4 $28,000

+ 600X2

+ 400X3

2,000X1 + 1,600X2 + 1,200X3 + 900X4 $45,000

1,000X1 + 400X2

+ 900X3

+ 200X4 $19,000

X1 + X2

+ X3

+ X4

50

X1 + X2

+ X3

+ X4

25

X1 X 2 0.40( X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 )

X1 X 2 0.70( X1 X 2 X 3 X 4 )
The last two constraints can be rewritten as:
0.6X1 + 0.6X2 0.4X3 0.4X4 0
0.3X1 + 0.3X2 0.7X3 0.7X4 0

M718

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

14
2
7
2

120
240
, X3
, profit $582 6
7
7
7

Quantity

1
14

240

120

7
$582 6
7

b. Maximize profit = 8,000X1 + 6,000X2 + 5,000X3 + 3,500X4 + 0S1 + 0S2 + 0S3 + 0S4 + 0S5 +
0S6 + 0S7 + 0S8 MA1 MA2
subject to
1,100X1 + 1,000X2 + 600X3

+ 500X4 + S1

= 35,000

700X1

+ 300X4 + S2

= 28,000

2,000X1 + 1,600X2 + 1,200X3 + 900X4 + S3

= 45,000

1,000X1 + 400X2

+ 600X2

+ 400X3
+ 900X3

+ 200X4 + S4

= 19,000

X1 + X2

+ X3

+ X4

+ S5

= 50

X1 + X2

+ X3

+ X4

S6 + A1 = 25

0.6X1 + 0.6X2 0.4X3 0.4X4 S7 + A2

=0

0.3X1 + 0.3X2 0.7X3 0.7X4 + S8

=0

M7-33. a. The initial formulation is

minimize cost = $12X1 + 18X2 + 10X3 + 20X4 + 7X5 + 8X6
subject to
X1

3X3

= 100
900

25X2 + X3 + 2X4 + 8X5

2X1 +

X2

+ X6 250

+ 4X4

18X1 15X2 2X3 X4 + 15X5

150

25X6 300
70

2X4 + 6X5

b. Variable X5 will enter the basis next. (Its Cj Zj value indicates the most
improvement, that is, 7 21M ) Variable A3 will leave the basis because its ratio
(150/15) is the smallest of the three positive ratios.
M7-34. a. We change $10 (the Cj coefficient for X1) to $10 + and note the effect on the Cj Zj
row in the table below.
Simplex table for Problem M7-34
Cj

$10 +
$0

Solution $10 +
$30
$0
Mix
X1
X2
S1
X1
1
4
2
S2
0
6
7
Zj
10 +
40 + 4
20 + 2
Cj Z j
0
10 4
20 2
From the X2 column, we require for optimality that
10 4 0

or

2 1 2
M719

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

$0
S2
0
1
0
0

Quantity
160
200
$1,600 + 160

From the S1 column, we require that

20 2 0
Since the
$

2 1 2

7 12

or

10

is more binding, the range of optimality is

Cj (for X1)

b. The range of insignificance is

Cj (for X2) $40
c. One more unit of the first scarce resource is worth $20, which is the shadow price in
the S1 column.
d. Another unit of the second resource is worth $0 because there are still 200 unused
units (S2 = 200).
e. This change is within the range of insignificance, so the optimal solution would not
change. If the 30 in the Cj row were changed to 35, the Cj Zj would still be positive,
and the current solution would still be optimal.
f. The solution mix variables and their values would not change, because $12 is within
the range of optimality found in part a. The profit would increase by 160(2) = 320, so
the new maximum profit would be 1,600 + 320 = 1,920.
g. The right-hand side could be decreased by 200 (the amount of the slack) and the
profit would not change.
M7-35. a. The shadow prices are: 3.75 for constraint 1; 22.5 for constraint 2; and 0 for
constraint 3. The shadow price is 0 for constraint 3 because there is slack for this
constraint. This means there are units of this resource that are available but are not
being utilized. Therefore, additional units of this could not increase profits.
b. Dividing the RHS values by the coefficients in the S1 column, we have 37.5/0.125 =
300 so we can reduce the right-hand-side by 300 units; and 12.5/(0.125) = 100, so we
can increase the right-hand-side by 100 units and the same variables will remain in the
solution mix.
c. The right-hand-side of this constraint could be decreased by 10 units. The solution
mix variable in this row is slack variable S3. Thus, the right-hand-side can be decreased
by this amount without changing the solution mix.
M7-36. a. Produce 18 of model 102 and 4 of model H23.
b. S1 represents unused or slack time on the soldering machine; S2 represents unused or
slack time in the inspection department.
c. Yesthe shadow price of the soldering machine time is $4. Clapper will net $1.50
for every additional hour he rents.
d. Nothe profit added for each additional hour of inspection time made available is
only $1. Since this shadow price is less than the $1.75 per hour cost, Clapper will lower
his profit by hiring the part-timer.
M720

