INTRODUCTION TO OR

CS6704-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

INTRODUCTION TO OR

TERMINOLOGY
The British/Europeans refer to "operational research", the Americans to "operations
research" - but both are often shortened to just "OR" (which is the term we will use).
Another term which is used for this field is "management science" ("MS"). The
Americans sometimes combine the terms OR and MS together and say "OR/MS" or
"ORMS".
Yet other terms sometimes used are "industrial engineering" ("IE"), "decision science"
("DS"), and “problem solving”.
In recent years there has been a move towards a standardization upon a single term
for the field, namely the term "OR".
“Operations Research (Management Science) is a scientific approach to decision
making that seeks to best design and operate a system, usually under conditions
requiring the allocation of scarce resources.”
A system is an organization of interdependent components that work together to
accomplish the goal of the system.
CS6704-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

THE METHODOLOGY OF OR
When OR is used to solve a problem of an organization, the following seven step
procedure should be followed:
Step 1. Formulate the Problem
OR analyst first defines the organization's problem. Defining the problem includes
specifying the organization's objectives and the parts of the organization (or system)
that must be studied before the problem can be solved.
Step 2. Observe the System
Next, the analyst collects data to estimate the values of parameters that affect the
organization's problem. These estimates are used to develop (in Step 3) and evaluate
(in Step 4) a mathematical model of the organization's problem.
Step 3. Formulate a Mathematical Model of the Problem
The analyst, then, develops a mathematical model (in other words an idealized
representation) of the problem. In this class, we describe many mathematical
techniques that can be used to model systems.
Step 4. Verify the Model and Use the Model for Prediction
The analyst now tries to determine if the mathematical model developed in Step 3 is
an accurate representation of reality. To determine how well the model fits reality, one
determines how valid the model is for the current situation.
Step 5. Select a Suitable Alternative
Given a model and a set of alternatives, the analyst chooses the alternative (if there is
one) that best meets the organization's objectives.
Sometimes the set of alternatives is subject to certain restrictions and constraints. In
many situations, the best alternative may be impossible or too costly to determine.
Step 6. Present the Results and Conclusions of the Study
In this step, the analyst presents the model and the recommendations from Step 5 to
the decision making individual or group. In some situations, one might present several
alternatives and let the organization choose the decision maker(s) choose the one
that best meets her/his/their needs.
After presenting the results of the OR study to the decision maker(s), the analyst may
find that s/he does not (or they do not) approve of the recommendations. This may
result from incorrect definition of the problem on hand or from failure to involve
decision maker(s) from the start of the project. In this case, the analyst should return
to Step 1, 2, or 3.
Step 7. Implement and Evaluate Recommendation
If the decision maker(s) has accepted the study, the analyst aids in implementing the
recommendations. The system must be constantly monitored (and updated
dynamically as the environment changes) to ensure that the recommendations are
enabling decision maker(s) to meet her/his/their objectives.

HISTORY OF OR
(Prof. Beasley‟s lecture notes)
OR is a relatively new discipline. Whereas 70 years ago it would have been possible
to study mathematics, physics or engineering (for example) at university it would not
have been possible to study OR, indeed the term OR did not exist then. It was only
really in the late 1930's that operational research began in a systematic fashion, and
it started in the UK.
Early in 1936 the British Air Ministry established Bawdsey Research Station, on the
east coast, near Felixstowe, Suffolk, as the centre where all pre-war radar
experiments for both the Air Force and the Army would be carried out. Experimental
radar equipment was brought up to a high state of reliability and ranges of over 100
miles on aircraft were obtained.
It was also in 1936 that Royal Air Force (RAF) Fighter Command, charged specifically
with the air defense of Britain, was first created. It lacked however any effective fighter
aircraft - no Hurricanes or Spitfires had come into service - and no radar data was yet
fed into its very elementary warning and control system.
It had become clear that radar would create a whole new series of problems in fighter
direction and control so in late 1936 some experiments started at Biggin Hill in Kent
into the effective use of such data. This early work, attempting to integrate radar data
with ground based observer data for fighter interception, was the start of OR.
The first of three major pre-war air-defense exercises was carried out in the summer
of 1937. The experimental radar station at Bawdsey Research Station was brought
into operation and the information derived from it was fed into the general air-defense
warning and control system. From the early warning point of view this exercise was
encouraging, but the tracking information obtained from radar, after filtering and
transmission through the control and display network, was not very satisfactory.
In July 1938 a second major air-defense exercise was carried out. Four additional
radar stations had been installed along the coast and it was hoped that Britain now
had an aircraft location and control system greatly improved both in coverage and
effectiveness. Not so! The exercise revealed, rather, that a new and serious problem
had arisen. This was the need to coordinate and correlate the additional, and often
conflicting, information received from the additional radar stations. With the out-break
of war apparently imminent, it was obvious that something new - drastic if necessary -
had to be attempted. Some new approach was needed.
Accordingly, on the termination of the exercise, the Superintendent of Bawdsey
Research Station, A.P. Rowe, announced that although the exercise had again
demonstrated the technical feasibility of the radar system for detecting aircraft, its
operational achievements still fell far short of requirements. He therefore proposed
that a crash program of research into the operational - as opposed to the technical -
aspects of the system should begin immediately. The term "operational research"
[RESEARCH into (military) OPERATIONS] was coined as a suitable description of
this new branch of applied science. The first team was selected from amongst the
scientists of the radar research group the same day.
In the summer of 1939 Britain held what was to be its last pre-war air defense
exercise. It involved some 33,000 men, 1,300 aircraft, 110 antiaircraft guns, 700
searchlights, and 100 barrage balloons. This exercise showed a great improvement in
the operation of the air defense warning and control system. The contribution made
by the OR teams was so apparent that the Air Officer Commander-in-Chief RAF
Fighter Command (Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding) requested that, on the
outbreak of war, they should be attached to his headquarters at Stanmore.
On May 15th 1940, with German forces advancing rapidly in France, Stanmore
Research Section was asked to analyze a French request for ten additional fighter
squadrons (12 aircraft a squadron) when losses were running at some three
squadrons every two days. They prepared graphs for Winston Churchill (the British
Prime Minister of the time), based upon a study of current daily losses and
replacement rates, indicating how rapidly such a move would deplete fighter strength.
No aircraft were sent and most of those currently in France were recalled.
This is held by some to be the most strategic contribution to the course of the war
made by OR (as the aircraft and pilots saved were consequently available for the
successful air defense of Britain, the Battle of Britain).
In 1941 an Operational Research Section (ORS) was established in Coastal
Command which was to carry out some of the most well-known OR work in World
War II.
Although scientists had (plainly) been involved in the hardware side of warfare
(designing better planes, bombs, tanks, etc) scientific analysis of the operational use
of military resources had never taken place in a systematic fashion before the Second
World War. Military personnel, often by no means stupid, were simply not trained to
undertake such analysis.
These early OR workers came from many different disciplines, one group consisted of
a physicist, two physiologists, two mathematical physicists and a surveyor. What such
people brought to their work were "scientifically trained" minds, used to querying
assumptions, logic, exploring hypotheses, devising experiments, collecting data,
analyzing numbers, etc. Many too were of high intellectual caliber (at least four
wartime OR personnel were later to win Nobel prizes when they returned to their
peacetime disciplines).
By the end of the war OR was well established in the armed services both in the UK
and in the USA.
OR started just before World War II in Britain with the establishment of teams of
scientists to study the strategic and tactical problems involved in military operations.
The objective was to find the most effective utilization of limited military resources by
the use of quantitative techniques.
Following the end of the war OR spread, although it spread in different ways in the
UK and USA.
You should be clear that the growth of OR since it began (and especially in the last 30
years) is, to a large extent, the result of the increasing power and widespread
availability of computers. Most (though not all) OR involves carrying out a large
number of numeric calculations. Without computers this would simply not be possible.

BASIC OR CONCEPTS

"OR is the representation of real-world systems by mathematical models together with

the use of quantitative methods (algorithms) for solving such models, with a view to
optimizing."
We can also define a mathematical model as consisting of:
¾ Decision variables, which are the unknowns to be determined by the solution to
the model.
¾ Constraints to represent the physical limitations of the system
¾ An objective function
¾ An optimal solution to the model is the identification of a set of variable values
which are feasible (satisfy all the constraints) and which lead to the optimal value
of the objective function.
An optimization model seeks to find values of the decision variables that optimize
(maximize or minimize) an objective function among the set of all values for the
decision variables that satisfy the given constraints.

Two Mines Example

The Two Mines Company own two different mines that produce an ore which, after
being crushed, is graded into three classes: high, medium and low-grade. The
company has contracted to provide a smelting plant with 12 tons of high-grade, 8 tons
of medium-grade and 24 tons of low-grade ore per week. The two mines have
different operating characteristics as detailed below.
Mine Cost per day (£'000) Production (tons/day)
High Medium Low
X 180 6 3 4
Y 160 1 1 6
Consider that mines cannot be operated in the weekend. How many days per week
should each mine be operated to fulfill the smelting plant contract?

Guessing
To explore the Two Mines problem further we might simply guess (i.e. use our
judgment) how many days per week to work and see how they turn out.
x work one day a week on X, one day a week on Y
This does not seem like a good guess as it results in only 7 tones a day of high-grade,
insufficient to meet the contract requirement for 12 tones of high-grade a day. We say
that such a solution is infeasible.
x work 4 days a week on X, 3 days a week on Y
This seems like a better guess as it results in sufficient ore to meet the contract. We
say that such a solution is feasible. However it is quite expensive (costly).
We would like a solution which supplies what is necessary under the contract at
minimum cost. Logically such a minimum cost solution to this decision problem must
exist. However even if we keep guessing we can never be sure whether we have
found this minimum cost solution or not. Fortunately our structured approach will
enable us to find the minimum cost solution.

Solution
What we have is a verbal description of the Two Mines problem. What we need to do
is to translate that verbal description into an equivalent mathematical description.
In dealing with problems of this kind we often do best to consider them in the order:
x Variables
x Constraints
x Objective
This process is often called formulating the problem (or more strictly formulating a
mathematical representation of the problem).

Variables
These represent the "decisions that have to be made" or the "unknowns".
We have two decision variables in this problem:
x = number of days per week mine X is operated
y = number of days per week mine Y is operated
Note here that x ≥ 0 and y ≥ 0.

Constraints
It is best to first put each constraint into words and then express it in a mathematical
form.
ore production constraints - balance the amount produced with the
quantity required under the smelting plant contract
Ore
High 6x + 1y ≥ 12
Medium 3x + 1y ≥ 8
Low 4x + 6y ≥ 24
days per week constraint - we cannot work more than a certain
maximum number of days a week e.g. for a 5 day week we have
x≤5
y≤5

Inequality constraints
Note we have an inequality here rather than an equality. This implies that we may
produce more of some grade of ore than we need. In fact we have the general rule:
given a choice between an equality and an inequality choose the inequality
For example - if we choose an equality for the ore production constraints we have the
three equations 6x+y=12, 3x+y=8 and 4x+6y=24 and there are no values of x and y
which satisfy all three equations (the problem is therefore said to be "over-
constrained"). For example the values of x and y which satisfy 6x+y=12 and 3x+y=8
are x=4/3 and y=4, but these values do not satisfy 4x+6y=24.
The reason for this general rule is that choosing an inequality rather than an equality
gives us more flexibility in optimizing (maximizing or minimizing) the objective
(deciding values for the decision variables that optimize the objective).
Implicit constraints
Constraints such as days per week constraint are often called implicit constraints
because they are implicit in the definition of the variables.

Objective
Again in words our objective is (presumably) to minimize cost which is given by
180x + 160y
Hence we have the complete mathematical representation of the problem:
minimize
180x + 160y
subject to
6x + y ≥ 12
3x + y ≥ 8
4x + 6y ≥ 24
x≤5
y≤5
x, y ≥ 0

Some notes
The mathematical problem given above has the form
x all variables continuous (i.e. can take fractional values)
x a single objective (maximize or minimize)
x the objective and constraints are linear i.e. any term is either a constant or a
2
constant multiplied by an unknown (e.g. 24, 4x, 6y are linear terms but xy or x
is a non-linear term)
Any formulation which satisfies these three conditions is called a linear program (LP).
We have (implicitly) assumed that it is permissible to work in fractions of days -
problems where this is not permissible and variables must take integer values will be
dealt with under Integer Programming (IP).

Discussion
This problem was a decision problem.
We have taken a real-world situation and constructed an equivalent mathematical
representation - such a representation is often called a mathematical model of the
real-world situation (and the process by which the model is obtained is called
formulating the model).
Just to confuse things the mathematical model of the problem is sometimes called the
formulation of the problem.
Having obtained our mathematical model we (hopefully) have some quantitative
method which will enable us to numerically solve the model (i.e. obtain a numerical
solution) - such a quantitative method is often called an algorithm for solving the
model.
Essentially an algorithm (for a particular model) is a set of instructions which, when
followed in a step-by-step fashion, will produce a numerical solution to that model.

Our model has an objective, that is something which we are trying to optimize. Having
obtained the numerical solution of our model we have to translate that solution back
into the real-world situation.

"OR is the representation of real-world systems by mathematical models

together with the use of quantitative methods (algorithms) for solving such
models, with a view to optimizing."

LINEAR PROGRAMMING

It can be recalled from the Two Mines example that the conditions for a mathematical
model to be a linear program (LP) were:
x all variables continuous (i.e. can take fractional values)
x a single objective (minimize or maximize)
x the objective and constraints are linear i.e. any term is either a constant or a
constant multiplied by an unknown.
LP's are important - this is because:
x many practical problems can be formulated as LP's
x there exists an algorithm (called the simplex algorithm) which enables us to
solve LP's numerically relatively easily
We will return later to the simplex algorithm for solving LP's but for the moment we
will concentrate upon formulating LP's.
Some of the major application areas to which LP can be applied are:
x Work scheduling
x Production planning & Production process
x Capital budgeting
x Financial planning
x Blending (e.g. Oil refinery management)
 x Farm planning
x Distribution
x Multi-period decision problems
o Inventory model o
Financial models o
Work scheduling
Note that the key to formulating LP's is practice. However a useful hint is that
common objectives for LP's are maximize profit/minimize cost.

There are four basic assumptions in LP:

x Proportionality
o The contribution to the objective function from each decision variable is
proportional to the value of the decision variable (The contribution to the
objective function from making four soldiers (4u$3=$12) is exactly four
times the contribution to the objective function from making one soldier
($3))
o The contribution of each decision variable to the LHS of each constraint
is proportional to the value of the decision variable (It takes exactly three
times as many finishing hours (2hrsu3=6hrs) to manufacture three
soldiers as it takes to manufacture one soldier (2 hrs))
x Additivity
o The contribution to the objective function for any decision variable is
independent of the values of the other decision variables (No matter
what the value of train (x2), the manufacture of soldier (x1) will always
contribute 3x1 dollars to the objective function)
o The contribution of a decision variable to LHS of each constraint is
independent of the values of other decision variables (No matter what
the value of x1, the manufacture of x2 uses x2 finishing hours and x2
carpentry hours)
st
ƒ 1 implication: The value of objective function is the sum of the
contributions from each decision variables.
nd
ƒ 2 implication: LHS of each constraint is the sum of the
contributions from each decision variables.
x Divisibility
o Each decision variable is allowed to assume fractional values. If we
 actually can not produce a fractional number of decision variables, we
use IP (It is acceptable to produce 1.69 trains)
x Certainty
o Each parameter is known with certainty

FORMULATING LP

Giapetto Example

Giapetto's wooden soldiers and trains. Each soldier sells for $27, uses $10 of raw
materials and takes $14 of labor & overhead costs. Each train sells for $21, uses $9
of raw materials, and takes $10 of overhead costs. Each soldier needs 2 hours
finishing and 1 hour carpentry; each train needs 1 hour finishing and 1 hour carpentry.
Raw materials are unlimited, but only 100 hours of finishing and 80 hours of carpentry
are available each week. Demand for trains is unlimited; but at most 40 soldiers can
be sold each week. How many of each toy should be made each week to maximize
profits?
Answer
Decision variables completely describe the decisions to be made (in this case, by
Giapetto). Giapetto must decide how many soldiers and trains should be
manufactured each week. With this in mind, we define:
x1 = the number of soldiers produced per week
x2 = the number of trains produced per week
Objective function is the function of the decision variables that the decision maker
wants to maximize (revenue or profit) or minimize (costs). Giapetto can concentrate
on maximizing the total weekly profit (z).
Here profit equals to (weekly revenues) – (raw material purchase cost) – (other
variable costs). Hence Giapetto‟s objective function is:
Maximize z = 3x1 + 2x2
Constraints show the restrictions on the values of the decision variables. Without
constraints Giapetto could make a large profit by choosing decision variables to be
very large. Here there are three constraints:
Finishing time per week
Carpentry time per week
Weekly demand for soldiers
Sign restrictions are added if the decision variables can only assume nonnegative
values (Giapetto can not manufacture negative number of soldiers or trains!)
All these characteristics explored above give the following Linear Programming (LP)
model
max z = 3x1 + 2x2 (The Objective function)
s.t.2x1 + x2 d 100 (Finishing constraint)
x1 + x2 d 80 (Carpentry constraint)
x1 d 40 (Constraint on demand for soldiers)
x1, x2 > 0 (Sign restrictions)
A value of (x1, x2) is in the feasible region if it satisfies all the constraints and sign
restrictions.
Graphically and computationally we see the solution is (x1, x2) = (20, 60) at which z =
180. (Optimal solution)
Report
The maximum profit is $180 by making 20 soldiers and 60 trains each week. Profit is
limited by the carpentry and finishing labor available. Profit could be increased by
buying more labor.

