See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349110457

A Study of Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Programming problem and its

Implementation in Real Life.

Article · December 2017

CITATION READS

1 5,814

3 authors, including:

Md. Anwarul Islam Bhuiyan Shek Ahmed

4 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
University of Barisal
9 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shek Ahmed on 08 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


A Study of Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Programming Problem and its
Implementation in Real life
Tanzila Yeasmin Nilu1, Shek Ahmed and M. A. I. Bhuiyan
Abstract— The purpose of this paper is to implement
the concept of Sensitivity Analysis (SA) of Linear
Programming Problems (LPPs) in real life. By using
this post optimality analysis one can decide how to
change in the cost coefficients, changes in the right side
of the constraints, changes in the coefficients of the
constraints, addition of a new variable, addition of a
new constraints and deletion of a variable. We
demonstrate our post optimality test by changing
various parameters on the optimal solution of a LPP. If
the number of decision variables and constraints for
LPP is large then it will be very difficult and time
consuming to discuss the Sensitivity Analysis
manually. For this purpose we have also developed
computer code using LINDO to describe the test. In
this paper we consider a production planning problem
of a company to discuss the analysis.
Index Terms— Feasible Solution, Linear
Programming Problem, LINDO, Optimal Solution,
Sensitivity Analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
S
ENSITIVITY analysis plays a crucial role to
discuss the variation of different parameters in
Linear Programming Problem. It gives a direct
test of optimality of a particular problem due to
the change of a component of cost or requirement
vector. It works as a decisive step in the model building
and result communication process. Through SA we
gain essential insights on the model behavior, on its
structure and on its response to changes in the model
inputs. There is a very wide range of uses to which
Sensitivity Analysis is introduced. There are four main
categories to discuss Sensitivity Analysis such as
decision making or improvement of recommendations
for decision makers, communication, increase
understanding or quantification of the system, and
model development.
Linear Programming, sometimes known as linear
optimization, is the problem of maximizing or
minimizing a linear function over a convex polyhedron
specified by linear and non-negativity constraints. LPP
is the optimization of an outcome based on some set of
constraints using a linear mathematical model.
Optimization problems arise in all branches of
Economics, Finance, Chemistry, Materials Science,
GUBJSE: ISSN: 2409-0476
Astronomy, Physics, Structural and Molecular
Biology, Engineering, Computer Science and
Medicine. LPP is a mathematical method for
determining a way to achieve the best outcome (such
as maximum profit or lowest cost) in a
given mathematical model for some list of
requirements represented as linear relationships. More
formally, Linear programming is a technique for
the optimization of a linear objective function subject
to linear equality and inequality constraints.
It’s feasible region is a convex polyhedron, which is a
set defined as the intersection of finitely many half
spaces, each of which is defined by a linear inequality.
Its objective function is a real-valued affine
function defined on this polyhedron. A linear
programming algorithm finds a point in the polyhedron
where this function has the smallest (or largest) value
if such a point exists.
LINDO (Linear, Interactive, and Discrete Optimizer) is
a software package for linear programming, integer
programming, nonlinear programming, stochastic
programming and global optimization. LINDO also
creates "What's Best!" which is an add-in for linear,
integer and nonlinear optimization. First released for
Lotus 1-2-3 and later also for Microsoft Excel.
Objective of this paper is to discuss the effect on
optimality by changing the various parameters of a
LPP.
II. PRELIMINARIES
In this section we discuss some basic definitions and
techniques relevant to our work.
A. Linear Programming Problem (LPP) [4]
The Linear Programming Problem (LPP) is to find the
decision variables 𝑥𝑗 , (𝑗 = 1,2, … …. …. , 𝑛) which
is optimizing (minimizing or maximizing) the
objective function.
The general mathematical form of a (LP) problem is as
follows:
Optimize 𝑍 = 𝑐1 𝑥1 + 𝑐2 𝑥2 + . … . + 𝑐𝑛 𝑥𝑛
Subject to: 𝑎11 𝑥1 + … . + 𝑎1𝑛 𝑥𝑛 (≤, =, ≥) 𝑏1
𝑎21 𝑥1 + … . + 𝑎2𝑛 𝑥𝑛 (≤, =, ≥) 𝑏2
… … … … … …
… … … … … …
𝑎𝑚1 𝑥1 +. .. + 𝑎𝑚𝑛 𝑥𝑛 (≤, =, ≥) 𝑏𝑚
𝑥𝑗 ≥ 0 , 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑗 = 1,2, … … , 𝑛
Green University Press 1
FIRST AUTHOR LAST NAME ET AL: TITLE OF THE PAPER IN 7 FONT SIZE

