0% found this document useful (0 votes)
6 views

Study 2 Sol

Uploaded by

metee.yilmaz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
6 views

Study 2 Sol

Uploaded by

metee.yilmaz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

IE400 - Study Set 2 Solutions

March 1, 2024


1, if truck k serves customer j,


1) a) Let xkj = and ykj denote the amount of goods transferred
0, otherwise.


P7 P20
from truck k to customer j. We minimize k=1 j=1 qk xkj , total operating cost. Demand
P7 P20
constraint: k=1 ykj ≥ dj for each j. Capacity constraint: j=1 ykj ≤ Ck for each k. Link of x

and y: ykj ≤ Ck xkj .

P7 P20
min k=1 j=1 qk xkj
P7
s.t. k=1 ykj ≥ dj , ∀j = 1, . . . , 20,
P20
j=1 xkj ≤ Ck , ∀k = 1, . . . , 7,

ykj ≤ Ck xkj , ∀k = 1, . . . , 7, ∀j = 1, . . . , 20,

ykj ≥ 0, ∀k = 1, . . . , 7, ∀j = 1, . . . , 20,

xkj ∈ {0, 1} ∀k = 1, . . . , 7, ∀j = 1, . . . , 20.

b) Include the following constraints to the model above:


P20
• j=1 xkj ≤ 6 for all k = 1, . . . , 7,

• xk1 + xk7 ≤ 1 for all k = 1, . . . , 7,

• xk2 = xk(12) for all k = 1, . . . , 7,

• xk4 ≤ xk(19) + xk(20) for all k = 1, . . . , 7,

• Define y a switch variable. x45 + x46 + x47 ≥ 2 − 2y and x4(11) + x4(12) + x4(13) + x4(14) ≤

3 + (1 − y).

Pn
2) Suppose we have M = dk unmanufactured
k=1  rolls. Let xik be the amount of length lk rolls cut
1, if roll i is used,


from the ith unmanufactured roll and yi = We minimize the number of used
0, otherwise.


PM PM
rolls: i=1 yi . Demand constraints: i=1 xik ≥ dk for each k. Total length and link constraints:

1
Pn
k=1 lk xik ≤ lyi for all i.

PM
min i=1 yi
PM
s.t. i=1 xik ≥ dk , ∀k = 1, . . . , n
Pn
k=1 lk xik ≤ lyi , ∀i = 1, . . . , M,

xik ≥ 0 and integer, ∀i = 1, . . . , M, ∀k = 1, . . . , n,

yi ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i = 1, . . . , M.

3) Let x be the amount invested and y be the amount taken as debt (in millions). We maximize NPV:

0.5y − 0.1x. Investment constraints: x ≤ 1. Investment cannot exceed capital plus debt: x ≤ 0.8 + y.

The relation between debt and investment: y ≤ 0.4x. Then

max −0.1x + 0.5y

s.t. x ≤ 1,

x − y ≤ 0.8,

−0.4x + y ≤ 0,

x, y ≥ 0.

We convert it into standard form an put it in the Simplex tableau:

 
z x y s1 s2 s3 RHS
 
 
z  1 0.1 −0.5 0 0 0 0 

 
s1 
 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 

 
s2  0 1 −1 0 1 0 0.8
 

 
s3 0 −0.4 1 0 0 1 0

y is the entering varialbe and s3 is the leaving variable by ratio test.

 
z x y s1 s2 s3 RHS
 
 
z  1 −0.1 0 0 0 0.5 0 

 
s1 
 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 

 
s2  0 0.6 0 0 1 1 0.8
 

 
y 0 −0.4 1 0 0 1 0

2
x enters and s1 leaves.
 
z x y s1 s2 s3 RHS
 
 
z  1 0 0 0.1 0 0.5 0.1 

 
x  0 1 0 1 0 0 1 

 
s2  0 0 0 −0.6 1 1 0.2
 

 
y 0 0 1 0.4 0 1 0.4

Current table is optimal. It is recommended to invest 1 millon TL and 400000TL to debt with 0.1

NPV.

4) For simplicity, assume that the tableau is in canonical form for all cases:

a) A < 0, B = 0, C any, D ≥ 0, E = 1, F any.

b) A > 0, B = 0, C ≤ 0, D ≥ 0, E = 1, F any.

c) A any, B = 0, C any, D = 0, E = 1, F any.

5) a) The modified LP is after changing to maximum

max x 1 + x 2 − M a1 − M a2

s.t. x1 − x2 − x3 + a1 = 1,

−x1 + x2 + 2x3 − x4 + a2 = 1,

x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , a1 , a2 ≥ 0.

The Simplex tableau is as follows:

 
z x1 x2 x3 x4 a1 a2 RHS
 
 
z  1 −1 −1 0 0 M M 0 

 
a1  0 1 −1 −1 0 1 0 1
 

 
a2 0 −1 1 2 −1 0 1 1

b) We first put the tableau in canonical form

 
z x1 x2 x3 x4 a1 a2 RHS
 
 
z  1 −1 −1 −M M 0 0 −2M 

 
a1  0 1 −1 −1 0 1 0 1 
 
 
a2 0 −1 1 2 −1 0 1 1

3
It is not optimal. x3 is entering and a2 is leaving. We can remove the column for a2 :

 
z x1 x2 x3 x4 a1 RHS
 
 
z  1 −1 −1 −M M 0 −2M 

 
a1  0 1 −1 −1 0 1 1 
 
 
x3 0 −1 1 2 −1 0 1

We put it in canonical form

 
z x1 x2 x3 x4 a1 RHS
 
 
z  1 −0.5M − 1 0.5M − 1 0 0.5M 0 −1.5M 

 
a1  0 0.5 −0.5 0 −0.5 1 1.5 
 
 
x3 0 −0.5 0.5 1 −0.5 0 0.5

x1 leaves, a1 enters we remove column of a1 :

 
z x1 x2 x3 x4 RHS
 
 
z  1 −0.5M − 1 0.5M − 1 0 0.5M −1.5M 

 
x1  0 0.5 −0.5 0 −0.5 1.5 
 
 
x3 0 −0.5 0.5 1 −0.5 0.5

We put the table in canonical form:

 
z x1 x2 x3 x4 RHS
 
 
z  1 0 −2 0 −1 3 

 
x1  0 1 −1 0 −1 3
 

 
x3 0 0 0 1 −1 2

It is not optimal. x2 enters but there are no positive entries below x2 . Modified LP is unbounded.

c) All artificial variables are set to 0 and the modified problem is unbounded, then the original LP

is unbounded.

You might also like