Advertisement Example
(Winston 3.2, p.61)
Dorian makes luxury cars and jeeps for high-income men and women. It wishes to
advertise with 1 minute spots in comedy shows and football games. Each comedy
spot costs $50K and is seen by 7M high-income women and 2M high-income men.
Each football spot costs $100K and is seen by 2M high-income women and 12M high-
income men. How can Dorian reach 28M high-income women and 24M high-income
men at the least cost?
Answer
The decision variables are
x1 = the number of comedy spots
x2 = the number of football spots
The model of the problem:
min z = 50x1 + 100x2
st 7x1 + 2x2t28
2x1 + 12x2 t24
x1, x2t0
The graphical solution is z = 320 when (x1, x2) = (3.6, 1.4). From the graph, in this
problem rounding up to (x1, x2) = (4, 2) gives the best integer solution.
Report
The minimum cost of reaching the target audience is $400K, with 4 comedy spots and
2 football slots. The model is dubious as it does not allow for saturation after repeated
viewings.

Diet Example

Ms. Fidan‟s diet requires that all the food she eats come from one of the four “basic
food groups“. At present, the following four foods are available for consumption:
brownies, chocolate ice cream, cola, and pineapple cheesecake. Each brownie costs
0.5$, each scoop of chocolate ice cream costs 0.2$, each bottle of cola costs 0.3$,
and each pineapple cheesecake costs 0.8$. Each day, she must ingest at least 500
calories, 6 oz of chocolate, 10 oz of sugar, and 8 oz of fat. The nutritional content per
unit of each food is shown in Table. Formulate an LP model that can be used to
satisfy her daily nutritional requirements at minimum cost.

Calories Chocolate Sugar Fat

(ounces) (ounces) (ounces)
Brownie 400 3 2 2
Choc. ice cream (1 scoop) 200 2 2 4
Cola (1 bottle) 150 0 4 1
Pineapple cheesecake (1 piece) 500 0 4 5

Answer
The decision variables:
x1: number of brownies eaten daily
x2: number of scoops of chocolate ice cream eaten daily
x3: bottles of cola drunk daily
x4: pieces of pineapple cheesecake eaten daily
The objective function (the total cost of the diet in cents):
min w = 50x1 + 20x2 + 30x3 + 80x4
Constraints:
400x1 + 200x2 + 150x3 + 500x4 > 500 (daily calorie intake)
3x1 + 2x2 > 6 (daily chocolate intake)
2x1 + 2x2 +4x3 + 4x4 > 10 (daily sugar intake)
 2x1 + 4x2 + x3 + 5x4 > 8 (daily fat intake)
xi ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (Sign restrictions!)
Report
The minimum cost diet incurs a daily cost of 90 cents by eating 3 scoops of chocolate
and drinking 1 bottle of cola (w = 90, x2 = 3, x3 = 1)

Post Office Example

A PO requires different numbers of employees on different days of the week. Union

rules state each employee must work 5 consecutive days and then receive two days
off. Find the minimum number of employees needed.
Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
Staff Needed 17 13 151914 16 11

Answer
The decision variables are xi (# of employees starting on day i)
Mathematically we must
min z = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7
s.t. x1 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ≥ 17
x1 + x2 + x5 + x6 + x7 ≥ 13
x1 + x2 + x3 + x6 + x7 ≥ 15
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x7 ≥ 19
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 ≥ 14
+ x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 ≥ 16
+ x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ≥ 11
xt ≥ 0, t
The solution is (xi) = (4/3, 10/3, 2, 22/3, 0, 10/3, 5) giving z = 67/3.
We could round this up to (xi) = (2, 4, 2, 8, 0, 4, 5) giving z = 25 (may be wrong!).
However restricting the decision var.s to be integers and using Lindo again gives
(xi) = (4, 4, 2, 6, 0, 4, 3) giving z = 23.

Sailco Example

Sailco must determine how many sailboats to produce in the next 4 quarters. The
demand is known to be 40, 60, 75, and 25 boats. Sailco must meet its demands. At
st
the beginning of the 1 quarter Sailco starts with 10 boats in inventory. Sailco can
produce up to 40 boats with regular time labor at $400 per boat, or additional boats at
$450 with overtime labor. Boats made in a quarter can be used to meet that quarter's
demand or held in inventory for the next quarter at an extra cost of $20.00 per boat.
Answer
The decision variables are for t = 1,2,3,4
xt = # of boats in quarter t built in regular time
yt = # of boats in quarter t built in overtime
For convenience, introduce variables:
it = # of boats in inventory at the end quarter t
dt = demand in quarter t
We are given that d1 = 40, d2 = 60, d3 = 75, d4 = 25, i0 =10
xt ≤ 40, t
By logic it = it-1+ xt + yt - dt, t.
Demand is met iff it ≥ 0, t
(Sign restrictions xt, yt ≥ 0, t)
We need to minimize total cost z subject to these three sets of conditions where z =
400 (x1 + x2 + x3 + x4) + 450 (y1 + y2 + y3 + y4) + 20 (i1 + i2 + i3 + i4)
Report:
Lindo reveals the solution to be (x1, x2, x3, x4) = (40, 40, 40, 25) and (y1, y2, y3, y4) =
(0, 10, 35, 0) and the minimum cost of $78450.00 is achieved by the schedule
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Regular time (xt) 40 40 40 25
Overtime (yt) 0 10 35 0
Inventory (it) 10 10 0 0 0
Demand (dt) 40 60 75 25

Customer Service Level Example

CSL services computers. Its demand (hours) for the time of skilled technicians in the
next 5 months is

t Jan Feb Mar Apr May

dt 6000 7000 8000 9500 11000
It starts with 50 skilled technicians at the beginning of January. Each technician can
work 160 hrs/month. To train a new technician they must be supervised for 50 hrs by
an experienced technician for a period of one month time. Each experienced
 technician is paid $2K/mth and a trainee is paid $1K/mth. Each month 5% of the
skilled technicians leave. CSL needs to meet demand and minimize costs.
Answer
The decision variable is
xt = # to be trained in month t
We must minimize the total cost. For convenience let
th
yt = # experienced tech. at start of t month
dt = demand during month t
Then we must
min z = 2000 (y1+...+ y5) + 1000 (x1 +...+ x5)
subject to
160yt - 50xt ≥ dt for t = 1,..., 5
y1 = 50, d1 = 6000, d2 = 7000, d3 = 8000, d4 = 9500, d5 = 11000
yt = .95yt-1 + xt-1 for t = 2,3,4,5
xt, yt ≥0

SOLVING LP

LP Solutions: Four Cases

When an LP is solved, one of the following four cases will occur:
1. The LP has a unique optimal solution.
2. The LP has alternative (multiple) optimal solutions. It has more than one
(actually an infinite number of) optimal solutions
3. The LP is infeasible. It has no feasible solutions (The feasible region contains
no points).
4. The LP is unbounded. In the feasible region there are points with arbitrarily
large (in a max problem) objective function values
The Graphical Solution

Any LP with only two variables can be solved graphically

Example 1. Giapetto
(Winston 3.1, p. 49)
Since the Giapetto LP has two variables, it may be solved graphically.
Answer
The feasible region is the set of all points satisfying the constraints.
 max z = 3x1 + 2x2
s.t. 2x1 + x2 ≤ 100 (Finishing constraint)
x1 + x2 ≤ 80 (Carpentry constraint)
x1 ≤ 40 (Demand constraint)

x1, x2 ≥ 0 (Sign restrictions)

The set of points satisfying the LP is bounded by the five sided polygon DGFEH. Any
point on or in the interior of this polygon (the shade area) is in the feasible region.
Having identified the feasible region for the LP, a search can begin for the optimal
solution which will be the point in the feasible region with the largest z-value

(maximiz ation p roblem).

To find the optimal solution, a line on which the points have the same z-value is
graphed. In a max problem, such a line is called an isoprofit line while in a min
problem, this is called the isocost line. (The figure shows the isoprofit lines for z =
100
60, z = , and z = 180).

X2
100 B
80
60 finishing constraint Feasible Region

D
40
20
demand constraint

H G

z = 100
carpentry constraint

F
z = 180
z = 60
E A C
10 20 40 50 60 80 X1

In the unique optimal solution case, isoprofit line last hits a point (vertex - corner)
before leaving the feasible region.
The optimal solution of this LP is point G where (x1, x2) = (20, 60) giving z = 180.

A constraint is binding (active, tight) if the left-hand and right-hand side of the
constraint are equal when the optimal values of the decision variables are substituted
into the constraint.
A constraint is nonbinding (inactive) if the left-hand side and the right-hand side of
the constraint are unequal when the optimal values of the decision variables are
substituted into the constraint.
In Giapetto LP, the finishing and carpentry constraints are binding. On the other hand
the demand constraint for wooden soldiers is nonbinding since at the optimal solution
x1 < 40 (x1 = 20).

Example 2. Advertisement
(Winston 3.2, p. 61)
Since the Advertisement LP has two variables, it may be solved graphically.
Answer
The feasible region is the set of all points satisfying the constraints.
min z = 50x1 + 100x2
s.t. 7x1 + 2x2 ≥ 28 (high income women)
2x1 + 12x2 ≥ 24 (high income men)
x1, x2 ≥ 0

X2

B
14

High-income women constraint

12

10
Feasible
Region
8

z = 600

4 z = 320

High-income men constraint

2 E
D
A C

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 X1

Since Dorian wants to minimize total advertising costs, the optimal solution to the
problem is the point in the feasible region with the smallest z value.
An isocost line with the smallest z value passes through point E and is the optimal
solution at x1 = 3.6 and x2 = 1.4 giving z = 320.
Both the high-income women and high-income men constraints are satisfied, both
constraints are binding.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 3. Two Mines

min 180x + 160y
st 6x + y ≥ 12
3x + y ≥ 8
4x + 6y ≥ 24
x≤5
y≤5
x, y ≥ 0
Answer

Optimal sol‟n is 765.71. 1.71 days mine X and 2.86 days mine Y are operated.

Example 4. Modified Giapetto

max z = 4x1 + 2x2
s.t. 2x1 + x2 ≤ 100 (Finishing constraint)
x1 + x2 ≤ 80 (Carpentry constraint)
x1 ≤ 40 (Demand constraint)
x1, x2 ≥ 0 (Sign restrictions)
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Answer
Points on the line between points G (20, 60) and F (40, 20) are the alternative
optimal solutions (see figure below).
Thus, for 0 ≤ c ≤ 1,
c [20 60] + (1 - c) [40 20] = [40 - 20c, 20 + 40c]
will be optimal
For all optimal solutions, the optimal objective function value is 200.

100 B

80 D

E A C
x1
H 40 50 80

Example 5. Modified Giapetto (v. 2)

Add constraint x2 ≥ 90 (Constraint on demand for trains).
Answer
No feasible region: Infeasible LP

Example 6. Modified Giapetto (v. 3)

Only use constraint x2 ≥ 90
Answer
Isoprofit line never lose contact with the feasible region: Unbounded LP
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
The Simplex Algorithm
Note that in the examples considered at the graphical solution, the unique optimal
solution to the LP occurred at a vertex (corner) of the feasible region. In fact it is true
that for any LP the optimal solution occurs at a vertex of the feasible region. This fact
is the key to the simplex algorithm for solving LP's.
Essentially the simplex algorithm starts at one vertex of the feasible region and
moves (at each iteration) to another (adjacent) vertex, improving (or leaving
unchanged) the objective function as it does so, until it reaches the vertex
corresponding to the optimal LP solution.
The simplex algorithm for solving linear programs (LP's) was developed by Dantzig in
the late 1940's and since then a number of different versions of the algorithm have
been developed. One of these later versions, called the revised simplex algorithm
(sometimes known as the "product form of the inverse" simplex algorithm) forms the
basis of most modern computer packages for solving LP's.

Steps
1. Convert the LP to standard form
2. Obtain a basic feasible solution (bfs) from the standard form
3. Determine whether the current bfs is optimal. If it is optimal, stop.
4. If the current bfs is not optimal, determine which nonbasic variable should
become a basic variable and which basic variable should become a nonbasic
variable to find a new bfs with a better objective function value
5. Go back to Step 3.

Related concepts:
x Standard form: all constraints are equations and all variables are nonnegative
x bfs: any basic solution where all variables are nonnegative
x Nonbasic variable: a chosen set of variables where variables equal to 0
x Basic variable: the remaining variables that satisfy the system of equations at
the standard form
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 1. Dakota Furniture

(Winston 4.3, p. 134)
Dakota Furniture makes desks, tables, and chairs. Each product needs the limited
resources of lumber, carpentry and finishing; as described in the table. At most 5
tables can be sold per week. Maximize weekly revenue.

Resource Desk Table Chair Max Avail.

Lumber (board ft.) 8 6 1 48
Finishing hours 4 2 1.5 20
Carpentry hours 2 1.5 .5 8
Max Demand unlimited 5 unlimited
Price ($) 60 30 20

LP Model:
Let x1, x2, x3 be the number of desks, tables and chairs produced.
Let the weekly profit be $z. Then, we must
max z = 60x1 + 30x2 + 20x3
s.t. 8x1 + 6x2 + x3≤ 48
4x1 + 2x2 + 1.5 x3≤ 20
2x1 + 1.5x2 + .5 x3≤ 8
x2 ≤5
x1, x2, x3 ≥ 0

Solution with Simplex Algorithm

First introduce slack variables and convert the LP to the standard form and write a
canonical form

R0 z -60x1 -30x2 -20x3 =0

R1 8x1 + 6x2 + x3 + s1 = 48
R2 4x1 + 2x2 +1.5x3 + s2 = 20
R3 2x1 + 1.5x2 + .5x3 + s3 =8
R4 x2 + s4 = 5
x1, x2, x3, s1, s2, s3, s4 ≥ 0
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Obtain a starting bfs.

As (x1, x2, x3) = 0 is feasible for the original problem, the below given point where
three of the variables equal 0 (the non-basic variables) and the four other variables
(the basic variables) are determined by the four equalities is an obvious bfs:
x1 = x2 = x3 = 0, s1 = 48, s2 = 20, s3 = 8, s4 = 5.
.
Determine whether the current bfs is optimal.
Determine whether there is any way that z can be increased by increasing some
nonbasic variable.
If each nonbasic variable has a nonnegative coefficient in the objective function row
(row 0), current bfs is optimal.
However, here all nonbasic variables have negative coefficients: It is not optimal.

Find a new bfs

x z increases most rapidly when x1 is made non-zero; i.e. x1 is the entering
variable.
x Examining R1, x1 can be increased only to 6. More than 6 makes s1 < 0.
Similarly R2, R3, and R4, give limits of 5, 4, and no limit for x1 (ratio test). The
smallest ratio is the largest value of the entering variable that will keep all the
current basic variables nonnegative. Thus by R3, x1 can only increase to x1 = 4
when s3 becomes 0. We say s3 is the leaving variable and R3 is the pivot
equation.
x Now we must rewrite the system so the values of the basic variables can be
read off.
The new pivot equation (R3/2) is
‟
R3 : x1+.75x2+.25x3+ .5s3 =4
‟
Then use R3 to eliminate x1 in all the other rows.
R0‟=R0+60R3‟, R1‟=R1-8R3‟, R2‟=R2-4R3‟, R4‟=R4
‟
R0 z + 15x2 - 5x3 + 30s3 = 240 z = 240
‟
R1 - x3 + s1 - 4s3 = 16 s1 = 16
‟
R2 - x2 + .5x3 + s2 - 2s3 = 4 s2 = 4
‟
R3 x1 + .75x2 + .25x3 + .5s3 = 4 x1 = 4
‟
R4 x2 + s4 = 5 s4 = 5
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

The new bfs is x2 = x3 = s3 = 0, x1 = 4, s1 = 16, s2 = 4, s4 = 5 making z = 240.

