OPERATION RESEARCH REPORT

GROUP - 05
PGDM -BUSINESS ANALYTICS (BA) – 2024-26

Siva Sivani Institute of Management, NH 44, Kompally, Secunderabad,

Telangana - 500100.
Name: - Harshita
Roll NO: - BA5-18
Question:2.16- Solve Graphically:
Maximize Z=10X1+15X2
Subject to :- 2X1+X2<=26
2X1+4X2<=56
X1-X2>=-5
X1,X2>=0

This problem is exhibited graphically. The feasible region is shaded. This is significant to note here
that we have not considered the area below the line corresponding to X1-X2=-5 for the negative
values of X1. This is because of the non- negativity condition X1>=0,which implies that negative
values of X1 should not be considered.
The Z-values at different points are given
Point X1 X2 Z=10X1+15X2
A 0 5 75
B 6 11 225
C 8 10 230
D 13 0 130
 Thus , Z is maximum (it is equal to 230) when X1=8 and X2 = 10
Solving this question using Excel:
Formulation Sheet:

Interpretation of Sheet1:
The data in Sheet1 provides the foundation for the linear programming problem solved by the
Solver. Here's the breakdown and interpretation:
Objective Function:
 Maximize: 10X1+15X2
This indicates the goal of the optimization problem is to maximize the sum of the weighted
contributions of X1 and X2, where:
 X1 contributes 10 per unit.
 X2 contributes 15 per unit.
Decision Variables:
 X1 and X2 represent the quantities to be determined for optimal results. Their values were solved as:
X1=8
X2=10
Constraints:
1. Constraint 1: 2X1+X2≤26
The combined weighted sum of 2X1 and X2 must not exceed 26.
Binding in the solution, meaning the constraint exactly holds with no room to increase
X1 or X2.
2. Constraint 2: 2X1+4X2≤56
A stricter constraint, where 2X1+4X2 must not exceed 56.
Also binding, directly limiting the decision variable values.
3. Constraint 3: X1−X2≥−5
Ensures a specific relationship between X1 and X2, requiring the difference to be at least −5.
Non-binding, with slack available, meaning this constraint did not directly influence the final
solution.
Results of Sheet1:
 The Solver utilized the data to determine that the optimal values of X1=8 and X2=10 achieve the
maximum objective value of 230, while respecting all the constraints.
 Critical constraints (1 and 2) restrict the solution space, while Constraint 3 provides flexibility.
ANSWER REPORT:

This sheet outlines the Solver results, confirming a solution was found with all constraints satisfied.
It uses the Simplex LP engine for linear programming optimization . Solver successfully found a
solution meeting all constraints and optimality conditions.
1. Objective value: 230
2. Decision variable values:
 X1 = 8
 X2 = 10
1. Binding constraints:
 Constraint 1 (E6 <= 26) and Constraint 2 (E7 <= 56) are at their limits.
2. Non-binding constraint:
 Constraint 3 (E8 >= -5) has a slack of 3.
 LIMITS REPORT:

Limits Report Interpretation:-

1. Objective Value:
o Maximum: 230 achieved with X1=8 and X2=10.
2. Variable X1:
o Can decrease to 5 (Objective becomes 200).
o Cannot increase beyond 8.
3. Variable X2:
o Can decrease to 0 (Objective becomes 80).
o Cannot increase beyond 10.
4. Insights:
o Both X1 and X2 are at their maximum feasible values in the current solution.
o Reducing either variable decreases the objective value significantly.
 SENSITIVITY REPORT:

SENSITIVITY REPORT INTERPRETATION:

Sensitivity Report Interpretation
The sensitivity report explains how changes in the decision variables and constraints impact the
solution and the objective value.

1. Objective Coefficients of Decision Variables:

 The objective coefficient determines how much each unit of a decision variable contributes to the
objective value.
 For X1:
o Current contribution per unit: 10.
o Can increase by 20 (up to 30) or decrease by 2.5 (down to 7.5) without changing the optimal
solution.
 For X2:
o Current contribution per unit: 15.
o Can increase by 5 (up to 20) or decrease by 10 (down to 5) without altering the solution.
Simple Insight: The solution remains valid as long as the coefficients of X1 and X2 stay within
these ranges. Beyond these ranges, the optimal values of X1 and X2 might change.

2. Shadow Prices of Constraints:

 Shadow price indicates how much the objective value will change if the right-hand side (RHS) of a
constraint increases by 1 unit.
 Constraint 1 (2X1+X2≤26):
o Shadow price: 1.6667.
o If the limit increases by 1 (e.g., from 26 to 27), the objective value increases by 1.6667.
 Constraint 2 (2X1+4X2≤56):
o Shadow price: 3.3333.
o A 1-unit increase in the RHS (e.g., from 56 to 57) boosts the objective by 3.3333.
 Constraint 3 (X1−X2≥−5):
o Shadow price: 0.
o Changes to this constraint do not impact the objective value because it is non-binding.
Simple Insight: Constraints 1 and 2 are critical, as increasing their limits improves the objective
value. Constraint 3 has slack, so it does not directly affect the solution.

