MODULE 7

Linear Programming: The Simplex Method

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
Teaching Suggestion M7.1: Meaning of Slack Variables.
Slack variables have an important physical interpretation and represent a valuable commodity,
such as unused labor, machine time, money, space, and so forth.
Teaching Suggestion M7.2: Initial Solutions to LP Problems.
Explain that all initial solutions begin with X1 = 0, X2 = 0 (that is, the real variables set to zero),
and the slacks are the variables with nonzero values. Variables with values of zero are called
nonbasic and those with nonzero values are said to be basic.
Teaching Suggestion M7.3: Substitution Rates in a Simplex Tableau.
Perhaps the most confusing pieces of information to interpret in a simplex tableau are
“substitution rates.” These numbers should be explained very clearly for the first tableau because
they will have a clear physical meaning. Warn the students that in subsequent tableaus the
interpretation is the same but will not be as clear because we are dealing with marginal rates of
substitution.
Teaching Suggestion M7.4: Hand Calculations in a Simplex Tableau.
It is almost impossible to walk through even a small simplex problem (two variables, two
constraints) without making at least one arithmetic error. This can be maddening for students
who know what the correct solution should be but can’t reach it. We suggest two tips:
1. ​Encourage students to also solve the assigned problem by computer and to request
the detailed simplex output. They can now check their work at each iteration.
2. ​Stress the importance of interpreting the numbers in the tableau at each iteration.
The 0s and 1s in the columns of the variables in the solutions are arithmetic checks and
balances at each step.
Teaching Suggestion M7.5: Infeasibility Is a Major Problem in Large LP Problems.
As we noted in Teaching Suggestion 7.6, students should be aware that infeasibility commonly
arises in large, real-world-sized problems. This module deals with how to spot the problem (and
is very straightforward), but the real issue is how to correct the improper formulation. This is
often a management issue.

​ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLES

Alternative Example M7.1: Simplex Solution to Alternative Example 7.1 (see Chapter 7 of
Solutions Manual for formulation and graphical solution).
1st Iteration
Cj® Solution 3 9 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
 X1 X2 S 1 S 2

0 S1 1 4 1 0 24
0 S2 1 2 0 1 16
Zj 0 0 0 0 0
Cj – Zj 3 9 0 0
2nd Iteration
Cj® Solution 3 9 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
9 X2 1 0 6

0 S2 0 1 4

Zj 9 0 54

Cj – Zj 0 0
This is not an optimum solution since the X1 column contains a positive value. More profit

remains ($ per #1).

3rd/Final Iteration
Cj® Solution 3 9 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S2
9 X2 0 1 4

3 X1 1 0 -1 2 8
Zj 3 9 60

Cj – Zj 0 0
This is an optimum solution since there are no positive values in the Cj – Zj row. This says to
make 4 of item #2 and 8 of item #1 to get a profit of $60.
​Alternative Example M7.2: Set up an initial simplex tableau, given the following two
constraints and objective function:
Minimize Z = 8X1 + 6X2
Subject to: 2X1 + 4X2 ³ 8
​3X1 + 2X2 ³ 6
The constraints and objective function may be rewritten as:
​Minimize = 8X1 + 6X2 + 0S1 + 0S2 + MA1 + MA2
​ ​2X1 + 4X2 – 1S1 + 0S2 + 1A1 + 0A2 = 8
​ ​3X1 + 2X2 + 0S1 – 1S2 + 0A1 + 1A2 = 6
The first tableau would be:
Cj® Solution
¯ Mix 8 6 0 0 M M Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 A1 A2
M A1 2 4 –1 0 1 0 8
M A2 3 2 0 –1 0 1 6
Zj 5M 6M –M –M M M 14M
M A2 3 2 0 –1 0 1 6
Zj 5M 6M –M –M M M 14M
Cj – Zj 8 – 5M 6 – 6M M M 0 0
The second tableau:
Cj® Solution 8 6 0 0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 A1 A2
6 X2 1 0 0 2
M A2 2 0 –1 1 2

Zj 3 + 2M 6 –M M 12 + 2M
M M
Cj – Zj 5 – 2M 0 M 0
M M
The third and final tableau:
Cj® Solution 8 6 0 0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S2 A1 A2
6 X2 0 1
8 X1 1 0 1