Check optimality of current bfs. Repeat steps until an optimal solution is reached
x We increase z fastest by making x3 non-zero (i.e. x3 enters).
x x3 can be increased to at most x3 = 8, when s2 = 0 ( i.e. s2 leaves.)

Rearranging the pivot equation gives

‟‟
R2 - 2x2 + x3 + 2s2 - 4s3 = 8 (R2 ‟× 2).
‟‟
Row operations with R2 eliminate x3 to give the new system
R0‟‟= R0‟ + 5R2‟‟, R1‟‟ = R1‟ + R2‟‟, R3‟‟ = R3‟ - .5R2‟‟,
R4‟‟ = R4‟
The bfs is now x2 = s2 = s3 = 0, x1 = 2, x3 = 8, s1 = 24, s4 = 5 making z = 280.
Each nonbasic variable has a nonnegative coefficient in row 0 (5x2, 10s2, 10s3).
THE CURRENT SOLUTION IS OPTIMAL

Report: Dakota furniture‟s optimum weekly profit would be 280$ if they produce 2
desks and 8 chairs.

This was once written as a tableau.

(Use tableau format for each operation in all HW and exams!!! )

max z = 60x1 + 30x2 + 20x3

s.t. 8x1 + 6x2 + x3 ≤ 48
4x1 + 2x2 + 1.5x3 ≤ 20
2x1 + 1.5x2 + .5x3 ≤ 8
x2 ≤5
x1, x2, x3 > 0

Initial tableau:

z x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 s4 RHS BV Ratio
1 -60 -30 -20 0 0 0 0 0 z=0
0 8 6 1 1 0 0 0 48 s1 = 48 6
0 4 2 1.5 0 1 0 0 20 s2 = 20 5
0 2 1.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 8 s3 = 8 4
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 s4 = 5 -
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

First tableau:
z x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 s4 RHS BV Ratio
1 0 15 -5 0 0 30 0 240 z = 240
0 0 0 -1 1 0 -4 0 16 s1 = 16 -
0 0 -1 0.5 0 1 -2 0 4 s2 = 4 8
0 1 0.75 0.25 0 0 0.5 0 4 x1 = 4 16
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 s4 = 5 -

Second and optimal tableau:

z x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 s4 RHS BV Ratio
1 0 5 0 0 10 10 0 280 z = 280
0 0 -2 0 1 2 -8 0 24 s1 = 24
0 0 -2 1 0 2 -4 0 8 x3 = 8
0 1 1.25 0 0 -0.5 1.5 0 2 x1 = 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 s4 = 5

Example 2. Modified Dakota Furniture

Dakota example is modified: $35/table
new z = 60 x1 + 35 x2 + 20 x3

Second and optimal tableau for the modified problem:

z x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 s4 RHS BV Ratio
1 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 280 z=280
0 0 -2 0 1 2 -8 0 24 s1=24 -
0 0 -2 1 0 2 -4 0 8 x3=8 -
0 1 1.25 0 0 -0.5 1.5 0 2 x1=2 2/1.25 Ÿ
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 s4=5 5/1

Another optimal tableau for the modified problem:

z x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 s3 s4 RHS BV
1 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 280 z=280
0 1.6 0 0 1 1.2 -5.6 0 27.2 s1=27.2
0 1.6 0 1 0 1.2 -1.6 0 11.2 x3=11.2
0 0.8 1 0 0 -0.4 1.2 0 1.6 x2=1.6
0 -0.8 0 0 0 0.4 -1.2 1 3.4 s4=3.4
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Therefore the optimal solution is as follows:

z = 280 and for 0 ≤ c ≤ 1

x1 2 0 2c
x2 = c 0 + (1 – c) 1.6 = 1.6 – 1.6c
x3 8 11.2 11.2 – 3.2c

Example 3. Unbounded LPs

z x1 x2 x3 s1 s2 z RHS BV Ratio
1 0 2 -9 0 12 4 100 z=100
0 0 1 -6 1 6 -1 20 x4=20 None
0 1 1 -1 0 1 0 5 x1=5 None

Since ratio test fails, the LP under consideration is an unbounded LP.

The Big M Method
If an LP has any ≥ or = constraints, a starting bfs may not be readily apparent.
When a bfs is not readily apparent, the Big M method or the two-phase simplex
method may be used to solve the problem.
The Big M method is a version of the Simplex Algorithm that first finds a bfs by adding
"artificial" variables to the problem. The objective function of the original LP must, of
course, be modified to ensure that the artificial variables are all equal to 0 at the
conclusion of the simplex algorithm.

Steps
1. Modify the constraints so that the RHS of each constraint is nonnegative (This
requires that each constraint with a negative RHS be multiplied by -1. Remember
that if you multiply an inequality by any negative number, the direction of the
inequality is reversed!). After modification, identify each constraint as a ≤, ≥ or =
constraint.
2. Convert each inequality constraint to standard form (If constraint i is a ≤ constraint,
we add a slack variable si; and if constraint i is a ≥ constraint, we subtract an
excess variable ei).
3. Add an artificial variable ai to the constraints identified as ≥ or = constraints at the
end of Step 1. Also add the sign restriction ai ≥ 0.
4. Let M denote a very large positive number. If the LP is a min problem, add (for
each artificial variable) Mai to the objective function. If the LP is a max problem,
add (for each artificial variable) -Mai to the objective function.
5. Since each artificial variable will be in the starting basis, all artificial variables must
be eliminated from row 0 before beginning the simplex. Now solve the transformed
problem by the simplex (In choosing the entering variable, remember that M is a
very large positive number!).

If all artificial variables are equal to zero in the optimal solution, we have found the
optimal solution to the original problem.

If any artificial variables are positive in the optimal solution, the original problem is
infeasible!!!
Example 1. Oranj Juice

Bevco manufactures an orange flavored soft drink called Oranj by combining orange
soda and orange juice. Each ounce of orange soda contains 0.5 oz of sugar and 1
mg of vitamin C. Each ounce of orange juice contains 0.25 oz of sugar and 3 mg of
vitamin C. It costs Bevco 2¢ to produce an ounce of orange soda and 3¢ to produce
an ounce of orange juice. Marketing department has decided that each 10 oz bottle
of Oranj must contain at least 20 mg of vitamin C and at most 4 oz of sugar. Use LP
to determine how Bevco can meet marketing dept.‟s requirements at minimum cost.
LP Model:
Let x1 and x2 be the quantity of ounces of orange soda and orange juice
(respectively) in a bottle of Oranj.
min z = 2x1 + 3x2
s.t. 0.5 x1 + 0.25 x2 ≤ 4 (sugar const.)
x1+ 3 x2 ≥ 20 (vit. C const.)
x1+ x2 = 10 (10 oz in bottle)
x1, x2 ≥ 0

Solving Oranj Example with Big M Method

1. Modify the constraints so that the RHS of each constraint is
nonnegative The RHS of each constraint is nonnegative
2. Convert each inequality constraint to standard form
z – 2x1 – 3x2 = 0
0.5x1 + 0.25x2 + s1 = 4
x1 + 3x2 - e2 = 20
x1 + x2 = 10
all variables nonnegative
3. Add ai to the constraints identified as > or = const.s
z – 2x1 – 3x2 = 0 Row 0
0.5x1 + 0.25x2 + s1 = 4 Row 1
x1 + 3x2 - e2 + a2 = 20 Row 2
x1 + x2 + a3 = 10 Row 3
all variables nonnegative
4. Add Mai to the objective function (min problem)
min z = 2x1 + 3x2 + Ma2 + Ma3
Row 0 will change to
z – 2x1 – 3x2 – Ma2 – Ma3 = 0
5. Since each artificial variable are in our starting bfs, they must be eliminated from
row 0
New Row 0 = Row 0 + M * Row 2 + M * Row 3 Ÿ
z + (2M–2) x1 + (4M–3) x2 – M e2 = 30M New Row 0

Initial tableau:

z x1 x2 s1 e2 a2 a3 RHS BV Ratio
1 2M-2 4M -3 0 -M 0 0 30M z=30M
0 0.5 0.25 1 0 0 0 4 s1=4 16
0 1 3 0 -1 1 0 20 a2=20 20/3*
0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 a3=10 10
In a min problem, entering variable is the variable that has the “most positive”
coefficient in row 0!
First tableau:

z x1 x2 s1 e2 a2 a3 RHS BV Ratio
1 (2M-3)/3 0 0 (M-3)/3 (3-4M)/3 0 20+3.3Mz
0 5/12 0 1 1/12 -1/12 0 7/3 s1 28/5
0 1/3 1 0 -1/3 1/3 0 20/3 x2 20
0 2/3 0 0 1/3 -1/3 1 10/3 a3 5*
Optimal tableau:
z x1 x2 s1 e2 a2 a3 RHS BV
1 0 0 0 -1/2 (1-2M)/2 (3-2M)/2 25 z=25
0 0 0 1 -1/8 1/8 -5/8 1/4 s1=1/4
0 0 1 0 -1/2 1/2 -1/2 5 x2=5
0 1 0 0 1/2 -1/2 3/2 5 x1=5

Report:
In a bottle of Oranj, there should be 5 oz orange soda and 5 oz orange juice.
In this case the cost would be 25¢.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 2. Modified Oranj Juice

Consider Bevco‟s problem. It is modified so that 36 mg of vitamin C are required.
Related LP model is given as follows:
Let x1 and x2 be the quantity of ounces of orange soda and orange juice
(respectively) in a bottle of Oranj.
min z = 2x1 + 3x2
s.t. 0.5 x1 + 0.25 x2 ≤ 4 (sugar const.)
x1
+ 3 x2 ≥ 36 (vit. C const.)
x1
+ x2 = 10 (10 oz in bottle)
x1, x2 ≥ 0
Solving with Big M method:
Initial tableau:

z x1 x2 s1 e2 a2 a3 RHS BV Ratio
1 2M -2 4M -3 0 -M 0 0 46M z=46M
0 0.5 0.25 1 0 0 0 4 s1=4 16
0 1 3 0 -1 1 0 36 a2=36 36/3
0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 a3=10 10 Ÿ
Optimal tableau:
z x1 x2 s1 e2 a2 a3 RHS BV
1 1- 2M 0 0 -M 0 3-4M 30+6M z=30+6M
0 1/4 0 1 0 0 -1/4 3/2 s1=3/2
0 -2 0 0 -1 1 -3 6 a2=6
0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 x2=10
An artificial variable (a2) is BV so the original LP has no feasible solution
Report:
It is impossible to produce Oranj under these conditions.

DUALITY

Primal – Dual
Associated with any LP is another LP called the dual. Knowledge of the dual provides
interesting economic and sensitivity analysis insights. When taking the dual of any LP,
the given LP is referred to as the primal. If the primal is a max problem, the dual will
be a min problem and vice versa.

Finding the Dual of an LP

The dual of a normal max problem is a normal min problem.
PRIMAL
min w =
s.t.

MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Normal max problem is a problem in which all the variables are required to be
nonnegative and all the constraints are ≤ constraints.
Normal min problem is a problem in which all the variables are required to be
nonnegative and all the constraints are ≥ constraints.
Similarly, the dual of a normal min problem is a normal max problem.

Finding the Dual of a Normal Max Problem

PRIMAL
max z = c1x1+ c2x2 +…+ cnxn
s.t. a11x1 + a12x2 + … + a1nxn ≤ b1
a21x1 + a22x2 + … + a2nxn ≤ b2
… … … …
am1x1 + am2x2 + … + amnxn ≤ bm
xj ≥ 0 (j = 1, 2, …, n)
DUAL
min w = b1y1 + b2y2 +…+ bmym
s.t. a11y1 + a21y2 + … + am1ym ≥ c1
a12y1 + a22y2 + … + am2ym ≥ c2
… … … …
a1ny1 + a2ny2 + …+ amnym ≥ cn
yi ≥ 0 (i = 1, 2, …, m)

Finding the Dual of a Normal Min Problem

b1y1+ b2y2 +…+ bmym

a11y1 + a21y2 + … + am1ym ≥ c1
a12y1 + a22y2 + … + am2ym ≥ c2
… … … …
a1ny1 + a2ny2 + …+ amnym ≥ cn
yi ≥ 0 (i = 1, 2, …, m)
DUAL
max z = c1x1+ c2x2 +…+ cnxn
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

s.t. a11x1 + a12x2 + … + a1nxn ≤ b1

a21x1 + a22x2 + … + a2nxn ≤ b2
… … … …
am1x1 + am2x2 + … + amnxn ≤ bm
xj ≥ 0 (j = 1, 2, …, n)

Finding the Dual of a Nonnormal Max Problem

x If the ith primal constraint is a ≥ constraint, the corresponding dual variable
yi must satisfy yi ≤ 0
x If the ith primal constraint is an equality constraint, the dual variable yi is
now unrestricted in sign (urs).
x If the ith primal variable is urs, the ith dual constraint will be an equality
constraint

Finding the Dual of a Nonnormal Min Problem

x If the ith primal constraint is a ≤ constraint, the corresponding dual variable
xi must satisfy xi ≤ 0
x If the ith primal constraint is an equality constraint, the dual variable xi is
now urs.
x If the ith primal variable is urs, the ith dual constraint will be an equality
constraint
The Dual Theorem
The primal and dual have equal optimal objective function values (if the problems
have optimal solutions).
Weak duality implies that if for any feasible solution to the primal and an feasible
solution to the dual, the w-value for the feasible dual solution will be at least as large
as the z-value for the feasible primal solution  z ≤ w.
Consequences
x Any feasible solution to the dual can be used to develop a bound on the optimal
value of the primal objective function.
x If the primal is unbounded, then the dual problem is infeasible.
x If the dual is unbounded, then the primal is infeasible.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

x How to read the optimal dual solution from Row 0 of the optimal tableau if the
primal is a max problem:
„optimal value of dual variable yi‟
= „coefficient of si in optimal row 0‟ (if const. i is a ≤ const.)
= –„coefficient of ei in optimal row 0‟ (if const. i is a ≥ const.)
= „coefficient of ai in optimal row 0‟ – M (if const. i is a = const.)
x How to read the optimal dual solution from Row 0 of the optimal tableau if the
primal is a min problem:
„optimal value of dual variable xi‟
= „coefficient of si in optimal row 0‟ (if const. i is a ≤ const.)
= –„ coefficient of ei in optimal row 0‟ (if const. i is a ≥ const.)
= „coefficient of ai in optimal row 0‟ +
M (if const. i is a = const.)

Economic Interpretation
When the primal is a normal max problem, the dual variables are related to the value
of resources available to the decision maker. For this reason, dual variables are often
referred to as resource shadow prices.
Example
PRIMAL
Let x1, x2, x3 be the number of desks, tables and chairs produced. Let the weekly
profit be $z. Then, we must

max z = 60x1 + 30x2 + 20x3

s.t. 8x1 + 6x2 + x3 ≤ 48 (Lumber constraint)
4x1 + 2x2 + 1.5x3 ≤ 20 (Finishing hour constraint)
2x1 + 1.5x2 + 0.5x3 ≤ 8 (Carpentry hour constraint)
x1, x2, x3 ≥ 0
DUAL
Suppose an entrepreneur wants to purchase all of Dakota ‟s resources.
In the dual problem y1, y2, y3 are the resource prices (price paid for one board ft of
lumber, one finishing hour, and one carpentry hour).
$w is the cost of purchasing the resources.
Resource prices must be set high enough to induce Dakota to sell. i.e. total
purchasing cost equals total profit.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

min w = 48y1 + 20y2 + 8y3

s.t. 8y1 + 4y2 + 2y3 ≥ 60 (Desk constraint)
6y1 + 2y2 + 1.5y3 ≥ 30 (Table constraint)
y1 + 1.5y2+ 0.5y3 ≥ 20 (Chair constraint)
y1, y2, y3 ≥ 0

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Reduced Cost
For any nonbasic variable, the reduced cost for the variable is the amount by which
the nonbasic variable's objective function coefficient must be improved before that
variable will become a basic variable in some optimal solution to the LP.
If the objective function coefficient of a nonbasic variable xk is improved by its
reduced cost, then the LP will have alternative optimal solutions at least one in which
xk is a basic variable, and at least one in which xk is not a basic variable.
If the objective function coefficient of a nonbasic variable xk is improved by more than
its reduced cost, then any optimal solution to the LP will have xk as a basic variable
and xk > 0.
Reduced cost of a basic variable is zero (see definition)!