3. Key Takeaways:
 The solution is stable within allowable changes in the objective coefficients for X1 and X2
 Constraints 1 and 2 tightly control the solution, while Constraint 3 provides flexibility.
 The shadow prices indicate the value of relaxing constraints, showing where efforts can be focused
for greater returns.
 Name: - Shashendra Kande
Roll NO.: - BA5-18
A manufacturing firm needs five component parts. Due to inadequate resources, the firm is unable to
manufacture all its requirements. So the management is interested in determining as to how many, if any,
units of each component should be purchased from outside and how many should be produced internally.
The relevant data are given here.
Total
Millin Assembl Testin Price per Direct cost
Component requiremen
g y g unit(Rs) per unit(Rs)
ts
C1 4 1 1.5 20 48 30
C2 3 3 2 50 80 52
C3 1 1 0 45 24 18
C4 3 1 0.5 70 42 31
C5 2 0 0.5 40 28 16
Time
available(hour 300 160 150
s)

Formulate this as an LPP, taking the objective function as maximization of saving by producing the
components internally.

Total
Resources/Constraints C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
availability

Milling hours(per unit) 4 3 1 3 2 300

Assembly hours(per
1 3 1 1 0 160
unit)

Testing hours(per unit) 1.5 2 0 0.5 0.5 150

Requirement( units) 20 50 45 70 40

Saving (per unit)(PP-

18 28 6 11 12
PC)
Objective Function:
Maximise Z = 18x1+28x2+6x3+11x4+12x5
Subjective constraints:
- Capacity Constraints:
4x1+3x2+x3+3x4+2x5 <= 300
X1+3x2+x3+x4 <=160
1.5x1+2x2+0.5x4+0.5x5 <=150
-Total Requirement Constraints:
x1 <=20
x2 <=50
x3 <=45
x4 <=70
x5 <=40
- Non-negative constraints:
x1, x2, x3, x4, x5 >=0

X X X X
X2
1 3 4 5
Objective
18 28 6 11 12 MAX Z
function
46.6666 2146.66
20 0 0 40
7 7
Milling < 30
4 3 1 3 2 300
constraint = 0
Assembly < 16
1 3 1 1 0 160
constraint = 0
Testing 1. 0. 0. 143.333 < 15
2 0
constraint 5 5 5 3 = 0
Total
<
requirements(C1 1 20 20
=
)
Total
46.6666 <
requirements(C2 1 50
7 =
)
Total
<
requirements(C3 1 0 45
=
)
 Total
<
requirements(C4 1 0 70
=
)
Total
<
requirements(C5 1 40 40
=
)

Analysis:-
This sheet likely contains the raw optimization data or model:
1. Variables (X1,X2,X3,X4,X5): Represents decision variables for the problem.
2. Objective Function: Coefficients for the objective function are included ( 18, 28, 6, 11, 12).
Constraint Rows:
1. "Milling constraint" and "Assembly constraint" define the restrictions, along with their bounds (
≤300,≤160,<150,<20<50,<45,<70,<40).
2. Provides the resource usage for each variable under the constraints.
Key Observations:
1. Z=2146.67suggests the optimal allocation of resources to maximize the objective.
2. Variables like X1,X2,X3,X4,X5 show their respective contributions to constraints and the objective.
Sensitivity report

Variable Cells

Objectiv
Final Reduced e Allowable Allowable
Na Coefficie
Cell me Value Cost nt Increase Decrease
$D$ 6.1666666
8 X1 20 0 18 1E+30 67
$E$ 46.666666
8 X2 67 0 28 5 10
-
$F$ 3.3333333 3.3333333
8 X3 0 33 6 33 1E+30
$G$ 4.1111111 1.6666666
8 X4 0 0 11 11 67
$H$ 10.333333
8 X5 40 0 12 1E+30 33
 Constraints

Constrai
Final Shadow nt Allowable Allowable
Na R.H.
Cell me Value Price Side Increase Decrease
$I$1 93.333333
0 160 8.5 160 0 33
$I$1 143.33333 6.6666666
1 33 0 150 1E+30 67
$I$1 6.1666666
2 20 67 20 0 20
$I$1 46.666666 3.3333333
3 67 0 50 1E+30 33
$I$1
4 0 0 45 1E+30 45
$I$1
5 0 0 70 1E+30 70
$I$1 10.333333
6 40 33 40 0 40
0.8333333
$I$9 300 33 300 140 0

Analysis:-
1. Variable Cells: Shows the decision variables (X1,X2,X3,X4,X5) and their respective values.
2. Final Value: The optimum solution value of each decision variable.
3. Cost decrease: It is the value by which the objective coefficient must improve for a currently zero
variable to enter the basis.
4. Objective Coefficient: Contribution of each variable in an objective function.
5. Allowable Increase/Decrease: The range within which the objective coefficient can change without
altering the optimal basis
Limits report
Objecti
ve
Cel
l Name Value
$I$ 2146.6666
8 MAX Z 67
 Variabl Low
e er Objective Upper Objective
Cel Limi
l Name Value t Result Limit Result
$D 1786.6666 2146.6666
$8 X1 20 0 67 20 67
$E$ 46.666666 46.666666 2146.6666
8 X2 67 0 840 67 67
$F$ 2146.6666 2146.6666
8 X3 0 0 67 0 67
$G 2146.6666 2146.6666
$8 X4 0 0 67 0 67
$H 1666.6666 2146.6666
$8 X5 40 0 67 40 67

Analysis:-
1. Objective: It depicts the objective of the optimization (maximizing profit Z=2146.67).
2. Value: It shows the best value obtained by the objective function. (Z=2146.67).
3. Constraints: It contains cell references, names for constraints, and their values.
Key Observation:
• Optimal solution Z=2146.67 indicates maximized objective function within the specified constraints.
Answers report
Cel Original Final
l Name Value Value
$I$ 2146.66666 2146.66666
8 MAX Z 7 7

Cel Original Final

l Name Value Value Integer
$D
$8 X1 20 20 Contin
$E$ 46.6666666 46.6666666
8 X2 7 7 Contin
$F$
8 X3 0 0 Contin
 $G
$8 X4 0 0 Contin
$H
$8 X5 40 40 Contin

Cel
l Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack
$I$ Assembly constraint $I$10<=$K
10 MAX Z 160 $10 Binding 0
$I$ Testing constraint MAX 143.333333 $I$11<=$K Not 6.666666
11 Z 3 $11 Binding 667
$I$ Total requirements(C1) $I$12<=$K
12 MAX Z 20 $12 Binding 0
$I$ Total requirements(C2) 46.6666666 $I$13<=$K Not 3.333333
13 MAX Z 7 $13 Binding 333
$I$ Total requirements(C3) $I$14<=$K Not
14 MAX Z 0 $14 Binding 45
$I$ Total requirements(C4) $I$15<=$K Not
15 MAX Z 0 $15 Binding 70
$I$ Total requirements(C5) $I$16<=$K
16 MAX Z 40 $16 Binding 0
$I$ Milling constraint MAX $I$9<=$K$
9 Z 300 9 Binding 0

Analysis:-
1. Solver Result: The optimization is successful and found an optimal solution in which all constraints
are satisfied.
2. Solver Engine: The problem was solved using the Simplex LP method, suitable for linear
programming problems.
3. Optimal Value: The highest value of the objective function is 2146.67 (profit, productivity, or utility).
4. Feasibility: the solution is all constraints feasible without any violation.
5. Business Implication: The outcome properly justifies the best distribution of resources to attain the
best possible outcome within the confines of operations.
Name: - Siddhartha
Roll NO.: - BA5-21
2.20: Q) A manufacturer employs three inputs: man-hours, machine-hours and cloth material
to manufacture two types of dresses. Type A dress fetches him a profit of Rs. 160 per piece,
while type B, that of Rs. 180 per piece. The manufacturer has enough man-hours to
manufacture 50 pieces pf type A or 20 pieces of type B dresses per day while the machine-
hours he possesses suffice only for 36 pieces of type A or for 24 pieces of type B dresses.
Cloth material available per day us limited but sufficient for 30 pieces of either type of dresses.
Formulate the linear programming model and solve it using simplex method.
A) Formulating the Linear Programming Model:
Decision Variables:
Let:
 X1 = number of Type A dresses produced per day

 X2 = number of Type B dresses produced per day

Objective function:
Maximize the total profit Z:
Z = 160x1 + 180x2
Where
Profit for type A dress = 160
Profit for type B dress = 180
Constraints
The production is subject to three constraints: man hours, machine hours and cloth material.
1) Man-hour constraint:
 Time required for type A dress = 1/50 of total man-hours
 1 piece of Type B requires = 1/20 of total man-hours.

The total available man-hours constraint is:

X1/50 + X2/20 <= 1
Multiply by 100 to simplify:
2x1+5x2 <= 100

2) Machine-hour constraint:
 1 piece of Type A requires 1/36 of total machine-hours.
 1 piece of Type B requires 1/24 of total machine-hours.

The total available machine-hours constraint is:

x/36 + x/24 <= 1
after simplification
2x1 + 3x2 <= 72
Cloth material constraint:
The total available cloth material is sufficient for 30 pieces of either type:

X1 + X2 <= 30

3) Non-negativity constraints:
X1 >= 0, X2 >= 0

Formulation Sheet:

X1 X2
Objective
function Max Z 160 180
solution 18 12 5040
Man hours C1 2 5 96 <= 100
Machine
hours C2 2 3 72 <= 72
Cloth material
C3 1 1 30 <= 30
X1 1 0 18 >= 0
X2 0 1 12 >= 0

Interpretation:
The optimal production mix is to manufacture 18 Type A dresses and 12 Type B dresses, yielding a maximum profit
of Rs. 5,040. The machine-hour and cloth material constraints are fully utilized, indicating they are the primary
limiting factors. Meanwhile, the man-hour constraint is not fully utilized, with 4 hours of slack, suggesting excess
labour capacity. To further increase profits, the manufacturer could focus on expanding machine capacity or acquiring
more cloth material, as these resources are currently the bottlenecks in production.

LIMITS REPORT
Interpretation:
The Limits Report shows that the optimal solution is to produce 18 units of Type A dresses and 12 units of Type B
dresses, resulting in a maximum profit of Rs. 5,040. The lower limit for both variables x1 and x2 is zero, indicating that
reducing production of either dress type to zero would drastically lower the objective function (profit). Specifically,
producing 0 units of Type A would result in a profit of Rs. 2,160, while producing 0 units of Type B would result in a
profit of Rs.
Variable Cells
Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable 2,880. Both
Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease variables are
$E$5 solution X1 18 0 160 20 40 at their upper
$F$5 solution X2 12 0 180 60 20
limit in the
Constraints current
Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable
Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease solution,
$G$10 X2 12 0 0 12 1E+30 meaning
$G$6 Man hours C1 96 0 100 1E+30 4
increasing
Machine hours
$G$7 C2 72 20 72 1.333333333 12 production
Cloth material beyond 18
$G$8 C3 30 120 30 6 1
$G$9 X1 18 0 0 18 1E+30 Type A or 12
Type B dresses is not possible without exceeding the available resource constraints, thus confirming the current solution
is optimal within the given limits.