Zj 8 6 17
Cj – Zj 0 0
M– M–

A minimal, optimum cost of 17 can be achieved by using 1 of a type #1 and of a type #2.
​Alternative Example M7.3: Referring back to Hal, in Alternative Example 7.1, we had a
formulation of:
Maximize Profit = $3X1 + $9X2
Subject to: 1X1 + 4X2 £ 24 clay
​1X1 + 2X2 £ 16 glaze
where X1 = small vases made
​X2 = large vases made
The optimal solution was X1 = 8, X2 = 4. Profit = $60.
Using software (see the printout), we can perform a variety of sensitivity analyses on this
solution.
Alternative Example M7.4: Levine Micros assembles both laptop and desktop personal
computers. Each laptop yields $160 in profit; each desktop $200.
The firm’s LP primal is:
Maximize profit = $160X1 + $200X2
subject to: 1X1 + 2X2 £ 20 labor hours
​9X1 + 9X2 £ 108 RAM chips
​12X1 + 6X2 £ $120 royalty fees
where X1 = no. laptops assembled daily
​X2 = no. desktops assembled daily
Here is the primal optimal solution and final simplex tableau.
Cj® Solution $160 $200 0 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 S3
200 X2 0 1 1 0 8
160 X1 1 0 –1 0 4
0 S3 0 0 6 –2 1 24
Zj 160 200 40 0 $2,240
Cj – Zj 0 0 –40 0
or X1 = 4, X2 = 8, S3 = $24 in slack royalty fees paid
Profit = $2,240/day
Here is the dual formulation:
Minimize Z = 20y1 + 108y2 + 120y3
subject to: 1y1 + 9y2 + 12y3 ³ 160
​2y1 + 9y2 + 6y3 ³ 200
Here is the dual optimal solution and final tableau.
Cj® Solution 20 108 120 0 0
Here is the dual optimal solution and final tableau.
Cj® Solution 20 108 120 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
y1 y2 y3 S1 S2
108 y2 0 1 2
20 y1 1 0 –6 1 –1 40
Zj 20 108 96 –4 –8 $2,240
Cj – Zj 0 0 +24 +4 +8
This means
y1 = marginal value of one more labor hour = $40
y2 = marginal value of one more RAM chip = $13.33
y3 = marginal value of one more $1 in royalty fees = $0
​SOLUTIONS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

M7-1. The purpose of the simplex method is to find the optimal solution to LP problems in a
systematic and efficient manner. The procedures are described in detail in Section M7.3.
M7-2. Differences between graphical and simplex methods: (1) Graphical method can be used
only when two variables are in model; simplex can handle any dimensions. (2) Graphical method
must evaluate all corner points (if the corner point method is used); simplex checks a lesser
number of corners. (3) Simplex method can be automated and computerized. (4) Simplex method
involves use of surplus, slack, and artificial variables but provides useful economic data as a by-
product.
Similarities: (1) Both methods find the optimal solution at a corner point. (2) Both methods
require a feasible region and the same problem structure, that is, objective function and
constraints.
The graphical method is preferable when the problem has two variables and only two or three
constraints (and when no computer is available).
M7-3. Slack variables convert £ constraints into equalities for the simplex table. They represent
a quantity of unused resource and have a zero coefficient in the objective function.
Surplus variables convert ³ constraints into equalities and represent a resource usage above
the minimum required. They, too, have a zero coefficient in the objective function.
Artificial variables have no physical meaning but are used with the constraints that are = or ³.
They carry a high coefficient, so they are quickly removed from the initial solution.
M7-4. The number of basic variables (i.e., variables in the solution) is always equal to the
number of constraints. So in this case there will be eight basic variables. A nonbasic variable is
one that is not currently in the solution, that is, not listed in the solution mix column of the
tableau. It should be noted that while there will be eight basic variables, the values of some of
them may be zero.
M7-5. Pivot column: Select the variable column with the largest positive Cj – Zj value (in a
maximization problem) or smallest negative Cj – Zj value (in a minimization problem).
Pivot row: Select the row with the smallest quantity-to-column ratio that is a nonnegative
number.
Pivot number: Defined to be at the intersection of the pivot column and pivot row.
M7-6. Maximization and minimization problems are quite similar in the application of the
simplex method. Minimization problems usually include constraints necessitating artificial and
