Eureic Andrei S.
Barrera BSA -
II
ACC212 – B Chapter
3
Problem 3
a. Optimal Solution for 8X + 12Y b. Optimal Solution for 6X + 12Y
Extreme 8 12Y Z Extreme 6X 12Y Z
Points X Points
(0, 9) 0 108 108 (0, 9) 0 108 108
(2, 3) 16 36 52 (2, 3) 12 36 48
(3, 2) 24 24 48 Optimal (3, 2) 18 24 42 Optimal Solution
Solution
(9, 0) 72 0 72 (9, 0) 54 0 54
a. Optimal Solution for 8X + 6Y
Extreme 8 6Y Z
Points X
(0, 9) 0 54 54
(2, 3) 16 18 34 Optimal Solution
(3, 2) 24 12 36
(9, 0) 72 0 72
c. The objective coefficient ranges tell us how much each coefficient in the objective
function can be increased or decreased without changing the current optimal solution
point. For part b, since 6 is within the allowable decrease of the computer solution, the
solution does not change. On the other hand, for part c, 6 fall below the allowable
decrease of 4; hence, it should be resolved manually to determine a new optimal solution
point.
Problem 5
a. Optimal Solution for 5R + 8C
5 R+8 C=Z5 ( 500 ) +8 ( 15 0 )=Z
Extreme 5R 8C Z Z=2,500+1,200Z=3,700
Points
(0, 400) 0 3,200 3,200 a. Binding Constraints
(500, 150) 2,500 1,200 3,700 Optimal Solution
(600, 0) 3,000 0 3,000
Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3
3 1 1 1 1
R+ C ≤ 900 R+ C ≤ 3 00 R+ C ≤ 1 00
2 2 3 8 4
3 1 1 1 1
500+ 150 ≤ 900 500+ 150 ≤ 3 00 500+ 150 ≤ 100
2 2 3 8 4
500+225 ≤ 900 250+50 ≤ 3 00 62.5+37.5 ≤ 1 00
725 ≤ 900 300 ≤ 3 00 100 ≤10 0
Not Binding Binding
Binding
b. Dual Values
1. Cutting: There’s unused capacity of 175 units. Since there is no dual value, increasing RHS Value of
Constraint 1 does not constitute to any additional profit.
2. Finishing: Increasing the RHS Value of Constraint 2 by 1 (up to 100 units max), profit increases by 3.
3. Packaging and Shipping: Increasing the RHS Value of Constraint 3 by 1 (up to 35 units max), profit
increases 28.
c. Based on the dual values of the constraint and to which is more efficient to maximize, I would recommend the
Packaging and Shipping department as maximizing that department constitutes to an increase of 980 to the
profit.
Problem 7
a. Optimal Solution for 3U + 5H
3 U +5 H=Z3 ( 8 00 ) +5 ( 1 20 0 )=Z
Extreme 3U 5H Z Z=2 , 4 00+6 ,0 00Z=8,400
Points
(0, 1600) 0 8,000 8,000
a.
(800, 1200) 2,400 6,000 8,400 Optimal Solution
(1000, 800) 3,000 4,000 7,000
(1000, 0) 3,000 0 3,000
Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3
25 U +50 H ≤80 ,0 00 0.50 U +0.25 H ≤ 7 00 1 U ≤ 100 0
25(800)+50 (1200)≤ 80 , 0.50(800)+
0 00 0.25(1 20 0)≤1(800)≤10
7 00 00
20,000+60,000 ≤ 80 , 0 0040 0+ 300 ≤7 00 8 00 ≤ 10 00
80,000 ≤ 80 , 0 00 700 ≤7 00
Binding Binding Not Binding
- Interpretation: The Funds Available (C1) is fully invested, there is no excess funds used to be invested in
other securities. Risk Maximum (C2) is the maximum risk, investing in more securities would increase the
threshold of the risk. On the other hand, U.S. Oil Maximum (C3), has excess capacity but investing in more
shares is not optimal because it would affect the other two constraints.
b. Dual Values
1. Funds Available: Increasing the RHS Value by 1 (max of 60,000) would increase the total return by 0.09333.
2. Risk Maximum: Increasing the RHS Value by 1 (max of 75) would increase the total return by 1.33333.
3. U.S. Oil Maximum: Since there is unused capacity of 200, increasing the RHS Value by 1 does not
constitute to an increase in the total return of the securities in the portfolio.
c. Increasing the maximum amount invested in U.S. Oil would not be beneficial. The U.S. Oil Maximum is only
binding at 800, increasing to meet 1000 would not constitute to any increase in the optimal return of the
investment portfolio also because of the dual values being 0. So, increasing the U.S. Oil cap beyond 1000 has
no effect on return.