SENSITIVITY REPORT
Interpretation:
The Sensitivity Report provides insights into the optimal solution and how changes in parameters affect it. Both
decision variables X1 (Type A dresses) and X2(Type B dresses) have a reduced cost of 0, indicating that they are optimal
at their current production levels of 18 and 12, respectively. The objective coefficient for Type A is 160, with an
allowable increase of 20 and a decrease of 40, meaning profits will remain optimal if the profit per unit stays between
Rs. 120 and Rs. 180. For Type B, the objective coefficient is 180, with an allowable increase of 60 and a decrease of
20, meaning profits will remain optimal if the profit per unit stays between Rs. 160 and Rs. 240.

Among the constraints, machine hours and cloth material are binding (fully utilized) with shadow prices of 20 and
120, respectively, indicating that increasing machine hours by 1 unit would increase profit by Rs. 20, and increasing
cloth availability by 1 unit would increase profit by Rs. 120. The man-hour constraint has no shadow price, indicating
it is non-binding with 4 units of slack. This suggests that focusing on expanding machine capacity and cloth material
availability would have the most significant impact on increasing profitability.
 Objective Cell (Max)
Original
Cell Name Value Final Value
$G$5 solution 5040 5040

Variable Cells
Original
Cell Name Value Final Value Integer
$E$5 solution X1 18 18 Contin
$F$5 solution X2 12 12 Contin

Constraints
Cell Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack
Not
$G$10 X2 12 $G$10>=$I$10 Binding 12
Not
$G$6 Man hours C1 96 $G$6<=$I$6 Binding 4
Machine hours
$G$7 C2 72 $G$7<=$I$7 Binding 0
Cloth material
$G$8 C3 30 $G$8<=$I$8 Binding 0
Not
$G$9 X1 18 $G$9>=$I$9 Binding 18
Answer report
Interpretation:
In the given problem, binding constraints represent the resources that are fully utilized and directly limit the production
and profit maximization. The machine hours (C2) and cloth material (C3) are binding constraints, as their slack values
are zero, indicating that these resources are completely consumed under the optimal production plan. These constraints
act as bottlenecks, meaning that any increase in production or profit would require additional machine hours or more
cloth material. On the other hand, non-binding constraints represent resources or requirements that are not fully utilized
or do not restrict the solution. For instance, man-hours (C1) have a slack of 4, meaning there are unused hours available,
and thus, this resource is not a limiting factor. Similarly, the minimum production requirements for Type A (X1) and
Type B (X2) dresses are non-binding, as they are met with surplus slack, leaving flexibility to produce more units if
needed. Together, this analysis highlights the importance of binding constraints in shaping the optimal solution while
also showing areas with room for adjustments or efficiency improvements.
Optimal Solution:
Optimal Production Plan:
 18 units of Type A dresses (X1) and 12 units of Type B dresses (X2) should be produced to maximize profit.
This solution balances resource usage and meets all constraints while maximizing profit.

Maximum Profit:
 The maximum profit achievable is ₹5040. This is calculated based on the profit contributions of ₹160 per Type
A dress and ₹180 per Type B dress.
Resource Utilization:

 Machine hours and cloth material are critical bottlenecks. Both are fully utilized (binding constraints),
indicating that these are the key limiting factors in the production process. Relaxing these constraints (e.g., by
increasing machine hours or cloth availability) could allow for more production and higher profits.

 Man-hours are underutilized, with 4 hours left unused. This surplus suggests that the workforce capacity is
not fully stretched under the current production plan.

Flexibility in Production:
 There is room to produce additional units of Type A and Type B dresses beyond the minimum requirements, as
the minimum production constraints for both are non-binding. This flexibility provides opportunities for
adjustments if additional resources become available.

Managerial Implications:
 To increase profit, the manufacturer should consider strategies to relax the machine-hour and cloth material
constraints, such as investing in more machinery or sourcing additional cloth material.

 The surplus man-hours indicate an opportunity to better align workforce availability with production needs or
to utilize the workforce for other activities.
Name: - Muskan Singh
Roll NO.: - BA5-28
Q2.19) An investor is considering investing in two securities, A & B, which promise a return of 10 percent and 20
percent, respectively. Security A has a risk factor of 4(on a scale of 0-10) while the other has a risk factor of 9. The
investor has ₹1,00,000 available for investment and he expects an average return of at least 12 percent and wants the
average risk factor not to exceed 6.
Formulation of LPP: -
Decision variable: -
Let x1: Investment in security A
x2: Investment in security B
The LPP be expressed as: -
MaxZ=0.10x1+0.20x2
x1+x2≤1,00,000
x1≤75000
x2≤75000
-2x1+3x2≤0
-2x1+8x2≥0
x1, x2≥0
Formulation Sheet:

Interpretation: -
Security x1 is a less risky investment option (with a risk factor of 4) compared to Security x2, making it preferable up
to the ceiling limit. The allocation reflects the solver's attempt to balance return and risk.
Limit sheet:

Interpretation: -
Objective (Maximum Return)
 Value: ₹14,000
o This represents the maximum achievable return based on the given constraints.
Variables (Investment Allocation):
1. x1: Investment in Security A
o Optimal Value: ₹60,000
 The solver suggests investing ₹60,000 in Security A.
o Lower Limit: ₹60,000
 If the investment in Security A goes below this value, the objective function (return) decreases.
o Upper Limit: ₹60,000
 If the investment exceeds this value, the return will not improve further.
2. x2: Investment in Security B
o Optimal Value: ₹40,000
 The solver suggests investing ₹40,000 in Security B.
o Lower Limit: ₹15,000
 If the investment in Security B falls below this, the objective function decreases.
o Upper Limit: ₹40,000
 Any increase above ₹40,000 in Security B investment will not improve the return further.
Sensitivity Report: -