surplus variables. In terms of technique, the Cj – Zj row is the main difference. In maximization
problems, the greatest positive Cj – Zj indicates the new pivot column; in minimization problems,
surplus variables. In terms of technique, the Cj – Zj row is the main difference. In maximization
problems, the greatest positive Cj – Zj indicates the new pivot column; in minimization problems,
it’s the smallest negative Cj – Zj. The Zj entry in the “quantity” column stands for profit
contribution or cost, in maximization and minimization problems, respectively.
M7-7. The Zj values indicate the opportunity cost of bringing one unit of a variable into the
solution mix.
​M7-8. The Cj – Zj value is the net change in the value of the objective function that would result
from bringing one unit of the corresponding variable into the solution.
M7-9. The minimum ratio criterion used to select the pivot row at each iteration is important
because it gives the maximum number of units of the new variable that can enter the solution. By
choosing the minimum ratio, we ensure feasibility at the next iteration. Without the rule, an
infeasible solution may occur.
M7-10. The variable with the largest objective function coefficient should enter as the first
decision variable into the second tableau for a maximization problem. Hence X3 (with a value of
$12) will enter first. In the minimization problem, the least-cost coefficient is X1, with a $2.5
objective coefficient. X1 will enter first.
M7-11. If an artificial variable is in the final solution, the problem is infeasible. The person
formulating the problem should look for the cause, usually conflicting constraints.
M7-12. An optimal solution will still be reached if any positive Cj – Zj value is chosen. This
procedure will result in a better (more profitable) solution at each iteration, but it may take more
iterations before the optimum is reached.
M7-13. A shadow price is the value of one additional unit of a scarce resource. The solutions to
the Ui dual variables are the primal’s shadow prices. In the primal, the negatives of the Cj – Zj
values in the slack variable columns are the shadow prices.
M7-14. The dual will have 8 constraints and 12 variables.
M7-15. The right-hand-side values in the primal become the dual’s objective function
coefficients.
The primal objective function coefficients become the right-hand-side values of dual
constraints.
The transpose of the primal constraint coefficients become the dual constraint coefficients,
with constraint inequality signs reversed.
M7-16. The student is to write his or her own LP primal problem of the form:
maximize profit = C1X1 + C2X2
subject to A11X1 + A12X2 £ B1
​A21X1 + A22X2 £ B2
and for a dual of the nature:
minimize cost = B1U1 + B2U2
subject to A11U1 + A21U2 ³ C1
​A12U1 + A22U2 ³ C2
​M7-17. a.
 ​b. ​The new optimal corner point is (0,60) and the profit is 7,200.
​c. ​The shadow price = (increase in profit)/(increase in right-hand side value)
​ (7,200 – 2,400)/(240 – 80)
=
​= 4,800/160
​= 30
​d. ​With the additional change, the optimal corner point in part B is still the optimal
corner point. Profit doesn’t change. Once the right-hand side went beyond 240, another
constraint prevented any additional profit, and there is now slack for the first constraint.
M7-18. a. See the table below.
Table for Problem M7-18
Cj® Solution $900 $1,500 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
0 S1 14 4 1 0 3,360
0 S2 10 12 0 1 9,600
Zj 0 0 0 0 0
Cj – Zj 900 1,500 0 0
b. ​14X1 + 4X2 £ 3,360
​10X1 + 12X2 £ 9,600
​X1, X2 ³ 0
c. ​Maximize profit = 900X1 + 1,500X2
d. ​Basis is S1 = 3,360, S2 = 9,600.
e. ​X2 should enter basis next.
f. ​S2 will leave next.
g. ​800 units of X2 will be in the solution at the second tableau.
h. ​Profit will increase by (Cj – Zj)(units of variable entering the solution)
​= (1,500)(800) = 1,200,000
M7-19. a. Maximize earnings = 0.8X1 + 0.4X2 + 1.2X3 – 0.1X4 + 0S1 + 0S2 – MA1 – MA2
subject to
​X1 + 2X2 + X3 + 5X4 + S1 = 150
​X2 – 4X3 + 8X4 + A1 = 70
​6X1 + 7X2 + 2X3 – X4 – S2 + A2 = 120
b. See initial simplex tableau in Table M7-19b below.
Table for Problem M7-19b
Cj® Solution 0.8 0.4 1.2 -0.1 0 0 -M -M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 X4 S1 S2 A1 A2
0 S1 1 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 150
–M A 0 1 –4 8 0 0 1 0 70
 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2

