Chapter 11

Integer Programming,
Goal Programming, and
Nonlinear Programming

To accompany
Quantitative Analysis for Management, Tenth Edition,
by Render, Stair, and Hanna © 2008 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Power Point slides created by Jeff Heyl © 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 Introduction
 A large number of business problems can be
solved only if variables have integer values
 We will solve integer programming problems
graphically and by using the branch and bound
method
 Many business problems have multiple objectives
 Goal programming is an extension to LP that can
permit multiple objectives
 Linear programming requires linear models
 Nonlinear programming allows objectives and
constraints to be nonlinear

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 2

 Integer Programming
 An integer programming model is one where one
or more of the decision variables has to take on
an integer value in the final solution
 There are three types of integer programming
problems
1. Pure integer programming where all variables
have integer values
2. Mixed-integer programming where some but
not all of the variables will have integer
values
3. Zero-one integer programming are special
cases in which all the decision variables must
have integer solution values of 0 or 1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 3
 Integer Programming
 Solving an integer programming problem is much
more difficult than solving an LP problem
 Even the fastest computers can take an
excessively long time to solve big integer
programming problems
 The most common technique used to solve
integer programming problems is the branch and
bound method

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 4

Harrison Electric Company Example of
Integer Programming
 The Company produces two products popular
with home renovators, old-fashioned chandeliers
and ceiling fans
 Both the chandeliers and fans require a two-step
production process involving wiring and
assembly
 It takes about 2 hours to wire each chandelier and
3 hours to wire a ceiling fan
 Final assembly of the chandeliers and fans
requires 6 and 5 hours respectively
 The production capability is such that only 12
hours of wiring time and 30 hours of assembly
time are available
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 5
Harrison Electric Company Example of
Integer Programming
 Each chandelier produced nets the firm $7 and
each fan $6
 Harrison’s production mix decision can be
formulated using LP as follows

Maximize profit = $7X1 + $6X2

subject to 2X1 + 3X2 ≤ 12 (wiring hours)
6X1 + 5X2 ≤ 30 (assembly hours)
X1, X2 ≥ 0 (nonnegative)
where
X1 = number of chandeliers produced
X2 = number of ceiling fans produced
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 6
Harrison Electric Company Example of
Integer Programming
X2
 The Harrison
6–
Electric
Problem
5–
6X1 + 5X2 ≤ 30

4–
+ = Possible Integer Solution
3– +
Optimal LP Solution
(X1 =3.75, X2 = 1.5,
2– + + + Profit = $35.25)

2X1 + 3X2 ≤ 12
1– + + + +
| | | | | | |
0–
Figure 11.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 X1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 7
Harrison Electric Company Example of
Integer Programming
 The production planner Wes recognizes this is an
integer problem
 His first attempt at solving it is to round the
values to X1 = 4 and X2 = 2
 However, this is not feasible
 Rounding X2 down to 1 gives a feasible solution,
but it may not be optimal
 This could be solved using the enumeration
method
 Enumeration is generally not possible for large
problems

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 8

Harrison Electric Company Example of
Integer Programming
CHANDELIERS (X1) CEILING FANS (X2) PROFIT ($7X1 + $6X2)
 Integer
0 0 $0 solutions
1 0 7
2 0 14
3 0 21
4 0 28
5 0 35 Optimal solution to
0 1 6 integer programming
1 1 13
problem
2 1 20
3 1 27
4 1 34 Solution if
0 2 12 rounding is used
1 2 19
2 2 26
3 2 33
0 3 18
1 3 25 Table 11.1
0 4 24
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 9
Harrison Electric Company Example of
Integer Programming

 The rounding solution of X1 = 4, X2 = 1

gives a profit of $34
 The optimal solution of X1 = 5, X2 = 0 gives
a profit of $35
 The optimal integer solution is less than
the optimal LP solution
 An integer solution can never be better
than the LP solution and is usually a
lesser solution