Interpretation: -
Binding Constraints:
 The total investment and return requirement constraints are binding. This means these constraints are directly
influencing the optimal solution.
Non-Binding Constraints:
 The risk factor and individual investment ceilings for X1 and X2 are non-binding, meaning they do not affect
the current solution and have flexibility for adjustments.
Impact of Changes:
 Increasing the total investment limit slightly (by up to ₹25,000) or relaxing the return requirement would
improve the objective (total return).
 Security B offers more leverage since its coefficient can increase infinitely without affecting the solution
structure.
Answer report: -
Interpretation: -
Binding Constraints:
 The total investment and return requirement are the binding constraints, which means they limit the flexibility
of the solution.
 Increasing the allowable total investment or relaxing the return requirement would allow for potentially higher
returns.
Non-Binding Constraints:
 The investment ceilings and risk requirement are not limiting the solution, providing ample flexibility. These
constraints can be further adjusted without affecting the current solution.
Optimal Solution:
 To achieve the maximum return of ₹14,000:
o Invest ₹60,000 in Security A.
o Invest ₹40,000 in Security B
NAME: Gannamani Sandeep

ROLL NO: BA5-44

The ABC Company manufactures three lines of washing machines: manual, semi-automatic and automatic,
which sell for 5000,10000 and 25000, respectively. They marketing department estimates that at least 2500
manual machines and 1500 automatic and 15000 automatic machines need to be produced each week.

Producing each washing machine requires a certain amount of time to:

1. manufacture the body parts.

2. assemble the parts

3. inspect, test and package the final product.

The following table shoes the requirements (in hour) for each line of washing machine. There are 4000
hours of manufacturing time, 5000 hours of assembly, and 1500 hours total to inspect, test and package per
week.

Washing Machine Manufacture Assemble Test, Inspect,

Package

Manual 0.2 0.4 0.1

Semi-automatic 0.3 0.4 0.2

Automatic 0.6 0.1 0.3

ABC has decided that, in addition to the minimum production levels for each type of washing machine,
automatic machines should make up at least 35 percent of the total number of machines produced each
week.

Solution:

Let

X1 be the number of manuals produced by company

X2 be the number of manuals produced by company

X3 be the number of manuals produced by company

Objective Function:

Maximize Z=5000X1+10000X2+25000X3

Constrains:

0.2X1+0.3X2+0.6X3<=4000

0.4X1+0.4X2+0.1X3<=5000

0.1X1+0.2X2+0.3X3<=1500
X1>=2500

X2>=4000

X3>=1500

X3>=0.35

x1 x2 x3

objective 5000 10000 25000

solution 2500 4000 1500 90000000

constrains 0.2 0.3 0.6 2600 4000

0.4 0.4 0.1 2750 5000

0.1 0.2 0.3 1500 1500

1 2500 2500

1 4000 4000

1 1500 1500

1 1500 0.35

ANSWER REPORT

Microsoft Excel 16.0 Answer Report

Worksheet: [simplex method or (1).xlsx]2.12

Result: Solver found a solution. All Constraints and optimality conditions are satisfied.
Solver Engine
Engine: Simplex LP

Solution Time: 0.031 Seconds.

Iterations: 3 Subproblems: 0

Solver Options
Max Time Unlimited, Iterations Unlimited, Precision 0.000001

Max Subproblems Unlimited, Max Integer Sols Unlimited, Integer Tolerance 1%, Assume
Nonnegative
Objective Cell (Max)

Cell Name Original Value Final Value

$H$5 solution 90000000 90000000

Variable Cells

Cell Name Original Value Final Value Integer

$D$5 solution x1 2500 2500 Contin

$E$5 solution x2 4000 4000 Contin

$F$5 solution x3 1500 1500 Contin

Constraints

Cell Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack

Not
$F$12 x3 1 $F$12>=$H$12 Binding 0.65

$G$10 4000 $G$10>=$H$10 Binding 0

$G$11 1500 $G$11>=$H$11 Binding 0

Not
$G$6 constrains 2600 $G$6<=$H$6 Binding 1400

Not
$G$7 2750 $G$7<=$H$7 Binding 2250

$G$8 1500 $G$8<=$H$8 Binding 0

$G$9 2500 $G$9>=$H$9 Binding 0

Interpretation: Key constraints are related to manufacturing, assembly, and testing capacities, as well as
minimum production levels:

 Binding Constraints:
o Testing and packaging hours (0.1X1+0.2X2+0.3X3≤15000.1X1+0.2X2+0.3X3≤1500): Fully
utilized.

o Automatic machine production (X3≥0.35×total machinesX3≥0.35×total machines): Satisfied

exactly.

 Non-Binding Constraints:
o Manufacturing time (0.2X1+0.3X2+0.6X3≤40000.2X1+0.3X2+0.6X3≤4000): 1400 hours
unused.

o Assembly time (0.4X1+0.4X2+0.1X3≤50000.4X1+0.4X2+0.1X3≤5000): 2250 hours unused.

The factory has excess capacity in manufacturing and assembly but is constrained by testing and packaging
resources.

