Examples Of Linear Programming Problems And Solutions

Maximizing Total Annual Return

Part a

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

            The optimal solution for the solution is 5* 523.364486 + 8*1532.71028.

The value of the total annual return is 14878.50467.

Variable Cells

         
 

 

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

 

Final

Reduced

Objective

Allowable

Allowable

 

Cell

Name

Value

Cost

Coefficient

Increase

Decrease

 

$D$3

Shares of Petroluem Inc.

523.364486

0

5

12.33333333

0.636363636

 

$D$4

Shares of Quality Steel

1532.71028

0

8

1.166666667

5.692307692

 Part b

            The constraints Funds available and Risk Maximum are binding.

The objective’s for Funds available  

and Risk maximum  are the binding. Both the objectives are being used to the maximum value’s.

       

 

 

Final

Shadow

Cell

Name

Value

Price

$F$5

100000

0.138317757

$H$5

800

1.308411215

$J$3

Shares of Petroluem Inc.

523.364486

0

 Part c

The shadow price for “Funds available” is 0.1383. The shadow price for Risk maximum is 1.3084. Hence unit increase in the prices of the constraints would increase the “Funds available” by 0.1383 and “Risk Maximum” by 1.3084.

Part d

            The shadow price for Petroleum Inc. maximum is 0. Hence, any additional increase in the amount invested in Petroleum Inc. maximum would result in no increase in total annual return. Thus, investment in Petroleum Inc would not be beneficial.

       

 

 

Final

Shadow

Cell

Name

Value

Price

$F$5

100000

0.138317757

$H$5

800

1.308411215

$J$3

Shares of Petroluem Inc.

523.364486

0

Answer 2

Part a

The optimal solution for the solution is 2* 315.9565217 + 2.25 * 136.173913

The value of the total return based on the optimal solution is 938.3043478.

Variable Cells

         
 

 

 

Final

Reduced

Objective

Allowable

Allowable

 

Cell

Name

Value

Cost

Coefficient

Increase

Decrease

 

$D$3

Jars Produced O

315.9565217

0

2

7

0.392857143

 

$D$4

Jars Produced F

136.173913

0

2.25

0.55

1.75

Part b

            The constraints Whole Tomatoes and Tomato Sauce are binding.

The objective’s for Whole Tomatoes is  

and for Tomato Sauce is  are the binding.

Both the objectives are being used to the maximum value’s.

Constraints

         
 

 

 

Final

Shadow

Constraint

Allowable

Allowable

 

Cell

Name

Value

Price

R.H. Side

Increase

Decrease

 

$G$5

2533

0.304347826

2533

114

783

 

$J$5

1400

0.119565217

1400

626.4

266

 

$M$5

588.3043478

0

623

1E+30

34.69565217

Part c

The shadow price for “Whole Tomatoes” is 0.304348. The shadow price for “Tomato Sauce” is 0.119565. Hence unit increase in the value of the constraints would increase the “Whole Tomatoes” by 0.304348 and “Tomato Sauce” by 0.119565.

Part d

The right hand side ranges for Chopped Onions and jalapenos is 0 to 588.3043478. However, any increase in Chopped Onions and jalapenos would result in no increase in the optimal solution. Thus, there is no need to increase the amount of Chopped Onions and jalapenos.

Constraints

         
 

 

 

Final

Shadow

Constraint

Allowable

Allowable

 

Cell

Name

Value

Price

R.H. Side

Increase

Decrease

 

$G$5

2533

0.304347826

2533

114

783

 

$J$5

1400

0.119565217

1400

626.4

266

 

$M$5

588.3043478

0

623

1E+30

34.69565217

 Answer 3

 

 

Final

Reduced

Objective

Allowable

Allowable

Cell

Name

Value

Cost

Coefficient

Increase

Decrease

$D$3

Units Invested S

4888.888889

0

10

5

10

$D$4

Units Invested M

1666.666667

0

4

1E+30

1.333333333

 Part a

From the solution it is seen that the Allowable increase for Units invested S is 5. Thus an increase in the Units Invested in S by units would not change the optimum solution for its present value of S = 4888.88 and M = 1666.666. 

Part b

From the solution it is seen that the Allowable increase for Units invested M is 1E+30. Thus an increase in the Units Invested in M by units would not change the optimum solution for its present value of S = 4888.88 and M = 1666.666. 

Part c

The allowable increase for “units purchased in stock fund” is 5 and for “units purchased in money market fund” is 1E+30. Thus increasing “units purchased in stock fund” from 10 to 12 and “units purchased in money market fund” from 4 to 6 would not change the optimum number of units purchased. Although, the total number of units purchased would increase.