Problem 12
a. To maximize the profit, the optimal solution is E=80, S=120, and D=0. The Optimal Objective Value (Profit) is
16,440.
b. The binding constraints are Fan Motors and Cooling Coils (constraint 1 and 2 respectively).
c. The constraint that is not binding is the Manufacturing Time, which has an excess capacity of 320.
d. Despite changing the price per unit of the Deluxe Model to 150, the optimal solution would still not change
because the increase of 15 is within the allowable increase. The optimal mix from requirement a is still used
unless the increase goes beyond 159.
Problem 13
a. Range of Optimality (Objective Function Coefficient)
Econom Decrease 63 – 15.5 = 47.5
47.5 to 75
y Increase 63 + 12 = 75
Standar Decrease 95 – 8 = 87
87 to 126
d Increase 95 + 31 = 126
Decrease Infinite
Deluxe Up to 159
Increase 135 + 24 = 159
b. New Optimal Objective Value
69E+93 S +139 D=Z 69 ( 80 ) + 97 (120 ) +139 ( 0 )=Z Z=5520+11160Z=16,680
The new Optimal Objective Value (Profit) is 16,680.
c. Range of Optimality (RHS)
Constraint Decrease 200 – 40 = 160
160 to 280
1 Increase 200 + 80 = 280
Constraint Decrease 320 – 120 = 220
220 to 400
2 Increase 320 + 80 = 400
Decrease 2400 – 320 =
Constraint
2080 ≥ 2080
3
Increase Infinite
d. Yes, because it exceeds the threshold of allowable increase of 80. The change of production capacity will
invalidate the current dual value of 31; hence, the binding status of constraint 1 may change, and a new
solution would be needed in order to find the optimal objective value.
Problem 17
a. The optimal solution for Deegan Industries is DRB = 1000 and DRW = 800. The total profit contribution is
424,000.
b. Deegan should purchase the additional pounds of the steel alloy because it is within the allowable increase of
909.09091. The effect on the profit is an increase of 3,400 (8.80 – 2 = 6.80 * 500).
c. I would discourage Deegan to increase the overtime on the assembly time. Yes, it has excess capacity, but it is
not optimal since increasing the capacity to meet the threshold would not improve the profit.
d. The change in price will not affect the optimal solution because it is within the range of optimality of the
objective function coefficient. However, there will be changes to the profit by 25,000.
e. The increase in the manufacturing time by 500 hours will not change the dual value because it is within
optimality range of the RHS.
Problem 27
a. Objective Function
Max 32.50D + 17.50W
s.t.
D + W ≤ 5000 (Crop Size)
0.18D + 0.04W ≤ 1008 (Dechaffing)
0.32D + 0.10W ≤ 1008 (Cleaning)
+ 0.22W ≤ 1008 (Drying)
D, W ≥ 0
b. The amount of barrels required for dry harvest is 2309 (rounded) and for wet harvest is 2691 (rounded).
c. No, since Dechaffing is not binding, increasing it will have no impact on the profit. The shadow price of
Dechaffing is 0, which means that additional hours provide no additional profit.
d. The Cleaning of the cranberries have excess capacity that we can use. For every additional hour invested,
maximum of 592 hours increases, there will be an increase of 68.18 to the profit. With this information, it shows
how valuable cleaning time is to us and can help guide investment decisions.
Variable Cells
Allowabl
Final Reduced Objective e Allowable
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease
$B$2 Solution D 2309.090909 0 32.5 23.5 15
$C$2 Solution W 2690.909091 0 17.5 15 7.34375
Constraints
Allowabl
Final Shadow Constraint e Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease
$D$5 Constraint 1 Z 5000 10.68181818 5000 1300 1850
$D$6 Constraint 2 Z 523.2727273 0 1008 1E+30 484.7272727
$D$7 Constraint 3 Z 1008 68.18181818 1008 592 416
$D$8 Constraint 4 Z 592 0 1008 1E+30 416