Shadow Price
We define the shadow price for the ith constraint of an LP to be the amount by which
the optimal z value is "improved" (increased in a max problem and decreased in a
min problem) if the RHS of the ith constraint is increased by 1.
This definition applies only if the change in the RHS of the constraint leaves the
current basis optimal!
A ≥ constraint will always have a nonpositive shadow price; a ≤ constraint will always
have a nonnegative shadow price.

Conceptualization
max z = 5 x1 + x2 + 10x3
x1 + x3 ≤ 100
x2 ≤ 1
All variables ≥ 0

This is a very easy LP model and can be solved manually without utilizing Simplex.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
x2 = 1 (This variable does not exist in the first constraint. In this case, as the problem
is a maximization problem, the optimum value of the variable equals the RHS value of
the second constraint).

x1 = 0, x3 = 100 (These two variables do exist only in the first constraint and as the
objective function coefficient of x3 is greater than that of x1, the optimum value of x3
equals the RHS value of the first constraint). Hence, the optimal solution is as follows:

z = 1001, [x1, x2, x3] = [0, 1, 100]

Similarly, sensitivity analysis can be executed manually.

Reduced Cost
As x2 and x3 are in the basis, their reduced costs are 0.
In order to have x1 enter in the basis, we should make its objective function coefficient
as great as that of x3. In other words, improve the coefficient as 5 (10-5). New
objective function would be (max z = 10x1 + x2 + 10x3) and there would be at least two
optimal solutions for [x1, x2, x3]: [0, 1, 100] and [100, 1, 0].
Therefore reduced cost of x1 equals 5.
If we improve the objective function coefficient of x1 more than its reduced cost, there
would be a unique optimal solution: [100, 1, 0].
Shadow Price
If the RHS of the first constraint is increased by 1, new optimal solution of x3 would
be 101 instead of 100. In this case, new z value would be 1011.
If we use the definition: 1011 - 1001 = 10 is the shadow price of the first constraint.
Similarly the shadow price of the second constraint can be calculated as 1 (please
find it).

Utilizing Lindo Output for Sensitivity

NOTICE: The objective function which is regarded as Row 0 in Simplex is

accepted as Row 1 in Lindo.
Therefore the first constraint of the model is always second row in Lindo!!!

MAX 5 X1 + X2 + 10 X3
SUBJECT TO
2) X1 + X3 <= 100
END
3) X2 <= 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

LP OPTIMUM FOUND AT STEP 1

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION VALUE

1) 1001.000

VARIABLE VALUE REDUCED COST

X1 0.000000 5.000000
X2 1.000000 0.000000
X3 100.000000 0.000000
ROW SLACK OR SURPLUS DUAL PRICES
2) 0.000000 10.000000
3) 0.000000 1.000000

RANGES IN WHICH THE BASIS IS UNCHANGED:

OBJ COEFFICIENT RANGES
VARIABLE CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE
COEF INCREASE DECREASE
X1 5.000000 5.000000 INFINITY
X2 1.000000 INFINITY 1.000000
X3 10.000000 INFINITY 5.000000
RIGHTHAND SIDE RANGES
ROW CURRENT ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE
RHS INCREASE DECREASE
2 100.000000 INFINITY 100.000000
3 1.000000 INFINITY 1.000000

Lindo output reveals the reduced costs of x1, x2, and x3 as 5, 0, and 0 respectively.
In the maximization problems, the reduced cost of a non-basic variable can also be
read from the allowable increase value of that variable at obj. coefficient ranges. Here,
the corresponding value of x1 is 5.
In the minimization problems, the reduced cost of a non-basic variable can also be
read from the allowable decrease value of that variable at obj. coefficient ranges.
The same Lindo output reveals the shadow prices of the constraints in the "dual price"
section:
Here, the shadow price of the first constraint (Row 2) equals 10.
The shadow price of the second constraint (Row 3) equals 1.

Some important equations

If the change in the RHS of the constraint leaves the current basis optimal (within the
allowable RHS range), the following equations can be used to calculate new objective
function value:
for maximization problems
www
x ne obj.fn.value = old obj. fn. value + (new RHS – old RHS) × shadow price

.studentsfocus.com
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

for minimization problems

x new obj. fn. value = old obj. fn. value – (new RHS – old RHS) × shadow price
For Lindo example, as the allowable increases in RHS ranges are infinity for each
constraint, we can increase RHS of them as much as we want. But according to
allowable decreases, RHS of the first constraint can be decreased by 100 and that of
second constraint by 1.
Lets assume that new RHS value of the first constraint is 60.
As the change is within allowable range, we can use the first equation (max.
problem):
znew = 1001 + ( 60 - 100 ) 10 = 601.

Utilizing Simplex for Sensitivity

In Dakota furniture example; x1, x2, and x3 were representing the number of desks,
tables, and chairs produced.
The LP formulated for profit maximization:

max z = 60 x1 30 x2 20x3
8 x1 + 6 x2 + x3 + s1 = 48 Lumber
4 x1 + 2 x2 +1.5 x3 + s2 = 20 Finishing
2 x1 +1.5 x2 + .5 x3 + s3 = 8 Carpentry
x2 + s4 = 5 Demand
The optimal solution was:

z +5 x2 +10 s2 +10 s3 = 280

-2 x2 +s1 +2 s2 -8 s3 = 24
-2 x2 + x3 +2 s2 -4 s3 = 8
+ x1 + 1.25 x2 -.5 s2 +1.5 s3 = 2
x2 + s4 = 5

Analysis 1
Suppose available finishing time changes from 20 o 20+G, then we have the system:

z' = 60 x1' + 30 x2' + 20 x3'

8 x1' + 6 x2' + x3' + s1' = 48
4 x1' + 2 x2' +1.5 x3' + s2' = 20+G
2 x1' +1.5 x2' + .5 x3' + s3' = 8
+ x2' + s4' = 5
 HN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

or equivalently:

z' = 60 x1' + 30 x2' + 20 x3'

8 x1' + 6 x2' + x3' + s1' = 48
4 x1' + 2 x2' +1.5 x3' +(s2'-G) = 20
2 x1' +1.5 x2' + .5 x3' + s3' = 8
+ x2' + s4' = 5
‟ ‟ ‟ ‟ ‟ ‟ ‟ ‟ ‟
That is z , x1 , x2 , x3 ,x4 ,s1 ,s2 -G,s3 ,s4 satisfy the original problem, and hence (1)
Substituting in:

z' +5 x2' +10(s2'-G) +10 s3' = 280

-2 x2' + s1' +2(s2'-G) -8 s3' = 24
-2 x2' + x3' +2(s2'-G) -4 s3' = 8
+ x1' +1.25 x2' -.5(s2'-G) +1.5 s3' = 2
x2' + s4' = 5
and thus

z' +5 x2' +10 s2' +10 s3' = 280+10G

-2 x2' +s1' +2 s2' -8 s3' = 24+2G
-2 x2' + x3' +2 s2' -4 s3' = 8+2G
+ x1' +1.25 x2' -.5 s2' +1.5 s3' = 2-.5G
x2' + s4' = 5
For -4 dGd 4, the new system maximizes z‟. In this range RHS values are non-
negative.
As G increases, revenue increases by 10G. Therefore, the shadow price of finishing
labor is $10 per hr. (This is valid for up to 4 extra hours or 4 fewer hours).

Analysis 2
What happens if revenue from desks changes to $60+J? For small J ﾤ revenue
increases by 2J (as we are making 2 desks currently). But how large an increase is
possible?
The new revenue is:
z' = (60+J)x1+30x2+20x3 = z+Jx1
= (280 - 5x2 - 10s2 - 10s3) + J(2 - 1.25x2 + .5s2 - 1.5s3)
= 280 + 2J- (5 + 1.25J)x2 - (10-.5J)s2 - (10 +
1.5J)s3 So the top line in the final system would be:

MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

z' + (5 + 1.25J)x2 + (10 - .5J)s2 + (10 + 1.5J)s3 = 280 + 2J

Provided all terms in this row are t ﾤ we are still optimal.

For -4 dJd 20, the current production schedule is still optimal.

Analysis 3
If revenue from a non-basic variable changes, the revenue is
‟
z = 60x1 + (30 + J)x2 + 20x3 = z + Jx2
= 280 - 5x2 - 10s2 - 10s3 + Jx2
= 280 - (5 - J)x2 - 10s2 - 10s3
The current solution is optimal for Jd 5. But when J!5 or the revenue per table is
increased past $35, it becomes better to produce tables. We say the reduced cost
of tables is $5.00.

Duality and Sensitivity Analysis

Will be treated at the class.

The 100% Rule

Will be treated at the class.

TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS

FORMULATING TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS

In general, a transportation problem is specified by the following information:
x A set of m supply points from which a good/service is shipped. Supply point i
can supply at most si units.
x A set of n demand points to which the good/service is shipped. Demand point
j must receive at least dj units.
x Each unit produced at supply point i and shipped to demand point j incurs a
variable cost of cij.
The relevant data can be formulated in a transportation tableau:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Demand Demand Demand

point 1 point 2 ..... point n SUPPLY
Supply c11 c12 c1n
s1
point 1
Supply c21 c22 c2n
s2
point 2
.....
Supply cm1 cm2 cmn
sm
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
point m
DEMAND d1 d2 dn

If total supply equals total demand then the problem is said to be a balanced
transportation problem.

Let xij = number of units shipped from supply point i to demand point j
ƒ Decision variable xij: number of units shipped from supply point i to
demand point j
then the general LP representation of a transportation problem is

min 6i6j cij xij

s.t.6j xij < si (i=1,2, ..., m) Supply constraints

6i xij > dj (j=1,2, ..., n) Demand constraints

xij > 0
If a problem has the constraints given above and is a maximization problem, it is still a
transportation problem.

Formulating Balanced Transportation Problem

Example 1. Powerco
Powerco has three electric power plants that supply the needs of four cities. Each
power plant can supply the following numbers of kwh of electricity: plant 1, 35 million;
plant 2, 50 million; and plant 3, 40 million. The peak power demands in these cities as
follows (in kwh): city 1, 45 million; city 2, 20 million; city 3, 30 million; city 4, 30 million.
The costs of sending 1 million kwh of electricity from plant to city is given in the table
below. To minimize the cost of meeting each city‟s peak power demand, formulate a
balanced transportation problem in a transportation tableau and represent the
problem as a LP model.
To
From City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4
Plant 1 $8 $6 $10 $9
Plant 2 $9 $12 $13 $7
Plant 3 $14 $9 $16 $5

Answer
Representation of the problem as a LP model
ij
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
min z = 8 x11 + 6 x12 + 10 x13 + 9 x14 + 9 x21 + 12 x22 + 13 x23 + 7 x24 + 14
x31 + 9 x32 + 16 x33 + 5 x34
s.t. x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 < 35 (supply constraints)
x21 + x22 + x23 + x24 < 50
x31 + x32 + x33 + x34 < 40
x11 + x21 + x31 > 45 (demand constraints)
x12 + x22 + x32 > 20
x13 + x23 + x33 > 30
x14 + x24 + x34 > 30
xij > 0 (i = 1, 2, 3; j = 1, 2, 3, 4)

Formulation of the transportation problem

City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 SUPPLY
8 6 10 9
Plant 1 35
9 12 13 7
Plant 2 50
14 9 16 5
Plant 3 40

DEMAND 45 20 30 30 125
Total supply & total demand both equal 125: “balanced transport‟n problem”.

Balancing an Unbalanced Transportation Problem

Excess Supply
If total supply exceeds total demand, we can balance a transportation problem by
creating a dummy demand point that has a demand equal to the amount of excess
supply. Since shipments to the dummy demand point are not real shipments, they are
assigned a cost of zero. These shipments indicate unused supply capacity.
Unmet Demand
If total supply is less than total demand, actually the problem has no feasible solution.
To solve the problem it is sometimes desirable to allow the possibility of leaving some
demand unmet. In such a situation, a penalty is often associated with unmet demand.
This means that a dummy supply point should be introduced.

Example 2. Modified Powerco for Excess Supply

Suppose that demand for city 1 is 40 million kwh. Formulate a balanced
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
transportation problem.
Answer
Total demand is 120, total supply is 125.
To balance the problem, we would add a dummy demand point with a demand of 125
– 120 = 5 million kwh.
From each plant, the cost of shipping 1 million kwh to the dummy is 0.
For details see Table 4.

Table 4. Transportation Tableau for Excess Supply

City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 Dummy SUPPLY
8 6 10 9 0
Plant 1 35
9 12 13 7 0
Plant 2 50
14 9 16 5 0
Plant 3 40

DEMAND 40 20 30 30 5 125

Example 3. Modified Powerco for Unmet Demand

Suppose that demand for city 1 is 50 million kwh. For each million kwh of unmet
demand, there is a penalty of 80$. Formulate a balanced transportation problem.
Answer
We would add a dummy supply point having a supply of 5 million kwh representing
shortage.
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 SUPPLY
8 6 10 9
Plant 1 35
9 12 13 7
Plant 2 50
14 9 16 5
Plant 3 40
Dummy 80 80 80 80 5
(Shortage)
DEMAND 50 20 30 30 130

FINDING BFS FOR TRANSPORT’N PROBLEMS

For a balanced transportation problem, general LP representation may be written as:

min 6i6j cij xij

s.t. 6j xij = si (i=1,2, ..., m) Supply constraints

 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

6i xij = dj (j=1,2, ..., n) Demand constraints

xij > 0
To find a bfs to a balanced transportation problem, we need to make the following
important observation:
If a set of values for the xij‟s satisfies all but one of the constraints of a balanced
transportation problem, the values for the xij‟s will automatically satisfy the other
constraint.
This observation shows that when we solve a balanced transportation, we may omit
from consideration any one of the problem‟s constraints and solve an LP having
m+n-1 constraints. We arbitrarily assume that the first supply constraint is omitted
from consideration. In trying to find a bfs to the remaining m+n-1 constraints, you
might think that any collection of m+n-1 variables would yield a basic solution. But this
is not the case: If the m+n-1 variables yield a basic solution, the cells corresponding
to this set contain no loop.
An ordered sequence of at least four different cells is called a loop if
x Any two consecutives cells lie in either the same row or same column
x No three consecutive cells lie in the same row or column
x The last cell in the sequence has a row or column in common with the first cell
in the sequence
There are three methods that can be used to find a bfs for a balanced transportation
problem:
1. Northwest Corner method
2. Minimum cost method
3. Vogel‟s method

Northwest Corner Method

We begin in the upper left corner of the transportation tableau and set x11 as large as
possible (clearly, x11 can be no larger than the smaller of s1 and d1).
x If x11=s1, cross out the first row of the tableau. Also change d1 to d1-s1.
x If x11=d1, cross out the first column of the tableau. Change s1 to s1-d1.
x If x11=s1=d1, cross out either row 1 or column 1 (but not both!).
o If you cross out row, change d1 to 0.
o If you cross out column, change s1 to 0.
Continue applying this procedure to the most northwest cell in the tableau that does
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
not lie in a crossed out row or column.

Eventually, you will come to a point where there is only one cell that can be assigned
a value. Assign this cell a value equal to its row or column demand, and cross out
both the cell‟s row or column.
A bfs has now been obtained.

Example 1.
For example consider a balanced transportation problem given below (We omit the
costs because they are not needed to find a bfs!).

2 4 2 1
Total demand equals total supply (9): this is a balanced transport‟n problem.

2 3

X 4 2 1

2 3 X
1

X 1 2 1

2 3 X

1 X
3

X 0 2 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

2 3 X

1 X
0 2 1 3

X 0 2 1

NWC method assigned values to m+n-1 (3+4-1 = 6) variables. The variables chosen
by NWC method can not form a loop, so a bfs is obtained.

Minimum Cost Method

Northwest Corner method does not utilize shipping costs, so it can yield an initial bfs
that has a very high shipping cost. Then determining an optimal solution may require
several pivots.
To begin the minimum cost method, find the variable with the smallest shipping cost
(call it xij). Then assign xij its largest possible value, min {si, dj}.
As in the NWC method, cross out row i or column j and reduce the supply or demand
of the noncrossed-out of row or column by the value of xij.
Continue like NWC method (instead of assigning upper left corner, the cell with the
minimum cost is assigned). See Northwest Corner Method for the details!

