Application of Revised Simplex Method For Profit Maximization

Researchjournali’s Journal of Mathematics
Vol. 8 | No. 2 December | 2021 ISSN 2349-5375 1
Application Of Revised
Simplex Method For
Profit Maximization Ikpang Nkereuwem Ikpang
Department of Statistics, Akwa Ibom State University,
Mkpat Enin, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
In A Paint Company Itoro Michael Tim

Ekemini Udoudo George

Ekom-Obong Jackson Okon

Department of Statistics, University of Benin, Benin
City, Edo State, Nigeria
Daniel Edem Thompson

www.researchjournali.com
ABSTRACT
This paper applies the concept of revised simplex method with sensitivity analysis to Kingmos Paints Nig. Ltd.
Data on fifteen (15) different type of paints were obtained from the company. The analysis is carried out using
Linear, Interactive, and Discrete Optimizer (LINDO) software and the result shows that 17872 of Emulsion
Marine Paints, 2584 of Kingmos Acrylic Paints and 3647 of Kingmos Gloss Paints should be produced per
month respectively in order to make an optimum profit of N2466565. Sensitivity analysis is also carried out to
determine the optimality ranges within which the linear programming model parameters can vary without
affecting the current optimal solution.
Keywords: Revised Simplex Method, Sensitivity Analysis, Linear Programming, Optimality, LINDO
1. INTRODUCTION
Effective decision making in recent times for businesses and other sectors has become very tasking because
economic and socio-political factors are becoming more complex by the day while being faced with new and
unprecedented problems due to technological advancement. It is therefore necessary to address strategic issues
in a wider sense to achieve operational efficiency. Application of operational research techniques is of
importance to decision and policy makers. However, they should forestall expensive consequences associated
with wrong decisions by looking beyond intuitive knowledge and personal experiences. (Sharma, 2008)
Profit maximization of a product mix while maintaining standards is one basic concern of manufacturers. Thus,
in a more competitive environment, manufacturers are interested in optimizing production variables for better
financial performances and profitability. In Nigeria for instance, organizational entities are mostly managed by
nonprofessional but experienced managers, thereby limiting the use of modern managerial tools. Modern
scientific and verified methods of decision making are generally employed in recent times for resource
allocation and it can be very expensive to manage allocation without application of modern tools. Globally,
resource scarcity is a major constraint decision making regarding optimal products mix as well as profit
maximization (Albright and Winston, 2009; Arogundade and Adebiyi, 2011). Furthermore, Albright and
Winston (2009) buttress that modern linear programming modeling procedures are efficient for optimal product
mix and other optimization problems through appropriate problem formulation and equation fittings.
Savsar and Aldaihan (2011) noted that large number of possibilities make it difficult to take decisions in product
mix selection while resource unavailability makes it difficult for manufacturers to meet customer demand and
hence minimizes profits. Linear programming and other optimization models have been employed in product
mix selection problem. In most cases, linear programming (LP) techniques have been widely applied as an
optimization tool in different problem areas including production planning and product mix selection. Howbeit,
most work involves either theoretical development or hypothetical applications. Consequently, there is a need
to apply to real life problems, these theoretical formulations. Thus, this paper reflects one of those few
applications to real life situation of a manufacturing company in Nigeria.
In this paper, considering the fact that the demand for one product could be greater than the other we formulate
a linear programming problem using the Revised Simplex Method for product-mix optimization of paints
production in Nigeria.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD

The regular simplex method for solving linear programming problem requires large memory space for storing
the simplex when using a computer and may not be feasible for very large problems hence the revised simplex
method which is the simplex method modified. This method is economical because it stores only relevant
information needed for testing the current solution and improving it if necessary. The procedure needs only;
 The net evaluation row 𝛥𝑗 to determine the non-basic variable that enters the basis.
 The pivot column
 The current basis variables and their values (𝑋𝐵 column) to determine the minimum positive ratio and
then identify the basis variable to leave the basis.
Revised Simplex Method is an efficient computational procedure for solving an LPP with less labour. In this
method, we need not to compute all the value of 𝑋𝐵 , 𝑌𝑗 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑍𝑗 − 𝐶𝑗 at each iteration. The core computation is
rooted in the basis 𝐵 and its inverse 𝐵−1. The inverse of the next basis is computed directly from the current
basis without actually inverting the next basis. The current basis inverse and the original data of the problem
are used to determine the entering and departing vectors.
2.2 REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD IN STANDARD FORMS