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 10

 Using Software to Solve Harrison
Integer Programming Problem
 QM for Windows input screen with Harrison
Electric data

Program 11.1A

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 11

 Using Software to Solve Harrison
Integer Programming Problem
 QM for Windows solution screen for Harrison
Electric data

Program 11.1B

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 12

 Using Software to Solve Harrison
Integer Programming Problem
 QM for Windows iteration results screen for
Harrison Electric data
Program 11.1C

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 13

 Using Software to Solve Harrison
Integer Programming Problem
 Using Excel’s Solver to formulate Harrison’s
integer programming model
Program 11.2A

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 14

 Using Software to Solve Harrison
Integer Programming Problem
 Integer variables are specified with a drop-down
menu in Solver

Program 11.2B
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 15
 Using Software to Solve Harrison
Integer Programming Problem
 Excel solution to the Harrison Electric integer
programming model

Program 11.2C
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 16
 Mixed-Integer Programming
Problem Example
 There are many situations in which some of the
variables are restricted to be integers and some
are not
 Bagwell Chemical Company produces two
industrial chemicals
 Xyline must be produced in 50-pound bags
 Hexall is sold by the pound and can be produced
in any quantity
 Both xyline and hexall are composed of three
ingredients – A, B, and C
 Bagwell sells xyline for $85 a bag and hexall for
$1.50 per pound

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 17

 Mixed-Integer Programming
Problem Example
AMOUNT OF
AMOUNT PER 50-POUND AMOUNT PER POUND INGREDIENTS
BAG OF XYLINE (LB) OF HEXALL (LB) AVAILABLE

30 0.5 2,000 lb–ingredient A

18 0.4 800 lb–ingredient B

2 0.1 200 lb–ingredient C

 Bagwell wants to maximize profit

 We let X = number of 50-pound bags of xyline
 We let Y = number of pounds of hexall
 This is a mixed-integer programming problem as
Y is not required to be an integer

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 18

 Mixed-Integer Programming
Problem Example
 The model is

Maximize profit = $85X + $1.50Y

subject to 30X + 0.5Y ≤ 2,000
30X + 0.5Y ≤ 800
30X + 0.5Y ≤ 200
X, Y ≤ 0 and X
integer

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 19

 Mixed-Integer Programming
Problem Example
 Using QM for Windows and Excel to solve
Bagwell’s IP model

Program 11.3

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 20

 Mixed-Integer Programming
Problem Example
 Excel formulation of Bagwell’s IP problem with
Solver

Program 11.4A
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 21
 Mixed-Integer Programming
Problem Example
 Excel solution to the Bagwell Chemical problem

Program 11.4B

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 22

 Modeling With 0-1 (Binary) Variables

 We can demonstrate how 0-1 variables

can be used to model several diverse
situations
 Typically a 0-1 variable is assigned a value
of 0 if a certain condition is not met and a
1 if the condition is met
 This is also called a binary variable

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 23

 Capital Budgeting Example
 A common capital budgeting problem is selecting
from a set of possible projects when budget
limitations make it impossible to select them all
 A 0-1 variable is defined for each project
 Quemo Chemical Company is considering three
possible improvement projects for its plant
 A new catalytic converter
 A new software program for controlling operations
 Expanding the storage warehouse
 It can not do them all
 They want to maximize net present value of
projects undertaken

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 24

 Capital Budgeting Example
 Quemo Chemical Company information
PROJECT NET PRESENT VALUE YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Catalytic Converter $25,000 $8,000 $7,000
Software $18,000 $6,000 $4,000
Warehouse expansion $32,000 $12,000 $8,000
Available funds $20,000 $16,000

Table 11.2
 The basic model is
Maximize net present value of projects undertaken
subject to Total funds used in year 1 ≤ $20,000
Total funds used in year 2 ≤ $16,000

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 25

 Capital Budgeting Example
 The decision variables are
1 if catalytic converter project is funded
X1 = 0 otherwise
1 if software project is funded
X2 = 0 otherwise
1 if warehouse expansion project is funded
X3 = 0 otherwise

