Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
4
5
6
7
Basic
5
1
$150
$300
$80
15 Unit margin
16
17 Assembling, testing plan (# of computers)
18
Basic
19 Number to produce
514.2857143
23
24
25
26
27
28
<=
600
Hours used
10000
3000
$11
$15
8
9 Inputs for assembling and testing a computer
10
11 Labor hours for assembly
12 Labor hours for testing
13 Cost of component parts
14 Selling price
20
21 Maximum sales
22
XP
6
2
$225 $
$450 $
$129
Basic
XP
$41,143 $154,800
=Model!$D$21:$D$22
=Model!$B$21:$B$22
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
$200,286
VXP
8
3
275
560
$152
XP VXP
1200 28.571429
<=
<=
1200
50
<=
<=
In general,
general, itit is
is interesting
interesting to
to check
check which
which
In
changing cells
cells are
are positive
positive (both
(both of
of them
them
changing
here) and
and which
which constraints
constraints are
are binding
binding
here)
(the XP
XP maximum
maximum sales
sales constraint
constraint and
and
(the
the first
first hour
hour availability
availability constraint).
constraint).
the
Hours available
10000
3000
VXP
$4,343
Total
$200,286
Question 2 _part b
b) If you round the values in the decision variable cells to the nearest integers, is the resu
We could solve this just by rounding the numbers to the nearest integer.
Assembling and testing computers:
Cost per labor hour assembling
Cost per labor hour testing
$11
$15
Basic
5
1
$150
$300
$80
XP
6
2
$225
$450
$129
Basic
514
<=
600
XP
1200
<=
1200
Hours used
10002
3001
Basic
$41,120
<=
<=
XP
$154,800
Answer: This solution is also not feasible as it exceeds the hours constraints. A feasible s
rest integers, is the resulting solution still feasible? If not, how might you obtain a feasible solution
$
$
VXP
8
3
275
560
$152
VXP
29
<=
50
Hours available
10000
3000
VXP
$4,408
Total
$200,328
constraints. A feasible solution could be obtained by adjusting the PC with the highest cost, becau
ghest cost, because they all have assembly labor needs that exceed the 3 hour average.
average.
Problem 4
Continuing Problem 2, suppose that you want to force the optimal solution to be intege
Assembling and testing computers
Cost per labor hour assembling
Cost per labor hour testing
$11
$15
Basic
5
1
$150
$300
$80
XP
6
2
$225
$450
$129
Basic
500
<=
600
XP
1250
<=
1200
Hours used
10000
3000
Basic
$40,000
<=
<=
XP
$161,250
Answer: Between this result and the one on question #2, there are significant differenc
production quantity for Basic is less, for XP is more, and for VXP is zero. This result lead
tion to be integers.
Range names used:
Hours_available
Hours_used
Maximum_sales
Number_to_produce
Total_profit $201,250
$
$
VXP
8
3
275
560
$152
VXP
0
<=
50
Hours available
10000
3000
VXP
Total
$0 $201,250
nificant differences in production quantity and net profit. The solution suggest optimal
o. This result leads to the Net Profit to increase by $964
t optimal
A
5
6
7
8
9
17 Selling price
18 Unit margin, tested on line 1
19 Unit margin, tested on line 2
20
21 Assembling, testing plan (# of computers)
22
23 Number tested on line 1
24 Number tested on line 2
25 Total computers produced
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Maximum sales
Constraints (hours per month)
Labor availability for assembling
Labor availability for testing, line 1
Labor availability for testing, line 2
Net profit ($ per month)
Tested on line 1
Tested on line 2
$11
$19
$17
10
11 Inputs for assembling and testing a computer
12
Model 1
13 Labor hours for assembly
4
14 Labor hours for testing, line 1
15 Labor hours for testing, line 2
16 Cost of component parts
1.5
2
$150
$350
$128
$122
Model 2
5
2
2.5
$225
$450
$132
$128
Model 3
5
2
2.5
$225
$460
$142
$138
Model 4
5
2
2.5
$225
$470
$152
$148
Model 5
5.5
2.5
3
$250
$500
$142
$139
Model 6
5.5
2.5
3
$250
$525
$167
$164
Model 7
5.5
2.5
3.5
$250
$530
$172
$160
Model 8
6
3
3.5
$300
$600
$177
$175
Model 1
1500
0
1500
<=
1500
Model 2
0
0
0
<=
1250
Model 3
0
0
0
<=
1250
Model 4
125
475
600
<=
1250
Model 5
0
0
0
<=
1000
Model 6
0
1000
1000
<=
1000
Model 7
1000
0
1000
<=
1000
Model 8
0
0
0
<=
800
Hours used
20000
5000
4187.5
Model 1
$191,250
$0
<=
<=
<=
Model 2
$0
$0
Hours available
20000
5000
6000
Model 3
$0
$0
Model 4
$19,000
$70,063
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
$0
$0 $172,000
$0 $163,500
$0
Model 8
Totals
$0 $382,250
$0 $233,563
$615,813
As always,
always, itit i
As
binding (the
(the m
m
binding
6, and
and 7,
7, and
and
6,
and which
which pro
pro
and
(the positive
positive v
(the
model, itit is
is no
n
model,
product is
is pro
pro
product
they are
are teste
teste
they
Total_computers_produced_1
Total_computers_produced_2
Total_computers_produced_3