0 S1 1 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 150
–M A1 0 1 –4 8 0 0 1 0 70
–M A2 6 7 2 –1 0 –1 0 1 120
Zj –6M –8M 2M –7M 0 M –M –M –190M
Cj – Zj 0.8 + 6M 0.4 + 8M 1.2 – 2M –0.1 + 7M 0 –M 0 0

c. ​S1 = 150, A1 = 70, A2 = 120, all other variables = 0

M7-20. First tableau:
Cj® Solution $3 $5 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
$0 S1 0 1 1 0 6
$0 S2 3 2 0 1 18
Zj $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cj – Zj $3 $5 $0 $0
Second tableau:
Cj® Solution $3 $5 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
$5 X2 0 1 1 0 6
$0 S2 3 0 –2 1 6
Zj $0 $5 $5 $0 $30
Cj – Zj $3 $0 –$5 $0
Third and optimal tableau:
Cj® Solution $3 $5 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
$5 X2 0 1 1 0 6
$3 X1 1 0 2
Zj $3 $5 $3 $1 $36
Cj – Zj $0 $0 –$3 –$1
X1 = 2, X2 = 6, S1 = 0, S2 = 0, and profit = $36
​Graphical solution to Problem M7-20:
M7-21. a.

b.
Cj® Solution 10 8 0 0 Quantity
¯ Mix
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
0 S1 4 2 1 0 80
0 S2 1 2 0 1 50
Zj 0 0 0 0 0
Cj – Zj 10 8 0 0
This represents the corner point (0,0).
​c. ​The pivot column is the X1 column. The entering variable is X1.
​d. ​Ratios: ​Row 1: 80/4 = 20
​Row 2: 50/1 = 50
These represent the points (20,0) and (50,0) on the graph.
​e. The smallest ratio is 20, so 20 units of the entering variable (X1) will be brought into
the solution. If the largest ratio had been selected, the next tableau would represent an
infeasible solution since the point (50,0) is outside the feasible region.
​f. ​The leaving variable is the solution mix variable in row with the smallest ratio.
Thus, S1 is the leaving variable. The value of this will be 0 in the next tableau.
g.
Second iteration
Cj® Solution 10 8 0 0 Quantity
¯ Mix
X1 X2 S1 S2
10 X1 1 0.5 0.25 0 20
0 S2 0 1.5 –0.25 1 30
Zj 10 5 2.5 0 200
Cj – Zj 0 3 –2.5 0
Third iteration
Cj® Solution 10 8 0 0 Quantity
¯ Mix
X1 X2 S1 S2
10 X1 1 0 0.3333 –0.3333 10
 X1 X2 S1 S2
10 X1 1 0 0.3333 –0.3333 10
8 X2 0 1 –0.1667 0.6667 20
Zj 10 8 2 2 260
Cj – Zj 0 0 –2 –2
h. ​ he second iteration represents the corner point (20,0). The third (and final) iteration
T
represents the point (10,20).
M7-22. Basis for first tableau: A1 = 80
​A2 = 75
​(X1 = 0, X2 = 0, S1 = 0, S2 = 0)
Second tableau: ​A1 = 55
​X1 = 25
​(X2 = 0, S1 = 0, S2 = 0, A2 = 0)
Graphical solution to Problem M7-22:

Third tableau: ​X1 = 14

​X2 = 33
​(S1 = 0, S2 = 0, A1 = 0, A2 = 0)
Cost = $221 at optimal solution
M7-23. This problem is infeasible. All Cj – Zj are zero or negative, but an artificial variable
remains in the basis.
M7-24. At the second iteration, the following simplex tableau is found:
Cj® Solution 6 3 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
6 X1 1 –1 0 1
0 S2 0 0 1 2
Zj 6 –6 3 0 6
Cj – Zj 0 9 –3 0
At this point, X2 should enter the basis next. But the two ratios are 1/–1 = negative and 2/0 =
undefined. Since there is no nonnegative ratio, the problem is unbounded.
M7-25. a. The optimal solution using simplex is X1 = 3, X2 = 0. ROI = $6. This is illustrated in
the problem’s final simplex tableau:
Tableau for Problem M7-25a
Tableau for Problem M7-25a
Cj® Solution 2 3 0 0 -M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 A1
0 S1 0 1 –1 6
2 X1 1 0 0 3

Zj 2 3 1 0 0 $6
Cj – Zj 0 0 –1 0 –M
b. The variable X2 has a Cj – Zj value of $0, indicating an alternative optimal solution
exists by inserting X2 into the basis.
c. The alternative optimal solution is found in the tableau in the next column to be X1 =

= 0.42, X2 = = 1.7, ROI = $6.

Tableau for Problem M7-25c
Cj® Solution 2 3 0 0 -M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S2 A1
3 X2 0 1
2 X1 1 0
Zj 2 3 0 0 $6

Cj – Zj 0 0 0 –M

d. ​The graphical solution is shown below.

Alternative optimums at a and b, Z = $6.

M7-26. This problem is degenerate. Variable X2 should enter the solution next. But the ratios are
as follows:
Since X3 and S2 are tied, we can select one at random, in this case S2. The optimal solution is
shown below. It is X1 = 27, X2 = 5, X3 = 0, profit = $177.
Cj® Solution 6 3 5 0 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S 1 S2 S3
$5 X3 0 0 1 0
$6 X1 1 0 0 27
$3 X2 0 1 0 5
Zj 6 3 5 13 8 13 $177
Cj – Zj 0 0 0 –13 –8 –13

​M7-27. Minimum cost = 50X1 + 10X2 + 75X3 + 0S1 + MA1 + MA2

subject to
​1X1 – 1X2 + 0X3 + 0S1 + 1A1 + 0A2 = 1,000
​0X1 + 2X2 + 2X3 + 0S1 + 0A1 + 1A2 = 2,000
​1X1 + 0X2 + 0X3 + 1S1 + 0A1 + 0A2 = 1,500
First iteration:
Cj® Solution 50 10 75 0 MM
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S1 A1 A2
M A1 1 –1 0 0 1 0 1,000
M A2 0 2 2 0 0 1 2,000
0 S1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1,500
Zj M M 2M 0 M M 3,000M
Cj – Zj –M + 50 –M + 10 –2M + 75 0 0 0
Second iteration:
Cj® Solution 50 10 75 0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S1 A1 A2
M A1 1 –1 0 0 1 0 1,000
75 X3 0 1 1 0 0 1,000

0 S1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1,500
Zj M –M + 75 75 0 M 1,000M + 75,000

Cj – Zj –M + 50 M – 65 0 0 0
M–
Third iteration:
Cj® Solution 50 10 75 0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S1 A1 A2
50 X1 1 –1 0 0 1 0 1,000
75 X3 0 1 1 0 0 1,000
75 X3 0 1 1 0 0 1,000

