Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAndy Chisman Modified about 1 year ago

1
Integer Programming Pure, Mixed-Integer, Zero-One Models Strategic Resource Allocation and Planning MGMT E-5050 Applied Management Science for Decision Making, 2e © 2014 Pearson Learning Solutions Philip A. Vaccaro, PhD

2
Integer Programming One assumption of linear programming is that decision variables can take on fractional values such as X 1 = 0.33 or X 3 = 1.57. Yet a large number of business problems can be solved only if variables have integer values. When an airline decides how many planes to purchase, it cannot place an order for 5.38 aircraft ; it must order 4, 5, 6, or some other integer amount. Applied Management Science for Decision Making, 2e © 2014 Pearson Learning Solutions

3
Integer Programming An integer programming model is one that has constraints and an objective function identical to that formulated by LP. The only difference is that one or more of the decision variables has to take on an integer value in the final solution. three There are three types of integer programming problems: Pure 1. Pure IP problems are cases in which all variables are required to have integer values. Mixed 2. Mixed IP problems are cases in which some, but not all, of the decision variables are required to have integer values. Zero-one 3. Zero-one IP problems are special cases in which all the decision variables must have integer values of 0 or 1.

4
Integer Programming Solving an IP problem is much more difficult. The solution time may be excessive, even on a computer. The most common algorithm here is the branch and bound method.

5
Harrison Electric Company PURE INTEGER PROBLEM The Harrison Electric Company produces two products: old-fashioned chandeliers and ceiling fans. Both products require a two-step process involving wiring and assembly. It takes 2 hours to wire each chandelier and 3 hours to wire a ceiling fan. Final assembly of the chandeliers and fans requires 6 and 5 hours, re- spectively. The production capability is such that only 12 hours of wiring time and 30 hours of assembly time are available. If each chandelier produced nets the firm $7.00 and each fan $6.00, the Production mix decision can be formulated using LP as follows:

6
Harrison Electric Company Maximize profit = $7.00 X 1 + $6.00 X 2 subject to: 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 ( wiring hours ) 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 ( assembly hours ) X 1, X 2 => 0 where: X 1 = number of chandeliers produced X 2 = number of ceiling fans produced The Model

7
Harrison Electric Company 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 65432106543210 X2 X1 ++ ++ + ++ + 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 ( assembly hours ) 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 ( wiring hours ) Optimal LP Solution ( X 1 = 3.75, X 2 = 1.5, Profit = $35.25 ) + = Possible Integer Solution

8
Harrison Electric Company The optimal solution is X 1 = 3.75 chandeliers and X 2 = 1.5 ceiling fans. Rounding to X 1 = 4 and X 2 = 2 makes the solution unfeasible. Rounding to X 1 = 4 and X 2 = 2 is probably not the optimal feasible integer solution either. There are 18 feasible integer solutions to this problem. The optimal integer solution is X 1 = 5 and X 2 = 0, with a total profit of $35.00. The integer restriction reduced profit from $35.25 to $35.00 An integer solution can never produce a greater profit than the LP solution to the same problem. DISCUSSION

9
Harrison Electric Company Listing all feasible solutions and selecting the one with the best objective function value is called the enumeration method. This can be virtually impossible for large problems where the number of feasible solutions is extremely large ! Chandeliers ( X1 )Ceiling Fans ( X2 )Profit ( Z ) 00$0.00 107 2014 3021 4028 5035 016 1113 2120 Integer optimal solution

10
Harrison Electric Company Listing all feasible solutions and selecting the one with the best objective function value is called the enumeration method. This can be virtually impossible for large problems where the number of feasible solutions is extremely large ! Chandeliers ( X1 )Ceiling Fans ( X2 )Profit ( Z ) 3127 4134 0212 1219 2226 3233 0318 1325 0424 Rounding optimal solution

11
Branch-and-Bound Method 1. Solve the original problem using linear programming. If the answer satisfies the integer constraints, we are done. If not, this value provides an initial upper bound for the objective function. 2. Find any feasible solution that meets the integer con- straints for use as a lower bound. Usually, rounding down each variable will accomplish this.

12
Branch-and-Bound Method 3.Branch on one variable from step 1 that does not have an integer value. Split the problem into two subproblems based on integer values that are above and below the noninteger value. For example, if X 2 = 3.75 was in the optimal linear programming solution, introduce constraint X 2 => 4 in the first subproblem, and X 2 =< 3 in the second subproblem.

13
Branch-and-Bound Method 4.Create nodes at the top of these new branches by solving the new problems.

14
Branch-and-Bound Method 5. a If a branch yields a solution that is not feasible, terminate the branch. 5. b If a branch yields a solution that is feasible, but not an integer solution, go to step 6. 5. c If the branch yields a feasible integer solution, look at the objective function. If its value equals the upper bound, an optimal solution has been reached. If it is not equal to the upper bound, but exceeds the lower bound, set it as the new lower bound and go to step 6. Finally, if it is less than the lower bound, terminate this branch.

15
Branch-and-Bound Method 6.Examine both branches again and set the upper bound equal to the maximum value of the objective function at all final nodes. If the upper bound equals the lower bound, stop. If not, go back to step 3.

16
Harrison Electric Company Maximize profit = $7.00 X 1 + $6.00 X 2 subject to: 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 ( wiring hours ) 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 ( assembly hours ) X 1, X 2 => 0 where: X 1 = number of chandeliers produced X 2 = number of ceiling fans produced The Model REVISITED

17
Harrison Electric Company 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 65432106543210 X2 X1 ++ ++ + ++ + 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 ( assembly hours ) 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 ( wiring hours ) Optimal NON-INTEGER LP Solution ( X 1 = 3.75, X 2 = 1.5, Profit = $35.25 ) + = Possible Integer Solution REVISITED

18
Branch-and-Bound Method Since X 1 and X 2 are not integers, the solution is not valid. The profit of $35.25 will be the initial upper bound. Rounding down gives X 1 = 3, X 2 = 1, profit = $27.00, which is feasible and can be used as a lower bound. X 1 =3.75 X 2 =1.5 P=35.25 Upper Bound = $35.25 Lower Bound = $27.00 (rounding down) Original Non-Integer Solution

19
Branch-and-Bound Method We divide the problem into two subproblems, A and B We can branch on either the non-integer X 1 or X 2 We choose X 1 this time X 1 =3.75 X 2 =1.5 P=35.25 Upper Bound = $35.25 Lower Bound = $27.00 (rounding down) Original Non-Integer Solution

20
Branch-and-Bound Method Subproblem A Max Z = $7X 1 + $6X 2 s.t. 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 X 1 => 4 X 1 =3.75 X 2 =1.5 P=35.25 Upper Bound = $35.25 Lower Bound = $27.00 (rounding down) Original Non-Integer Solution Subproblem B Max Z = $7X 1 + $6X 2 s.t. 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 X 1 =< 3

21
Branch-and-Bound Method X 1 =3.75 X 2 =1.5 P=35.25 Upper Bound = $35.25 Lower Bound = $27.00 (rounding down) X 1 =4 X 2 =1.2 P=35.20 Subproblem A X 1 =3 X 2 =2 P=33.00 Subproblem B Noninteger Solution Upper Bound = $35.20 Lower Bound = $33.00 This Branch Solution Is Integer New Lower Bound $33.00

22
Branch-and-Bound Method Subproblem A is now branched into two new subproblems, C and D Subproblem C has the additional constraint of X 2 => 2 Subproblem D has the additional constraint of X 2 =< 1 The logic here is that since A’s optimal solution of X 1 = 1.2 is not feasible, the integer feasible answer must lie at X 2 => 2 or X 2 =< 1

23
Branch-and-Bound Method Subproblem C Max Z = $7X 1 + $6X 2 s.t. 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 X 1 => 4 X 2 => 2 Subproblem D Max Z = $7X 1 + $6X 2 s.t. 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 X 1 => 4 X 2 =< 1 Subproblem C has no feasible solution whatsoever because the first two constraints are violated if X 1 => 4 and X 2 => 2 constraints are observed. We terminate this branch and do not consider its solution. Subproblem D’s solution is X 1 = 4.17, X 2 = 1, profit = $35.16. This non- integer solution yields a new upper bound of $35.16.

24
Branch-and-Bound Method X 1 =3.75 X 2 =1.5 P=35.25 X 1 =4 X 2 =1.2 P=35.20 Subproblem A X 1 =3 X 2 =2 P=33.00 Subproblem B Upper Bound = $35.16 Lower Bound = $33.00 No Feasible Solution X 1 =4.17 X 2 =1 P=35.16 Subproblem C Subproblem D X 1 => 4 X 1 =< 3 X 2 => 2 X 2 =< 1

25
Branch-and-Bound Method Subproblem E Max Z = $7X 1 + $6X 2 s.t. 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 X 1 => 4 X 1 =< 4 X 2 =< 1 Subproblem F Max Z = $7X 1 + $6X 2 s.t. 2X 1 + 3X 2 =< 12 6X 1 + 5X 2 =< 30 X 1 => 4 X 1 => 5 X 2 =< 1 Finally, we create subproblems E and F and solve for X 1 and X 2 with the additional constraints X 1 = 5.

26
Full Branch-and-Bound Solution X 1 =3.75 X 2 =1.5 P=35.25 X 1 =4 X 2 =1.2 P=35.20 Subproblem A X 1 =3 X 2 =2 P=33.00 Subproblem B No Feasible Solution X 1 =4.17 X 2 =1 P=35.16 Subproblem C Subproblem D X 1 => 4 X 1 =< 3 X 2 => 2 X 2 =< 1 X 1 =4 X 2 =1 P=34.00 X 1 =5 X 2 =0 P=35.00 Subproblem E Subproblem F X 1 =< 4 X 1 => 5 Feasible Integer Solution Feasible Integer Optimal Solution The stopping rule for the branching process is that we continue until the new upper bound is less than or equal to the lower bound or no further branching is possible. The latter is the case here since both branches yielded feasible integer solutions. Harrison Electric Company

27
Integer Programming with QM for WINDOWS Harrison Electric Company

38
The Harrison Electric Company Integer Programming Using

53
Mixed Integer Programming The Bagwell Chemical Company produces two industrial chemicals. The first product, xyline, must be produced in 50-pound bags. The second, hexall, is sold by the pound in dry bulk and hence can be produced in any quantity. Both xyline and hexall are composed of three ingredients: A, B, and C as follows:

54
The Bagwell Chemical Co. Amount per 50-Pound Bag of Xyline (lb) Amount per Pound of Hexall (lb) Amount of Ingredients Available 300.52,000 lb - A 180.4 800 lb - B 20.1 200 lb - C Bagwell sells 50-pound bags of xyline for $85.00 and hexall in any weight for $1.50 per pound. By formulating the usage coefficients for each 50-pound bag of Xyline, rather than for each pound of Xyline, the program will automatically compute the purchase quantity for Xyline in 50-pound bag units, if an integer output is required.

55
The Bagwell Chemical Co. X = number of 50-pound bags of xyline produced ; Y = number of pounds of hexall (in dry bulk) mixed Maximize Z = $85.00 X + $1.50 Y s.t. 30 X + 0.5 Y <= 2,000 18 X + 0.4 Y <= 800 2 X + 0.1 Y <= 200 X,Y => 0 and X integer The Model

56
The Bagwell Chemical Co. The Solution X = 44 bags of xyline Y = 20 pounds of hexall Z = $3,770.00 X = 44.444 bags of xyline Y = 0 pounds of hexall Z = $3,777.78 The Integer Solution The Optimal Solution

57
Integer Programming with QM for WINDOWS Mixed Integer Program for Bagwell Chemical Company

67
Mixed Integer Programming Using The Bagwell Chemical Company

80
Modeling with Binary Variables Typically, a ‘0-1’ variable is assigned a value of 0 if a certain condition is not met, and a value of ‘1’ if the condition is met. Another name for a ‘0-1’ variable is a binary vari- able. A common problem of this type is the assignment problem which involves deciding which individuals are assigned to a set of jobs. A value of 1 indicates a person is assigned to a specific job. A value of 0 indicates the assignment was not made.

81
Capital Budgeting Example A common capital budgeting decision involves selecting from a set of possible projects when budget limitations make it impossible to select all of these. A separate ‘0-1’ variable can be defined for each project.

82
XYZ Chemical Company XYZ is considering three possible improvement projects for its plant: a new catalytic converter, a new software program for controlling operations, and expanding the warehouse used for storage. Capital requirements and budget limitations in the next two years prevent the firm from underatking all of these at this time. The net present value of each of the projects, the capital requirements, and the available funds for the next two years are given on the next slide. NPV is the future value of a project discounted back to the present time

83
XYZ Chemical Company Net Present Value Year 1 Capital Requirement Year 2 CapitalRequirement Catalytic Converter $25,000.$8,000.$7,000. Software $18,000.$6,000.$4,000. Warehouse Expansion $32,000.$12,000.$8,000. Budget Limitations $20,000.$16,000. PROJECT

84
XYZ Chemical Company Maximize NPV of projects undertaken subject to: Total funds used in year 1 =< $20,000. Total funds used in year 2 =< $16,000. We define the decision variables as: X 1 = 1 if catalytic converter project is funded 0 otherwise X 2 = 1 if software project is funded 0 otherwise X 3 = 1 if warehouse expansion project is funded 0 otherwise

85
XYZ Chemical Company Maximize NPV = 25,000 X 1 + 18,000 X 2 + 32,000 X 3 subject to: 8,000 X 1 + 6,000 X 2 + 12,000 X 3 =< 20,000 7,000 X 1 + 4,000 X 2 + 8,000 X 3 =< 16,000 X 1, X 2, X 3 = 0 or 1 The Model

86
XYZ Chemical Company X 1 = 1, X 2 = 0, X 3 = 1, Z = 57,000 The firm should fund the catalytic converter project, and the warehouse expansion project, but not the new software project. The net present value of these investments will be $57,000.00 The Solution

87
Integer Programming with QM for WINDOWS Binary Variable Modeling for the XYZ Chemical Company

97
XYZ Chemical Company

110
XYZ Chemical Company Limiting the Number of Alternatives Selected Suppose that XYZ Chemical Company is required to select no more than two of the three projects regardless of the funds available. This could be modeled by adding the following constraint to the problem: X 1 + X 2 + X 3 =< 2 If we wished to force the selection of exactly two of the three projects for funding, the following constraint should be used: X 1 + X 2 + X 3 = 2 This forces exactly two of the variables to have values of 1, whereas the other variable must have a value of 0.

111
XYZ Chemical Company Dependent Selections At times the selection of one project depends in some way upon the selection of another project. This situation can be modeled with the use of 0-1 variables. Suppose that the new catalytic converter could be purchased only if the software was purchased also. The following con- straint would force this to occur: X 1 <= X 2 or X 1 - X 2 <= 0 Thus, if the software is not purchased, the value of X 2 is 0, and the value of X 1 must be 0 also because of this constraint. However, if the software is purchased ( X 2 = 1 ), then it is possi- ble that the catalytic converter could be purchased ( X 1 = 1) also, although this is not required.

112
XYZ Chemical Company Dependent Selections If we wished for the catalytic converter and the software projects to either both be selected or both not be selected, we should use the following constraint: X 1 = X 2 or X 1 - X 2 = 0 Thus, if either of these variables is equal to 0, the other must be 0 also. If either of these variables is equal to 1, the other must be 1 also.

113
Fixed-Charge Problem Often firms are faced with decisions involving a fixed charge that will affect the cost of future operations. Building a new factory or entering into a long- term lease on an existing facility would involve a fixed cost that might vary depending upon the size of the facility and the location. Once a factory is built, the variable production costs will be affected by the labor cost in the particular city where it is located.

114
Acme Manufacturing, Inc. Acme Manufacturing is planning to build at least one new plant, and three cities are being considered: Baytown, TX; Lake Charles, LA; and Mobile, AL. Once the plant or plants have been constructed, the firm wishes to have sufficient capacity to produce at least 38,000 units each year. The costs associated with the possible locations are shown on the following slide. FIXED-CHARGE PROBLEM EXAMPLE

115
Acme Manufacturing, Inc. SITE ANNUAL FIXED COST VARIABLE COST PER UNIT ANNUAL CAPACITY Baytown$340,000.$32.21,000 Lake Charles$270,000.$33.20,000 Mobile$290,000.$30.19,000

116
Acme Manufacturing, Inc. The objective function is to minimize the total of the fixed cost and the variable cost. Total production capacity is at least 38,000 units. The number of units produced at Baytown is ‘0’ if the plant is not built, and no more than 21,000 if the plant is built. The number of units produced at Lake Charles is ‘0’ if the plant is not built, and no more than 20,000 if the plant is built. The number of units produced at Mobile is ‘0’ if the plant is not built, and no more than 19,000 if the plant is built.

117
Acme Manufacturing, Inc. The decision variables: X 1 = ‘1’ if the factory is built in Baytown ; ‘0’ otherwise. X 2 = ‘1’ if the factory is built in Lake Charles ; ‘0’ otherwise. X 3 = ‘1’ if the factory is built in Mobile ; ‘0’ otherwise. X 4 = number of units produced at Baytown plant. X 5 = number of units produced at Lake Charles plant. X 6 = number of units produced at Mobile plant.

118
Texas Louisiana Acme Manufacturing, Inc. Minimize Cost = 340,000 X 1 + $270,000 X 2 + $290,000 X 3 + 32 X 4 + 33 X 5 + 30 X 6 subject to: X 4 + X 5 + X 6 => 38,000 X 4 =< 21,000 X1 X 5 =< 20,000 X2 X 6 =< 19,000 X3 X 1, X 2, X 3 = 0 or 1 ; X 4, X 5, X 6 => 0 and integer The Model

119
Acme Manufacturing, Inc. If X 1 = 0, meaning Baytown plant is not built, then X 4, number of units produced at Baytown plant, must equal 0 also, due to the second constraint. If X 1 = 1, then X 4 may be any integer value less than or equal to the limit of 21,000 units. The third and fourth constraints are similarly used to guarantee that no units are produced at the other locations if the plants are not built. Proposed Site

120
Acme Manufacturing, Inc. X 1 = 0 X 2 = 1 X 3 = 1 X 4 = 0 X 5 = 19,000 X 6 = 19,000 Z = 1,757,000.00 Optimal Solution Factories will be built at Lake Charles and Mobile. Each of these wil produce 19,000 units each year. Total annual cost will be $1,757,000.00

121
Financial Investment Example Numerous financial applications exist with binary variables. A very common type of problem involves selecting from a group of investment op- portunities.

122
Hawthorne Investments Hawthorne Investments specializes in recommending oil stock portfolios for wealthy clients. One such client has made the following specifications: 1.At least two Texas oil firms must be in the portfolio. 2.No more than one investment can be made in foreign oil companies. 3.One of the two California oil stocks must be purchased. 4.The client has up to $3 million available for investments and insists on purchasing large blocks of shares of each company he invests in. 5.The objective is to maximize annual return on investment subject to the constraints.

123
Hawthorne Investments Stock Company Name Expected Annual Return ($1,000s) Cost for Block Of Shares ($1,000s) 1 Trans-Texas Oil 50480 2 British Petroleum 80540 3 Dutch Shell 90680 4 Houston Drilling 1201,000 5 Texas Petroleum 110700 6 San Diego Oil 40510 7 California Petro 75900 Stocks Being Considered The firm is being forced by the client to buy shares in “blocks” so the to buy shares in “blocks” so the cost per “block” is shown below.

124
Hawthorne Investments To formulate this as a 0-1 integer programming problem, let X i be a ‘0-1’ integer variable, where X i = 1 if the stock is purchased and X i = 0 if the stock is not purchased.

125
Hawthorne Investments Maximize return = 50 X 1 + 80 X 2 + 90 X 3 + 120 X 4 + 110 X 5 + 40 X 6 + 75 X 7 subject to: X 1 + X 4 + X 5 => 2 ( Texas constraint ) X 2 + X 3 =< 1 ( foreign oil constraint ) X 6 + X 7 = 1 ( California constraint ) 480 X 1 + 540 X 2 + 680 X 3 + 1,000 X 4 + 700 X 5 + 510 X 6 + 900 X 7 =< 3,000 ( $3 million limit ) All variables must be 0 or 1 in value. The Model

126
Hawthorne Investments X3 = 1 X4 = 1 X5 = 1 X6 = 1 X1 = 0 X2 = 0 X7 = 0 Z = 360,000 Hawthorne should invest in Dutch Shell Dutch Shell Houston Drilling Texas Petroleum San Diego Oil and not in Trans-Texas Oil British Petroleum California Petro The expected return is $360,000.00 The Optimal Solution

127
0-1 Integer Programming Using Hawthorne Investments Problem

141
0-1 Integer Programming with QM for WINDOWS Hawthorne Investments Problem

148
Applied Management Science for Decision Making, 2e © 2014 Pearson Learning Solutions

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google