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M7-37. a. The first shadow price (in the S1 column) is $5.00. The second shadow price (in the S2
column) is $15.00.
b. The first shadow price represents the value of one more hour in the painting
department. The second represents the value of one additional hour in the carpentry
department.
c. The range of optimality for tables (X1) is established from Table M7-37c.
5 3/2 0 or

3.333 from S1 column

15 + 1/2 0 or

30 from S2 column

Hence the Cj for X1 must decrease by at least $3.33 to change the optimal solution. It must
increase by $30 to alter the basis. The range of optimality is $66.67 Cj $100.00 for X1.
d. The range of optimality for X2. See Table M7-37d.
5 + 2 0 or

2.5 from S1 column

15 0 or

5 from S2 column

The range of optimality for profit coefficient on chairs is from $35 (= 50 15) to $52.50 (= 50 +
2.5).
e. Ranging for first resourcepainting department
Quantity
30

S1
3

Ratio
20

40
2
20
Thus the first resource can be reduced by 20 hours or increased by 20 hours without affecting the
solution. The range is from 80 to 120 hours.
f. Ranging for second resourcecarpentry time.
Quantity
30

S2
12

Ratio
60

40
1
40
Range is thus from 200 hours to 300 hours (or 240 40 to 240 + 60).
Table for Problem M7-37c
Cj

70 +
50

Solution
Mix
X1

70 +
X1
1

50
X2
0

X2
Zj

0
70 +

1
50

Cj Z j

0
S1
2

12

5+
5

M721

0
S2

15

15 +

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

2
1

Quantity
30

40
$4,100 + 30

Table for Problem M7-37d

Cj

70
50 +

Solution
Mix
X1

70
X1
1

50 +
X2
0

X2
Zj
Cj Z j

0
70
0

1
50 +
0

0
S1
3

2
5 2
5 + 2

0
S2

1
15 +
15

Quantity
30
40
$4,100 + 40

M7-38. Note that artificial variables may be omitted from the sensitivity analysis since they
have no physical meaning.
a. Range of optimality for X1 (phosphate):
Solution
$6
$0
$0
Cj
$5 +
Mix
X1
X2
S1
S2

Quantity
$0
S2
0
0
1
1
550
X1
1
0
1
0
300
$5 +
$6
X2
0
1
1
0
700
Zj
6
0
5+
1 +
$5,700 + 300
Cj Z j
0
0
0
1
1 0 or 1
If the Cj value for X1 increases by $1, the basis will change. Hence Cj (for X1) $6.
Range of optimality for X2 (potassium):
Cj

0
5
6+

Solution
5
0
0
6+
Mix
X1
X2
S1
S2
Quantity
S2
0
0
1
1
550
X1
1
0
1
0
300
X2
0
1
1
0
700
Zj
5
0
6+
1
$5,700 + 700
Cj Z j
0
0
0
1+
1 + 0 or 1
If the Cj value for X2 decreases by $1, the basis will change. The range is thus $5 Cj (for X2)
.
b. This involves right-hand-side ranging on the slack variables S1 (which represents number of
pounds of phosphate under the 300-pound limit).
Quantity
S2
Ratio
550
1
550
300
1
300
700
1
700
This indicates that the limit may be reduced by 300 pounds (down to zero pounds) without
changing the solution.
The question asks if the resources can be increased to 400 pounds without affecting the basis.
The smallest negative ratio (550) tells us that the limit can be raised to 850 pounds without
changing the solution mix. However, the values of X1, X2, and S2 would change. X1 would now be
M722

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

400, X2 would be 600, and S2 would be 450.