Where one and only one of the signs ≤ , = , ≥ holds for Case (i):
each constraints and the sign may vary from one
At the optimal table all 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 ≥ 0 (For maximization
constraint to another. The coefficients 𝑐𝑗 , (𝑗 =
problem).
1,2, …. , 𝑛) are called profit (or cost) coefficients.
The constants 𝑏𝑖 , (𝑖 = 1,2 …. , 𝑚) in the constraints Let ∆𝑐𝑗 be the amount to be added to 𝑐𝑗 corresponding
conditions are called the stipulations and the constants to a non-basic variable 𝑥𝑗 . For discrete change of the
𝑎𝑖𝑗 , (𝑖 = 1,2 …. , 𝑚, 𝑗 = 1,2, … …. …. , 𝑛) are cost component 𝑐𝑗 the simplex table remains optimal
called the structural coefficients. proved,
In matrix form 𝐸𝑗 − (𝑐𝑗 + ∆𝑐𝑗 ) ≥ 0
Optimize 𝑍 = 𝑐𝑇 𝑥 ⇒ 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 ≥ ∆ 𝑐𝑗 … … … (𝑖)
Subject to 𝐴𝑥 = 𝑏 From (i), we can say that there is no lower bound of ∆𝑐𝑗
and 𝑥 ≥ 0. and any change of 𝑐𝑗 does not change the value of the
objective function since 𝑥𝑗 = 0 (non-basic variable).
B. Sensitivity Analysis [18]
Case (ii):
The study of the effect of discrete changes in
parameters on the optimal solution is called sensitivity Let 𝑥𝑘 = 𝑥𝐵𝑟 be the 𝑟-th component of basic variable
analysis or post-optimality analysis, while that of (𝑟 = 1,2, … … … , 𝑚) and the cost component 𝑐𝑘 = 𝑐𝐵𝑟
continuous changes in parameters is called parametric corresponding to 𝑥𝑘 changes to 𝑐𝐵𝑟 + ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 .
programming. Now the change of 𝑐𝑘 effects all 𝐸𝑗 , for all 𝑗 in the basis.
Sensitivity analysis plays a main job to discuss the Now due to the changes of 𝑐𝑘 ,
nature in linear programming problem. It gives a direct 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 = 𝑐𝐵 𝑦𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 [𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑗 ∉ 𝐵] = ∑𝑚 𝑖=1 𝑐𝐵𝑖 𝑦𝑖𝑗 −
test of sensitivity of a particular problem due to the 𝑖≠𝑟
variation of a component of cost or requirement vector 𝑐𝑗 + (𝑐𝐵𝑟 + ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 )𝑦𝑟𝑗 = ∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑐𝐵𝑖 𝑦𝑖𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 + 𝑐𝐵𝑟 𝑦𝑟𝑗
etc. Mainly sensitivity analysis is in general a post- = 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 + ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 𝑦𝑟𝑗
optimality test. It determines the range of a component for optimal solution, we must have all 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 ≥ 0 for
of the cost or requirement vector when all other all 𝑗 ∉ 𝐵.
component remain unchanged, so that the optimal
solution remains unaffected. Such type of change is Thus 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 + ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 𝑦𝑟𝑗 ≥ 0, If 𝑦𝑟𝑗 = 0 for some 𝑗,
called a discrete change. then 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 + ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 𝑦𝑟𝑗 = 𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 ≥ 0
−(𝐸𝑗 −𝑐𝑗 )
For 𝑦𝑟𝑗 ≤ 0, ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 ≤ … … … (𝑖𝑖) also for
𝑦𝑟𝑗
III. MEASUREMENT OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
−(𝐸𝑗 −𝑐𝑗 )
[17] 𝑦𝑟𝑗 > 0, ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 ≥ … … … (𝑖𝑖𝑖)
𝑦𝑟𝑗
To clarify the Sensitivity Analysis, we will discuss the Combining these two conditions in (𝑖𝑖) and (𝑖𝑖𝑖) we
following modifications: can say that the optimal basis remains unaffected if
∆𝑐𝑘 = ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 lies in the interval given below,
 Changes in the cost coefficients 𝑐𝑗 .
−(𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 )
 Changes in the right hand side of the max { , 𝑦𝑟𝑗 > 0} ≤ ∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 = ∆𝑐𝑘
𝑗 𝑦𝑟𝑗
constraints 𝑏𝑖 . −(𝐸𝑗 − 𝑐𝑗 )
 Change in the coefficients of the constraints ≤ min{ , 𝑦𝑟𝑗 < 0}
𝑗 𝑦𝑟𝑗
𝑎𝑖𝑗 . −(𝐸𝑗 −𝑐𝑗 )
or, max { , 𝑦𝑟𝑗 > 0} ≤ ∆𝑐𝑘 ≤
 Addition of a new variable. 𝑗 𝑦𝑟𝑗
−(𝐸𝑗 −𝑐𝑗 )
 Deletion of a variable. min{ , 𝑦𝑟𝑗 < 0} … … … (𝑖𝑣)
𝑗 𝑦𝑟𝑗
 Addition of a new constraint for all 𝑗 ∉ 𝐵. If no 𝑦𝑟𝑗 > 0, there is no upper bound of
 Deletion of a constraint. ∆𝑐𝑘 and if no 𝑦𝑟𝑗 < 0, there is no lower bound of ∆𝑐𝑘 .
But here the value of the objective function changes by
∆𝑐𝐵𝑟 𝑥𝐵𝑟 = ∆𝑐𝑘 𝑥𝑘 .
A. Changes in the Cost Coefficients 𝑐𝑗 :
There are two different cases to discuss: B. Changes in the Right Hand Side of the Constraints
𝑏𝑖 :
 𝑐𝑗 is the cost component corresponding to
a non-basis variable. We assume that an optimum basic feasible solution 𝑥𝐵
 𝑐𝑗 is the cost component corresponding to with basis matrix 𝐵 for the linear programming
problem,
an optimal basic variable.
Maximize 𝑧 = 𝑐𝑥,