0 S1 0 1 0 1 –1 0 500
Zj 50 25 75 0 50 $125,000

Cj – Zj 0 –15 0 0 M – 50
M–
Fourth and final iteration:
Cj® Solution 50 10 75 0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S1 A1 A2
50 X1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1,500
75 X3 0 0 1 –1 1 500

10 X2 0 1 0 1 –1 0 500
Zj 50 10 75 –15 65 $117,500

Cj – Zj 0 0 0 15 M – 65
M–
​X1 = 1,500, X2 = 500, X3 = 500, Z = $117,500
M7-28. ​X1 = number of kilograms of brand A added to each batch
X2 = number of kilograms of brand B added to each batch
Minimize costs = 9X1 + 15X2 + 0S1 + 0S2 + MA1 + MA2
subject to X1 + 2X2 – S1 + A1 = 30
​X1 + 4X2 – S2 + A2 = 80
Cj® Solution $9 $15 $0 $0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 A1 A2
M A1 1 2 –1 0 1 0 30
M A2 1 4 0 –1 0 1 80
Zj 2M 6M –M –M M M 110M
Cj – Zj –2M + 9 –6M + 15 M M 0 0

First iteration:
Cj® Solution $9 $15 $0 $0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 A1 A2
15 X2 1 0 0 15
M A2 –1 0 2 –1 –2 1 20
Zj 15 –M M 225 + 20M
–M + 2M – 2M
Cj – Zj 0 M 0
+M – 2M 3M –
Second iteration:
Cj® Solution $9 $15 $0 $0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2 A1 A2
15 X2 1 0 0 20
0 S 0 1 –1 10
15 X2 1 0 0 20
0 S1 0 1 –1 10
Zj 15 4 0 $300
Cj – Zj 0 0 M
M–
Third and final iteration:
X1 = 0 kg, X2 = 20 kg, cost = $300
M7-29. ​X1 = number of mattresses
X2 = number of box springs
Minimize cost = 20X1 + 24X2
subject to X1 + X2 ³ 30
​X1 + 2X3 ³ 40
​ ​X1, X2 ³ 0

​Initial tableau:
Cj® Solution $20 $24 $0 $0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2 A1 A2
M A1 1 1 –1 0 1 0 30
M A2 1 2 0 –1 0 1 40
Zj 2M 3M –M –M M M 70M
Cj – Zj –2M + 20 –3M + 24 M M 0 0
Second tableau:
Cj® Solution $20 $24 $0 $0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S2 A1 A2
M A1 0 –1 1 10
$24 X2 1 0 0 20
Zj 24 –M 0 10M + 480
M + 12 M – 12 M + 12
Cj – Zj 0 M 0
M + 12 M + 12 M – 12
Final tableau:
Cj® Solution $20 $24 $0 $0 M M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2 A1 A2
$20 X1 1 0 –2 1 2 –1 20
$24 X2 0 1 1 –1 –1 1 10
Zj 20 24 –16 –4 16 4 $640
Cj – Zj 0 0 16 4 M – 16 M – 4
X1 = 20, X2 = 10, cost = $640

M7-30. ​Maximize profit = 9X1 + 12X2

subject to X1 + X2 £ 10
 1 2

subject to X1 + X2 £ 10
​X1 + 2X2 £ 12
​X1, X2 ³ 0
Initial tableau:
Cj® Solution $9 $12 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
$0 S1 1 1 1 0 10
$0 S2 1 2 0 1 12
Zj 0 0 0 0 $0
Cj – Zj 9 12 0 0

​Second tableau:
Cj® Solution $9 $12 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
$0 S1 0 1 4

$12 X2 1 0 6
Zj 6 12 0 6 $72
Cj – Zj 3 0 0 –6
Final tableau:
Cj® Solution $9 $12 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S 1 S 2
$4 X1 1 0 2 –1 8
$12 X2 0 1 –1 1 2
Zj 9 12 6 3 $96
Cj – Zj 0 0 –6 –3
X1 = 8, X2 = 2, profit = $96
M7-31. ​Maximize profit = 8X1 + 6X2 + 14X3
subject to 2X1 + X2 + 3X3 £ 120
​2X1 + 6X2 + 4X3 = 240
​X1, X2 ³ 0
Initial tableau:
Cj® Solution $8 $6 $14 0 -M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S1 A1
0 S1 2 1 3 1 0 120
–M A2 2 6 4 0 1 240
Zj –2M –6M –4M 0 –M –240M
Cj – Zj 8 + 2M 6 + 6M 14 + 4M 0 0
Second tableau:
 Cj – Zj 8 + 2M 6 + 6M 14 + 4M 0 0
Second tableau:
Cj® Solution $8 $6 $14 0 -M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S 1 A1
$0 S1 0 1 80
$6 X2 1 0 40
Zj 2 6 4 0 1 $240
Cj – Zj 6 0 10 0 –M – 1

​Final tableau:
Cj® Solution $8 $6 $14 0 -M
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 X3 S1 A1
$14 X3 0 1
$6 X2 1 0
Zj 6 14
Cj – Zj –1.1 0 0
–M –