Example 2.
2 3 5 6
5
2 1 3 5
10
3 8 4 6
15

12 8 4 6

2 3 5 6
5
2 1 3 5
8 2
3 8 4 6
15

12 X 4 6
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-
2016

2 3 5 6
5

2 8 X
3 8 4 6
15

10 X 4 6
2 3 5 6
5 X
2 1 3 5
X
2 8
3 8 4 6
15

5 X 4 6
2 3 5 6
5 X
2 1 3 5
2 8 X
3 8 4 6 10
5 4 6
5 X 4 6

Vogel’s Method
Begin by computing for each row and column a penalty equal to the difference
between the two smallest costs in the row and column. Next find the row or column
with the largest penalty. Choose as the first basic variable the variable in this row or
column that has the smallest cost. As described in the NWC method, make this
variable as large as possible, cross out row or column, and change the supply or
demand associated with the basic variable (See Northwest Corner Method for the
details!). Now recomputed new penalties (using only cells that do not lie in a crossed
out row or column), and repeat the procedure until only one uncrossed cell remains.
Set this variable equal to the supply or demand associated with the variable, and
cross out the variable‟s row and column.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 3.
Row
Supply
penalty
6 7 8
10 7-6=1
15 80 78 15 78-15=63

Demand 15 5 5
Column
penalty 15-6=9 80-7=73 78-8=70

Row
Supply penalty
6 7 8 5 8-6=2
5
15 80 78 1578-15=63

Demand 15 X 5
Column
15-6=9 - 78-8=70
penalty
Row
Supply penalty

6 7 8 X -
5 5
15 80 78 15 -

Demand 15 X 0
Column
15-6=9 - -
penalty

6 7 8 X
5 5
15 80 78 15
15 0
Demand 15 X 0
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

THE TRANSPORTATION SIMPLEX METHOD

Steps of the Method

1. If the problem is unbalanced, balance it
2. Use one of the methods to find a bfs for the problem
3. Use the fact that u1 = 0 and ui + vj = cij for all basic variables to find the u‟s and
v‟s for the current bfs.
4. If ui + vj – cij ≤ 0 for all nonbasic variables, then the current bfs is optimal. If this is
not the case, we enter the variable with the most positive ui + vj – cij into the basis
using the pivoting procedure. This yields a new bfs. Return to Step 3.

For a maximization problem, proceed as stated, but replace Step 4 by the following
step:
If ui + vj – cij ≥ 0 for all nonbasic variables, then the current bfs is optimal.
Otherwise, enter the variable with the most negative ui + vj – cij into the basis using
the pivoting procedure. This yields a new bfs. Return to Step 3.

Pivoting procedure
1. Find the loop (there is only one possible loop!) involving the entering variable
(determined at step 4 of the transport‟n simplex method) and some or all of the
basic variables.
2. Counting only cells in the loop, label those that are an even number (0, 2, 4, and
so on) of cells away from the entering variable as even cells. Also label those that
are an odd number of cells away from the entering variable as odd cells.
3. Find the odd cell whose variable assumes the smallest value. Call this value ).
The variable corresponding to this odd cell will leave the basis. To perform the
pivot, decrease the value of each odd cell by ) and increase the value of each
even cell by ). The values of variables not in the loop remain unchanged. The pivot
is now complete. If ) = 0, the entering variable will equal 0, and odd variable that
has a current value of 0 will leave the basis.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 1. Powerco
The problem is balanced (total supply equals total demand).
When the NWC method is applied to the Powerco example, the bfs in the following
table is obtained (check: there exist m+n–1=6 basic variables).
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 SUPPLY
Plant 1 8 6 10 9
35
35
9
Plant 2 50
10 20 20
14 9 16 5
Plant 3 40
10 30
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 125
u1 = 0
u1 + v1 = 8 yields v1 = 8
u2 + v1 = 9 yields u2 = 1
u2 + v2 = 12 yields v2 = 11
u2 + v3 = 13 yields v3 = 12
u3 + v3 = 16 yields u3 = 4
u3 + v4 = 5 yields v4 = 1
For each nonbasic variable, we now compute ĉij = ui + vj – cij
ĉ12 = 0 + 11 – 6 = 5
ĉ13 = 0 + 12 – 10 = 2
ĉ14 = 0 + 1 – 9 = -8
ĉ24 = 1 + 1 – 7 = -5
ĉ31 = 4 + 8 – 14 = -2
ĉ32 = 4 + 11 – 9 = 6
Since ĉ32 is the most positive one, we would next enter x32 into the basis: Each unit of
x32 that is entered into the basis will decrease Powerco ‟s cost by $6.
The loop involving x32 is (3,2)-(3,3)-(2,3)-(2,2). ) = 10 (see table)
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 SUPPLY
8 6 10 9
Plant 1 35
35
Plant 2 10 9 12 13 7 50
) )

20– 20+
14 9 16 5
Plant 3 ) 10–) 40
30
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 125
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

x33 would leave the basis. New bfs is shown at the following table:

ui/vj 8 11 12 7 SUPPLY
8 6 10 9
0 35
35
9 12 13 7
1 10 10 30 50
14 9 16 5
-2 10 40
30
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 125

ĉ12 = 5, ĉ13 = 2, ĉ14 = -2, ĉ24 = 1, ĉ31 = -8, ĉ33 = -6

Since ĉ12 is the most positive one, we would next enter x12 into the
basis. The loop involving x12 is (1,2)-(2,2)-(2,1)-(1,1). ) = 10 (see table)
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 SUPPLY
8 6 10 9
Plant 1 35
35–) )
9 12 13 7
Plant 2 ) ) 30 50
10+ 10–

14 9 16 5
Plant 3 40
10
30
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 125

x22 would leave the basis. New bfs is shown at the following table:

ui/vj 8 6 12 2 SUPPLY
8 6 10 9
0 25 10 35
9 12 13 7
1 50
20 30
14 9 16 5
3 10 40
30
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 125
ĉ13 = 2, ĉ14 = -7, ĉ22 = -5, ĉ24 = -4, ĉ31 = -3, ĉ33 = -1
Since ĉ13 is the most positive one, we would next enter x13 into the
basis. The loop involving x13 is (1,3)-(2,3)-(2,1)-(1,1). ) = 25 (see table)

City 1
MHN502E & ITY512E 2015- 8
2016 Plant 1 25–
)
 9 12 13 7
Plant 2
20+) 30–)
14 9 16 5
Plant 3 10
30 SUPPLY
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 35
x11 would leave the basis. New bfs is shown at the following table:
50
ui/vj 6 6 10 2
40
8 6 10 9
0 10 25
9 12 13 7 125
3
45 5
14 9 16 5
3 10
SUPPLY
30
DEMAND 45 20 30 30 35
ĉ11 = -2, ĉ14 = -7, ĉ22 = -3, ĉ24 = -2, ĉ31 = -5, ĉ33 = -3
50
Since all ĉij‟s are negative, an optimal solution has been obtained.
40

125

Report
45 million kwh of electricity would be sent from plant 2 to city 1.
10 million kwh of electricity would be sent from plant 1 to city 2. Similarly, 10 million
kwh of electricity would be sent from plant 3 to city 2.
25 million kwh of electricity would be sent from plant 1 to city 3. 5 million kwh of
electricity would be sent from plant 2 to city 3.
30 million kwh of electricity would be sent from plant 3 to city 4 and
Total shipping cost is:
z = .9 (45) + 6 (10) + 9 (10) + 10 (25) + 13 (5) + 5 (30) = $ 1020

TRANSSHIPMENT PROBLEMS
Sometimes a point in the shipment process can both receive goods from other points
and send goods to other points. This point is called as transshipment point through
which goods can be transshipped on their journey from a supply point to demand
point.
Shipping problem with this characteristic is a transshipment problem.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

The optimal solution to a transshipment problem can be found by converting this

transshipment problem to a transportation problem and then solving this
transportation problem.

Remark
As stated in “Formulating Transportation Problems”, we define a supply point to be a
point that can send goods to another point but cannot receive goods from any other
point.
Similarly, a demand point is a point that can receive goods from other points but
cannot send goods to any other point.

Steps
1. If the problem is unbalanced, balance it
Let s = total available supply (or demand) for balanced problem
2. Construct a transportation tableau as follows
A row in the tableau will be needed for each supply point and transshipment point
A column will be needed for each demand point and transshipment point
Each supply point will have a supply equal to its original supply
Each demand point will have a demand equal to its original demand
Each transshipment point will have a supply equal to “that point ‟s original supply
+ s”
Each transshipment point will have a demand equal to “that point ‟s original
demand + s”
3. Solve the transportation problem

Example 1. Bosphorus
(Based on Winston 7.6.)
Bosphorus manufactures LCD TVs at two factories, one in Istanbul and one in
Bruges. The Istanbul factory can produce up to 150 TVs per day, and the Bruges
factory can produce up to 200 TVs per day. TVs are shipped by air to customers in
London and Paris. The customers in each city require 130 TVs per day. Because of
the deregulation of air fares, Bosphorus believes that it may be cheaper to first fly
some TVs to Amsterdam or Munchen and then fly them to their final destinations.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

The costs of flying a TV are shown at the table below. Bosphorus wants to minimize
the total cost of shipping the required TVs to its customers.
€ To
From Istanbul Bruges Amsterdam Munchen London Paris
Istanbul 0 - 8 13 25 28
Bruges - 0 15 12 26 25
Amsterdam - - 0 6 16 17
Munchen - - 6 0 14 16
London - - - - 0 -
Paris - - - - - 0

Answer:
In this problem Amsterdam and Munchen are transshipment points.
Step 1. Balancing the problem
Total supply = 150 + 200 = 350
Total demand = 130 + 130 = 260
Dummy‟s demand = 350 – 260 = 90
s = 350 (total available supply or demand for balanced problem)
Step 2. Constructing a transportation tableau
Transshipment point‟s demand = Its original demand + s = 0 + 350 = 350
Transshipment point‟s supply = Its original supply + s = 0 + 350 = 350
Amsterdam Munchen London Paris Dummy Supply
8 13 25 28 0
Istanbul 150
15 12 26 25 0
Bruges 200
0 6 16 17 0
Amsterdam 350
6 0 14 16 0
Munchen 350

Demand 350 350 130 130 90

Step 3. Solving the transportation problem
Amsterdam Munchen London Paris Dummy Supply
8 13 25 28 0
Istanbul 150
130 20
15 12 26 25 0
Bruges 200
130 70
0 6 16 17 0
Amsterdam 350
220 130
6 0 14 16 0
Munchen 350 350

Demand 350 350 130 130 90 1050

 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Report:
Bosphorus should produce 130 TVs at Istanbul, ship them to Amsterdam, and
transship them from Amsterdam to London.
The 130 TVs produced at Bruges should be shipped directly to Paris.
The total shipment is 6370 Euros.

ASSIGNMENT PROBLEMS
There is a special case of transportation problems where each supply point should be
assigned to a demand point and each demand should be met. This certain class of
problems is called as “assignment problems”. For example determining which
employee or machine should be assigned to which job is an assignment problem.

LP Representation
An assignment problem is characterized by knowledge of the cost of assigning each
supply point to each demand point: cij
On the other hand, a 0-1 integer variable xij is defined as follows
xij = 1 if supply point i is assigned to meet the demands of demand point j
xij = 0 if supply point i is not assigned to meet the demands of point j
In this case, the general LP representation of an assignment problem is

min 6i6j cij xij

s.t. 6j xij = 1 (i=1,2, ..., m) Supply constraints

6i xij = 1 (j=1,2, ..., n) Demand constraints

xij = 0 or xij = 1

Hungarian Method
Since all the supplies and demands for any assignment problem are integers, all
variables in optimal solution of the problem must be integers. Since the RHS of each
constraint is equal to 1, each xij must be a nonnegative integer that is no larger than
1, so each xij must equal 0 or 1.
Ignoring the xij = 0 or xij = 1 restrictions at the LP representation of the assignment
problem, we see that we confront with a balanced transportation problem in which
each supply point has a supply of 1 and each demand point has a demand of 1.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

However, the high degree of degeneracy in an assignment problem may cause the
Transportation Simplex to be an inefficient way of solving assignment problems.
For this reason and the fact that the algorithm is even simpler than the Transportation
Simplex, the Hungarian method is usually used to solve assignment problems.

Remarks
1. To solve an assignment problem in which the goal is to maximize the objective
function, multiply the profits matrix through by –1 and solve the problem as a
minimization problem.
2. If the number of rows and columns in the cost matrix are unequal, the assignment
problem is unbalanced. Any assignment problem should be balanced by the
addition of one or more dummy points before it is solved by the Hungarian
method.

Steps
1. Find the minimum cost each row of the m*m cost matrix.
2. Construct a new matrix by subtracting from each cost the minimum cost in its row
3. For this new matrix, find the minimum cost in each column
4. Construct a new matrix (reduced cost matrix) by subtracting from each cost the
minimum cost in its column
5. Draw the minimum number of lines (horizontal and/or vertical) that are needed to
cover all the zeros in the reduced cost matrix. If m lines are required, an optimal
solution is available among the covered zeros in the matrix. If fewer than m lines
are needed, proceed to next step
6. Find the smallest cost (k) in the reduced cost matrix that is uncovered by the lines
drawn in Step 5
7. Subtract k from each uncovered element of the reduced cost matrix and add k to
each element that is covered by two lines. Return to Step 5

Example 1. Flight Crew

(Based on Winston 7.5.)
Four captain pilots (CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4) has evaluated four flight officers (FO1,
FO2, FO3, FO4) according to perfection, adaptation, morale motivation in a 1-20
scale (1: very good, 20: very bad). Evaluation grades are given in the table. Flight
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Company wants to assign each flight officer to a captain pilot according to these
evaluations. Determine possible flight crews.
FO1 FO2 FO3 FO4
CP1 2 4 6 10
CP2 2 12 6 5
CP3 7 8 3 9
CP4 14 5 8 7

Answer:
Step 1. For each row in the table we find the minimum cost: 2, 2, 3, and 5
respectively
Step 2 & 3. We subtract the row minimum from each cost in the row. For this new
matrix, we find the minimum cost in each column
0 2 4 8
0 10 4 3
4 5 0 6
9 0 3 2
Column minimum 0 0 0 2
Step 4. We now subtract the column minimum from each cost in the column
obtaining reduced cost matrix.
0 2 4 6
0 10 4 1
4 5 0 4
9 0 3 0
Step 5. As shown, lines through row 3, row 4, and column 1 cover all the zeros in the
reduced cost matrix. The minimum number of lines for this operation is 3. Since fewer
than four lines are required to cover all the zeros, solution is not optimal: we proceed
to next step.

0 2 4 6
0 10 4 1
4 5 0 4
9 0 3 0
Step 6 & 7. The smallest uncovered cost equals 1. We now subtract 1 from each
uncovered cost, add 1 to each twice-covered cost, and obtain
0 1 3 5
0 9 3 0
5 5 0 4
10 0 3 0
Four lines are now required to cover all the zeros: An optimal s9olution is available.
Observe that the only covered 0 in column 3 is x33, and in column 2 is x42. As row 5
can not be used again, for column 4 the remaining zero is x 24. Finally we choose x11.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Report:
CP1 should fly with FO1; CP2 should fly with FO4; CP3 should fly with FO3; and CP4
should fly with FO4.

Example 2. Maximization problem

F G H I J
A 6 3 5 8 10
B 2 7 6 3 2
C 5 8 3 4 6
D 6 9 3 1 7
E 2 2 2 2 8
Report:
Optimal profit = 36
Assigments: A-I, B-H, C-G, D-F, E-J
Alternative optimal sol‟n: A-I, B-H, C-F, D-G, E-J

INTEGER PROGRAMMING

When formulating LP‟s we often found that, strictly, certain variables should have
been regarded as taking integer values but, for the sake of convenience, we let them
take fractional values reasoning that the variables were likely to be so large that any
fractional part could be neglected.
While this is acceptable in some situations, in many cases it is not, and in such cases
we must find a numeric solution in which the variables take integer values.
Problems in which this is the case are called integer programs (IP's) and the subject
of solving such programs is called integer programming (also referred to by the
initials IP).
IP's occur frequently because many decisions are essentially discrete (such as
yes/no, do/do not) in that one or more options must be chosen from a finite set of
alternatives.
An IP in which all variables are required to be integers is called a pure IP problem.
If some variables are restricted to be integer and some are not then the problem is a
mixed IP problem.
The case where the integer variables are restricted to be 0 or 1 comes up surprising
often. Such problems are called pure (mixed) 0-1 programming problems or pure
(mixed) binary IP problems.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
For any IP we can generate an LP by taking the same objective function and same
constraints but with the requirement that variables are integer replaced by appropriate
continuous constraints:
“xi ≥ 0 and integer” can be replaced by xi ≥ 0
“xi = 0 or 1” can be replaced by xi ≥ 0 and xi ≤ 1
The LP obtained by omitting all integer or 0-1 constraints on variables is called LP
Relaxation of the IP (LR).

