Linear Programming:

Duality
 Revisiting Problem 1
Automotive Products Ltd. manufactures two auto-components,
Cam shaft (C1) and Pump Shaft (C2), which are used in the
automobile industry. Each unit of C1 requires 3 hours of
machining on a special lathe and 3 hours of assembly, while each
unit of C2 requires 2 hours of machining and 1 hour of assembly.
The two components C1 and C2 also require special grade alloy
steel of 1 kg and 3 kg respectively. The Company has 300 kg of
special grade alloy steel available. The total machine and
assembly hours available are 240 and 180 respectively. The
respective profit contributions are: $25 per unit of C1 and $18 per
unit of C2. Formulate the above as a linear programming problem.
 LP Formulation: Problem 1

We formulated Automotive Products’ problem as

the following product mix LP:

Max z1 = 25x1 + 18x2

s.t.
3x1 + 2x2 ≤ 240
3x1 + x2 ≤ 180
x1 + 3x2 ≤ 300
x1 , x2 ≥ 0
 Problem 1: An Alternate View
Suppose Automotive Products Ltd. doesn’t want to produce
Components C1 and C2, but would like to sell machine hours,
assembly hours and kg of special alloy grade steel. It would like
to know the minimum prices it can charge for each of the three
resources it possesses so that it is not worse off than producing
the components. This can be formulated as another linear
programming problem with three decision variables:

y1 = price to be charged per machine hour

y2 = price to be charged per assembly hour
y3 = price to be charged per kg of special steel
Alternate Formulation: Problem 1

In the Alternate view, Automotive Products’

problem is formulated as the following pricing
problem:

Min z2 = 240y1 + 180y2 + 300y3

s.t.
3y1 + 3y2 + y3 ≥ 25
2y1 + y2 + 3y3 ≥ 18
y1 , y 2 , y 3 ≥ 0
 Primal and Dual
Every LP has its corresponding Dual. The LP that
we start with is called the Primal and the dual of
the Dual is the Primal. The Dual is linked to the
Primal and these links (called Duality Results) are
useful in finding managerial implications and
carrying out “What if” analysis.
 Primal and Dual
Corresponding to every primal constraint is a
decision variable in the dual and vice versa.
Corresponding to every primal decision variable is
a constraint in the dual and vice versa.
In general, if the Primal is read “Horizontally”, the
Dual can be read “Vertically” from the same LP – in
other words one is a transpose of the other. More
specifically, we can use the Tucker’s Tableau if the
Primal is written in the Standard Form.
Primal and Dual: Tucker’s Tableau
PRIMAL Coefficients in the
Dual objective
Variables x1 ≥ 0 x2 ≥ 0 Relation function

y1 ≥ 0 3 2 ≤ 240

DUAL y2 ≥ 0 3 1 ≤ 180

y3 ≥ 0 1 3 ≤ 300

Relation ≥ ≥ Minimise

Coefficients in the 25 18 Maximise

Primal objective
function
 The Standard Form
In the Standard Form,
If the objective function is a maximising function,
write all constraints as “less than or equal to”
constraints
If the objective function is a minimising function,
write all constraints as “greater than or equal
to” constraints
Since each constraint in any LP has to be either a
“less than or equal to”, or a “greater than or
equal to” or an “equal to” constraint, any LP
can be written in the Standard Form.
 Writing the Dual: An Example

Write the Dual of the Rewriting the LP in the

following LP: standard form:

Max z1 = 25x1 + 18x2 Max z1 = 25x1 + 18x2

s.t. s.t.
3x1 + 2x2 ≥ 240 -3x1 - 2x2 ≤ -240
3x1 + x2 ≤ 180 3x1 + x2 ≤ 180
x1 + 3x2 = 300 x1 + 3x2 ≤ 300
x1 , x2 ≥ 0 -x1 - 3x2 ≤ -300
x1 , x2 > 0
Primal and Dual: Tucker’s Tableau
PRIMAL Coefficients in the
Dual objective
Variables x1 ≥ 0 x2 ≥ 0 Relation function
y1 ≥ 0 -3 -2 ≤ -240
DUAL y2 ≥ 0 3 1 ≤ 180
y3 ≥ 0 1 3 ≤ 300
y4 ≥ 0 -1 -3 ≤ -300
Relation ≥ ≥ Minimise
Coefficients in the 25 18 Maximise
Primal objective
function
 Writing the Dual: An Example

So the Dual becomes:

Min z2 = – 240y1 + 180y2 + 300y3 – 300y4

s.t.
– 3y1 + 3y2 + y3 – y4 ≥ 25
– 2y1 + y2 + 3y3 – 3y4 ≥ 18
y1 , y2 , y3 , y4 ≥ 0
 Duality Results
Result 1: For any feasible solution of the Primal
and any feasible solution of the Dual, the value
of the objective function of the primal
(maximising) problem is always less than or
equal to the value of the objective function of
the dual (minimising) problem.
Result 2: If we have the optimal solutions of the
primal and the dual, the two corresponding
objective function values are equal.
 Duality Results
Result 3: If we have a feasible solution of the
primal and a feasible solution of the dual and
further, if the value of the two objective
functions corresponding to these solutions are
equal then the two feasible solutions are also
optimal for the primal and the dual
respectively.
Result 4: In the primal optimal, if any constraint is
non-binding, the corresponding dual variable is
equal to zero.
 Duality Results
Result 5: In the primal optimal, if any decision
variable is strictly positive the corresponding
dual constraint must be binding.
Result 6: If any of the primal constraint is an
equality, the corresponding dual variable is
unrestricted in sign.
 Interpreting the Dual Variable
If Automotive Products had access to one
more hour of machining time, the LP
would be modified to:
Max z1 = 25x1 + 18x2
s.t.
3x1 + 2x2 < 240 + 1
3x1 + x2 < 180
x1 + 3x2 < 300
x1 , x2 > 0
 Interpreting the Dual Variable
And the corresponding dual would be
modified to:
Min z2 = (240+1)y1 + 180y2 + 300y3
s.t.
3y1 + 3y2 + y3 > 25
2y1 + y2 + 3y3 > 18
y1 , y 2 , y 3 > 0
 Interpreting the Dual Variable
In the dual, the feasible region remains
unchanged and so if the increase in machine
hours is small, the same corner point of the
dual would continue to be optimal.
Therefore, the dual optimal objective
function value (z2*) would increase by y1*,
where y1* is the optimal value of y1.
 Interpreting the Dual Variable
As optimal objective function values of
primal and dual are equal, the primal
optimal objective function value (z1*) would
also increase by y1*.
Hence, the optimal value of y1* captures the
rate of increase in the optimal primal
objective function value (z1*)for a unit
increase in the RHS of constraint 1.
The optimal value of y1* is also called the
shadow price for constraint 1.
Outdoors, Inc.
Outdoors, Inc.
Outdoors, Inc.
Outdoors, Inc.
Outdoors, Inc.
Outdoors, Inc.
Outdoors, Inc.
 Outdoors, Inc. - Questions

a) What is the optimal production mix? What

contribution can the firm anticipate by producing this
mix?
b) What is the value of one unit more of tube-bending
time? Of welding time? Of metal tubing?
c) Outdoors, Inc., has a chance to sell some of its capacity
in tube bending at a cost of $1.50 an hour. If it sells 200
hours at that price, how will this affect contribution?
d) If the contribution on chairs were to decrease to $2.50,
what would be the optimal production mix, and what
contribution would this production plan give?
 Outdoors, Inc. - Questions

e) The R&D department has been redesigning the bench

to make it more profitable. The new design will require
1.1 units of tube bending time, 2 hours of welding, and
2.0 pounds of metal tubing. If they can sell one unit of
this bench with a unit contribution of $3, what effect
will it have on overall contribution?
f) Marketing has suggested a new patio awning that
would require 1.8 units of tube-bending time, 0.5 units
of welding time, and 1.3 pounds of metal tubing. What
contribution must this new product have to make it
attractive to produce this season?
 Outdoors, Inc. - Questions

g) If Outdoors, Inc., feels that it must produce at least 100

benches to round out its product line, what effect will
that have on its contribution?
h) A local distributor has offered to sell Outdoors, Inc.
some additional metal tubing for 60 cents a pound.
Should Outdoors buy it? If yes, how much would their
contribution increase if they bought 500 pounds and
used it in an optimal fashion?