Quistions On Senstivip iS f- Given this LP mode: minimize Z= 4x, + 8x, subject to Fer * S148 240 Protein 6x, + 4r, = 24 x20 Find the range of optimality or insignificance for each objective function coefficient. How would a decrease of $1 in the x, coefficient ofthe objective function affect the ‘optimal values of the decision variables? How would it affect the optimal value of the objective function? & Whatis the shadow price for the fiber constraint’s RHS? Over what range of values is it valid? 4. Whats the shadow price for the RHS of the protein constraint? Over what range of values is it valid? € What impact on cost would a decrease of 2 units in the RHS of the protein con. straint have? re The manager of a knitting department has developed the following LP model and the following Excel output in ‘Table 5-3 summarizes the results. 4 = units of Product 1 24% units of Product 2 25 = units of Product 3 marimize Z= 7K, 43% +9% (profit) subject to Labor 44+ 5x, + 645 = 360 hours Machine 24, + 4x; + 615 = 300 hours Material 9x) + Sx, + 6x, = 600 pounds ay xyandy=0 8. What are the values of x, 2, and Zin the optimal solution b. Why isn't any product 2 called for in the optimal solution? How much would the pre-unit profit of Product 2 have to be in order for it to enter into the optimal so- lution mix? ‘& What is the range of optimality forthe profit per unit of Product 1? 4d. What would the values in the optimal solution be if the objective coefficient of x, Were to increase by 3? What isthe range of feasibility of the labor constraint? {What would the values in the optimal solution be if the amount of labor available decreased by 10 hours? & Ifthe manager could obtain additional material, how much more could be used effectively? What would happen ifthe manager obtained more than this amount?‘A. Answer Report “Target Cell (Max) att Name Original Value Final Value $835, Profit Total 88 388 Adjustable Cells att Name Original Value Final Value $854 ‘Quantiies Product @ “8 SCH Quantities Produce 2 o S04 Quantities Product 28 % Constraints ait Name all Vaiue Formula status Slack $657___Labor Usge 360 Binding SE8___ Machine Usage 24 SEBEESRE Not Binding SES9 Material Usage 600) SE9<=3R9 Binding ° 2. Sensitivity Report Adjustable Cells Final Reduced Objective _—Allowable Allowable catt Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Dacre $854 Quantities Product!__-48 7 65 ‘Sc “Quantities reduce 0 __——4500000001” 2599999999 _asG0000001 E130 $054 Quantities Peder 280 9 is as Constraints Final Shadow Constraint Allowable att Name Value Price RH. Side Increase Labor Usage 360 8 360 Brae HID Machine Usage 264 o 300 Es % Material Usage 600 00 20 0 ‘B. iven this problem and the Exel output given in Table 5-6 minimize 2 = 20n + 1 + 18s subject to 1 ty tners (a) 2 wty S82 6) 3 425 © Kunz Died‘a. What are the optimal values of x, 5 and Z. 1b. What impact on the solution would a decrease of 10 units in the RHS of the first constraint have? . If the first constraint could be decreased 10 units at a cost per unit of $15, would it be worthwhile to do so? Explain. d. What change in the coefficient of x; in the objective function would cause it to come into solution? e. Ifthe cost coefficient of x5 decreased by $5, what impact would that have on the {quantities and on the value of the objective function in the final solution? cat Peo oan ‘A.Answer Report ‘Target Cll (Min) cal Name Original Value ‘Final Value SE55____Cout Total 0 30 Adjustable Calls cal Name Original Value ‘Final Value S854 Quantities Product ° ° SCA Guantties rodhers, ° 0 $054 Quantities Product 5 5 Comtrents “ca Name CellVaive Formal statue slack SE7___Materal A constraint Usage 5 SETS=SF7 Binding ° S558 Matera constant Usage o SEEL=SS NotBinding S659 Matera C constraint Usage 5 SES9>=559 Binding S85! Quantities roducrx ° 35> Binding @ Quantities Product 7 ScSi>=0 __NotBindng 20 uate Product 5 S055=0 Not Binding 5 Sensitivity Report - Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable cat Name Value Cont———Confiient Increase ‘Decrease $84 Quinties Product -0—~.000000001.—— «20 e430 00000000" ~SCS4__ Quantities Product; 20S 2 é 2 So Saar USD RSS BEE Final Shadow Constraint Allowable cat Name Value Price RH. Side Decrease | SE57__ Mater Aconstaint Usage 25 2 2% 3855 Material constant Urge 0 ° aaa 2 "S689 Material Constraint Usage =O«SSSSSO 5 20 54 [A firm produces jars of chilled fruit that are sold to restaurants. Three varieties of fruit ‘are sold: California mix (xj), Florida mix (x,), and Hawaiian mix (x3). A linear pro- ‘gramming model for the process is aime 2=44+3n +65 (profit) subject to Oranges 3+ 2x;+ Ixy 920pounds Grapefruit Dy+ Bx, + 2x5 = 900 pounds Pineapple i+ 24 + 31) = 930 pounds ‘The optimal solution is summ: Peeling/eutting 12x, + 14x, + 15x, = 1260 minutes Mixing/eackaging + 2%; + by = 600minutes 1H %y%520 ized in the Excel output in Table 5-10. ‘The equipment used for peeling and cutting must be replaced. The new equip- ‘ment will have a capacity of only 1,200 minutes. What impact will this change have ‘on the optimal values of the decision variables and on profit? ‘What would the unit profit on the Florida mix have to be before it would become profitable to produce? If management had a choice of obtaining more oranges or more pineapples, which cone should be chosen? Why? ‘Management has just learned that an additional 50 pounds of pineapples are on. hand, What will the optimal values of the decision variables change to? Management is considering making changes that will cause the profit on the Hawaiian mix to be $8 per unit. Would this affect the solution? Will it affect the ‘optimal value of the objective function? ‘Management is considering a change in equipment that would result in increasing, the profit on the Hawaiian mix to $8 per unit but result in decreasing the profit on the California mix by $1. Would these changes be within the range of optimality? If so, how much would the optimal profit change?(Quantities Calforria mix ‘Quantities Florida mix Name elt Value Formula status Slack Oranges Usage 70 S57 <=9657 Not Binding 50 Grapefruit Usage Binding 0 Pineapple Usage Binding ° Net Binding os Not Binding 150 ‘Quantities California mi 20 s854>=0 Not Binding ‘Quantities Florida mix Binding Not Binding 240 Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable Name Value Cost. Coefficient Increase ©=———Dectease Quantities Caforniamix 710 ‘Quantities Florida mix Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable ice «RH Side Increase Decrease ranges Usage 16430 50 Grapefruit Usage 900 is 900 % 280 Pineapple Usage Peeling/cutting Usage Mining/paclaging Usage 450,