Total_computers_produced_4
Total_computers_produced_5
Total_computers_produced_6
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Assembling labor (cell $B$3) values along side, output cell(s) along top
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
$11
$12
$13
$14
$15
$16
$17
$18
$19
$20
10
11
12
13
Total_computers_produced_7
Total_computers_produced_8
Hours_used_1
Hours_used_2
Hours_used_3
Total_profit
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
4187.5
$735,813
$715,813
$695,813
$675,813
$655,813
$635,813
$615,813
$595,813
$575,813
$555,813
$535,813
$515,813
$495,813
$475,813
$455,813
$435,813
t to labor cost(assembly)
10
11
g labor ($B$3)
12
13
14
15
16
Total_computers_produced_1
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
A
5
6
7
8
9
17 Selling price
18 Unit margin, tested on line 1
19 Unit margin, tested on line 2
20
21 Assembling, testing plan (# of computers)
22
23 Number tested on line 1
24 Number tested on line 2
25 Total computers produced
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Maximum sales
Constraints (hours per month)
Labor availability for assembling
Labor availability for testing, line 1
Labor availability for testing, line 2
Net profit ($ per month)
Tested on line 1
Tested on line 2
$11
$19
$17
10
11 Inputs for assembling and testing a computer
12
Model 1
13 Labor hours for assembly
4
14 Labor hours for testing, line 1
15 Labor hours for testing, line 2
16 Cost of component parts
1.5
2
$150
$350
$128
$122
Model 2
5
2
2.5
$225
$450
$132
$128
Model 3
5
2
2.5
$225
$460
$142
$138
Model 4
5
2
2.5
$225
$470
$152
$148
Model 5
5.5
2.5
3
$250
$500
$142
$139
Model 6
5.5
2.5
3
$250
$525
$167
$164
Model 7
5.5
2.5
3.5
$250
$530
$172
$160
Model 8
6
3
3.5
$300
$625
$202
$200
Model 1
1500
0
1500
<=
1500
Model 2
0
0
0
<=
1250
Model 3
0
0
0
<=
1250
Model 4
125
475
600
<=
1250
Model 5
0
0
0
<=
1000
Model 6
0
1000
1000
<=
1000
Model 7
1000
0
1000
<=
1000
Model 8
0
0
0
<=
800
Hours used
20000
5000
4187.5
Model 1
$191,250
$0
<=
<=
<=
Model 2
$0
$0
Hours available
20000
5000
6000
Model 3
$0
$0
Model 4
$19,000
$70,063
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
$0
$0 $172,000
$0 $163,500
$0
Model 8
Totals
$0 $382,250
$0 $233,563
$615,813
As always,
always, itit i
As
binding (the
(the m
m
binding
6, and
and 7,
7, and
and
6,
and which
which pro
pro
and
(the positive
positive v
(the
model, itit is
is no
n
model,
product is
is pro
pro
product
they are
are teste
teste
they
Total_computers_produced_3
Total_computers_produced_4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
600
600
600
600
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
Total_computers_produced_6
Total_computers_produced_2
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
Total_computers_produced_5
Total_computers_produced_1
$500
$525
$550
$575
$600
$625
$650
$675
$700
$725
$750
$775
$800
$825
$850
$875
$900
$925
$950
$975
$1,000
0
1000
0
1000
0
1000
0
1000
0
1000
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
0 559.09091
Total_computers_produced_8
Total_profit
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
$615,813
$615,813
$615,813
$615,813
$615,813
$633,261
$653,261
$673,261
$693,261
$713,261
$733,261
$753,261
$773,261
$793,261
$813,261
$833,261
$853,261
$873,261
$893,261
$913,261
$933,261
Total_computers_produced_1
Total_computers_produced_7
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
Sensitivity of Total_c
Answer: The new optimal model shows that production quantity of PC8's priced at $625
price
Question 30_part a
Algebraic Equation
Taste index = ( 85 per snack bar) * (# ofserves of snack bar) + (95 per ice cream) * (# of serv
Using Decision variables S and I
Maximize = 85S + 95I
Constrain
( 120 cals per snack bar) * (# ofserves of snack bar) + (160 cals per ice cream
120S + 160I 450
( 5 fat per snack bar) * (# ofserves of snack bar) + (10 fat per ice cream) * (# o
5S + 10I cream) 25
(37 g per snack bar) * (# ofserves of snack bar) + (65g per ice cream) * (# of s
37S + 65I 120
Maggie's Dessert Plan
part a
Snack Bars
Ice Cream
Constraints
Grams
37
65 Total
Calories
120
160
440
<=
Fat
5
10
25
<=
167
>
Nr of Serves
Grams
Taste Index
Maxium
1
37
2
130
Total
85
95
275
Answer: According to Solver Report, the total taste index is 275. Maggie's selection
Answer: According to Solver Report, the total taste index is 275. Maggie's selection
part b - ignored
part c - in the following sheet
ar) + (160 cals per ice cream) * (# of serves of ice cream) 450
450
25
120
Input1 (cell $B$4) values along side, Input2 (cell $C$4) values along top, output cell in corn
$D$14
80
90
100
110
120
130
140 Not
150 Not
160 Not
170 Not
180 Not
190 Not
200 Not
120
