CH 03

Simplex Method and

Sensitivity Analysis
12-1
3.3 THE SIMPLEX METHOD
INTRO OF SIMPLEX METHOD

Rather than enumerating all the basic solutions (corner

points) of the LP problem, the simplex method
investigates only a "select few" of these solutions.
Section 3.3.1 describes the iterative nature of the method,
and Section 3.3.2 provides the computational details of the
simplex algorithm.
3.3.1 ITERATIVE NATURE OF THE
SIMPLEX METHOD
ITERATIVE NATURE

• Normally, the simplex method starts at the origin where xl = x2 = 0.

• At this starting point, the value of the objective function, z, is zero, and
the logical question is whether an increase in nonbasic Xl and/or X2
above their current zero values can improve (increase) the value of z.
We answer this question by investigating the objective function:

Z = 5x1 + 4x2
ITERATIVE NATURE

The function shows that an increase in either X l or X2 (or

both) above their current zero values will improve the
value of z.
The design of the simplex method calls for increasing
one variable at a time, with the selected variable being the
one with the largest rate of improvement in z.
ITERATIVE NATURE

• In the present example, the value of z will increase by 5 for each

unit increase in Xl and by 4 for each unit increase in X2. This means
that the rate of improvement in the value of z is 5 for Xl and 4 for
X2 .
• We thus elect to increase X1, the variable with the largest rate of
improvement. Because the Xl is the most positive coefficient, then
it was selected as the entering variable.
ITERATIVE NATURE

• Equivalently, because the simplex tableau expresses the

objective function as z - 5x1 - 4x2 = 0, the entering
variable will correspond to the variable with the most
negative coefficient in the objective equation. This rule
is referred to as the optimality condition.
ITERATIVE NATURE

• The mechanics of determining the leaving variable from

the simplex tableau calls for computing the nonnegative
ratios of the right-hand side of the equations (Solution
column) to the corresponding constraint coefficients
under the entering variable, Xl as the following table
shows.
ITERATIVE NATURE

• The minimum nonnegative ratio automatically identifies

the current basic variable SI as the leaving variable and
assigns the entering variable Xl the new value of 4.
3.3.2 COMPUTATIONAL
DETAILS OF THE
SIMPLEX ALGORITHM
INTRO

This section provides the computational details of a

simplex iteration, including the rules for determining the
entering and leaving variables as well as for stopping the
computations when the optimum solution has been
reached. The vehicle of explanation is a numerical
example.
ALGEBRAIC DETERMINATION OF CORNER
POINTS
• In a set of m × n equations (m < n), if we set n - m variables equal to zero
and then solve the m equations for the remaining m variables, the resulting
solution, if unique, is called a basic solution and must correspond to a
(feasible or infeasible) corner point of the solution space.
• This means that the maximum number of corner points is

𝑛 𝑛!
𝐶 =𝑚
𝑚 ! ( 𝑛 −𝑚 ) !
 3.2 THE STEPS OF THE SIMPLEX METHOD ARE

The steps of the simplex method are

Step 1. Determine a starting basic feasible solution.
Step 2. Select an entering variable using the optimality condition. Stop if there is
no entering variable; the last solution is optimal. Else, go to step 3.
Step 3. Select a leaving variable using the feasibility condition.
Step 4. Determine the new basic solution by using the appropriate Gauss-Jordan
computations. Go to step 2.
DETERMINE A STARTING BASIC FEASIBLE
SOLUTION.

1. System Description
2. System Modeling
3. Converting Inequalities into Equations, with
Nonnegative Right-Hand Side
4. Make simplex tableau from the equations coeficient
COMPUTATION
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
REDDY MIKKS PROBLEM
SYSTEM MODELING
CONVERTING INEQUALITIES INTO EQUATIONS
WITH NONNEGATIVE RIGHT-HAND SIDE
MAKE SIMPLEX TABLEAU FROM THE
EQUATIONS COEFICIENT
In this manner, the starting simplex tableau can be represented as
follows:

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution

z 1 −5 −4 0 0 0 0 0 z-row

s1 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 24 s1-row

s2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 s2-row

s3 0 −1 1 0 0 1 0 1 s3-row
s4-row
s4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
DETERMINE THE ENTERING VARIABLE
Select ENTERING VARIABLE, by selecting the most negative coeficient
in the z-row, in this example is -5, and X1 as a ENTERING VARIABLE

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution

z 1 −5 −4 0 0 0 0 0 z-row

s1 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 24 s1-row

s2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 s2-row

s3 0 −1 1 0 0 1 0 1 s3-row
s4-row
s4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
DETERMINE THE LEAVING VARIABLE
 Select LEAVING VARIABLE, by selecting the MINIMUM NON-
NEGATIVE RATIO. Ratio compute by Solution Column devided by
Entering Column.
S1 LEAVE X1 ENTER PIVOT ROW

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution Ratio

z 1 −5 −4 0 0 0 0 0 z-row
s1 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 24 24/6 = 4
s2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 6/1 = 6
s3 0 −1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1/-1= -1
s4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2/0 = 

PIVOT COLUMN CONCLUSION: X1 ENTERS AND S1 LEAVES

 Select ENTERING VARIABLE, by selecting most negative
coeficient in the z-row, that is -5
S1 LEAVE X1 ENTER PIVOT ROW

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution

z 1 −5 −4 0 0 0 0 0 z-row

s1 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 24 s1-row

s2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 s2-row

s3 0 −1 1 0 0 1 0 1 s3-row
s4-row
s4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

PIVOT COLUMN
PRODUCE NEW BASIC SOLUTION
TILE GAUSS-JORDAN COMPUTATIONS NEEDED TO
PRODUCE THE NEW BASIC SOLUTION INCLUDE TWO TYPES

• Pivot row:
• Replace the leaving variable in the Basic column with the entering variable.
• New pivot row = Current pivot row ÷ Pivot element
• All other rows, including z
• New Row = (Current row) - (Its pivot column coefficient) X (New pivot row)
OR:
• If the pivot element is amn, then the new element aij’ is aij’ = aij -

34
New Tableau become

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution

z 1 0 0 0 0 20

x1 0 1 0 0 0 4

s2 0 0 1 0 0 2

s3 0 0 0 1 0 5

s4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
New Tableau become

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution Ratio

z 1 0 − 0 0 0 20

x1 0 1 0 0 0 4 6

s2 0 0 - 1 0 0 2 1.5

s3 0 0 0 1 0 5 3

s4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2
New Tableau become
PIVOT ROW

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution Ratio

z 1 0 0 0 0 20

x1 0 1 0 0 0 4 6

s2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1.5

s3 0 0 0 1 0 5 3

s4 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

PIVOT COLUMN
40
New Tableau become

Basic z x1 x2 s1 s2 s3 s4 Solution Ratio

z 1 0 0 0 21

x1 0 1 0 0 3

x2 0 0 0 0

s3 0 0 1 0

s4 0 0 0 0 1

Based on the optimality condition, none of the z-row coefficients associated with the nonbasic
variables, sl and s2, are negative. Hence, the last tableau is optimal.
INTERPRETE THE OPTIMAL SOLUINTION
The optimum solution can be read from the simplex tableau in the following
manner. The optimal values of the variables in the Basic column are given in the
right-hand-side Solution column and can be interpreted as

Decision variable Optimum value Recommendation

x1 3 Produce 3 tons of exterior paint daily
X2 Produce 1.5 tons of inerior paint daily
z 21 Daily profit is $21,000

You can verify that the values s1 = s2 = 0, s3 = , s4 = are consistent with the given
values of xl and x2 by substituting out the values of xl I and x2 in the constraints.

43
The solution also gives the status of the resources. A resource is designated as scarce if the activities (variables)
of the model use the resource completely. Otherwise, the resource is abundant. This information is secured
from the optimum tableau by checking the value of the slack variable associated with the constraint representing
the resource. If the slack value is zero, the resource is used completely and, hence, is classified as scarce.
Otherwise, a positive slack indicates that the resource is abundant. The following table classifies the constraints
of the model:

Resource Slack value Status

Raw material, Ml s1 = 0 Scarce
Raw material, M2 s2 = 0 Scarce

Market limit s3 = Abundant

Demand limit s4 = ½ Abundant

44
The simplex tableau offers a wealth of additional
information that includes:
1. Sensitivity analysis, which deals with determining the
conditions that will keep the current solution unchanged.
2. Post-optimal analysis, which deals with finding a new optimal
solution when the data of the model are changed.

45
SETTING MICROSOFT EXCEL SOLVER
ADD-IN

• Click menu: File > Option

• Select: Add-Ins
• Select: Solver Add-In
• Click button: GO…

46
USE MICROSOFT EXCEL SOLVER ADD-IN

• Prepair Worksheet
• Input data Objective Function and Constraint
• Click menu: Data
• Select: ? Solver

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
 TORA OPERATION RESEARCH
SOFTWARE

http://download2263.mediafire.com/wfdcm5456jyg/1ifg23anbpmfc35/tora+operations+research+software.rar

54
56
57
Sensitivity Analysis

58
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

• In LP, the parameters (input data) of the model can

change within certain limits without causing the optimum
solution to change. This is referred to as sensitivity
analysis, and will be the subject matter of this section.

59
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

• In LP models, the parameters are usually not exact. With sensitivity

analysis, we can ascertain the impact of this uncertainty on the
quality of the optimum solution.
• For example, for an estimated unit profit of a product, if sensitivity
analysis reveals that the optimum remains the same for a ±10%
change in the unit profit, we can conclude that the solution is more
robust than in the case where the indifference range is only ±1 %.

60
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

• This section demonstrates the general idea of sensitivity

analysis. Two cases will be considered:
1. Sensitivity of the optimum solution to changes in the
availability of the resources (right-hand side of the
constraints).
2. Sensitivity of the optimum solution to changes in unit profit
or unit cost (coefficients of the objective function).

61
EXAMPLE

• JOBCO produces two products on two machines. A unit of product 1

requires 2 hours on machine 1 and 1 hour on machine 2. For product
2, a unit requires 1 hour on machine 1 and 3 hours on machine 2. The
revenues per unit of products 1 and 2 are $30 and $20, respectively.
The total daily processing time available for each machine is 8 hours.
• Letting Xl and X2 represent the daily number of units of products 1
and 2, respectively, the LP model is given as
CHANGE OF AVAILABLE OF
RESOURCES

64
65
66
THE DUAL PRICES ALLOW MAKING ECONOMIC DECISIONS
ABOUT THE LP PROBLEM, AS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
DEMONSTRATE:

• Question 1. If JOBCO can increase the capacity of both

machines, which machine should receive higher priority?
• Question 2. A suggestion is made to increase the
capacities of machines 1 and 2 at the additional cost of
$10/hr. Is this advisable?

67
THE DUAL PRICES ALLOW MAKING ECONOMIC DECISIONS
ABOUT THE LP PROBLEM, AS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
DEMONSTRATE:

• Question 3. If the capacity of machine 1 is increased

from the present 8 hours to 13 hours, how will this
increase impact the optimum revenue?
• Question 4. Suppose that the capacity of machine 1 is
increased to 20 hours, how will this increase impact the
optimum revenue?

68
THE DUAL PRICES ALLOW MAKING ECONOMIC DECISIONS
ABOUT THE LP PROBLEM, AS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
DEMONSTRATE:

• Question 5. We know that the change in the optimum

objective value equals (dual price X change in resource)
so long as the change in the resource is within the
feasibility range. What about the associated optimum
values of the variables?

69
MINIMIZATION

75
76
77
78
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION
Figure 2.3 provides the graphical solution of the model. Because the
second and third constraints pass through the origin, then to plot the
associated straight lines, we need one additional point, which can be
obtained by assigning a value to one of the variables and then solving for
the other variable. For example, in the second constraint, x1 = 200 will
yield .21 × 200 − .3x2 = 0, or x2 = 140. This means that the straight
line .21xl − .3x2 = 0 passes through (0,0) and (200, 140). Note also that
(0,0) cannot be used as a reference point for constraints 2 and 3, because
both lines pass through the origin. Instead, any other point [e.g., (100, 0)
or (0,100)] can be used for that purpose.
79
−

80
Solution:
Because the present model seeks the minimization of the objective
function, we need to reduce the value of z as much as possible in the
direction shown in Figure 2.3. The optimum solution is the
intersection of the two lines x1 + x2 = 800 and .21xl - .3x2 = 0, which
yields xl = 470.59 lb and x2 = 329.41 lb. The associated minimum cost
of the feed mix is z = .3 × 470.59 + .9 × 329.42 = $437.65 per day.

81
 SIMPLEX SOLUTION: ARTIFICIAL
VARIABLES
LPs in which all the constraints are (≤) with nonnegative right-hand
sides offer a convenient all-slack starting basic feasible solution.
Models involving ( =) and/or (≥) constraints do not.
The procedure for starting "ill-behaved" LPs with (=) and (≥)
constraints is to use artificial variables that play the role of slacks at the
first iteration, and then dispose of them legitimately at a later iteration.
Two closely related methods are introduced here: the M-method and the
two-phase method.

82
M-Method

83
PENALTY RULE FOR ARTIFICIAL
VARIABLES.

• Given M, a sufficiently large positive value (mathematically,

M = ∞), the objective coefficient of an artificial variable
represents an appropriate penalty if:

 − M, in maximization problems
Artificial variable objective coefficient = 
 + M, in minimization problems

84
85
Standardized Model
Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 + MR1 + MR2
ST
x1 + x2 – s1 + R1 = 800
.21x1 – .3x2 +s2 =0
.03x1 – .01x2 – s3 + R2 =0

Modify z-row by
x1 + x2 – s1 + R1 = 800
Or
R1 = 800 – x1 – x2 + s1
And
.03x1 – .01x2 – s3 + R2 =0
Or
R2 = -.03x1 + .01x2 + s3
Then we have
Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 + M(800 – x1 – x2 + s1) + M(-.03x1 + .01x2 + s3)
If for instance, M = 1000, then
Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 + 1000(800 – x1 – x2 + s1) + 1000(-.03x1 + .01x2 + s3)
Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 + 1000(800 – x1 – x2 + s1) + 1000(-.03x1 + .01x2 + s3) 86
 Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 + 1000(800 – x1 – x2 + s1) + 1000(-.03x1 + .01x2 + s3)
Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 + 800000 –1000 x1 –1000 x2 + 1000s1 - 30x1 + 10x2 + 1000s3)
Min z = – 1029.70x1 – 989.10x2 + 800000 + 1000s1 + 1000s3

Prepair to starting basic feasible solution tableau for z-row

z + 1029.70x1 + 989.10x2 – 1000s1 – 1000s3 = 800000
ST
x1 + x2 – s1 + R1 = 800
.21x1 – .3x2 +s2 =0
.03x1 – .01x2 – s3 + R2 =0

Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution
z 1029.70 989.10 –1000 –1000 0 0 0 800000
R1 1 1 –1 0 1 0 0 800
s2 .21 –.3 0 0 0 1 0 0
R2 .03 –.01 0 –1 0 0 1 0

87
TABLEAU 1
Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio
z 1029.70 989.10 –1000 –1000 0 0 0 800000
R1 1 1 –1 0 1 0 0 800 800/1
s2 .21 –.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0/.21
R2 .03 –.01 0 –1 0 0 1 0 0/.03
TABLEAU 2

Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio

z 0 2460.10 –1000 –1000 0 –4903.33 0 800000
R1 0 2.43 –1 0 1 –4.76 0 800 800/2.43
x1 1 –1.43 0 0 0 4.76 0 0 –0/1.43
R2 0 0.03 0 –1 0 –0.14 1 0 0/.03
TABLEAU 3

Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio

z 0 0 –1000 73872.61 0 5792.75 –74872.61 800000 800000/73872.61

R1 0 0 –1 73.91 1 5.80 –73.91 800 800/73.91

x1 1 0 0 –43.48 0 –1.45 43.48 0 -0/43.48

x2 0 1 0 –30.43 0 –4.35 30.43 0 -0/30.43

88
TABLEAU 4: OPTIMUM
Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio
z 0 0 –0.55 0 -999.45 -1.18 –1000 437.65
s3 0 0 –0.01 1 0.01 0.08 –1.00 10.82
x1 1 0 –0.59 0 0.59 1.96 0 470.59
x2 0 1 –0.41 0 0.41 –1.96 0 329.41

The optimum solution is which yields xl = 470.59 lb and x2 = 329.41 lb. The associated minimum cost of
the feed mix is z = .3 × 470.59 + .9 × 329.42 = $437.65 per day.

89
TORA SOFTWARE
SOLUTION

90
91
TWO-PHASE METHOD

92
TWO-PHASE METHOD

In the M-method, the use of the penalty M, which by definition must

be large relative . to the actual objective coefficients of the model,
can result in roundoff error that may impair the accuracy of the
simplex calculations. The two-phase method alleviates this difficulty
by eliminating the constant M altogether. As the name suggests, the
method solves the LP in two phases: Phase I attempts to find a
starting basic feasible solution, and, if one is found, Phase II is
invoked to solve the original problem.

93
TWO-PHASE METHOD

PHASE I: Put the problem in equation form, and add the necessary artificial variables to
the constraints (exactly as in the M-method) to secure a starting basic solution.
Next, find a basic solution of the resulting equations that, regardless of
whether the LP is maximization or minimization, always minimizes the sum of
the artificial variables. If the minimum value of the sum is positive, the LP
problem has no feasible solution, which ends the process (recall that a positive
artificial variable signifies that an original constraint is not satisfied).
Otherwise, proceed to Phase II.
PHASE II: Use the feasible solution from Phase I as a starting basic feasible solution for
the original problem.

94
95
Standardized Model
Min r = R1 + R2
ST
x1 + x2 – s1 + R1 = 800
.21x1 – .3x2 +s2 =0
.03x1 – .01x2 – s3 + R2 =0

Modify z-row by stubtitution of R1 and R2

x1 + x2 – s1 + R1 = 800
Or
R1 = 800 – x1 – x2 + s1
And
.03x1 – .01x2 – s3 + R2 =0
Or
R2 = -.03x1 + .01x2 + s3
Then we have
Min r = (800 – x1 – x2 + s1) + (-.03x1 + .01x2 + s3)
Min r = 800 – x1 – x2 + s1 - .03x1 + .01x2 + s3

Min r = –1.03 x1 –.99x2 + s1 + s3 + 800

96
 Prepair to starting basic feasible solution tableau for z-row

z + 1.03x1 + .99x2 – s1 – s3 = 800

ST
x1 + x2 – s1 + R1 = 800
.21x1 – .3x2 +s2 =0
.03x1 – .01x2 – s3 + R2 =0

Starting Basic Feasible Solution

Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution
z 1.03 .99 –1 –1 0 0 0 800
R1 1 1 –1 0 1 0 0 800
s2 .21 –.30 0 0 0 1 0 0
R2 .03 –.01 0 –1 0 0 1 0

97
PHASE 1: ITER 1
Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio
z 1.03 .99 –1 –1 0 0 0 800
R1 1 1 –1 0 1 0 0 800 800/1
s2 .21 –.30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0/.21
R2 .03 –.01 0 –1 0 0 1 0 0/.03
PHASE 1: ITER 3 PHASE 1: ITER 2

Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio

z 0 2.46 –1 –1 0 –4.90 0 800
R1 0 2.43 –1 0 1 –4.76 0 800 800/2.43
x1 1 –1.43 0 0 0 4.76 0 0 –0/1.43
R2 0 0.03 0 –1 0 –0.14 1 0 0/.03

Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio

z 0 0 –1 73.91 0 5.80 –74.91 800
R1 0 0 –1 73.91 1 5.80 –73.91 800 800/73.91

x1 1 0 0 –43.48 0 –1.45 43.48 0 -0/43.48

x2 0 1 0 –30.43 0 –4.35 30.43 0 -0/30.43

98
PHASE 1: ITER 4
Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio
z 0 0 0 0 –1 0 –1 0
s3 0 0 –0.01 1 0.01 0.08 –1 10.82
x1 1 0 –0.59 0 0.59 1.96 0 470.59
x2 0 1 –0.41 0 0.41 –1.96 0 329.41

Min z = .3x1 + .9x2 x1 – .59s1 = 470.59

ST Or x1 = 470.59 + .59s1
–0.01s1 + s3 = 10.82 x2 – .41s1 = 329.41
PHASE 2: ITER 5 (OPTIMUM)

x1 – .59s1 = 470.59 Or x2 = 329.41 + .41s1

x2 – .41s1 = 329.41 Min z = .3(470.59 + .59s1) + .9(329.41 + .41s1)
x1, x2, s1, s3 ≥0 Min z = 141.177 + .177s1 + 296.469 + .369s1
Min z = 0.546s1 + 437.65 OR
z – 0.55s1 = 437.65
Basic x1 x2 s1 s3 R1 s2 R2 Solution Ratio
z 0 0 –0.55 0 blocked –1.18 blocked 437.65
s3 0 0 –0.01 1 0.01 0.08 –1 10.82
x1 1 0 –0.59 0 0.59 1.96 0 470.59
x2 0 1 –0.41 0 0.41 –1.96 0 329.41 99
The optimum solution is which yields xl = 470.59 lb and x2 = 329.41 lb. The associated minimum cost of
the feed mix is z = .3 × 470.59 + .9 × 329.42 = $437.65 per day.

100
TORA SOFTWARE SOLUTION

101
102
SPECIAL CASES IN THE
SIMPLEX METHOD

103
SPECIAL CASES IN THE SIMPLEX METHOD

• It is consider four special cases that arise in the use of the simplex method:
1. Degeneracy
2. Alternative optima
3. Unbounded solutions
4. Nonexisting (or infeasible) solutions.
• Our interes in studying these special cases is twofold: (1) to present a theoretical
explanation of these situations and (2) to provide a practical interpretation of what these
special results could mean in a real-life problem.

104
 1. DEGENERACY

In the application of the feasibility condition of the simplex method, a tie for the
minimum ratio may occur and can be broken arbitrarily. When this happens, at least
one basic variable will be zero in the next iteration and the new solution is said to be
degenerate.
There is nothing alarming about a degenerate solution, with the exception of a
small theoretical inconvenience, called cycling or circling, which we shall discuss
shortly. From the practical standpoint, the condition reveals that the model has at
least one redundant constraint. To provide more insight into the practical and
theoretical impacts of degeneracy, a numeric example is used.
1. DEGENERACY
Ratio

8/4 = 2
4/2 = 2
2. ALTERNATIVE OPTIMA

When the objective function is parallel to a nonredundant binding constraint

(i.e., a constraint that is satisfied as an equation at the optimal solution), the
objective function can assume the same optimal value at more than one
solution point, thus giving rise to alternative optima. The next example shows
that there is an infinite number of such solutions. It also demonstrates the
practical significance of encountering such solutions.

109
3. UNBOUNDED OBJECTIVE VALUE

In some LP models, the values of the variables may be increased indefinitely

without violating any of the constraints-meaning that the solution space is unbounded
in at least one variable. As a result, the objective value may increase (maximization
case) or decrease (minimization case) indefinitely. In this case, both the solution space
and the optimum objective value are unbounded. Unboundedness points to the
possibility that the model is poorly constructed. The most likely irregularity in such
models is that one or more nonredundant constraints have not been accounted for, and
the parameters (constants) of some constraints may not have been estimated correctly.

113
4. INFEASIBLE SOLUTION

LP models with inconsistent constraints have no feasible solution. This situation can
never occur if all the constraints are of the type ≤ with nonnegative right-hand sides
because the slacks provide a feasible solution. For other types of constraints, we use
artificial variables. Although the artificial variables are penalized in the objective
function to force them to zero at the optimum, this can occur only if the model has a
feasible space. Otherwise, at least one artificial variable will be positive in the
optimum iteration. From the practical standpoint, an infeasible space points to the
possibility that the model is not formulated correctly.

117
121
THANK YOU

122