2 Green University Press

GUB JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1, JULY 2014 IN 7 FONT SIZE

Subject to 𝐴𝑥 = 𝑏, 𝑥 ≥ 0, 𝑐, 𝑥 ∈ 𝑅𝑛 and 𝑏 ∈ 𝑅𝑚 E. Deletion of a Variable:

Let us now discuss the optimality of a problem when a Deletion of a non basic variable is a totally superfluous
component of 𝑏, let 𝑏𝑘 changes to 𝑏𝑘 + ∆𝑏𝑘 , operation and does not affect the feasibility and/or
where 𝑘 = 1,2,3, … … … , 𝑚. optimality of the current optimal solution. However,
For the requirement vector 𝑏, let the optimal basis be 𝐵 deletion of a basic variable may affect the optimality
and 𝑥𝐵 = 𝐵 −1 𝑏 ≥ 0. For the change of ∆𝑏𝑘 of the and a new optimal solution may have to be found out.
component 𝑏𝑘 , the new basic solution corresponding F. Addition of a New Constraint:
to the basis 𝐵 is,
𝑥𝐵∗ = 𝐵 −1 [𝑏1 , 𝑏2 , … … … 𝑏𝑘 + ∆𝑏𝑘 , … … … 𝑏𝑚 ] ∴ 𝑥𝐵∗ = Consider the case where a new inequality constraint
[𝑥𝐵𝑖 + 𝑏𝑖𝑘 ∆𝑏𝑘 ], where 𝑖 = 1,2, … … … 𝑚; … … … (𝑖) 𝑎𝑥 ≥ 𝛽 is added to the original problem that is,
for all 𝑖 in the basis and where 𝑏𝑖𝑘 is the element of 𝑖- Maximize 𝑧 = 𝑐𝑥,
th row and 𝑘-th column of 𝐵 −1 . Subject to 𝐴𝑥 = 𝑏, 𝑎𝑥 ≥ 𝛽, 𝑥 ≥ 0
We have to discuss the following cases so that new Define a slack variable 𝑥𝑙+1 corresponding to this
basic solution 𝑥𝐵∗ remains feasible. constraint and then construct the tableau corresponding
∗ to the basis from the original problem. This implies that
i) If 𝑏𝑖𝑘 = 0 for some 𝑖, then 𝑥𝐵𝑖 = 𝑥𝐵𝑖 ≥ 0. −1
ii) If 𝑏𝑖𝑘 = 0 for some 𝑖, then 𝑥𝐵𝑖 + 𝑏𝑖𝑘 ∆𝑏𝑘 ≥ 0
𝐴
𝐴̅𝐵 = [ 𝐵
0
]. Hence ̅ 𝐵 = [ 𝐴𝐵
𝐴−1
0
]
−𝑥𝑏𝑖 𝑎𝐵 −1 −1
𝑎𝐵 𝐴𝐵 −1
⇒ ∆𝑏𝑘 ≥ , [here ∆𝑏𝑘 ≤ 0]. resulting the corresponding tableau
𝑏𝑖𝑘
iii) If 𝑏𝑖𝑘 < 0, for some 𝑖, then 𝑥𝐵𝑖 + 𝑏𝑖𝑘 ∆𝑏𝑘 ≥ 0 𝑥𝑗 1
−𝑥𝑏𝑖
⇒ ∆𝑏𝑘 ≤
𝑏𝑖𝑘
, [here ∆𝑏𝑘 ≥ 0]. 𝑥𝐵 = −𝐴−1
𝐵 𝐴𝑗 𝐴−1
𝐵 𝑏

Combining (ii) and (iii), we can say that the optimality 𝑥𝑛+𝑚+1 = −𝑎𝐵 𝐴−1
𝐵 𝐴𝑗 + 𝑎𝑗 𝑎𝐵 𝐴−1
𝐵 𝑏
remains unaffected if ∆𝑏𝑘 lies in the interval, −𝛽
−𝑥𝐵𝑖 𝑧 = 𝑐𝑗 − 𝑐𝐵 𝐴−1 𝑐𝐵 𝐴−1
Max( , 𝑏𝑖𝑘 > 0) ≤ ∆𝑏𝑘 𝐵 𝐴𝑗 𝐵 𝑏
𝑖 𝑏𝑖𝑘
−𝑥𝐵𝑖
≤ Min ( , 𝑏𝑖𝑘 < 0) … … … (𝑖𝑖) Note that the bottom row is unchanged because
𝑖 𝑏𝑖𝑘
If no 𝑏𝑖𝑘 > 0, there is no upper bound and if no 𝑏𝑖𝑘 < 𝐴𝑗 𝐴−1 0 𝐴𝑗
𝑐𝑗 − 𝑐𝐵 𝐴̃−1
𝐵 [ 𝑎 ] = 𝑐𝑗 − [𝑐𝐵 0] [ 𝐵 −1 ][ ]
0, there is no lower bound. 𝑗 𝑎𝐵 𝐴𝐵 −1 𝑎𝑗
= 𝑐𝑗 − 𝑐𝐵 𝐴−1
𝐵 𝐴𝑗

C. Change in the Coefficients of the Constraints 𝑎𝑖𝑗 :
When chances took place in the constraint coefficients
of a non-basic variable in a current optimal solution,
feasibility of the solution is not affected. The only
effect, if any, may be on the optimality of the solution.
However, if the constraint coefficients of a basic
variable get changed, things become more complicated
since the feasibility of the current optimal solution may
also be affected (lost). The basis matrix is affected,
which, in turn, may affect all the quantities given in the
current optimal table. Under such circumstances, it
may be better to solve the problem over again.
D. Addition of a New Variable:
Suppose we have solved a problem with an optimal
basis and we desire to add an extra variable with
constraint matrix column 𝑎 = ℝ𝑚 and objective
coefficients 𝑑 = ℝ, that is we now have,
Maximize 𝑧 = 𝑐𝑥 + 𝑑𝑦,
Subject to 𝐴𝑥 + 𝑎𝑦 = 𝑏, 𝑥, 𝑦 ≥ 0
To check whether adding this column effect the basis,
we just calculate the corresponding reduced entry. If
the entry is negative that is, 𝑑 − 𝑐𝐴−1 𝑎 < 0 , then the
basis is changed, otherwise it remains optimal.
Since the bottom row of the new tableau is
nonnegative, the corresponding point is dual feasible.
Either the value of 𝑥𝑙+1 is nonnegative and the tableau
is optimal, or it is negative. In the latter case, dual
simplex pivots can be performed until an optimal
solution is found or it is determined that the problem is
primal infeasible. This is an instance when the current
basis has to be changed.
G. Deletion of a Constraint:
The constraints to be deleted may be either binding or
unbinding on the optimal solution. The deletion of a
new unbinding constraint can only enlarge the feasible
region but will not affect the optimal solution.
IV. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON A REAL LIFE
PROBLEM
A. Formulation of the Problem
In this section we apply the idea of sensitivity analysis
on a real life problem by collecting data from a
business organization of Bangladesh.
“Amrita Consumer Food Products Ltd” is one of the
renowned quality food producer in the greater southern
region of Bangladesh. Their products have lots of
demand into market. Buyer especially middle class
family like their products due to cheap rate and