(which is X1 = 0, X2 = 17.14, X3 = 34.29, profit = $582.86)

M7-32. ​a.
X1 = number of deluxe one-bedroom units converted
X2 = number of regular one-bedroom units converted
X3 = number of deluxe studios converted
X4 = number of efficiencies converted
Objective: maximum profit = 8,000X1 + 6,000X2 + 5,000X3 + 3,500X4
subject to
1,100X1 + 1,000X2 + 600X3 + 500X4 £ $35,000
700X1 + 600X2 + 400X3 + 300X4 £ $28,000
2,000X1 + 1,600X2 + 1,200X3 + 900X4 £ $45,000
1,000X1 + 400X2 + 900X3 + 200X4 £ $19,000
​X1 + X2 ​+ X3 ​+ X4 ​£ 50
​X1 + X2 ​+ X3 ​+ X4 ​³ 25

​
The last two constraints can be rewritten as:

​0.6X1 + 0.6X2 – 0.4X3 – 0.4X4 0

 ​0.6X1 + 0.6X2 – 0.4X3 – 0.4X4 0

​0.3X1 + 0.3X2 – 0.7X3 – 0.7X4 0

​b. Maximize profit = 8,000X1 + 6,000X2 + 5,000X3 + 3,500X4 + 0S1 + 0S2 + 0S3 + 0S4 + 0S5 +
0S6 + 0S7 + 0S8 – MA1 – MA2
subject to
1,100X1 + 1,000X2 + 600X3 + 500X4 + S1 ​= 35,000
700X1 + 600X2 + 400X3 + 300X4 + S2 ​= 28,000
2,000X1 + 1,600X2 + 1,200X3 + 900X4 + S3 ​= 45,000
1,000X1 + 400X2 + 900X3 + 200X4 + S4 ​= 19,000
​X1 + X2 ​+ X3 ​+ X4 ​+ S5 ​= 50
​X1 + X2 ​+ X3 ​+ X4 ​– S6 + A1 = 25
0.6X1 + 0.6X2 – 0.4X3 – 0.4X4 – S7 + A2 ​= 0
0.3X1 + 0.3X2 – 0.7X3 – 0.7X4 + S8 ​= 0
M7-33. a. The initial formulation is
minimize cost = $12X1 + 18X2 + 10X3 + 20X4 + 7X5 + 8X6
subject to
​X1 ​ ​ ​– 3X3 ​ ​ ​ ​= 100
​ ​ ​25X2 ​+ X3 ​ + 2X4 ​ + 8X5 ​ ​£ 900
​2X1 ​+ ​X2 ​ ​ ​ + 4X4 ​ ​+ X6 ​³
250
​18X1 – ​15X2 ​ – 2X3 ​ – X4 ​ + 15X5 ​ ​³ 150
​ 25X6 ​£ 300
​ 2X4 + 6X5 ​³ 70
b. Variable X5 will enter the basis next. (Its Cj – Zj value indicates the most
improvement, that is, 7 – 21M ) Variable A3 will leave the basis because its ratio
(150/15) is the smallest of the three positive ratios.
M7-34. a. We change $10 (the Cj coefficient for X1) to $10 + D and note the effect on the Cj – Zj
row in the table below.
Simplex table for Problem M7-34
Cj® Solution $10 + D $30 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
$10 + D X1 1 4 2 0 160
$0 S2 0 6 –7 1 200
Zj 10 + D 40 + 4D 20 + 2D 0 $1,600 + 160D
Cj – Zj 0 –10 – 4D –20 – 2D 0
From the X2 column, we require for optimality that

–10 – 4D £ 0 or D³
​From the S1 column, we require that
–20 – 2D £ 0 or D ³ –10
 1