 The mathematical statement of the integer

programming problem becomes
Maximize NPV = 25,000X1 + 18,000X2 + 32,000X3
subject to 8,000X1 + 6,000X2 + 12,000X3 ≤ 20,000
7,000X1 + 4,000X2 + 8,000X3 ≤ 16,000
X1, X2, X3 = 0 or 1
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 26
 Capital Budgeting Example
 Solved with computer software, the
optimal solution is X1 = 1, X2 = 0, and X3 = 1
with an objective function value of 57,000
 This means that Quemo Chemical should
fund the catalytic converter and
warehouse expansion projects only
 The net present value of these
investments will be $57,000

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 27

 Limiting the Number of
Alternatives Selected
 One common use of 0-1 variables involves
limiting the number of projects or items that are
selected from a group
 Suppose Quemo Chemical is required to select
no more than two of the three projects regardless
of the funds available
 This would require adding a constraint
X1 + X2 + X3 ≤ 2
 If they had to fund exactly two projects the
constraint would be
X1 + X2 + X3 = 2

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 28

 Dependent Selections
 At times the selection of one project depends on
the selection of another project
 Suppose Quemo’s catalytic converter could only
be purchased if the software was purchased
 The following constrain would force this to occur
X1 ≤ X2 or X1 – X2 ≤ 0
 If we wished for the catalytic converter and
software projects to either both be selected or
both not be selected, the constraint would be
X1 = X2 or X1 – X2 = 0

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 29

 Fixed-Charge Problem Example

 Often businesses are faced with decisions

involving a fixed charge that will affect the cost of
future operations
 Sitka Manufacturing is planning to build at least
one new plant and three cities are being
considered in
 Baytown, Texas
 Lake Charles, Louisiana
 Mobile, Alabama
 Once the plant or plants are built, the company
want to have capacity to produce at least 38,000
units each year

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 30

 Fixed-Charge Problem Example

 Fixed and variable costs for Sitka Manufacturing

ANNUAL VARIABLE COST ANNUAL

SITE FIXED COST PER UNIT CAPACITY
Baytown, TX $340,000 $32 21,000

Lake Charles, LA $270,000 $33 20,000

Mobile, AL $290,000 $30 19,000

Table 11.3

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 31

 Fixed-Charge Problem Example

 We can define the decision variables as

1 if factory is built in Baytown

X1 = 0 otherwise
1 factory is built in Lake Charles
X2 = 0 otherwise
1 if factory is built in Mobile
X3 = 0 otherwise

X4 = number of units produced at Baytown plant

X5 = number of units produced at Lake Charles plant
X6 = number of units produced at Mobile plant

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 32

 Fixed-Charge Problem Example
 The integer programming formulation becomes

Minimize cost = 340,000X1 + 270,000X2 + 290,000X3

+ 32X4 + 33X5 + 30X6
subject to X4 + X5 + X6 ≥ 38,000
X4 ≤ 21,000X1
X5 ≤ 20,000X2
X6 ≤ 19,000X3
X1, X2, X3 = 0 or 1;
X4, X5, X6 ≥ 0 and integer
 The optimal solution is

X1 = 0, X2 = 1, X3 = 1, X4 = 0, X5 = 19,000, X6 = 19,000
Objective function value = $1,757,000

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 33

 Financial Investment Example

 Numerous financial applications exist with 0-1

variables
 Simkin, Simkin, and Steinberg specialize in
recommending oil stock portfolios for wealthy
clients
 One client has the following specifications
 At least two Texas firms must be in the portfolio
 No more than one investment can be made in a foreign
oil company
 One of the two California oil stocks must be purchased
 The client has $3 million to invest and wants to
buy large blocks of shares