275
275
275
275
275
275
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
130
275
275
275
275
275
275
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
140
275
275
275
275
275
275
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
150
275
275
275
275
275
275
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
160
275
275
275
275
275
275
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
170
275
275
275
275
190
190
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
180
275
275
190
190
190
190
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
200
190
190
190
190
190
190
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
210
190
190
190
190
190
190
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
220
190 Not
190 Not
190 Not
190 Not
190 Not
190 Not
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
230
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
240
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
250
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
feasibl
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
260
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
270
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
280
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
290
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
feasiblNot
300
1
feasiblOutputVal
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
Not
feasible
Not
Not
Not
$D$14
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
190
190
190
190
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
Not feasible
Not feasible
Not feasible
Sensitivity of $D$14
80
ot
ot
ot
ot
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
120
By making appropriate s
$Z$4, and $AA$4, you ca
or column (in right chart
275
275
275
275
275
275
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
feasible
ot feasible
ot feasible
ot feasible
Sensitivity o
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
$D$14
Question # 34 - p.127
Algebraic Formulation
Total cost= ($1500 a ton of factory 1) * (# ton of factory 1) +($1000 a ton of factory 2) * (# ton of
Using Decision variables Factory1(F1), Factory2(F2) and Factory(F3)
Minimize = $1500F1 + $1000F2 + $2000F3
Constrains
(Reduces P1 by 0.1)*(# ton of factory1) + (Reduces P1 by 0.2)*(# ton of fa
0.1F1 + 0.2F2 + 0.4F3 30
(Reduces P2 by 0.45)*(# ton of factory1) + (Reduces P2 by 0.25)*(# ton o
0.45F1 + 0.25F2 + 0.3F3 40
a) Use Solver to determine how to minimize the cost of reducing pollution by the desire
Solver Solution
part a)
Factory
Cost per ton
P1 Reduced
P2 Reduced
Unit Processed
Total P1 Reduced
Total P2 Reduced
Total Cost
1
1500
0.1
0.45
2
1000
0.2
0.25
3
2000
0.4
0.3
146
30 >=
40.1 >=
30
40
158000
Answer: If the level of any activity is multiplied by a constant factor, then the contributi
The additively property implies that the sum of the contribution from the various activi
When both integer and non integer levels of the activities are allowed, then, divisisbilit
g pollution by the desired amounts. Are the LP assumptions (proportionality, additivity, divisibil
actor, then the contribution of this activity to the objective is multiplied by the same factor; Prop
n from the various activities to a particular constraint equal the total contribution to that constr
allowed, then, divisisbility satisfied (Source: Practical Management Science)
Question#34_part b
b) Do the amounts processed at the three factories and the total cost change in a linear
Twoway analysis for Solver model in Sheet1 worksheet
P1 Reduced (cell $D$10) values along side, P2 Reduced (cell $D$11) values along top, output cell i
$B$13
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
20
73500
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
30
104000
115500
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
40
135000
147000
158000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
50
168000
177500
189000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
60
201000
208000
220000
231000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
70
233500
239000
250000
262000
274000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
Answer: from the charts, it is concluded that total cost increases in a linear manner.
a linear manner.
90
300000
300000
312000
324000
335000
346500
358000
400000
450000
500000
100
1
334500 OutputValu
334500
343000
354000
365500
377500
389000
400000
450000
500000
$B$13
50000
73500
104000
135000
168000
201000
233500
267000
300000
334500
Sensitivity of $B
1
OutputValu
P2 Reduced
value for chart
10
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
10
20
30
40
50
60
P1 Reduced ($D$10)
70
80
90
100
90
100
$B$13