SENSITIVITY REPORT
Microsoft Excel 16.0 Sensitivity Report

Worksheet: [simplex method or (1).xlsx]2.12

Variable Cells

Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable

Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease

solution
$D$5 x1 2500 0 5000 3333.333333 1E+30

solution
$E$5 x2 4000 0 10000 6666.666667 1E+30

solution
$F$5 x3 1500 0 25000 1E+30 10000

Constraints

Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable

Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease

$F$12 x3 1 0 0.35 0.65 1E+30

$G$10 4000 -6666.666667 4000 0 4000

 $G$11 1500 0 1500 -4.54747E-13 1E+30

$G$6 constrains 2600 0 4000 1E+30 1400

$G$7 2750 0 5000 1E+30 2250

$G$8 1500 83333.33333 1500 700 0

$G$9 2500 -3333.333333 2500 0 2500

Interpretation:
 Reduced Cost: All reduced costs are zero, indicating that all variables (X1, X2,X3X1,X2,X3) are
part of the optimal solution.

 Allowable Increases and Decreases: The profit coefficient for X1X1 (manual machines) can
decrease by up to 3333.33 or increase indefinitely without changing the solution.

 Similarly, the coefficients for X2X2 and X3X3 can tolerate changes within specified ranges.

The solution remains optimal for small variations in the profit coefficients, indicating stability.

LIMITS REPORT

Microsoft Excel 16.0 Limits Report

Worksheet: [simplex method or (1).xlsx]2.12

Objective

Cell Name Value

$H$5 solution 90000000

Variable Lower Objective Upper Objective

Cell Name Value Limit Result Limit Result

$D$5 solution x1 2500 2500 90000000 2500 90000000

$E$5 solution x2 4000 4000 90000000 4000 90000000

$F$5 solution x3 1500 1500 90000000 1500 90000000

Interpretation:
 The current solution for X1,X2,X3X1,X2,X3 (2500, 4000, 1500) is optimal, and any deviation
within the defined ranges will maintain the same objective function value.

The production levels are tightly aligned with the constraints and objectives, ensuring profitability.
Name:V.Rupa Sampurna Devi

Roll no: BA5-53

A firm produces three products M,N and P. The products require two raw materials R1 and R2. The unit
requirements and total availability of materials is shown here.

Raw Material M N P Availability

R1 2 4 3 5960

R2 2 2 5 7000

Unit profit 80 120 150

The labor time required to produce a unit of M is twice as that product N and thrice that of product P. The
labor available is sufficient to produce an equivalent of 1500 units of product M. The firm has contract to
supply 400 units each of products M and N,and 800 units each of products M and N, and 800 units of
products P and this sets the minimum production levels of the three products.It is further desired that the
production of M should be twice as large as the production of N.
Formulate this as a linear programming problem with the objective function as maximization of total
profits.

Let x1,x2 and x3 be the number of units of products M,N and P to be produced.

Maximise Z=80x1+120x2+150x3

Subject 2x1+4x2+3x3<=5,960

2x1+2x2+5x3<=7000

6x1+3x2+2x3<=9000

X1>=400
X2>=400

X3>=800

X1-2X2=0

x1 x2 x3

max Z 80 120 150

solution 800 400 920 250000

constrant-1 2 4 3 5960 5960

constrant-2 2 2 5 27 7000

constrant-3 6 3 2 28 9000

constrant-4 1 800 400

constrant-5 1 400 400

constrant-6 1 920 800

constrant-7 1 -2 0 0

ANSWER REPORT
Microsoft Excel 16.0 Answer Report

Worksheet: [Book1]Sheet1

Report Created: 30-11-2024 19:35:24

Result: Solver found a solution. All Constraints and optimality conditions are satisfied.

Solver Engine
Engine: Simplex
LP

Solution Time: 0.031 Seconds.

Iterations: 6 Subproblems: 0

Solver Options
Max Time Unlimited, Iterations Unlimited, Precision 0.000001, Use Automatic Scaling

Max Subproblems Unlimited, Max Integer Sols Unlimited, Integer Tolerance 1%, Assume
NonNegative

Objective Cell (Max)

Original
Cell Name Value Final Value

$M$6 solution 0 250000

Variable Cells

Original
Cell Name Value Final Value Integer

solution
$J$6 x1 0 800 Contin

solution
$K$6 x2 0 400 Contin

solution
$L$6 x3 0 920 Contin
 Constraints

Cell Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack

constrant- Not
$M$10 4 800 $M$10>=$N$10 Binding 400

constrant-
$M$11 5 400 $M$11>=$N$11 Binding 0

constrant- Not
$M$12 6 920 $M$12>=$N$12 Binding 120

constrant-
$M$13 7 0 $M$13=$N$13 Binding 0

constrant-
$M$7 1 5960 $M$7<=$N$7 Binding 0

constrant- Not
$M$8 2 27 $M$8<=$N$8 Binding 6973

constrant- Not
$M$9 3 28 $M$9<=$N$9 Binding 8972

INTERPRETATION

Binding Constraints:

Constraint 1 (R1 material): Utilized fully (5960/5960). No slack remains, indicating the material is critical.

Constraint 5 (Minimum production of N): Met exactly (x2= 400x2=400), making this a binding
constraint.

Constraint 7 : Met exactly, ensuring the dependency between M and N.

Non-binding Constraints:
Constraint 2 (R2 material): Only 27 units of R2 are used, leaving significant slack (6973 units available).
Constraint 3 (Labor): Only 28 labor units are used, leaving slack (8972 units available).

Minimum production of P: Exceeds the minimum by 120 units

SENSITIVITY REPORT
Microsoft Excel 16.0 Sensitivity Report

Worksheet: [Book1]Sheet1

Report Created: 30-11-2024 19:35:24

Variable Cells

Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable

Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease

$J$6 solution x1 800 0 80 60 1E+30

$K$6 solution x2 400 0 120 120 1E+30

$L$6 solution x3 920 0 150 1E+30 45

Constraints

Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable

Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease

$M$10 constrant-4 800 0 400 400 1E+30

$M$11 constrant-5 400 -120 400 45 200

$M$12 constrant-6 920 0 800 120 1E+30

$M$13 constrant-7 0 -20 0 180 400

$M$7 constrant-1 5960 50 5960 1E+30 360

$M$8 constrant-2 27 0 7000 1E+30 6973

$M$9 constrant-3 28 0 9000 1E+30 8972

Sensitivity Analysis:
Changes in profits or constraints would affect the optimal solution:

Increasing x1's profit coefficient by up to ₹60 maintains the current solution.

Reducing x3's coefficient by ₹45 changes the solution.

LIMITS REPORT
 Microsoft Excel 16.0 Limits Report

Worksheet: [Book1]Sheet1

Report Created: 30-11-2024 19:35:24

Objective

Cell Name Value

$M$6 solution 250000

Variable Lower Objective Upper Objective

Cell Name Value Limit Result Limit Result

solution
$J$6 x1 800 800 250000 800 250000

solution
$K$6 x2 400 400 250000 400 250000

solution
$L$6 x3 920 800 232000 920 250000

Decision Variables:

x1=800x1=800:

Lower and Upper Limits: x1 is fixed at 800 because it meets both the minimum production requirement and
the relationship constraint

x2= 400x2=400:

Lower and Upper Limits: x2 is fixed at 400 for similar reasons.

x3= 920x3=920:

Lower Limit: 800 (minimum production requirement).

Upper Limit: 920 (current production level achieves maximum profit).

Reducing x3 to 800 decreases the objective function to ₹232,000.

Objective Coefficients:

Sensitivity to Profit Changes:

o x1: Profit coefficient (₹80) can increase by ₹60 or decrease indefinitely without affecting
optimality.

o x2: Profit coefficient (₹120) can increase or decrease by ₹120 without affecting optimality.
o x3: Profit coefficient (₹150) can increase indefinitely but can decrease by ₹45 before a new
solution is needed.
Name: - Rohan Karthik Vyas

Roll No.: - BA5-55

An agriculturist has 60 acres of land on which he can grow three crops, namely radish,peas and potatoes.
The average per acre yield for these crops is: 1,600 kg per acre for radish; 2,000 kg per acre for peas and
1,400 kg per acre for potatoes while the respective selling prices of these are ₹8, ₹7 and * 8 per kg. To raise
the crops, manure and labour are required. The cost of manure to raise 100 kg of either of the crops is 36, ₹
40 and 36 for radish, peas and potatoes, respectively, while the per acre requirement of labour is 6, 8 and 5
man-days in that order for these crops. The labour costs 400 per person per day and the total availability of
labour is restricted to 400 man-days. Further, it is desired to produce at least 16,000 kg of radish, 16,000 kg
of peas and 14,000 kg of potatoes.

Formulate this as a linear programming model to maximise profit for the agriculturist.

Let x1, x2, and x3, respectively, be the number of acres of land used for growing radish, peas and potatoes.
The profit obtainable using relevant information is calculated here.

Radish Peas Potatoes

Land (in acers) X1 X2 X3

Yield(kg/acre) 1,600 2,000 1,400

Output(kg) 1,600X1 2,000X2 1,400X3

Selling price (per kg) 8 7 8

Sales revenue(a) 12,800X1 14,000X2 11,200X3

Less cost:

Manure 576X1 800X2 504X3

Laboure 2,400X1 3,200X2 2,000X3

Total cost(b) 2,976X1 4,000X2 2,504X3

Profit(a)-(b) 9,824X1 10,000X2 8,696X3

Introduction
An agriculturist aims to maximize profit by cultivating radish, peas, and potatoes on 60 acres of land,
constrained by labour (400 man-days) and minimum yield requirements for each crop. The profit per acre is
calculated by deducting manure and labour costs from sales revenue. The objective is to determine the
optimal allocation of land (X1 for radish, X2 for peas, X3 for potatoes) to maximize profit while meeting
all constraints.
16,000kg of radish is required to be produced. With a yield of 1,600kg per acre, it implies that a minimum of
10 acres of land should be allocated for this crop. similarly, at least 8 and 10 acres of land should be
allocated to peas and potatoes, respectively.

Formulation sheet

Interpretation

Objective Function:
Maximize
Z=9,824X1+10,000X2+8,696X3

Constraints:
1. X1+X2+X3≤60

2. 6X1+8X2+5X3≤400

3. X1≥10

4. X2≥8

5. X3≥10

 The maximum achievable profit is ₹582,560 under the current resource constraints.
 So to reach the maximum profit the agriculturist has to allocate 25 acers for radish, 25 acers for
peas,10 acers for potatoes, by fully utilizing the land and labour resources he can get the maximum
profit.
Limits Report

Microsoft Excel 16.0 Limits Report

Worksheet: [Book1]Sheet1

Report Created: 02-12-2024 22:48:48

Objective

Cell Name Value

$L$7 Subjet to 582560

Variable Lower Objective Upper Objective

Cell Name Value Limit Result Limit Result

Subjet to
$I$7 X1 25 10 435200 25 582560

Subjet to
$J$7 X2 25 8 412560 25 582560

Subjet to
$K$7 X3 10 10 582560 10 582560

Interpretation

Variable: X1 (Radish)
 Optimal Value: 25

 Lower Limit: 10, Objective Result: 435,200

If X1 decreases to 10, the objective value decreases to 435,200.

 Upper Limit: 25, Objective Result: 582,560

At the upper limit X1=25, the objective value remains 582,560.

Variable: X2 (peas)
 Optimal Value: 25

 Lower Limit: 8, Objective Result: 412,560.

If X2 decreases to 8, the objective value decreases to 412,560.

 Upper Limit: 25, Objective Result: 582,560.

At the upper limit X2=25, the objective value remains 582,560.

Variable: X3(potatoes)
  Optimal Value: 10

 Lower Limit: 10, Objective Result: 582,560.

o X3 cannot go below 10, and the objective value remains 582,560.

 Upper Limit: 10, Objective Result: 582,560.

o X3 is fixed at 10, so there is no change in the objective value.

Sensitivity report

Microsoft Excel 16.0 Sensitivity Report

Worksheet: [Book1]Sheet1
Report Created: 02-12-2024 22:48:48

Variable Cells

Final Reduced Objective Allowable Allowable

Cell Name Value Cost Coefficient Increase Decrease

Subjet to
$I$7 X1 25 0 9824 176 693.3333333

Subjet to
$J$7 X2 25 0 10000 2080 176

Subjet to
$K$7 X3 10 0 8696 1040 1E+30

Constraints

Final Shadow Constraint Allowable Allowable

Cell Name Value Price R.H. Side Increase Decrease

Constrant-
$L$10 3 25 0 10 15 1E+30

Constrant-
$L$11 4 25 0 8 17 1E+30

Constrant-
$L$12 5 10 -1040 10 10 10

Constrant-
$L$8 1 60 9296 60 5.666666667 3.75

Constrant-
$L$9 2 400 88 400 30 34
The optimal solution allocates 25 acres each to radish and peas and 10 acres to potatoes, achieving the
maximum profit of ₹582,560.

The profit per acre for each crop is:

1. Radish: ₹9,824

2. Peas: ₹10,000

3. Potatoes: ₹8,696

Radish
Profit per acer is 9,824 the allowable increase is 176 and the allowable decrease is 693.333333.

Peas
Profit per acer is 10,000 the allowable increase is 2080 and allowable decrease is 176.

Potatoes
Profit can increase by ₹1,040, but there is no allowable decrease (∞), indicating that decreasing profit would
not change the allocation since it already satisfies constraints.
Constraints:
 Constraints 1, 2, and 5 are binding and directly affect the optimal solution. Modifying their RHS
values changes the objective function value.

 Constraints 3 and 4 are non-binding, meaning they do not influence the solution, and changes to their
RHS will not impact the objective value.

Shadow Prices:
 Shadow prices indicate the rate at which the objective function changes with a unit increase in the
RHS of a constraint:

Constraint 1: Increases Z by 9,296 per unit increase.

Constraint 2: Increases Z by 88 per unit increase.

Constraint 5: Decreases Z by 1,040 per unit increase.

Hence we can say the model is most sensitive to Constraint 1 (high shadow price of 9,296) and Constraint 5
(negative shadow price of -1,040).
Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft
Excel Excel Excel Microsoft Microsoft Excel Excel Excel
16.0 16.0 16.0 Excel 16.0 Excel 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Answer Micro
Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Repor

Worksheet: [Book1]Sheet1

Report Created: 02-12-2024 22:48:48

Result: Solver found a solution. All Constraints and optimality conditions are satisfied.

Solver Engine
Engine: Simplex LP

Solution Time: 0.062 Seconds.

Iterations: 6 Subproblems: 0

Solver Options
Max Time Unlimited, Iterations Unlimited, Precision 0.000001, Use Automatic Scaling
Max Subproblems Unlimited, Max Integer Sols Unlimited, Integer Tolerance 1%, Assume NonNegativ

Objective Cell (Max)

Original
Cell Name Value Final Value

$L$7 Subjet to 0 582560

Variable Cells

Original
Cell Name Value Final Value Integer

Subjet to
$I$7 X1 0 25 Contin

Subjet to
$J$7 X2 0 25 Contin

Subjet to
$K$7 X3 0 10 Contin

Constraints

Cell Name Cell Value Formula Status Slack

 Constrant- Not
$L$10 3 25 $L$10>=$N$10 Binding 15

Constrant- Not
$L$11 4 25 $L$11>=$N$11 Binding 17

Constrant-
$L$12 5 10 $L$12>=$N$12 Binding 0

Constrant-
$L$8 1 60 $L$8<=$N$8 Binding 0

Constrant-
$L$9 2 400 $L$9<=$N$9 Binding 0

Interpretation

Optimal Solution:
The values X1=25, X2=25, and X3=10 achieve the maximum Z=582,560.

Binding Constraints:
Constraints 1, 2, and 5 are fully used, meaning they directly affect the optimal solution. Any change to these
constraints will alter the outcome.

Non-Binding Constraints:
Constraints 3 and 4 have extra capacity (slack), meaning they do not limit the solution and can be relaxed
further without affecting the result.