FORMULATING IP

Practical problems can be formulated as IPs. For instance budgeting problems,

knapsack problems, fixed charge production and location problems, set covering
problems, etc.

Budgeting Problems

Example 1.a. Capital Budgeting

(Winston 9.2, p. 478 – modified)
Stock is considering four investments
Each investment yields a determined NPV ($8,000, $11,000, $6,000, $4,000)
Each investment requires at certain cash flow at the present time ($5,000, $7,000,
$4,000, $3,000)
Currently Stock has $14,000 available for investment.
Formulate an IP whose solution will tell Stock how to maximize the NPV obtained
from the four investments.
Answer
Begin by defining a variable for each decision that Stockco must make.
In this case, we will use a 0-1 variable xj for each investment:
If xj is 1 then Stock will make investment j.
If it is 0, Stock will not make the investment.
This leads to the 0-1 programming problem:
max z = 8x1 + 11x2 + 6x3 + 4x4
s.t. 5x1 + 7x2 + 4x3 + 3x4 ≤ 14
xj = 0 or 1 (j = 1,2,3,4)
Comment
Now, a straightforward “bang for buck” (taking ratios of objective coefficient over
constraint coefficient) suggests that investment 1 is the best choice.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
Ignoring integrality constraints, the optimal linear programming solution is:
x1 = x2 = 1, x3 = 0.5, and x4 = 0 for a value of $22K
Unfortunately, this solution is not integral. Rounding x3 down to 0:
x1 = x2 = 1, x3 = x4 = 0 for a value of $19K

There is a better integer solution (optimal solution):

x1 = 0, x2 = x3 = x4 = 1 for a value of $21K
This example shows that rounding does not necessarily give an optimal value.

Example 1.b. Multiperiod

There are four possible projects, which each run for three years and have the
following characteristics:
Which projects would you choose in order to maximize the total return?

Capital requirements
Project Return Year1 Year2 Year3
1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2
2 0.3 1 0.5 0.2
3 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.3
4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1
Available capital 3.1 2.5 0.4

Answer
We will use a 0-1 variable xj for each project:
xj is 1 if we decide to do project j;
xj is 0 otherwise (i.e. not do project j).
This leads to the 0-1 programming problem:
max 0.2 x1 + 0.3 x2 + 0.5 x3 + 0.1 x4
s.t. 0.5 x1 + 1 x2 + 1.5 x3 + 0.1 x4 ≤ 3.1
0.3 x1 + 0.5 x2 + 1.5 x3 + 0.4 x4 ≤ 2.5
0.2 x1 + 0.2 x2 + 0.3 x3 + 0.1 x4 ≤ 0.4
xj = 0 or 1 j = 1, … 4

Example 1.c. Capital Budgeting Extension

There are a number of additional constraints Stock might want to add.
Logical restrictions can be enforced using 0-1 variables:
Stock can only make two investments
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ≤ 2
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016
Any choice of three or four investments will have x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ≥ 3
If investment 2 is made, investment 4 must also be made
x2 < x4 or x2 – x4 ≤ 0

If x2 is 1, then x4 is also 1 as Stock desires; if x2 is 0, then there is no

restriction for x4 (x4 is 0 or 1)
If investment 1 is made, investment 3 cannot be made
x1 + x3 ≤ 1
If x1 is 1, then x3 is 0 as Stock desires; if x1 is 0, then there is no restriction for
x3 (x3 is 0 or 1)
Either investment 1 or investment 2 must be done
x1 + x2 = 1
If x1 is 1, then x2 is 0 (only investment 1 is done); if x1 is 0, then x2 is 1 (only
investment 2 is done)

Knapsack Problems

Any IP that has only one constraint is referred to as a knapsack problem.

Furthermore, the coefficients of this constraint and the objective are all non-negative.
The traditional story is that: There is a knapsack. There are a number of items, each
with a size and a value. The objective is to maximize the total value of the items in
the knapsack.
Knapsack problems are nice because they are (usually) easy to solve.

Example 2. Knapsack
For instance, the following is a knapsack problem:
Maximize 8 x1 + 11 x2 + 6 x3 + 4 x4
Subject to 5 x1 + 7 x2 + 4 x3 + 3 x4 ≤ 14
xj = 0 or 1j = 1, … 4
Fixed Charge Problems

There is a cost associated with performing an activity at a nonzero level that does not
depend on the level of the activity.
An important trick can be used to formulate many production and location problems
involving the idea of a fixed charge as IP.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 3.a. Gandhi

(Winston 9.2, p. 480)
Gandhi Co makes shirts, shorts, and pants using the limited labor and cloth
described below.
In addition, the machinery to make each product must be rented.

Shirts Shorts Pants Total Avail.

Labor (hrs/wk) 3 2 6 150
2
Cloth (m /wk) 4 3 4 160
Rent for machine ($/wk) 200 150 100
Variable unit cost 6 4 8
Sale Price 12 8 15
Answer
Let xj be number of clothing produced.
Let yj be 1 if any clothing j is manufactured and 0 otherwise.
Profit = Sales revenue – Variable Cost – Costs of renting machinery
For example the profit from shirts is
z1 = ( 12 – 6 ) x1 – 200 y1
Since supply of labor and cloth is limited, Gandhi faces two constraints.
To ensure xj > 0 forces yj = 1, we include the additional constraints
xj ≤ Mj yj
From the cloth constraint at most 40 shirts can be produced (M 1=40), so the additional
constraint for shirts is not an additional limit on x1 (If M1 were not chosen large (say
M1=10), then the additional constraint for shirts would unnecessarily restrict the value
of x1).
From the cloth constraint at most 53 shorts can be produced (M 2=53)
From the labor constraint at most 25 pants can be produced (M 3=25)
We thus get the mixed (binary) integer problem:
max 6 x1 + 4 x2 + 7 x3 – 200 y1 – 150 y2 – 100 y3
s.t. 3 x1 + 2 x2 + 6 x3 ≤ 150 (Labor constraint)
4 x1 + 3 x2 + 4 x3 ≤ 160 (Cloth constraint)
x1 ≤ 40 y1 (Shirt production constraint)
x2 ≤ 53 y2 (Short production constraint)
x3 ≤ 25 y3 (Pant production constraint)
x1, x2, x3 ≥ 0 and integer
y1, y2, y3 = 0 or 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 3.b. Lockbox

(Winston 9.2, p. 483)
Consider a national firm that receives checks from all over the United States.
There is a variable delay from when the check is postmarked (and hence the
customer has met her obligation) and when the check clears (the firm can use the
money).
It is in the firm's interest to have the check clear as quickly as possible since then the
firm can use the money.
To speed up this clearing, firms open offices (lockboxes) in different cities to handle
the checks.
Suppose firm receives payments from four regions (West, Midwest, East, and South).
The average daily value from each region is as follows: $70,000 from the West,
$50,000 from the Midwest, $60,000 from the East, and $40,000 from the South. Firm
is considering opening lockboxes in L.A., Chicago, New York, and/or Atlanta.
Operating a lockbox costs $50,000 per year.
Assume that each region must send all its money to a single city.
Also assume that investment rate is 20%.
The average days from mailing to clearing is given in the table:
LA Chicago NY Atlanta
West 2 6 8 8
Midwest 6 2 5 5
East 8 5 2 5
South 8 5 5 2

Which lockboxes should firm open? (Formulate an IP that firm can use to minimize
the sum of costs due to lost interest and lockbox operations.)
Answer
First we must calculate the losses due to lost interest for each possible assignment.
For instance, if the West sends to New York, then on average there will be $560,000
(=8×$70.000) in process on any given day. Assuming an investment rate of 20%, this
corresponds to a yearly loss of $112,000.
We can calculate the losses for the other possibilities in a similar fashion to get the
following table:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

LA Chicago NY Atlanta
West 28 84 112 112
Midwest 60 20 50 50
East 96 60 24 60
South 64 40 40 16

Let yj be a 0-1 variable that is 1 if lockbox j is opened and 0 if it is not.

Let xij be 1 if region i sends to lockbox j; and 0 otherwise.
Our objective is to minimize our total yearly costs. This is:
28 x11 + 84 x12 + … + 50 y1 + 50 y2 + 50 y3 + 50 y4
One set of constraint is that each region must be assigned to one lockbox:
∑j xij = 1 for all i

(∑j should be read as "sum over all integer values of j from 1 to n inclusive")
A region can only be assigned to an open lockbox:
x1j + x2j + x3j + x4j ≤ M yj
M is any number that should be at least 4 as there are four regions.
(Suppose we do not open LA lockbox; then y1 is 0, so all of x11, x21, x31, and x41 must
also be 0. If y1 is 1, then there is no restriction on the x values.)
min 28 x11 + 84 x12 + 112 x13 + 112 x14
+ 60 x21 + 20 x22 + 50 x23 + 50 x24
+ 96 x31 + 60 x32 + 24 x33 + 60 x34
+ 64 x41 + 40 x42 + 40 x43 + 16 x44
+ 50 y1 + 50 y2 + 50 y3 + 50 y4
s.t. x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 = 1
x21 + x22 + x23 + x24 = 1
x31 + x32 + x33 + x34 = 1
x41 + x42 + x43 + x44 = 1
x11 + x21 + x31 + x41 ≤ 4y1
x12 + x22 + x32 + x42 ≤ 4y2
x13 + x23 + x33 + x43 ≤ 4y3
x14 + x24 + x34 + x44 ≤ 4y4
All xij and yj = 0 or 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Membership in Specified Subsets

Using decision variables that equal 1 if an object is part of a solution and 0 otherwise,
set covering, set packing, and set partitioning models formulate problems where the
core issue is membership in specifed subsets.
Many applications in areas such as location problems (fire/police station, warehouse,
facility), scheduling (crew, airline, truck, bus), political districting
x Set covering constraints
Require that at least one member of subcollection J belongs to a solution:
∑jJ xj ≥ 1
x Set packing constraints
Require that at most one member of subcollection J belongs to a solution:
∑jJ xj ≤ 1
x Set partitioning constraints
Require that exactly one member of subcollection J belongs to a solution:
∑jJ xj = 1

Set Covering Problems

Each member of a given set (call it set 1) must be “covered” by an acceptable
member of some set (call it set 2).
The objective of a set-covering problem is to minimize the number of elements in set
2 that are required to cover all the elements in set 1.

Example 4. Fire Station

A county is reviewing the location of its fire stations.
The county is made up of a number of cities:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

A fire station can be placed in any city.

It is able to handle the fires for both its city and any adjacent city (any city with a non-
zero border with its home city).
How many fire stations should be built and where?
Answer
We can create one variable xj for each city j (1 if we place a station in the city, 0
otherwise):
Each constraint should state that there must be a station either in city j or in some
adjacent city.
The jth column of the constraint matrix represents the set of cities that can be served
by a fire station in city j.
We are asked to find a set of such subsets j that covers the set of all cities in the
sense that every city appears in the service subset associated with at least one fire
station
min x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11
s.t. x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 ≥ 1 (city 1)
x1 + x2 + x3 + x5 ≥ 1 (city 2)
x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 ≥ 1 (city 3)
x1 + x3 + x4 + x6 + x7 ≥ 1 (city 4)
x2 + x3 + x5 + x6 + x8 + x9 ≥ 1 (city 5)
x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 ≥ 1 (city 6)
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

x4 + x6 + x7 + x8 ≥ 1 (city 7)
x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 ≥ 1 (city 8)
x5 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 ≥ 1 (city 9)
x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 ≥ 1 (city 10)
x9 + x10 + x11 ≥ 1 (city 11)
All xj = 0 or 1

Either-Or Constraints

Given two constraints

f(x1, x2,…, xn) ≤ 0 (1)
g(x1, x2,…, xn) ≤ 0 (2)
ensure that at least one is satisfied (1 or 2) by adding either-or-constraints:
f(x1, x2,…, xn) ≤ M y
g(x1, x2,…, xn) ≤ M (1 – y)
Here y is a 0-1 variable, and M is a number chosen large enough to ensure that both
constraints are satisfied for all values of decision variables that satisfy the other
constraints in the problem:
o If y = 0, then (1) and possibly (2) must be satisfied.
o If y = 1, then (2) and possibly (1) must be satisfied.

Example 5. Fire Station

Suppose 1.5 tons of steel and 30 hours of labor are required for production of one
compact car.
At present, 6,000 tons of steel and 60,000 hours of labor are available.
For an economically feasible production, at least 1,000 cars of compact car must be
produced.
x Constraint: x ≤ 0 or x ≥ 1000
x Sign restriction: x ≥ 0 and Integer
Answer
For f(x) = x; g(x) = 1000 – x
We can replace the constraint by the following pair of linear constraints:
x≤My
1000 – x ≤ M (1 – y)
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

y = 0 or 1
M = min (6.000/1.5, 60.000/30) = 2000

If-Then Constraints

Suppose we want to ensure that

a constraint f(x1, x2,…, xn) > 0 implies
the constraint g(x1, x2,…, xn) ≥ 0
Then we include the following constraints in the formulation:
–g(x1, x2,…, xn) ≤ M y (1)
f(x1, x2,…, xn) ≤ M (1 – y) (2)
Here y is a 0-1 variable, and M is a large positive number, chosen large enough so
that f<M and –g<M hold for all values of decision variables that satisfy the other
constraints in the problem.
If f > 0, then (2) can be satisfied only if y = 0. (1) implies –g ≤ 0 or g ≥ 0, which is the
desired result

Example 6. Modified Lockbox

(Winston 9.2, p. 490)
Suppose we add the following constraint
If customers in region 1 send their payments to city 1, no other customers may send
their payments to city 1:
If x11 = 1, then x21 = x31 = x41 = 0 
If x11 > 0, then x21 + x31 + x41 ≤ 0
Answer
For f = x11 and g = – x21 – x31 – x41
We can replace the implication by the following pair of linear constraints:
x21 + x31 + x41 ≤ My
x11 ≤ M (1 – y)
y = 0 or 1
–g and f can never exceed 3, we can choose M as 3.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Traveling Salesperson Problems

“Given a number of cities and the costs of traveling from any city to any other city,
what is the cheapest round-trip route (tour) that visits each city once and then returns
to the starting city?”
This problem is called the traveling salesperson problem (TSP), not surprisingly.
An itinerary that begins and ends at the same city and visits each city once is called a
tour.
Suppose there are N cities.
Let cij = Distance from city i to city j (for izj) and
Let cii = M (a very large number relative to actual distances)
Also define xij as a 0-1 variable as follows:
xij = 1 if s/he goes from city i to city j;
xij = 0 otherwise
The formulation of the TSP is:
min ∑İ ∑j cij xij
s.t. ∑İ xij = 1 for all j

∑j xij = 1 for all i

ui – uj + N xij ≤ N – 1 for izj; i, j > 1
All xij = 0 or 1, All ui ≥ 0
The first set of constraints ensures that s/he arrives once at each city.
The second set of constraints ensures that s/he leaves each city once.
The third set of constraints ensure the following:
Any set of xij‟s containing a subtour will be infeasible
Any set of xij‟s that forms a tour will be feasible
ui – uj + N xij ≤ N – 1 for izj; i, j > 1
Assume N=5
Subtours: 1-5-2-1, 3-4-3 ???
Choose the subtour that does not contain city 1:
u3 – u4 + 5 x34 ≤ 4
u4 – u3 + 5 x43 ≤ 4
5 (x34 + x43) ≤ 8
This rules out the possibility that x34 = x43 = 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

The formulation of an IP whose solution will solve a TSP becomes unwieldy and
inefficient for large TSPs.
When using branch and bound methods to solve TSPs with many cities, large
amounts of computer time may be required. For this reason, heuristics, which quickly
lead to a good (but not necessarily optimal) solution to a TSP, are often used.

SOLVING IP

We have gone through a number of examples of IPs at the “Formulating IP Problems”

section.
“How can we get solutions to these models?” There are two common approaches:
The technique based on dividing the problem into a number of smaller problems in a
tree search method called branch and bound.
The method based on cutting planes (adding constraints to force integrality).
Solving IP
Actually, all these approaches involve solving a series of LP.
For solving LP‟s we have general purpose (independent of the LP being solved) and
computationally effective (able to solve large LP's) algorithms (simplex or interior
point).
For solving IP's no similar general purpose and computationally effective algorithms
exist

Categorization

Categorization (w.r.t. Purpose)

x General purpose methods will solve any IP but potentially computationally
ineffective (will only solve relatively small problems); or
x Special purpose methods are designed for one particular type of IP problem but
potentially computationally more effective.

Categorization (w.r.t. Algorithm)

x Optimal algorithms mathematically guarantee to find the optimal solution
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

x Heuristic algorithms are used to solve a problem by trial and error when an
optimal algorithm approach is impractical. They hopefully find a good feasible
solution that, in objective function terms, is close to the optimal solution.

Why Heuristics?
Because the size of problem that we want to solve is beyond the computational limit
of known optimal algorithms within the computer time we have available.
We could solve optimally but feel that this is not worth the effort (time, money, etc) we
would expend in finding the optimal solution.
In fact it is often the case that a well-designed heuristic algorithm can give good
quality (near-optimal) results.

Solution Algorithms Categories

x General Purpose, Optimal
Enumeration, branch and bound, cutting plane
x General Purpose, Heuristic
Running a general purpose optimal algorithm and terminating after a specified
time
x Special Purpose, Optimal
Tree search approaches based upon generating bounds via dual ascent,
lagrangean relaxation
x Special Purpose, Heuristic
Bound based heuristics, tabu search, simulated annealing, population heuristics
(e.g. genetic algorithms), interchange
LP Relaxation

For any IP we can generate an LP by taking the same objective function and same
constraints but with the requirement that variables are integer replaced by appropriate
continuous constraints:
“xi = 0 or 1”  xi ≥ 0 and xi ≤ 1
“xi ≥ 0 and integer”  xi ≥ 0
The LP obtained by omitting all integer and 0-1 constraints on variables is called the
LP Relaxation of the IP (LR). We can then solve this LR of the original IP.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Naturally Integer LP
If LR is optimized by integer variables then that solution is feasible and optimal for IP.
In other words, if the solution is turned out to have all variables taking integer values
at the optimal solution, it is also optimal solution for IP:

LR – IP Relation
Since LR is less constrained than IP:
x If IP is a maximization problem, the optimal objective value for LR is greater than
or equal to that of IP.
x If IP is a minimization problem, the optimal objective value for LR is less than or
equal to that of IP.
x If LR is infeasible, then so is IP.
So solving LR does give some information. It gives a bound on the optimal value,
and, if we are lucky, may give the optimal solution to IP.

Enumeration

Unlike LP (where variables took continuous values) in IP's (where all variables are
integers) each variable can only take a finite number of discrete (integer) values.
Hence the obvious solution approach is simply to enumerate all these possibilities -
calculating the value of the objective function at each one and choosing the (feasible)
one with the optimal value.

Example 1. Multi-period Capital Budgeting

Maximize 0.2 x1 + 0.3 x2 + 0.5 x3 + 0.1 x4
Subject to 0.5 x1 + 1 x2 + 1.5 x3 + 0.1 x4 ≤ 3.1
0.3 x1 + 0.8 x2 + 1.5 x3 + 0.4 x4 ≤ 2.5
0.2 x1 + 0.2 x2 + 0.3 x3 + 0.1 x4 ≤ 0.4
xj = 0 or 1 j = 1, … 4

Possible Solutions
4
There are 2 =16 possible solutions:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

0 0 0 0 do no projects 1 1 1 0 do three projects

1 1 0 1
0 0 0 1 do one project
1 0 1 1
0 0 1 0
0 1 1 1
0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 do four projects

0 0 1 1 do two projects
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 0

Review
Hence for our example, we merely have to examine 16 possibilities before we know
precisely what the best possible solution is. This example illustrates a general truth
about integer programming.
What makes solving the problem easy when it is small is precisely what makes it hard
very quickly as the problem size increases.
This is simply illustrated: suppose we have 100 integer variables each with two
100 30
possible integer values then there are 2x2x2x ... x2 = 2 (approximately 10 )
possibilities which we have to enumerate (obviously many of these possibilities will be
infeasible, but until we generate one we cannot check it against the constraints to see
if it is feasible).
For 100 integer variable - conceptually there is not a problem - simply enumerate all
possibilities and choose the best one. But computationally (numerically) this is just
impossible.

The Branch-and-Bound Method

The most effective general purpose optimal algorithm is an LP-based tree search
approach called as branch and bound (B&B).
The method was first put forward in the early 1960's by Land and Doig.
This is a way of systematically (implicitly) enumerating feasible solutions such that the
optimal integer solution is found.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Where this method differs from the enumeration method is that not all the feasible
solutions are enumerated but only a part (hopefully a small part) of them. However we
can still guarantee that we will find the optimal integer solution.
By solving a single sub-problem, many possible solutions may be eliminated from
consideration.
Sub-problems are generated by branching on an appropriately chosen fractional-
valued variable.
Suppose that in a given sub-problem (call it subp.1), assumes a fractional value
between the integers i and i+1. Then the two newly generated sub-problems:
Subp.2 = Subp.1 + Constraint “xi ≥ i+1”
Subp.3 = Subp.1 + Constraint “xi ≤ I”
If all variables have integer values in the optimal solution to the sub-problem then the
solution is a feasible solution for the original IP.
If the current feasible solution for the IP has a better z-value than any previously
obtained feasible solution, then it becomes a candidate solution, and its z-value
becomes the current Lower Bound (LB) on the optimal z-value (for a max problem).
If it is unnecessary to branch on a sub-problem, we say that it is fathomed (inactive):
x The sub-problem is infeasible
x The sub-problem yields an optimal solution in which all variables have
integer values
x The optimal z-value for the sub-problem does not exceed the current LB, so it
cannot yield the optimal solution of the IP
Two general approaches are used to determine which sub-problem should be solved
next:
x Backtracking (LIFO)
Leads us down one side of the B&B tree and finds a candidate solution. Then we
backtrack our way up to the top of the other side of the tree.
x Jumptracking
Solves all the problems created by branching. Then it branches again on the node
with the best z-value. Often jumps from one side of the tree to the other.
A display of the sub-problems that have been created is called a tree.
Each sub-problem is referred to as a node of the tree.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Each additional constraint is referred to as a line (arc) connecting two nodes (old
sub-problem and one of the new sub-problems) of the tree.

B&B for Solving Pure IP Problems

Example 2. Pure IP
(Winston 9.3., p. 513)
max z = 8 x1 + 5 x2
s.t. x1 + x2 ≤ 6
9 x1 + 5 x2 ≤ 45
x1, x2 ≥ 0 and integer
Answer
Suppose that we were to solve the LR of the problem [replace “x1, x2 ≥ 0 and integer”
by “x1, x2 ≥ 0”]
Then using any LP package or utilizing simplex or graphical solution method we get
z = 165/4, x1 = 15/4, x2=9/4
As a result of this we now know something about the optimal integer solution, namely
that it is ≤ 165/4, i.e. this value of 165/4 is an Upper Bound on the optimal integer
solution
This is because when we relax the integrality constraint we (as we are maximizing)
end up with a solution value at least that of the optimal integer solution (and maybe
better)
We arbitrarily choose a variable that is fractional in the optimal solution to the LR
(subp.1): say x1.
We need x1 to be integer. We branch on x1 and create two new sub-problems:
Subp.2: LR + “x1 ≥ 4”
Subp.3: LR + “x1 ≤ 3”
Observe that neither subp.2 nor subp.3 includes any points with x1 = 15/4. This
means that the optimal solution to LR can not recur when we solve these new sub-
problems.
We now arbitrarily choose to solve subp.2.
We see that the optimal solution to subp.2 is
z = 41, x1 = 4, x2 = 9/5
We choose x2 that is fractional in the optimal solution to subp.2.
We need x2 to be integer. We branch on x2 and create two new sub-problems:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Subp.4: LR + x1 ≥ 4 and x2 ≥ 2 = Subp.2 + x2 ≥ 2

Subp.5: LR + x1 ≥ 4 and x2 ≤ 1 = Subp.2 + x2 ≤ 1
The set of unsolved sub-problems are consists of subp.3, 4, and 5.
We choose to solve the most recently created sub-problem (This is called LIFO): The
LIFO rule implies that we should next solve subp.4 or 5. We now arbitrarily choose to
solve subp.4.
We see that subp.4 is infeasible. Thus subp.4 can not yield the optimal solution to the
IP.
Because any branches emanating from subp.4 will yield no useful information, it is
fruitless to create them.
LIFO rule implies that we should next solve subp.5.
The optimal solution to subp.5 is
z = 365/9, x1 = 40/9, x2 = 1
We branch on fractional-valued x1:
Subp.6: Subp.5 + x1 ≥ 5
Subp.7: Subp.5 + x1 ≤ 4
Subp.3, 6, and 7 are now unsolved.
The LIFO rule implies that we next solve subp.6 or 7.
We now arbitrarily choose to solve subp.7.
The optimal solution to subp.7 is
z = 37, x1 = 4, x2 = 1
As both variables assume integer values, this solution is feasible for the original IP
Æ this solution is a candidate solution
We must keep this candidate solution until a better feasible solution to the IP (if any
exists) is found.
We may conclude that the optimal z-value for the IP ≥ 37  Lower Bound (LB)
LIFO rule implies that we should next solve subp.6.
The optimal solution to subp.6 is
z = 40, x1 = 5, x2 = 0
Its z-value of 40 is larger than LB.
Thus subp.7 cannot yield the optimal solution of the IP.
We update our LB to 40.
Subp.3 is the only remaining unsolved problem.
The optimal solution to subp.3 is
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

z = 39, x1 = 3, x2 = 3
Subp.3 cannot yield a z-value exceeding the current LB, so it cannot yield the optimal
solution to the IP.
Final B&B Tree

Optimal Sol’n
Thus, the optimal solution to the IP
z = 40, x1 = 5, x2 = 0

B&B for Solving Mixed IP Problems

In MIP, some variables are required to be integers and others are allowed to be either
integer or nonintegers.
To solve a MIP by B&B method, modify the method by branching only on variables
that are required to be integers.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

For a solution to a sub-problem to be a candidate solution, it need only assign integer

values to those variables that are required to be integers

Example 3. Mixed IP
(Winston 9.4., p. 523)
max z = 2 x1 + x2
s.t. 5 x1 + 2 x2 ≤ 8
x1 + x2 ≤ 3
x1, x2 ≥ 0; x1 integer
Answer
We solve the LR (subp.1) of the problem
[replace “x1≥ 0 and integer” by “x1 ≥ 0”]
Then using any LP package or utilizing simplex or graphical solution method we get
z = 11/3, x1 = 2/3, x2=7/3
Because x2 is allowed to be fractional, we do not branch on x2.
We branch on x1 and create two new sub-problems:
Subp.2: LR + x1 ≥ 1
Subp.3: LR + x1 ≤ 0
We see that the optimal solution to subp.2 is
z = 7/2, x1 = 1, x2 = 3/2
As only x1 assume integer value, this solution is feasible for the original MIP 
Candidate solution; LB = 7/2
The optimal solution to subp.3 is
z = 3, x1 = 0, x2 = 3
Subp.3 cannot yield a z-value exceeding the current LB, so it cannot yield the optimal
solution to the MIP.
Optimal Sol’n
Thus, the optimal solution to the MIP
z = 7/2, x1 = 1, x2 = 3/2

B&B for Solving Binary IP Problems

One aspect of the B&B method greatly simplify:
Due to each variable equaling 0 or 1, branching on xi will yield in
xi = 0 and xi = 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 4. Binary IP
max z = 0.2 x1 + 0.3 x2 + 0.5 x3 + 0.1 x4
s.t. 0.5 x1 + 1 x2 + 1.5 x3 + 0.1 x4 ≤ 3.1
0.3 x1 + 0.8 x2 + 1.5 x3 + 0.4 x4 ≤ 2.5
0.2 x1 + 0.2 x2 + 0.3 x3 + 0.1 x4 ≤ 0.4
xj = 0 or 1 j = 1, … 4
Answer
Replace “xj = 0 or 1 (j=1,...,4)” by “0 ≤ xj ≤ 1 (j=1,...,4)”  LR of the problem
Optimal solution to the LR:
z=0.65, x2=0.5, x3=1, x1=x4=0
The variable x2 is fractional. To resolve this we can generate two new problems:
P1: LR + x2=0
P2: LR + x2=1
We now have two new sub-problem to solve (jumptracking).
If we do this we get
P1 solution: z=0.6, x1=0.5, x3=1, x2=x4=0
P2 solution: z=0.63, x2=1, x3=0.67, x1=x4=0
Choosing sub-problem P2 (the best z–value), we branch on x3 and get
P3 (P2 + x3=0) sol‟n: z=0.5, x1=x2=1, x3=x4=0
P4 (P2 + x3=1) sol‟n: infeasible
P3 solution is feasible for the original binary IP  Candidate solution; LB = 0.5
Choosing the only remaining sub-problem P1, we branch on x1 and get
P5 (P1 + x1=0) sol‟n: z=0.6, x3=x4=1, x1=x2=0
P6 (P1 + x1=1) sol‟n: z=0.53, x1=1, x3=0.67, x2=x4=0
P5 solution is feasible for the original binary IP  New candidate solution; updated
LB = 0.6
P6 cannot yield a z-value exceeding the current LB, so it cannot yield the optimal
solution to the binary IP.
Thus, the optimal solution to the binary IP
z = 0.6, x1 = 0, x2 = 0, x3 = 1, x4 = 1
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Review
Note here that B&B, like complete enumeration, also involves powers of 2 as we
progress down the (binary) tree.
However also note that we did not enumerate all possible integer solutions (of which
there are 16). Instead here we solved 7 LP's.
This is an important point, and indeed why tree search works at all. We do not need
to examine as many LP's as there are possible solutions.
While the computational efficiency of tree search differs for different problems, it is
this basic fact that enables us to solve problems that would be completely beyond us
where we to try complete enumeration

B&B for Solving Knapsack Problems

Please recall that a knapsack problem is an IP, in which each variable must be equal
to 0 or 1, with a single constraint:
max z = c1x1 + c2x2 + ∙∙∙ + cnxn
s.t. a1x1 + a2x2 + ∙∙∙ + anxn ≤ b
xi = 0 or 1 (i = 1, 2, …, n)
Two aspects of the B&B method greatly simplify:
x Due to each variable equaling 0 or 1, branching on xi will yield in xi =0 and xi =1
x The LP relaxation may be solved by inspection instead of using any LP package
or utilizing simplex or graphical solution method
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Inspection
Recall that
ci is the benefit obtained if item i is chosen
b is the total amount of an available resource
ai is the amount of the available resource used by item i
Observe that ratio ri (ci/ai) may be interpreted as the benefit item i earns for each unit
of the resource used by item i.
Thus, the best items have the largest value of r and the worst items have the smallest
values of r.
To solve any sub-problem resulting from a knapsack problem, compute all the ratios.
Then put the best item in the knapsack.
Then put the second best item in the knapsack.
Continue in this fashion until the best remaining item will overfill the knapsack.
Then fill the knapsack with as much of this item as possible.

Example 5. Knapsack
max z = 8 x1 + 11 x2 + 6 x3 + 4 x4
s.t. 5 x1 + 7 x2 + 4 x3 + 3 x4 ≤ 14
xj = 0 or 1 j = 1, … 4
Answer
We compute the ratios:
r1 = 8 / 5 = 1.6
r2 = 11 / 7 = 1.57
r3 = 6 / 4 = 1.5
r4 = 4 / 3 = 1.33
Using the ratios, LR solution is
x1 = 1, x2 = 1, x3 = 0.5, x4 = 0, z = 22
We branch on x3 and get
P1 (LR + x3=0) sol‟n: x3=0, x1=x2=1, x4=2/3, z=21.67
P2 (LR + x3=1) sol‟n: x3=x1=1, x2=5/7, x4=0, z=21.85
Choosing sub-problem P2 (the best z–value), we branch on x2 and get
P3 (P2 + x2=0) sol‟n: x3=1, x2=0, x1=1, x4=1, z=18
P4 (P2 + x2=1) sol‟n: x3=x2=1, x1=3/5, x4=0, z=21.8
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

P3 solution is feasible for the original knapsack problem  Candidate solution; LB =

18
Choosing sub-problem P4, we branch on x1 and get P5
(P4 + x1=0) sol‟n: x3=x2=1, x1=0, x4=1, z=21
P6 (P4 + x1=1) sol‟n: Infeasible (x3=x2=x1=1: LHS=16)
P5 solution is feasible for the original knapsack problem  New candidate solution;
updated LB = 21
The only remaining sub-problem is P1 with solution value 21.67
There is no better solution for this sub-problem than 21. But we already have a
solution with value 21.
It is not useful to search for another such solution. We can fathom P1 based on this
bounding argument and mark P1 as inactive.
Optimal sol’n and Report
Thus, the optimal solution is
z=21, x1=0, x2=1, x3=1, x4=1
Items 2, 3, and 4 should be put in the knapsack.
In this case, the total value would be 21.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

B&B for Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems

A combinatorial (discrete) optimization problem is any optimization problem that
has a finite number of feasible solutions.
A B&B approach is often an efficient way to solve them.