There are two standard forms for revised simplex method
 Standard form I: In this form, an identity matrix is assumed to be obtained after introduction of only
slack variables.
 Standard form II: The two-phase method of ordinary simplex method is used to handle artificial
variables if artificial variables are needed for an identity matrix.
2.2.1 REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD IN STANDARD FORM 1

In standard form 1 of the revised simplex method, the objective function is also treated as another constraint.
With the result, we deal with (M+1) dimensional basis matrix 𝐵 instead of m  dimensional .
Consider the LP problem in its standard form
Max or Min z  c1 x1  c2 x2  ...  cn xn  0.xn1  0.xn2  ...  0.xn m (1)
Subject to the constraints
𝑎11 𝑥1 + 𝑎12 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎1𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+1 = 𝑏1
𝑎21 𝑥1 + 𝑎22 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎2𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+2 = 𝑏2 (2)
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
𝑎𝑚1 𝑥1 + 𝑎𝑚2 𝑥2 + ⋯ + 𝑎𝑚𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 = 𝑏𝑚
𝑥1 , 𝑥2 ⋯ 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 ≥ 0
In order to solve LP problem in equation (1) and (2) using revised simplex method, the objective function is
also considered as one of the constraints equation in which value of 𝑍 can be made as large as possible and
unrestricted in sign. Thus, the set of constraints can be written as:
𝑍 − 𝑐1 𝑥1 − 𝑐2 𝑥2 − ⋯ − 𝑐𝑛 𝑥𝑛 − 0. 𝑥𝑛+1 − 0. 𝑥𝑛+2 − ⋯ − 0. 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 = 0
𝑎11 𝑥1 + 𝑎12 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎1𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+1 = 𝑏1
𝑎21 𝑥1 + 𝑎22 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎2𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+2 = 𝑏2 (3)
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
𝑎𝑚1 𝑥1 + 𝑎𝑚2 𝑥2 + ⋯ + 𝑎𝑚𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 = 𝑏𝑚
𝑥1 , 𝑥2 ⋯ 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 ≥ 0
In matrix notations, the system of equation (3) can be expressed as
𝑍 − 𝑐𝑥 = 0
𝐴𝑥 = 𝑏
𝑥≥0
And in the system of equation (3), there are (𝑚 + 1) simultaneous linear equations in (𝑛 + 𝑚 + 1) variables
(𝑍, 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 ). The aim now is to solve equation (3) such that 𝑍 is as large as possible and unrestricted in
sign, subject to the condition 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … , 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 ≥ 0. By rewriting equation (3) in more symmetric notations as
follows, we get:
1. 𝑥0 + 𝑎01 𝑥1 + 𝑎02 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎0𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑎0,𝑛+1 𝑥𝑛+1 − 𝑎0,𝑛+2 𝑥𝑛+2 − ⋯ − 𝑎0,𝑛+𝑚 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 =0
0. 𝑥0 + 𝑎11 𝑥1 + 𝑎12 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎1𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+1 = 𝑏1
0. 𝑥0 + 𝑎21 𝑥1 + 𝑎22 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎2𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+2 = 𝑏2
0. 𝑥0 + 𝑎𝑚1 𝑥1 + 𝑎𝑚2 𝑥2 + ⋯ 𝑎𝑚𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝑥𝑛+𝑚 = 𝑏𝑚
Where 𝑍 = 𝑥0 and −𝑐𝑗 = 𝑎0𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, 2, … . , 𝑛 + 𝑚). In matrix notations it may be written as
1 a01 a02 ... a0 n a0,n1 ... a0,n m   x0   0 

0 a a12 ... a1n 1 ... 0   x1   b1 
 11
0 a21 a22 ... a2 n 0 ... 0   x2    b2 

    
    
0 am1 am 2 ... amn 0 ... 1   xn m  bm 
1 a0   x0  0
or  0 A   x   b  (4)
    
where, 𝑎0 = (𝑎01 , 𝑎02 , … . , 𝑎0,𝑛+𝑚 )
2.2.2 COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE FOR STANDARD FORM I
(1)
For the initial basis matrix in revised simplex method, the column 𝑎𝑗 which form the initial identity matrix 𝐼
are used. Since simplex method always start with an initial basis (identity) matrix 𝐵 of order 𝑚, therefore, for
the revised simplex method, the inverse of the initial basis matrix can be written as:
1 cB B 1  1 cB 
B 1 
  ; B  I m  B 1
0 B  0 I m  (5)
Furthermore, if columns of matrix 𝐴 form an initial basis matrix of order 𝑚 that corresponds to the slack or surplus
variables, then 𝑐𝐵𝑖 = 0 (𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑚). Thus equation (5) reduces to the form:
1 0 0 ... 0 
0 1 0 ... 0 
1 0  
B11     0 0 1 ... 0   I m1
0 I m   
 
0 0 0 ... 1 
This implies that the inverse of initial basis matrix 𝐵1 will be 𝐼𝑚+1 to start the revised procedure. The initial
basis solution is given by:
1 0   0   0 
xB(1)    b   b 
 0 I m   
This solution is feasible because the last 𝑚 − 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 are non-negative, and the first component 𝑍 can
have any sign.
After obtaining a feasible solution and the inverse (= 𝐼𝑚+1 ) of the initial basis matrix, 𝐵1−1, we need to improve
(1)
the solution by using the revised simplex method. For this, we first calculate 𝑐𝑗 − 𝑧𝑗 for each column 𝑎𝑗 not
(1) (1)
in the basis 𝐵1 , by taking scalar product of the first row of 𝐵1−1 with each 𝑎𝑗 . The vector 𝑎𝑘 to enter the
basis is determined by the criterion
𝑐𝑘 − 𝑧𝑘 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 {𝑐𝑗 − 𝑧𝑗 ; 𝑐𝑗 − 𝑧𝑗 > 0}, for all 𝑗
(1)
Since 𝑥0 (= 𝑍) is always desired in the basis, the first column 𝐵0 (= 𝑒 (1) ) of the initial basis matrix inverse
𝐵1−1 = 𝐼𝑚+1 will never be removed from the basis at any iteration. The vector to be removed from the basis is
determined by the criterion:
𝑥𝐵𝑟 𝑥𝐵𝑖
= 𝑚𝑖𝑛 { , 𝑦𝑖𝑘 > 0}, for all 𝑖
𝑦𝑟𝑘 𝑦𝑖𝑘
(1) (1) (1) 𝑧𝑘 − 𝑐𝑘
Where 𝑦𝑖𝑘 (𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑚) are the components of vector 𝑦𝑘 , and 𝑦𝑘 = 𝐵1−1 𝑎𝑘 = [ 𝑦 ]
𝑘
Since we start with an identity matrix 𝐵1 , the new inverse denoted by 𝐵̂0−1 shall be obtained by multiplying the
basis matrix inverse 𝐵0−1 at the previous iteration by an elementary matrix 𝐸, where 𝐸 is the inverse of an
identity matrix with 𝑟𝑡ℎ column replaced 𝑦𝑘 .
It should be noted that;
 If there is a tie in the selection of the key column, then choose the column from left to right that is the
smallest index 𝑗.
 A tie in selecting the outgoing vector can be broken by any of the methods discussed earlier.
2.3 LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEM (LPP)

Linear programming problem in its final form has a set of decision variables whose value need to be determined
and objective function that must be minimized or maximized and a set of constraints that must be satisfied by
the decision variable (Sharma, 2013).
2.3.1 STANDARD FORM OF LPP

 The standard form of the linear programming problem should have the following characteristics:
 The objective function should be of the maximization or minimization type.
 The right-hand side of each constraint should be made non-negative.
 All the constraints should be expressed as equations.
2.3.2 GENERAL STRUCTURE OF LP MODEL

The general structure of a linear programming model with 𝑛 decision variables and 𝑚 constraints takes the
form;
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝐷 = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑐𝑗 𝑥𝑗
𝑛
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐 𝑡𝑜 ∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑏𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1,2, … . , 𝑚

𝑗=1
𝑥𝑗 ≥ 0, 𝑗 = 1,2 … . , 𝑛
or in Matrix form as
Maximize 𝐷 = 𝑐𝑥
Subject to
𝐴𝑥 ≤ 𝑏
𝑥≥0
Where c is the gradient of the objective function,
𝑥1 𝑏1 0
𝑥2 𝑏2
𝑋 = [ ⋮ ] , 𝑏 = [ ] , 0 = [ 0]
⋮ ⋮
𝑥𝑛 𝑏𝑛 0
𝑎11 𝑎12 ⋯ 𝑎1𝑛
𝑎21 𝑎22 ⋯ 𝑎2𝑛
𝐴=[ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ]
𝑎𝑚1 𝑎𝑚2 ⋯ 𝑎𝑚𝑛
3. DATA COLLECTION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The data used in this study is obtained from Kingmos Paints Nig. Ltd., Nsit Ibom, Akwa Ibom Sate.
Data obtained are on;
(i) Maximum sales for the variables under consideration.
(ii) Maximum production for each of the variables under consideration.
(iii) Maximum raw materials available for production.
The data is as given in Appendix 1.
We express the given problem in the revised simplex form by considering the objective function as one of the
constraints, and adding the slack and surplus variables, if needed, to the inequalities in order to convert them
into equalities.
Step 1: Define/Identify the original column vector (Pn ) and the coefficient matrix Cn of the objective row.
Step 2: Calculate the new value of column vector (Pn′ ) for the non-basic variables and the X B which is the RHS
column vector. Pn′ = B −1 ∗ 𝑃𝑛 where B −1 is the inverse of original column of basic variables and 𝑃𝑛 is the
original value of the column vector.
Step 3: Identify the new basic variable (if exists) by calculating the (Cn′ ) value for non-basic variables. Cn′ =
Cn − CB ∗ Pn′ where Cn′ is the new value of coefficient of objective row; Cn is the original value of coefficient
of objective function; CB is the value of coefficient of Basic variable in the objective row. Any Cn′ that has the
smallest value is the New Entering Variable.
Step 4: Finding the exiting row using the (X B′ ) and the new value of the (Pn′ ) by calculating the ratio of the
corresponding elements. The one with the smallest positive value is the leaving variable.
Step 5: Repeat Step 2, 3, 4 until no other new basic variables can be identified.
3.1 MODEL FORMULATION

A maximization type of the linear programming problems is formulated since the objective is to maximize the
profit by reducing cost of production.
The model is given as:
15
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑌 = ∑ 𝑝𝑗 𝑥𝑗
𝑗=1
15
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 ∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑏𝑖
𝑗=1
𝑥𝑗 ≥ 0, 𝑗 = 1, … . ,15, 𝑖 = 1,2, … . 11
where 𝑌 is the objective function.
𝑥𝑗 represents the types of Paint to be produced.
𝑝𝑗 represents the profit contribution per Paint produced.
𝑏𝑖 represents the maximum values for the production constraints.
The decision variables are defined as follows: EMP( x1 ), EPI ( x2 ) , KAP ( x3 ) , GBWP ( x4 ) , KTP ( x5 ) , SP ( x6 ) , AP
( x7 ) , LP ( x8 ) , EMP ( x9 ) , KGP ( x10 ) , TP ( x11 ) , VEP ( x12 ) , IEP ( x13 ) , CTME ( x14 ) , GB ( x15 ).
3.2 LINEAR PROGRAMMING MODEL FOR KINGMOS PAINTS NIG. LTD.
The Linear Programming Model for Kingmos Paints Nig. Ltd. formulated above is given as follows:
Maximize Z = 100x1 + 70x2 + 150x3 + 70x4 + 80x5 + 110x6 + 120x7 + 90x8 + 100x9 + 80x10 + 50x11 + 120x12 +110x13 +
80x14 + 125x15
Subject to
10x1 + 5x2 + 6x3 + 10x4 + 11x5 + 12x6 + 3x7 + 2x8 + 5x9 + 10x10 + 11x11 + 12x12 + 9x13 + 8x14 + 16x15 <= 1000000
(Water Constraints)
(Binder Resin Constraints)
(Titamin dioxide Constraints)
(Colouring Paste Constraints)
100x1 + 201x2 + 70x3 + 80x4 + 70x5 + 80x6 + 60x7 + 30x8 + 70x9 + 60x10 + 80x11 + 70x12 + 80x13 + 80x14 + 100x15 <=
4000000 (Labour Constraints)
(Pigment Colouring Constraints)
(Transportation Constraints)
50x1 + 30x2 + 20x3 + 50x4 + 40x5 + 50x6 + 35x7 + 40x8 + 27x9 + 15x10 + 39x11 + 40x12 + 50x13 28x14 + 60x15 <= 1000000
(Sand Constraints)
100x1 + 150x2 + 300x3 + 200x4 + 350x5 + 400x6 + 400x7 + 300x8 + 500x9 + 120x10 + 390x11 + 450x12 + 550x13 + 200x14 +
500x15 <= 3000000 (Storage Constraints)
150x1 + 200x2 + 200x3 + 250x4 + 150x5 + 200x6 + 500x7 + 350x8 + 200x9 + 220x10 + 320x11 + 350x12 + 550x13 + 400x14 +
620x15 <= 4000000 (Calcium Carbonate)
(Kerosene Constraint)
3.3 SOLUTION OF LPP USING REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD

Express the given problem in standard form
Maximize Z = 100x1 + 70x2 + 150x3 + 70x4 + 80x5 + 110x6 + 120x7 + 90x8 + 100x9 + 80x10 + 50x11 + 120x12 +110x13 +
80x14 + 125x15
Rewriting:
Z - 100x1 + 70x2 + 150x3 + 70x4 + 80x5 + 110x6 + 120x7 + 90x8 + 100x9 + 80x10 + 50x11 + 120x12 +110x13 + 80x14 + 125x15
=0
Subject to
10x1 + 5x2 + 6x3 + 10x4 + 11x5 + 12x6 + 3x7 + 2x8 + 5x9 + 10x10 + 11x11 + 12x12 + 9x13 + 8x14 + 16x15 + S1 = 1000000
100x1 + 201x2 + 70x3 + 80x4 + 70x5 + 80x6 + 60x7 + 30x8 + 70x9 + 60x10 + 80x11 + 70x12 + 80x13 + 80x14 + 100x15 + S5=
4000000
50x1 + 30x2 + 20x3 + 50x4 + 40x5 + 50x6 + 35x7 + 40x8 + 27x9 + 15x10 + 39x11 + 40x12 + 50x13 28x14 + 60x15 + S8 = 1000000
100x1 + 150x2 + 300x3 + 200x4 + 350x5 + 400x6 + 400x7 + 300x8 + 500x9 + 120x10 + 390x11 + 450x12 + 550x13 + 200x14 +
500x15 + S9 = 3000000
150x1 + 200x2 + 200x3 + 250x4 + 150x5 + 200x6 + 500x7 + 350x8 + 200x9 + 220x10 + 320x11+ 350x12 + 550x13 + 400x14 +
620x15 + S10 = 4000000
50x1 + 30x2 + 50x3 + 70x4 + 70x5 + 60x6 + 90x7 + 70x8 + 80x9 + 50x10 + 70x11 + 90x12 + 75x13 + 71x14 + 80x15 + S11 =
3000000
Step 1: Define/Identify the original column vector (𝐏𝐧 ) and the coefficient matrix 𝐂𝐧 of the objective row.
𝑷𝒏 =
Step 2: Calculate the new value of column vector (Pn′ ) for the non-basic variables and the X B which is the RHS
column vector. Pn′ = B −1 ∗ 𝑃𝑛
that is, P1′ = B −1 ∗ 𝑃1 , P2′ = B −1 ∗ 𝑃2 , P3′ = B −1 ∗ 𝑃3 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑛, where B −1 is the inverse of original
column of basic variables and 𝑃𝑛 is the original value of column vector.
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000000
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1200000
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2500000
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500000
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4000000
𝐵= 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 𝐵 −1 XB = 2000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 900000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4000000
[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1] [3000000]
Step 3: Identify the new basic variable (if exists) by calculating the (Cn′ ) value for non-basic variables. Cn′ =
Cn − CB ∗ Pn′ where Cn′ is the new value of coefficient of objective row; Cn is the original value of coefficient
of objective function; CB is the value of coefficient of Basic variable in the objective row. Any Cn′ that has the
smallest value is the New Entering Variable.
Cn = [100 70 150 70 80 110 120 90 100 80 50 120 110 80 125]
CB 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑆1 , 𝑆2 , 𝑆3 … 𝑆11 = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]
that is, C1′ = C1 − CB ∗ P1′ , C2′ = C2 − CB ∗ P2′ , C3′ = C1 − CB ∗ P3′ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜 𝑜𝑛.
Step 4: Finding the exiting row using the (X B′ ) and the new value of the (Pn′ ) by calculating the ratio of the
corresponding elements. The one with the smallest positive value is the leaving variable.
1000000
1200000
2500000
1500000
4000000
XB = 2000000 = 𝑋𝐵1 = 𝐵 −1 ∗ XB
900000
1000000
3000000
4000000
[3000000]
Step 5: Repeat Step 2, 3, 4 until no other new basic variables can be identified.
The LINDO software is employed in solving the problem and the underlying algorithm in LINDO is Revised
Simplex Method with Product Form Inverse.
3.4 RESULT FROM LINDO
Fig.1: The Problem in LINDO Graphical User Interface
Fig. 2: The report window in LINDO showing optimum solution
Fig.3: The report window in LINDO showing sensitivity analysis

From Fig. 2, the optimum value is obtained after three (3) iterations in producing an optimum profit of
N2466565; and that 17872 (x1), 2584(x3) and 3647 (x10) respectively contributing to the maximum profit of
N2466565. LINDO automatically introduces slack or surplus variables to convert inequality constraints into
equalities. Eleven surplus or slack variables are introduced. From ROW 3 of Fig. 2 , we notice that there is a
slack of 693921.0 returned on Binder Resin Constraints. This means, in order to satisfy all the requirements of
the model, we had to have 693921.0 than required available. This is also applicable to other slack or surplus
variables.
Thus, fig.2 tells us that it is not optimal to include any corresponding paints of X2, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, X9, X11,
X12, X13, X14, X15 in the mix. Moreover, if we insist on having any type of paint that is not in the solution, we
should increase their respective objective function value by the corresponding reduced cost value. Also, from
Fig.2 the Dual Price for each constraint is the amount by which the optimal objective would improve given a
unit increase in the right hand side of the constraint. Thus for every unit of increase in the following constraints
for sand, storage and calcium carbonate, the cost of of the optimal mix will increase by 0.972644, 0.372340
and 0.094225 respectively. That the dual price for the other constraints equals 0 are the consequence of the fact
that the optimal mix already exceeds the requirement by their margin values (slack or surplus column values).
In the objective coefficient ranges block of Fig.3, we see the amount by which each variable’s objective function
coefficient may be changed before the current basis becomes suboptimal (assuming all other LP parameters are
held constant). We observe that changing the objective function coefficient for the following variables, the
current basis remains optimal if and only if;
x1: 61.90476 = 100.0 − 38.095242 ≤ Objective coefficient for x1 ≤ 100.0 + 73.809525 = 173.809525
x2: −∞ ≤ Objective coefficient for x2 ≤ 100.0 + 73.809525
x3: 150.0 − 64.137215 ≤ Objective coefficient for x3 ≤ 150.0 + 34.444443
x10: 80.0 − 11.923077 ≤ Objective coefficient for x10 ≤ 80.0 + 64.0
From Fig. 3, we also examine the ranges for the original RHS constants. The block labeled right hand side
ranges gives information concerning the amount by which a right-hand side can be changed before the current
basis becomes infeasible (all other LP parameters are constant). The current RHS columns give the current
right-hand side of each constraint. If changing the following constraints (all other LP parameters remain
constant), the current basis remains optimal if and only if;
ROW 2: 1000000.0 − 769300.937500 ≤ water constraints ≤ ∞
ROW 3: 1200000.0 − 693921.0 ≤ binder resin constraints ≤ ∞
ROW 4: 2500000.0 − 2172796.250 ≤ titamin dioxide constraints ≤ ∞
ROW 5: 1500000.0 − 1054711.250 ≤ colouring paste constraints ≤ ∞
ROW 6: 4000000.0 − 1813069.8750 ≤ Labour constraints ≤ ∞
ROW 7: 2000000.0 − 1817173.250 ≤ pigment Colouring constraints ≤ ∞
ROW 8: 900000.0 − 673373.8750 ≤ transportationconstraints ≤ ∞
ROW 9: 1000000.0 − 700000.0 ≤ sand constraints ≤ 1000000.0 + 240000.0
ROW 10: 3000000.0 − 485714.31250 ≤ storage constraints ≤ 3000000.0 + 857142.8750
ROW 11: 4000000.0 – 461538.468750 ≤ calcium carbonate constraints ≤ 4000000.0 + 944444.437500
ROW 12: 3000000.0 − 1794832.875000 ≤ Kerosene constraints ≤ ∞
4. CONCLUSION
We gave a solution of an LP problem using the Revised Simplex Method assisted by the use of LINDO Software
with sensitivity analysis. The revised simplex method is a more efficient approach in solving LP problems on
the basis of time consumed and avoiding the use of sparse matrices. Kingmos Paints Nig, Ltd. and other
companies should employ the principles of linear programming techniques to ensure optimal production
planning.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Albright, S. C. and Winston, W. L. (2009). Management science modeling, 3rd revised ed. South-Western. Mason, Ohio.
[2] Arogundade, K. K and Adebiyi, S. O (2011). Operations and production management for management sciences, Vol. 2. Ado-Ekiti.
PETOA Educational Publisher.
[3] Savsar, M., and Aldaihani, M. (2011, May). Optimum Product Mix Selection from Waste Oil: A Linear Programming Application.
In 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium.

[4] Sharma, J. K. (2008) Operations research; theory and applications, 3rd edition. India: Macmillan, Indian Ltd. New Delhi.
[5] Sharma, J.K. (2013) Operations Research Theory and Application 4th edition. Macmillan publishers India Ltd. New Delhi.
6. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Selling Price, Cost of Production per unit Portion, Profit for each Variables, with the Corresponding Approximated
Weighted per unit Variables used
(N) (N) (N)
Variables Weighted Per
Selling Price Per Cost of production Profit per
20litre (kg)
20litre per 20litre 20litre
Emulsion Marine Paint 2800 2700 100 25
Emulsion Pale Ivory 3000 2930 70 25
Gloss Brilliant White Paint 2900 2750 150 15
Kingmos Trowel Paint 3100 3030 70 30
Gloss Buttermilk 3200 3120 80 20
Satinwood 2800 2690 110 25
Kingmos Acrylic paint 3000 2880 120 25
Alkyd Paint 2900 2810 90 22
Latex Paint 3300 3200 100 30
Exterior Masonry Paint 3200 3120 80 15
Kingmos Gloss Paint 3100 3050 50 30
Texture Paint 2950 2830 120 28
Vinlymall Emulsion Paint 3000 2890 110 25
Intra emulsion paint 3300 3220 80 25
Crown Trade Mid-sheen Emulsion 3400 3275 125 25
Appendix 2: Maximum Daily Sales and Production
Quantity produced in
Variables Maximum sales in (kg)
portions
Emulsion Marine Paint 1320 1320 @ 25 = 33000
Emulsion Pale Ivory 1230 1230 @ 25 = 30750
Gloss Brilliant White Paint 900 900 @ 15 = 13500
Kingmos Trowel Paint 2000 2000 @ 30 = 60000
Gloss Buttermilk 2300 2300 @ 20 = 46000
Satinwood 1130 1130 @ 25 = 28250
Kingmos Acrylic Paint 1222 1222 @ 25 = 30550
Alkyd Paint 1300 1300 @ 22 = 28600
Latex Paint 2000 2000 @ 30 = 60000
Exterior Masonry Paint 1100 1100 @ 15 = 16500
Kingmos Gloss Paint 1560 1560 @ 30 = 46800
Texture Paint 2020 2020 @ 28 = 56560
Vinlymall Emulsion Paint 1330 1330 @ 25 = 33250
Intra emulsion paint 1330 1330 @ 25 = 33250
Crown Trade Mid-sheen Emulsion 1420 1420 @ 25 = 35500
Appendix 3: Summary of Data of Kingmos Paints Nig. Ltd.
Resource usage per paint

Maximum
GBWP
CTME
EMP
EMP
KAP
KTP
VEP
EPI
IEP
KG
Amount
GB
AP
LP
TP
SP
Raw Materials
Available
Water 10 5 6 10 11 12 3 2 5 10 11 12 9 8 16 1000000
Binder Resin 25 13 6 10 11 17 19 2 3 12 14 3 14 13 5 1200000
Titamin dioxide 15 22 13 10 15 6 9 10 11 7 3 17 13 6 20 2500000
Colouring Paste 20 6 10 9 11 8 10 20 22 17 20 12 21 37 31 1500000
Labour 100 201 70 80 70 80 60 30 70 60 80 70 80 80 100 4000000
Pigment 5 7 15 20 15 30 15 25 10 15 11 15 16 27 80 2000000
Transportation 7 3 4 14 15 12 16 20 19 25 11 15 16 28 10 900000
Sand 50 30 20 50 40 50 35 40 27 15 39 40 50 28 60 1000000
Storage 100 150 300 200 350 400 400 300 500 120 39 450 550 200 500 3000000
Calcium Carbonate 150 200 200 250 150 200 500 350 200 220 320 350 550 400 620 4000000
Kerosene 50 30 50 70 70 60 90 70 80 50 70 90 75 71 80 3000000
Profit Contribution
100 70 150 70 80 110 120 90 100 80 50 120 110 80 125
per Paint

Application of Revised Simplex Method For Profit Maximization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Revised Simplex Method For Profit Maximization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Researchjournali’s Journal of Mathematics

Vol. 8 | No. 2 December | 2021 ISSN 2349-5375 1

In A Paint Company Itoro Michael Tim

Ekemini Udoudo George

Ekom-Obong Jackson Okon

Daniel Edem Thompson

2.1 REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD

2.2 REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD IN STANDARD FORMS

2.2.1 REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD IN STANDARD FORM 1

1 a01 a02 ... a0 n a0,n1 ... a0,n m   x0   0 

0 a21 a22 ... a2 n 0 ... 0   x2    b2 

2.3 LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEM (LPP)

2.3.1 STANDARD FORM OF LPP

2.3.2 GENERAL STRUCTURE OF LP MODEL

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐 𝑡𝑜 ∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 ≤ 𝑏𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1,2, … . , 𝑚

3. DATA COLLECTION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Data obtained are on;

(ii) Maximum production for each of the variables under consideration.

(iii) Maximum raw materials available for production.

The data is as given in Appendix 1.

3.1 MODEL FORMULATION

3.3 SOLUTION OF LPP USING REVISED SIMPLEX METHOD

Fig.1: The Problem in LINDO Graphical User Interface

Fig. 2: The report window in LINDO showing optimum solution

Fig.3: The report window in LINDO showing sensitivity analysis

In 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium.

Resource usage per paint

You might also like