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 34

 Financial Investment Example

 Oil investment opportunities

EXPECTED ANNUAL COST FOR BLOCK

STOCK COMPANY NAME RETURN ($1,000s) OF SHARES ($1,000s)
1 Trans-Texas Oil 50 480

2 British Petroleum 80 540

3 Dutch Shell 90 680

4 Houston Drilling 120 1,000

5 Texas Petroleum 110 700

6 San Diego Oil 40 510

7 California Petro 75 900

Table 11.4

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 35

 Financial Investment Example

 Model formulation

Maximize return = 50X1 + 80X2 + 90X3 + 120X4 + 110X5 + 40X6 + 75X7

subject to
X1 + X4 + X5 ≥ 2 (Texas constraint)
X2+ X3 ≤ 1 (foreign oil constraint)
X6 + X7 = 1 (California constraint)
480X1 + 540X2 + 680X3 + 1,000X4 + 700X5
+ 510X6 + 900X7 ≤ 3,000 ($3 million limit)

All variables must be 0 or 1

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 36

 Using Excel to Solve the
Simkin Example
 Solver input for Simkin’s 0-1 variables

Program 11.5A

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 37

 Using Excel to Solve the
Simkin Example
 Complete Solver input for Simkin’s 0-1 integer
programming problem

Program 11.5B
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 38
 Using Excel to Solve the
Simkin Example
 Excel solution to Simkin’s 0-1 integer
programming problem

Program 11.5C
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 39
 Goal Programming
 Firms often have more than one goal
 They may want to achieve several, sometimes
contradictory, goals
 In linear and integer programming methods the
objective function is measured in one dimension
only
 It is not possible for LP to have multiple goals
unless they are all measured in the same units,
and this is a highly unusual situation
 An important technique that has been developed
to supplement LP is called goal programming

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 40

 Goal Programming
 Typically goals set by management can be
achieved only at the expense of other goals
 A hierarchy of importance needs to be established
so that higher-priority goals are satisfied before
lower-priority goals are addressed
 It is not always possible to satisfy every goal so
goal programming attempts to reach a satisfactory
level of multiple objectives
 The main difference is in the objective function
where goal programming tries to minimize the
deviations between goals and what we can
actually achieve within the given constraints

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 41

 Example of Goal Programming
Harrison Electric Revisited
 The LP formulation for the Harrison Electric
problem is

Maximize profit = $7X1 + $6X2

subject to 2X1 + 3X2 ≤ 12 (wiring hours)
6X1 + 5X2 ≤ 30 (assembly hours)
X1 , X2 ≥ 0
where
X1 = number of chandeliers produced
X2 = number of ceiling fans produced

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 42

 Example of Goal Programming
Harrison Electric Revisited
 Harrison is moving to a new location and feels
that maximizing profit is not a realistic objective
 Management sets a profit level of $30 that would
be satisfactory during this period
 The goal programming problem is to find the
production mix that achieves this goal as closely
as possible given the production time constraints
 We need to define two deviational variables
d1– = underachievement of the profit target
d1+ = overachievement of the profit target

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 43

 Example of Goal Programming
Harrison Electric Revisited
 We can now state the Harrison Electric problem
as a single-goal programming model

Minimize under or overachievement

of profit target = d1– + d1+

subject to $7X1 + $6X2 + d1– – d1+ = $30 (profit goal constraint)

2X1 + 3X2 ≤ 12 (wiring hours)
6X1 + 5X2 ≤ 30 (assembly hours)
X1, X2, d1–, d1+ ≥ 0

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 44

 Extension to Equally Important
Multiple Goals
 Now Harrison’s management wants to achieve
several goals of equal in priority
Goal 1: to produce a profit of $30 if possible
during the production period
Goal 2: to fully utilize the available wiring
department hours
Goal 3: to avoid overtime in the assembly
department
Goal 4: to meet a contract requirement to
produce at least seven ceiling fans