M7-39. Minimize cost = 4U1 + 8U2
subject to 1U1 + 2U2 80
3U1 + 5U2 75
U1, U2 0
The dual of the dual is the original primal.
M7-40. Maximize profit = 50U1 + 4U2
subject to 12U1 + 1U2 120
20U1 + 3U2 250
U1, U2 0
M7-41. U1 = $80, U2 = $40, cost = $1,000
M7-42. Primal objective function:
maximize profit = 0.5X1 + 0.4X2
primal constraints: 2X1 + 1X2 120
2X1 + 3X2 240
X1, X2 0
primal solution: X1 = 30, X2 = 60, profit = $39
M7-43. Maximize profit =
10X1 +5X2 + 31X3
subject to

+ 28X4 + 17X5
+ 12X5 28

X1 + X2

53

2X2 2X3
X2
X1

+ 5X4 + 2X5
+ 5X3

X5

X1, X2, X3, X4, X5

70
18
0

M7-44. a. Machine 3, as represented by slack variable S3, still has 62 hours of unused time.
b. There is no unused time when the optimal solution is reached. All three slack
variables have been removed from the basis and have zero values.
c. The shadow price of the third machine is the value of the dual variable in column 6.
Hence an extra hour of time on machine 3 is worth $0.265.
d.Foreachextrahouroftimemadeavailableatnocostonmachine2,profitwill
increaseby$0.786(thedualprice/valueorshadowprice).Thus10hoursoftimewill
beworth$7.86.

M723

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M7-45. The dual is

maximize Z = 120U1 + 115U2 + 116U3
subject to 8U1 + 4U2 + 9U3 23
4U1 + 6U2 + 4U3 18
U1, U2, U3 0
U1 = $2.07 is the price of each test 1
U2 = $1.63 is the price of each test 2
U3 = $0 is the price of each test 3
Using the dual objective function:
Z = 120U1 + 115U2 + 116U3
= 120(2.07) + 115(1.63) + 116(0)
= $248.4 + $187.45 + $0
= $435.85
Thus $435.85 is the maximum the laboratory should be willing to pay an outside resource to
conduct the 120 test 1s, 115 test 2s, and 116 test 3s per day.
8U1 + 4U2 + 9U3 is the value of 8, 4, and 9 of tests 1, 2, and 3, respectively, performed per
hour by a biochemist. This means that the prices U1, U2, and U3 need to be such that their total
value does not exceed the cost per hour to the lab for using one of its own biochemists.
Similarly, 4U1 + 6U2 + 4U3 is the value of 4, 6, and 4 of tests 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
performed per hour by a biophysicist. Again, the prices U1, U2, and U3 need to be such that the
total value does not exceed the cost per hour for the lab to use one of its own biophysicists.
M7-46. a. There are 8 variables (2 decision variables, 3 surplus variables, and 3 artificial
variables) and 3 constraints.
b. The dual would have 2 constraints and 5 variables (3 decision variables and 2 slack
variables).
c. The dual problem would be smaller and easier to solve.
M7-47. a. Rounded to two decimals, the solution is X1 = 27.38 tables, X2 = 37.18 chairs daily,
profit = $3775.60.
b. Not all resources are used. Shadow prices indicate that carpentry hours and painting
hours are not fully used. Also, the 40-table maximum is not reached.
c. The shadow prices relate to the five constraints: $0 value to making more carpentry
and painting time available; $63.38 is the value of additional inspection/rework hours;
$1.20 is the value of each additional foot of lumber made available.
d. More lumber should be purchased if it costs less than the $1.20 shadow price. More
carpenters are not needed at any price.
e. Flair has a slack (X4) of 8.056 hours available daily in the painting department. It can
spare this amount.
f. Carpentry hours range: 221 to infinity.
Painting hours range: 92 to infinity.
Inspection/rework hours range:

19 1 2

to 41.

M724

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

g. Table profit range: $41.67 to $160

Chair profit range: $21.87 to $84.
M7-48. Printout 1 illustrates the model formulation.
a. Printout 2 provides the optimal solution of $9,683. Only the first product (A158) is
not produced.
b. Printout 2 also lists the shadow prices. The first, for example, deals with steel alloy.
The value of one more pound is $2.71.
c. There is no value to adding more workers, since all 1,000 hours are not yet
consumed.
d. Two tons of steel at a total cost of $8,000 implies a cost per pound of $2.00. It
should be purchased since the shadow price is $2.71.
e. Printout 3 illustrates that profit declines to $8,866 with the change to $8.88.
f. Printout 4 shows the new constraints. Profit drops to $9,380, and none of the A-E
products remain. Previously, only A158 was not produced.

M725

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M726

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M727

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.

M728

Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc.