LINEAR PROGRAMMING GRAPHICAL SOLUTIONS

 Following the formulation of mathematical model, the next stage in the application of
linear programming to a decision-making problem is to find the solution of the model.
 A common solution is to solve algebraically the set of mathematical relationships that
form the model either manually or using a computer program, thus determining the
values of the decision variables. However, because the relationship are linear, some
models and solutions can be illustrated graphically.
 The graphical method is realistically limited to models with only 2 decision variables,
which can be represented on a graph of 2 dimensions. Models with 3 decision variables
can be graphed in 3 dimensions, but the process is quite cumbersome, and models of 4 or
more decision variables cannot be graphed at all.
 Although the graphical method is limited as a solution approach, it is very useful at this
point in our presentation of linear programming in that it gives a picture of how a solution
is derived.
 Graphs can provide a clearer understanding of how the mathematical solution approaches
presented in subsequent chapters work, and thus, a better understanding of the solution.
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION OF A MAXIMIZATION MODEL
 The product mix model will be used to demonstrate the graphical interpretation of a
linear programming problem.
Problem: Beaver creek pottery attempt to decide on how many bowls and mugs to
produce daily, given limited amounts of labor and clay. The complete linear
programming model was formulated as
Maximize Z = $40x1 + 50x2
Subject to
x1 + 2x2 ≤ 40 hr. of labor
4x1 + 3x2 ≤ 120 lb. of clay
x1, x2 ≥ 0
where:
x1 = number of bowls produced
x2 = number of mugs produced

Figure 2.2 screenshot

1. Constraint lines are plotted as equations

  The first step in drawing the graph of the model is to plot the constraints on the graph,
this is done by treating both each constraints as equation (or straight lines) and
plotting each line on the graph.

(Line 1) x1 + 2x2 ≤ 40 hr. of labor

(Line 2) 4x1 + 3x2 ≤ 120 lb. of clay

 Let’s consider the labor constraint line first:

x1 + x2 = 40
 A simple procedure for plotting this line is to determine 2 points that are on the line
and then draw a straight line through the points. One point can be found by letting x 1
= 0 and solving x2:
(0) + 2x2 = 40
x2 = 20
 Thus, one point is at the coordinates x1 = 0 and x2 = 20.
 A second point can be found by letting x2 = 0 and solving for x1:
x1 + 2(0) = 40
x1 = 40
 Now we have a second point, x1 = 40, x2 = 0
 Thus, for the labor constraint, the first point is x1 = 0 and x2 = 20, and second point, x1
= 40, x2 = 0. This is line 1.
Figure 2.3 screenshot

 We draw the line for the clay constraint (Line 2) the same way as the one for the labor
constraint – by finding 2 points on the constraint line and connecting them with a straight
line. First, let x1 = 0 and solve for x2:
4(0) + 3x2 = 120
x2 = 40
Performing
2 types of Linear Programming
*Maximization Problems
*Minimization Problems - formulated the same basic way as a maximization problem, except for
a few minor differences.

FORMULATION OF A MINIMIZATION MODEL

A farmer is preparing to plant a crop in the spring and needs to fertilize a field. There are 2
brands of fertilizer to choose from, Super-gro and Crop-quick. Each brand yields a specific
amount of nitrogen and phosphate per bag, as follows:
 Chemical Contribution
Brand Nitrogen (lb./bag) Phosphate (lb./bag)
Super-gro 2 4
Crop-quick 4 3

 The farmer’s field requires at least 16 pounds of nitrogen and at least 24 pounds of
phosphate. Super-gro costs $6 per bag, and Crop-quick costs $3. The farmer wants to
know how many bags of each brand to purchase in order to minimize the total cost of
fertilizing.
STEPS:
Step 1: Decision Variables
 This problem contains 2 decision variables, representing the number of bags of each
brand of fertilizer to purchase:
x1 = bags of super-gro
x2 = bags of crop-quick
Step 2: Objective Function
 The farmer’s objective is to minimize the total cost of fertilizing. The total cost is the sum
of the individual costs of each type of fertilizer purchased. The objective function that
represents total cost is expressed as:
Minimize Z = $6x1 + 3x2
Where:
$6x1 = cost of bags of Super-gro
3x2 = cost of bag of Crop-quick

Step 3: Model Constraints

 The requirements for nitrogen and phosphate represent the constraints of the model. Each
bag of fertilizer contributes a number of pounds of nitrogen and phosphate to the field.
The constraints for nitrogen is

2x1 + 4x2 ≥ 16 lb.

Where:
2x1 = the nitrogen contribution (lb.) per bag of super-gro
4x2 = the nitrogen contribution (lb.) per bag of crop-quick
  Greater than or equal is used because the nitrogen content for the field is a minimum
requirement specifying that at least 16 pounds of nitrogen be deposited on the farmer’s
field. If a minimum cost solution results in more than 16 pounds of nitrogen on the field,
that is acceptable however, the amount cannot be less than 16 pounds.

The constraint for phosphate is constructed like the constraint for nitrogen:
4x1 + 3x2 ≥ 24 lb.

 With these example, we have shown 2 of the 3 types of linear programming constraints, ≤
and ≥.
 The third type is an exact equality, =. This type specifies that a constraint requirement
must be exact. For example, if the farmer had said that the phosphate requirement for the
field was exactly 24 pounds, the constraint would have been
4x1 + 3x2 = 24 lb.

 As in our maximization model, there are also nonnegativity constraints in this problem to
indicate that negative bags of fertilizer cannot be purchased:
x1, x2 ≥ 0

The complete model formulation for this minimization problem is:

Minimize Z = $6x1 + 3x2
Subject to
2x1 + 4x2 ≥ 16 lb. of nitrogen
4x1 + 3x2 ≥ 24 lb. of phosphate
x1, x2 ≥ 0

graph screenshot
red line – concern for minimization
yellow – concern for maximization
SURPLUS VARIABLES
 Greater than or equal to constraints cannot be converted to equations by adding slack
variables, as with constraints. Recall our fertilizer model, formulated as:
Minimize Z = $6x1 + 3x2
Subject to
2x1 + 4x2 ≥ 16 lb. of nitrogen
4x1 + 3x2 ≥ 24 lb. of phosphate
x1, x2 ≥ 0
where:
x1 = bags of super-gro fertilizer
x2 = bags of crop-quick fertilizer
Z = farmer’s total cost ($) of purchasing fertilizer
 Instead of adding a slack variable as we did with a ≥ constraint, we subtract a surplus
variable. Whereas a slack variable is added and reflects unused resources, requirement
level. Like a slack variable, a surplus variable is represented symbolically by s 1 and must
be nonnegative.

 For the nitrogen constraint, the subtraction of a surplus variable gives

2x1 + 4x2 – s1 = 16
 The surplus variable s1 transforms the nitrogen constraint into an equation.
2(0) + 4(8) - s1 = 16
- s1 = 16 – 32
s1 = 16 lb. of nitrogen
 In this equation, s1 can be interpreted as the extra amount of nitrogen above the minimum
requirement of 16 pounds that would be obtained by purchasing 8 bags of crop-quick
fertilizer.
 In a similar manner, the constraint for the phosphate is converted to an equation by
subtracting a surplus variable, s2:
4x1 + 3x2 – s2 = 24
 As is the case with slack variables, surplus variables contribute nothing to the overall cost
of a model. For example, putting additional nitrogen or phosphate on the field will not
affect the famer’s cost; the only thing affecting cost is the number of bags of fertilizer
purchased. As such the standard form of this linear programming model is summarized a:
Minimize Z = $6x1 + 3x2 + 0s1 + 0s2
Subject to
 2x1 + 4x2 – s1 = 16
4x1 + 3x2 – s2 = 24
x1, x2, s1, s2 ≥ 0
GRAPH screenshot
Summary pic