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 45

 Extension to Equally Important
Multiple Goals
 The deviational variables are
d1– = underachievement of the profit target
d1+ = overachievement of the profit target
d2– = idle time in the wiring department (underutilization)
d2+ = overtime in the wiring department (overutilization)
d3– = idle time in the assembly department (underutilization)
d3+ = overtime in the assembly department (overutilization)
d4– = underachievement of the ceiling fan goal
d4+ = overachievement of the ceiling fan goal

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 46

 Extension to Equally Important
Multiple Goals
 Because management is unconcerned about d1+, d2+,
d3–, and d4+ these may be omitted from the objective
function
 The new objective function and constraints are

Minimize total deviation = d1– + d2– + d3+ + d4–

subject to 7X1 + 6X2 + d1– – d1+ = 30 (profit constraint)

2X1 + 3X2 + d2– – d2+ = 12 (wiring hours)
6X1 + 5X2 + d3– – d3+ = 30 (assembly hours)
X2 + d4– – d4+ = 7 (ceiling fan constraint)
All Xi, di variables ≥ 0

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 47

Ranking Goals with Priority Levels

 In most goal programming problems, one goal

will be more important than another, which will in
turn be more important than a third
 Goals can be ranked with respect to their
importance in management’s eyes
 Higher-order goals are satisfied before lower-
order goals
 Priorities (Pi’s)
’s are assigned to each deviational
variable with the ranking so that P1 is the most
important goal, P2 the next most important, P3 the
third, and so on

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 48

Ranking Goals with Priority Levels

 Harrison Electric has set the following priorities

for their four goals

GOAL PRIORITY

Reach a profit as much above $30 as possible P1

Fully use wiring department hours available P2

Avoid assembly department overtime P3

Produce at least seven ceiling fans P4

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 49

Ranking Goals with Priority Levels

 This effectively means that each goal is infinitely

more important than the next lower goal
 With the ranking of goals considered, the new
objective function is

Minimize total deviation = P1d1– + P2d2– + P3d3+ + P4d4–

 The constraints remain identical to the previous

ones

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 50

 Goal Programming with
Weighted Goals
 Normally priority levels in goal programming
assume that each level is infinitely more
important than the level below it
 Sometimes this may not be desirable
 A goal may be only two or three times more
important than another
 Instead of placing these goals on different levels,
we place them on the same level but with
different weights
 The coefficients of the deviation variables in the
objective function include both the priority level
and the weight

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 51

 Goal Programming with
Weighted Goals
 Suppose Harrison decides to add another goal of
producing at least two chandeliers
 The goal of producing seven ceiling fans is
considered twice as important as this goal
 The goal of two chandeliers is assigned a weight
of 1 and the goal of seven ceiling fans is
assigned a weight of 2 and both of these will be
priority level 4
 The new constraint and objective function are
X1 + d5– – d5+ = 2 (chandeliers)
Minimize = P1d1– + P2d2– + P3d3+ + P4(2d4–) + P4d5–

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 52

 Using QM for Windows to Solve
Harrison’s Problem
 Harrison Electric’s goal programming analysis
using QM for Windows
 This table refers to the formulation as presented
in Table 11.5

Program 11.6A

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 53

 Using QM for Windows to Solve
Harrison’s Problem
 Final tableau for Harrison Electric using QM for
Windows

Program 11.6B

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 54

 Using QM for Windows to Solve
Harrison’s Problem
 Summary solution screen for Harrison Electric’s
goal programming problem using QM for
Windows

Program 11.6C
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 55
 Nonlinear Programming
 The methods seen so far have all assumed that
the problem's objective function and constraints
are linear
 Terms such as X13, 1/X2, log X3, or 5X1X2 are not
allowed
 But there are many nonlinear relationships in the
real world that would require the objective
function, constraint equations, or both to be
nonlinear
 Excel can be used to solve these nonlinear
programming (NLP)
NLP problems

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 56

 Nonlinear Objective Function and
Linear Constraints
 The Great Western Appliance Company sells two
models of toaster ovens, the Microtoaster (X1)
and the Self-Clean Toaster Oven (X2)
 They earn a profit of $28 for each Microtoaster no
matter the number of units sold
 For the Self-Clean oven, profits increase as more
units are sold due to a fixed overhead
 The profit function for the Self-Clean over may be
expressed as
21X2 + 0.25X22

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 57

 Nonlinear Objective Function and
Linear Constraints
 The objective function is nonlinear and there are
two linear constraints on production capacity and
sales time available

Maximize profit = 28X1

+ 21X2

+ 0.25X22
subject to X1

+ 21X2a squared
 When an objective function contains
term and the problem constraints
≤
are linear, it is
called a quadratic programming problem
1,000
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 58
 Nonlinear Objective Function and
Linear Constraints
 An Excel formulation of Great Western’s problem

Program 11.7A
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 59
 Nonlinear Objective Function and
Linear Constraints
 Solution to Great Western Appliance’s NLP
problem using Excel Solver

Program 11.7B

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 60

 Both Nonlinear Objective Function
and Nonlinear Constraints
 The annual profit at a medium-sized (200-400
beds) Hospicare Corporation hospital depends
on the number of medical patients admitted (X1)
and the number of surgical patients admitted (X2)
 The objective function for the hospital is
nonlinear
 They have identified three constraints, two of
which are nonlinear
 Nursing capacity - nonlinear
 X-ray capacity - nonlinear
 Marketing budget required

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 61

 Both Nonlinear Objective Function
and Nonlinear Constraints
 The objective function and constraint equations
for this problem are
Maximize profit = $13X1 + $6X1X2 + $5X2 + $1/X2
subject to 2X12 + 4X2 ≤90
(nursing capacity in thousands
of labor-days)
X1 + X23 ≤75(x-
ray capacity in thousands)
8X1 – 2X2 ≤61
(marketing budget required in
thousands of $)

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 62

 Both Nonlinear Objective Function
and Nonlinear Constraints
 An Excel formulation of Hospicare’s NLP problem

Program 11.8A
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 63
 Both Nonlinear Objective Function
and Nonlinear Constraints
 Excel solution to the Hospicare Corp. NLP
problem using Solver

Program 11.8B

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 64

 Linear Objective Function and
Nonlinear Constraints
 Thermlock Corp. produces massive rubber
washers and gaskets like the type used to seal
joints on the NASA Space Shuttles
 It combines two ingredients, rubber (X1) and oil
(X2)
 The cost of the industrial quality rubber is $5 per
pound and the cost of high viscosity oil is $7 per
pound
 Two of the three constraints are nonlinear

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 65

 Linear Objective Function and
Nonlinear Constraints
 The firm’s objective function and constraints are

Minimize costs = $5X1 + $7X2

subject to $5X1

+ 0.25X12

+ 4X2

+ 0.3X22

125

(hardness
constraint)
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 66
 Linear Objective Function and
Nonlinear Constraints
 Excel formulation of Thermlock’s NLP problem

Program 11.9A
© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 67
 Linear Objective Function and
Nonlinear Constraints
 Solution to Thermlock’s NLP problem using Excel
Solver

Program 11.9B

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 68

 Computational Procedures for
Nonlinear Programming
 Computational procedures for nonlinear
problems do not always yield an optimal solution
in a finite number of steps
 There is no general method for solving all
nonlinear problems
 Classical optimization techniques based on
calculus can handle some simpler problems
 The gradient method (sometimes called the
steepest ascent method)
method is an iterative procedure
that moves from one feasible solution to the next
improving the objective function

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 69

 Computational Procedures for
Nonlinear Programming
 The best way to deal with nonlinear problems
may be to reduce them to a linear or near-linear
form
 Separable programming deals with a class of
problems in which the objective and constraints
are approximated by linear functions
 The simplex algorithm may then be applied
 In general, work in the area of NLP is the most
difficult of all the quantitative analysis models

© 2009 Prentice-Hall, Inc. 11 – 70