–20 – 2D £ 0 or D ³ –10

Since the D ³ is more binding, the range of optimality is

$ £ Cj (for X1) ¥
b. The range of insignificance is

​–¥ £ Cj (for X2) $40

c. One more unit of the first scarce resource is worth $20, which is the shadow price in
the S1 column.
d. Another unit of the second resource is worth $0 because there are still 200 unused
units (S2 = 200).
e. This change is within the range of insignificance, so the optimal solution would not
change. If the 30 in the Cj row were changed to 35, the Cj – Zj would still be positive,
and the current solution would still be optimal.
f. The solution mix variables and their values would not change, because $12 is within
the range of optimality found in part a. The profit would increase by 160(2) = 320, so
the new maximum profit would be 1,600 + 320 = 1,920.
g. The right-hand side could be decreased by 200 (the amount of the slack) and the
profit would not change.
M7-35. a. The shadow prices are: 3.75 for constraint 1; 22.5 for constraint 2; and 0 for
constraint 3. The shadow price is 0 for constraint 3 because there is slack for this
constraint. This means there are units of this resource that are available but are not
being utilized. Therefore, additional units of this could not increase profits.
b​ . Dividing the RHS values by the coefficients in the S1 column, we have 37.5/0.125 =
300 so we can reduce the right-hand-side by 300 units; and 12.5/(–0.125) = –100, so we
can increase the right-hand-side by 100 units and the same variables will remain in the
solution mix.
​c. The right-hand-side of this constraint could be decreased by 10 units. The solution
mix variable in this row is slack variable S3. Thus, the right-hand-side can be decreased
by this amount without changing the solution mix.
M7-36. a. Produce 18 of model 102 and 4 of model H23.
b​ . S1 represents unused or slack time on the soldering machine; S2 represents unused
or slack time in the inspection department.
​c. Yes—the shadow price of the soldering machine time is $4. Clapper will net $1.50
for every additional hour he rents.
​d. No—the profit added for each additional hour of inspection time made available is
only $1. Since this shadow price is less than the $1.75 per hour cost, Clapper will lower
his profit by hiring the part-timer.
M7-37. a. The first shadow price (in the S1 column) is $5.00. The second shadow price (in the S2
column) is $15.00.
​b. The first shadow price represents the value of one more hour in the painting
department. The second represents the value of one additional hour in the carpentry
department.
​c. The range of optimality for tables (X1) is established from Table M7-37c.
–5 – 3/2D £ 0 or D ³ –3.333 from S1 column
–15 + 1/2D £ 0 or D £ 30 from S2 column
Hence the C for X must decrease by at least $3.33 to change the optimal solution. It must
 –15 + 1/2D £ 0 or D £ 30 from S2 column
Hence the Cj for X1 must decrease by at least $3.33 to change the optimal solution. It must
increase by $30 to alter the basis. The range of optimality is $66.67 £ Cj £ $100.00 for X1.
d. The range of optimality for X2. See Table M7-37d.
–5 + 2D £ 0 or D £ 2.5 from S1 column
–15 – D £ 0 or D ³ –5 from S2 column
The range of optimality for profit coefficient on chairs is from $35 (= 50 – 15) to $52.50 (= 50 +
2.5).
e. Ranging for first resource—painting department
Quantity S1 Ratio
30 20
40 –2 –20
Thus the first resource can be reduced by 20 hours or increased by 20 hours without affecting the
solution. The range is from 80 to 120 hours.
f. Ranging for second resource—carpentry time.
Quantity S2 Ratio
30 –60
40 1 40
Range is thus from 200 hours to 300 hours (or 240 – 40 to 240 + 60).
Table for Problem M7-37c
Cj® Solution 70 + D 50 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
70 + D X1 1 0 30
50 X2 0 1 –2 1 40
Zj 70 + D 50 $4,100 + 30D
5+ D 15 – D
Cj – Zj 0 0
–5 – D –15 + D