Examples of combinatorial optimization problems:

x Ten jobs must be processed on a single machine. It is known how long it takes to
complete each job and the time at which each job must be completed (the job ‟s
due date). What ordering of the jobs minimizes the total delay of the 10 jobs?
x A salesperson must visit each of the 10 cities before returning to her/his home.
What ordering of the cities minimizes the total distance the salesperson must
travel before returning home? (TSP).
In each of these problems, many possible solutions must be considered.

Example 6: Machine Scheduling

Please refer to Winston 9.6. p. 528

TSP
Please recall that
We define xij as a 0-1 variable:
xij = 1 if TS goes from city i to city j;
xij = 0 otherwise
cij = distance form city i to city j (for izj)
cii = M (a very large number relative to actual distances)
An itinerary that begins and ends at the same city and visits each city once is
called a tour.
It seems reasonable that we might be able to find the answer to TSP by solving an
assignment problem having a cost matrix whose ijth is cij.
If the optimal solution to the assignment problem yields a tour, it is the optimal
solution to the TSP.
Unfortunately, the optimal solution to the assignment problem need not be a tour
(may yield subtours).
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

If we could exclude all feasible solutions that contain subtours and then solve the
assignment problem, we would obtain the optimal solution to TSP  Not easy to do...
Several B&B approaches have been developed for solving TSPs.
One approach start with solving the preceding assignment problem (sub-problem 1).
Because this sub-problem contains no provisions to prevent subtours, it is a
relaxation of the original TSP.
Thus, if the optimal solution to the subp.1 is feasible for the TSP (no subtours), then it
is also optimal for the TSP.
If it is infeasible (contain subtours), we branch on the subp.1 in a way that will prevent

one of subp.1‟s subtours from recurring in solutions to subsequent sub-problems.

Example 7: TSP
(Winston 9.6., p. 530)
Joe State lives in Gary, Indiana and owns insurance agencies in Gary, Fort Wayne,
Evansville, Terre Haute, and South Bend.
Each December, he visits each of his insurance agencies.
The distance between each agency:
miles G FW E TH SB
G 0 132 217 164 58
FW 132 0 290 201 79
E 217 290 0 113 303
TH 164 201 113 0 196
SB 58 79 303 196 0
What order of visiting his agencies will minimize the total distance
traveled? Answer
We first solve the assignment problem (subp.1) applying the Hungarian method to
the cost matrix shown:
COSTS G FW E TH SB
G 1000 132 217 164 58
FW 132 1000 290 201 79
E 217 290 1000 113 303
TH 164 201 113 1000 196
SB 58 79 303 196 1000
The optimal solution will be:
x15=x21=x34=x43=x52=1, z=495
The optimal solution to subp.1 contains two subtours:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

x recommends going from Gary (1) to South Bend (5), then to Fort Wayne (2), and
then back to Gary (1–5–2–1).
x also suggests that if Joe is in Evansville (3), he should go to Terre Haute (4) and
then to Evansville (3–4–3).
Thus, the optimal solution can not be the optimal solution to Joe ‟s problem.
We arbitrarily choose to exclude the subtour 3-4-3.
Observe that the optimal solution to Joe‟s problem must have either x34=0 or x43=0.
Thus, we can branch on subp.1 by creating two new sub-problems.
Subp.2: Subp.1 + (x34=0, or c34=M)
Subp.3: Subp.1 + (x43=0, or c43=M)
Now arbitrarily choose subp.2 to solve.
COSTS G FW E TH SB
G 1000 132 217 164 58
FW 132 1000 290 201 79
E 217 290 1000 1000 303
TH 164 201 113 1000 196
SB 58 79 303 196 1000
The optimal solution will be:
x14=x25=x31=x43=x52=1, z=652
This solution includes the subtours 1–4–3–1 and 2–5–2.
Thus, it can not be the optimal solution to Joe ‟s problem.
Following the LIFO approach, now branch sub-problem 2 in an effort to exclude the
subtour 2-5-2. Thus we add two additional sub-problems.
Subp.4: Subp.2 + (x25=0, or c25=M)
Subp.5: Subp.2 + (x52=0, or c52=M)
By using the Hungarian method on subp.4, we obtain the optimal solution
x15=x24=x31=x43=x52=1, z=668
This solution contains no subtours and yields the tour 1–5–2–4–3–1
It is a candidate solution and any node that cannot yield a z-value < 668 may be
eliminated from consideration.
We next solve subp.5.
x14=x43=x32=x25=x51=1, z=704
This solution also yields a tour 1–4–3–2–5–1
But z=704 is not as good as the subp.4 candidate‟s z=668
Thus this subp.5 may be eliminated from consideration.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Only subp.3 remains.

The optimal solution
x13=x25=x34=x41=x52=1, z =652.
This solution includes the subtours 1–3–4–1 and 2–5–2.
However, it is still possible for this sub-problem to yield a solution with no subtours
that beats z=668.
Next branch on sub-problem 3 creating new sub-problems.
Subp.6: Subp.3 + (x25=0, or c25=M)
Subp.7: Subp.3 + (x52=0, or c52=M)
Both of these sub-problems have a z-value that is larger than 668.
Optimal sol’n and Report
Subp.4 thus yields the optimal solution:
x15=x24=x31=x43=x52=1, z=668
Joe should travel from Gary (1) to South Bend (5), from South Bend to Fort Wayne
(2), from Fort Wayne to Terre Haute (4), from Terre Haute to Evansville (3), and then
back to Gary.
He will travel a total distance of 668 miles.

Heuristics for TSPs

An IP formulation can be used to solve a TSP but can become unwieldy and
inefficient for large TSPs.
When using B&B methods to solve TSPs with many cities, large amounts of
computer time is needed.
Heuristic methods, or heuristics, can be used to quickly lead to a good (but not
necessarily optimal) solution.
Two types of heuristic methods can be used to solve TSP:
1. The Nearest-Neighbor
2. The Cheapest-Insertion

The Nearest-Neighbor Heuristic

1. Begin at any city and then “visit” the nearest city.
2. Then go to the unvisited city closest to the city we have most recently visited.
3. Continue in this fashion until a tour is obtained.
4. After applying this procedure beginning at each city, take the best tour found.
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Example 8. Applying the NNH to TSP

We arbitrarily choose to begin at city 1.
Of the cities 2, 3, 4, and 5, city 5 is the closest city to city 1  Generate the arc 1–5
Of the cities 2, 3, and 4, city 2 is the closest city to city 5  1–5–2
Of the cities 3 and 4, city 4 is the closest city to city 2  1–5–2–4
Joe must next visit city 3 and then return to city 1  1–5–2–4–3–1 (668 miles).
In this case, the NNH yields the optimal tour.
If we had begun at city 3, however, NNH yields the tour 3–4–1–5–2–3 (704 miles).
Thus, the NNH need not yield an optimal tour.
This procedure should be applied beginning at each city, and then the best tour found
should be taken as solution.

The Cheapest-Insertion Heuristic

1. Begin at any city and find its closest neighbor.
2. Then create a subtour joining those two cities.
3. Next, replace an arc in the subtour (say, arc (i, j)) by the combinations of two arcs
(i, k) and (k, j), where k is not in the current subtour that will increase the length of
the subtour by the smallest (or cheapest) amount.
4. Continue with this procedure until a tour is obtained.
5. After applying this procedure beginning with each city, we take the best tour found.

Example 9. Applying the CIH to TSP

We arbitrarily choose to begin at city 1.
Of the cities 2, 3, 4, and 5, city 5 is the closest city to city 1  Generate the arc 1–5
We create a subtour (1, 5)–(5, 1)
We could replace arc (1, 5) by (1, 2)–(2, 5), (1, 3)–(3, 5), or (1, 4)–(4, 5)
We could also replace (5, 1) by (5, 2)–(2, 1), (5, 3)–(3, 1), or (5, 4)–(4, 1)
The computations used to determine which arc of (1, 5)–(5, 1) should be replaced are
given in the Table:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Arc replaced Arcs added Added length

(1, 5)* (1, 2)–(2, 5) c 12+c 25–c 15=153
(1, 5) (1, 3)–(3, 5) c 13+c3 5–c 15=462
(1, 5) (1, 4)–(4, 5) c 14+c 45–c 15=302
(5, 1)* (5, 2)–(2, 1) c 52+c 21–c 51=153
(5, 1) (5, 3)–(3, 1) c 53+c3 1–c 51=462
(5, 1) (5, 4)–(4, 1) c 54+c4 1–c 51=302
* indicates the correct replacement: either (1, 5) or (5, 1)
We arbitrarily choose to replace arc (1, 5) by arcs (1, 2) and (2, 5)  New subtour:
(1, 2)–(2, 5)–(5, 1)
We then determine which arc should be replaced
Arc replaced Arcs added Added length
(1, 2) (1, 3)–(3, 2) 375
(1, 2)* (1, 4)–(4, 2) 233
(2, 5) (2, 3)–(3, 5) 514
(2, 5) (2, 4)–(4, 5) 318
(5, 1) (5, 3)–(3, 1) 462
(5, 1) (5, 4)–(4, 1) 302
We now replace arc (1, 2) by arcs (1, 4) and (4, 2)  New subtour: (1, 4)–(4, 2)–(2,
5)–(5, 1)
Which arc should be replaced?
Arc replaced Arcs added Added length
(1, 4)* (1, 3)–(3, 4) 166
(4, 2) (4, 3)–(3, 2) 202
(2, 5) (2, 3)–(3, 5) 514
(5, 1) (5, 3)–(3, 1) 462
We now replace arc (1, 4) by arcs (1, 3) and (3, 4)
This yields the tour (1, 3)–(3, 4)–(4, 2)–(2, 5)–(5, 1)
In this case, the CIH yields the optimal tour.
But, in general, the CIH does not necessarily do so.
This procedure should be applied beginning at each city, and then the best tour found
should be taken as solution.

Evaluation of Heuristics
x Performance guarantees
Gives a worse-case bound on how far away from optimality a tour constructed by
the heuristic can be
x Probabilistic analysis
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

A heuristic is evaluated by assuming that the location of cities follows some

known probability distribution
x Empirical analysis
Heuristics are compared to the optimal solution for a number of problems for
which the optimal tour is known

Cutting Planes

A linear inequality is a valid inequality for a given IP problem if it holds for all integer
feasible solutions to the model. Relaxations can often be strengthened dramatically
by including valid inequalities that are not needed by a correct discrete model. To
strengthen a relaxation, a valid inequality must cut off (render infeasible) some
feasible solutions to current LR that are not feasible in the IP model.

Optimum
(integer)
solution
P Optimum
fractional
solution
x
Example: min. x + 10y s.t.
x, y are in P
x, y integer

Idea: add
y constraints that
eliminate fractional
solutions to the LP
without eliminating
any integer
solutions.

add “y t1”

P add “y d x –1”

These constraints
x were obtained by
inspection. We
will develop
Example: min. x + 10y techniques later.
s.t. x, y are in P
x, y integer
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

If we add exactly
the right
inequalities, then
y every corner point
of the LP will be
integer, and the IP
can be solved by
solving the LP

Optimum We call this minimal

(integer) LP, the convex hull
solution of the IP solutions.
P For large problems,
these constraints are
hard to find.
x
The tightest possible
Example: min. x + 10y constraints are very
s.t. x, y are in P useful, and are
x, y integer called facets

This need to cut off noninteger relaxation solutions is why valid inequalities are
sometimes called cutting planes.

Cut Classification
x General purpose
A fractional extreme point can always be separated (LP-based approach, that
works for IP)
o Disjunctive cuts
o Gomory cutting planes
x Problem specific
Derived from problem structure, generally facets. (Capital Budgeting (Knapsack),
Set Packing... )

Cutting Plane Algorithm (Gomory cut)

Find the optimal tableau for the IP‟s LR.
If all variables in the optimal solution assume integer values, we have found an
optimal solution! Otherwise proceed to next step
Pick a constraint in the optimal tableau whose RHS has the fractional part closest to
½.
For the constraint identified, put all of the integer parts on the left side (round down),
and all the fractional parts on the right
Generate the cut as:
“RHS of the modified constraint” < 0
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Use the dual simplex to find the optimal solution to the LR, with the cut as an
additional constraint.
x If all variables assume integer values in the optimal solution, we have found an
optimal solution to the IP.
x Otherwise, pick the constraint with the most fractional right-hand side and use it to
generate another cut, which is added to the tableau.
We continue this process until we obtain a solution in which all variables are integers.
This will be an optimal solution to the IP.

Dual Simplex Method

Please recall that at dual simplex:
o We choose the most negative RHS.
o BV of this pivot row leaves the basis.
o For the variables that have a negative coefficient in the pivot row, we
calculate the ratios (coefficient in R0 / coefficient in pivot row).
o Variable with the smallest ratio (absolute value) enters basis.

Example 10. Telfa Co.

(Winston 9.8., p. 546)
max z = 8 x1 + 5 x2
s.t. x1 + x2 ≤ 6
9 x1 + 5 x2 ≤ 45
x1, x2 > 0 and integer
Answer
If we ignore integrality, we get the following optimal tableau:
z x1 x2 s1 s2 RHS
1 0 0 1.25 0.75 41.25
0 0 1 2.25 -0.25 2.25
0 1 0 -1.25 0.25 3.75
Let's choose the constraint whose RHS has the fractional part closest to ½ (Arbitrarily
choose the second constraint):
x1 – 1.25 s1 + 0.25 s2 =3.75
We can manipulate this to put all of the integer parts on the left side (round down),
and all the fractional parts on the right to get:
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

x1 – 2 s1 + 0 s2 – 3 = 0.75 – 0.75 s1 – 0.25 s2

Now, note that the LHS consists only of integers, so the right hand side must add up
to an integer. It consists of some positive fraction minus a series of positive values.
Therefore, the right hand side cannot be a positive value. Therefore, we have derived
the following constraint:
0.75 – 0.75 s1 – 0.25 s2 ≤ 0
This constraint is satisfied by every feasible integer solution to our original problem.
But, in our current solution, s1 and s2 both equal 0, which is infeasible to the above
constraint. This means the above constraint is a cut, called the Gomory cut after its
discoverer.
We can now add this constraint to the linear program and be guaranteed to find a
different solution, one that might be integer.
z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 RHS
1 0 0 1.25 0.75 0 41.25
0 0 1 2.25 -0.25 0 2.25
0 1 0 -1.25 0.25 0 3.75
0 0 0 -0.75 -0.25 1 -0.75
The dual simplex ratio test indicates that s1 should enter the basis instead of s3.
The optimal solution is an IP solution:
z = 40, x1 = 5, x2 = 0

Example 11. Supplementary Problem

min z = 6 x1 + 8 x2
s.t. 3 x1 + x2 ≥ 4
x1 + 2 x2 ≥ 4
x1, x2 > 0 and integer

Answer
Optimal tableau for LR
z x1 x2 e1 e2 RHS
1 0 0 -0.80 -3.60 17.60
0 1 0 -0.40 0.20 0.80
0 0 1 0.20 -0.60 1.60
Choose the second constraint
x2 + 0.2 e1 – 0.6 e2 = 1.6
 MHN502E & ITY512E 2015-2016

Manipulate this:
x2 – e2 – 1 = 0.6 – 0.2 e1 – 0.4 e2
Cut:
0.6 – 0.2 e1 – 0.4 e2 ≤ 0
New LP tableau

z x1 x2 e1 e2 s3 RHS
1 0 0 -0.8 -3.6 0 17.6
0 1 0 -0.4 0.2 0 0.8
0 0 1 0.2 -0.6 0 1.6
0 0 0 -0.2 -0.4 1 -0.6
The dual simplex ratio test indicates that e1 should enter the basis instead of s3.
The optimal solution is an IP solution:
z = 20, x1 = 2, x2 = 1