​Table for Problem M7-37d

Cj® Solution 70 50 + D 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
70 X1 1 0 30
50 + D X2 0 1 –2 1 40
Zj 70 50 + D 5 – 2D 15 + D $4,100 + 40D
Cj – Zj 0 0 –5 + 2D –15 – D
M7-38. Note that artificial variables may be omitted from the sensitivity analysis since they
have no physical meaning.
a. Range of optimality for X1 (phosphate):
Cj® Solution $5 + D $6 $0 $0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
 j
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
$0 S2 0 0 –1 1 550
$5 + D X1 1 0 1 0 300
$6 X2 0 1 –1 0 700
Zj 5 + D 6 –1 + D 0 $5,700 + 300D
Cj – Zj 0 0 1–D 0
1 – D ³ 0 or D £ 1
If the Cj value for X1 increases by $1, the basis will change. Hence –¥ £ Cj (for X1) £ $6.
Range of optimality for X2 (potassium):
Cj® Solution 5 6 + D 0 0
¯ Mix Quantity
X1 X2 S1 S2
0 S2 0 0 –1 1 550
5 X1 1 0 1 0 300
6+D X2 0 1 –1 0 700
Zj 5 6 + D –1 – D 0 $5,700 + 700D
Cj – Zj 0 0 1 + D 0
1 + D ³ 0 or D ³ –1
If the Cj value for X2 decreases by $1, the basis will change. The range is thus $5 £ Cj (for X2) £
¥.
b. This involves right-hand-side ranging on the slack variables S1 (which represents number of
pounds of phosphate under the 300-pound limit).
Quantity S2 Ratio
550 –1 –550
300 1 300
700 –1 –700
This indicates that the limit may be reduced by 300 pounds (down to zero pounds) without
changing the solution.
The question asks if the resources can be increased to 400 pounds without affecting the basis.
The smallest negative ratio (–550) tells us that the limit can be raised to 850 pounds without
changing the solution mix. However, the values of X1, X2, and S2 would change. X1 would now be
400, X2 would be 600, and S2 would be 450.
M7-39. ​Minimize cost = 4U1 + 8U2
subject to 1U1 + 2U2 ³ 80
​3U1 + 5U2 ³ 75
​U1, U2 ³ 0
The dual of the dual is the original primal.
M7-40. ​Maximize profit = 50U1 + 4U2
subject to 12U1 + 1U2 £ 120
​20U1 + 3U2 £ 250
​U1, U2 ³ 0
M7-41. U1 = $80, U2 = $40, cost = $1,000
M7-42. ​Primal objective function:
M7-42. ​Primal objective function:
maximize profit = 0.5X1 + 0.4X2
primal constraints: 2X1 + 1X2 £ 120
​2X1 + 3X2 £ 240
​X1, X2 ³ 0
primal solution: X1 = 30, X2 = 60, profit = $39
M7-43. ​Maximize profit =
​10X1 ​+ ​5X2 ​+ 31X3 ​+ ​28X4 ​+ 17X5
subject to X1 ​+ ​X2 ​ + 12X5 ​£ 28
​ ​ ​2X2 ​– ​2X3 ​ ​ ​ ​ £ 53
​ ​ ​X2 ​ ​ ​+ ​5X4 ​+ 2X5 ​ £
70
​X1 ​ ​ ​+ ​ 5X3 ​ ​ ​– X5 ​ £
18
​X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 ​ ³0
M7-44. a. Machine 3, as represented by slack variable S3, still has 62 hours of unused time.
b​ . There is no unused time when the optimal solution is reached. All three slack
variables have been removed from the basis and have zero values.
​c. The shadow price of the third machine is the value of the dual variable in column 6.
Hence an extra hour of time on machine 3 is worth $0.265.
​d. For each extra hour of time made available at no cost on machine 2, profit will
increase by $0.786 (the dual price/value or shadow price). Thus 10 hours of time will
be worth $7.86.
​ 7-45.
M ​The dual is
maximize Z = 120U1 + 115U2 + 116U3
subject to ​8U1 + 4U2 + 9U3 £ 23
​4U1 + 6U2 + 4U3 £ 18
​U1, U2, U3 ³ 0
​U1 = $2.07 is the price of each test 1
​U2 = $1.63 is the price of each test 2
​U3 = $0 is the price of each test 3
Using the dual objective function:
​Z ​= 120U1 + 115U2 + 116U3
​ ​= 120(2.07) + 115(1.63) + 116(0)
​ ​= $248.4 + $187.45 + $0
​ ​= $435.85
Thus $435.85 is the maximum the laboratory should be willing to pay an outside resource to
conduct the 120 test 1’s, 115 test 2’s, and 116 test 3’s per day.
8U1 + 4U2 + 9U3 is the value of 8, 4, and 9 of tests 1, 2, and 3, respectively, performed per
hour by a biochemist. This means that the prices U1, U2, and U3 need to be such that their total
value does not exceed the cost per hour to the lab for using one of its own biochemists.
Similarly, 4U1 + 6U2 + 4U3 is the value of 4, 6, and 4 of tests 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
performed per hour by a biophysicist. Again, the prices U1, U2, and U3 need to be such that the
total value does not exceed the cost per hour for the lab to use one of its own biophysicists.
M7-46. a. There are 8 variables (2 decision variables, 3 surplus variables, and 3 artificial
variables) and 3 constraints.
total value does not exceed the cost per hour for the lab to use one of its own biophysicists.
M7-46. a. There are 8 variables (2 decision variables, 3 surplus variables, and 3 artificial
variables) and 3 constraints.
​b. The dual would have 2 constraints and 5 variables (3 decision variables and 2 slack
variables).
​c. The dual problem would be smaller and easier to solve.
M7-47. a. Rounded to two decimals, the solution is X1 = 27.38 tables, X2 = 37.18 chairs daily,
profit = $3775.60.
​b. Not all resources are used. Shadow prices indicate that carpentry hours and painting
hours are not fully used. Also, the 40-table maximum is not reached.
​c. The shadow prices relate to the five constraints: $0 value to making more carpentry
and painting time available; $63.38 is the value of additional inspection/rework hours;
$1.20 is the value of each additional foot of lumber made available.
​d. More lumber should be purchased if it costs less than the $1.20 shadow price. More
carpenters are not needed at any price.
​e. Flair has a slack (X4) of 8.056 hours available daily in the painting department. It
can spare this amount.
​f. Carpentry hours range: 221 to infinity.
Painting hours range: 92 to infinity.

Inspection/rework hours range: to 41.

​g. Table profit range: $41.67 to $160
Chair profit range: $21.87 to $84.
M7-48. Printout 1 illustrates the model formulation.
​a. Printout 2 provides the optimal solution of $9,683. Only the first product (A158) is
not produced.
​b. Printout 2 also lists the shadow prices. The first, for example, deals with steel alloy.
The value of one more pound is $2.71.
​c. There is no value to adding more workers, since all 1,000 hours are not yet
consumed.
​d. Two tons of steel at a total cost of $8,000 implies a cost per pound of $2.00. It
should be purchased since the shadow price is $2.71.
​e. Printout 3 illustrates that profit declines to $8,866 with the change to $8.88.
​f. Printout 4 shows the new constraints. Profit drops to $9,380, and none of the A-E
products remain. Previously, only A158 was not produced.
​

M7-3

Copyright ©2015 Pearson, Inc.