Green University Press 3

FIRST AUTHOR LAST NAME ET AL: TITLE OF THE PAPER IN 7 FONT SIZE

healthful for all aged of people. Day by day, they are
gaining more and more trust and confidence of the
customers and also of associated in its field. Amrita
Chanachur, Amrita snacks item, Amrita Biscuit,
Amrita Oil, Amrita Dal vaja are the most popular daily
products among them. They supply their products all
over in Bangladesh. They want to optimize their profit
by reorganizing manpower, material cost,
transportation cost etc. “Amrita Food Products Ltd”
wants to manufacture three types of Chanachur like
Super Chanachur, Hot Chanachur and Bar-B-Q
Chanachur. The profits per dozen on these products are
Tk.4, Tk. 6, Tk. 2 respectively. These products require
two types of resources- man-power and material. The
following Linear Programming Problem (LPP) is
formulated for determining the optimal product mix:
Maximize 𝑍 = 4𝑥1 + 6𝑥2 + 2𝑥3 ,
Subject to 𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥3 ≤ 3, (man-power),
𝑥1 + 4𝑥2 + 7𝑥3 ≤ 9, (material),
𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 ≥ 0
Where 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 are the number of dozen of Super
Chanachur, Hot Chanachur and Bar-B-Q Chanachur.
That means to achieve maximum profit the company
has to manufacture 1 dozen of Super chanachur and 2
dozen of Hot Chanachur without manufacturing the
Bar-B-Q Chanachur.
Now we discuss the following cases:
B.2. Analysis on the Change of Cost Coefficient of Non-
Basic Variable
(i) Find the ranges of the profit of non-basic variable
Bar-B-Q Chanachur (c3) such that the current optimal
product mix remains optimal.
(ii) What happens if the profit per dozen of Bar-B-Q
Chanachur (c3) is increased to Tk. 12?
Result and discussion on (i)
For table 1 to remain optimal,
−1
𝑐̅3 ≤ 0 Or, 𝑐3 − (4,6) [ ] ≤ 0, Or, 𝑐3 − (−4 +
2
12) ≤ 0, Or, 𝑐3 ≤ 8
This means that as long as the profit per dozen of Bar-
B-Q Chanachur is less than or equal to Tk. 8, it is not
profitable to manufacture. We also show this result
using LINDO.

B.1. Solution of the Problem: Range in which the basis is unchanged

OBJ coefficient ranges
In this section we solve the above problem using Variable Current Allowable Allowable
simplex method. Final table of the simplex method is Coefficient Increase Decrease
given in Table 1: 𝑥1 4.000000 2.000000 2.500000
Table 1
𝑥2 6.000000 9.999999 2.000000
𝑐𝑗 4 6 2 0 0
𝑐𝐵 Basis 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 𝑥4 𝑥5 b 𝑥3 2.000000 6.000000 Infinity
4 𝑥1 1 0 -1 4/3 -1/3 1
6 𝑥2 0 1 2 -1/3 1/3 2
Result and discussion on (ii)
𝐸𝑗 = ∑𝑐𝐵 𝑎𝑖𝑗 4 6 8 10/3 2/3
𝑐̅𝑗 = 𝑐𝑗 − 𝐸𝑗 −1
0 0 -6 -10/3 -2/3 If 𝑐3 = 12, 𝑐̅3 = 𝑐3 − (4,6) [ ] = 12 − (−4 +
2
12) = 12 − 8 = 4
Again, we solve the above the problem using LINDO.
LP Optimum 2 As 𝑐̅3 becomes positive, the current product mix given
Found at Step by the Table1 does not remain optimal. The optimum
Objective profit can be increased further by producing Bar-B-Q
Function Value Chanachur. That means non-basic variable 𝑥3 can enter
1) 16.00000 the solution to increase Z. This is shown in Table 2:
Variable Value Reduced Cost Table 2
𝑥1 1.000000 0.000000
𝑐𝑗 4 6 2 0 0
𝑥2 2.000000 0.000000 𝑐𝐵 Basis 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 𝑥4 𝑥5 b
𝑥3 0.000000 6.000000 4 𝑥1 1 1/2 0 7/6 -1/6 2
12 𝑥3 0 1/2 1 -1/6 1/6 1
Row Slack or Dual Prices 𝐸𝑗 = ∑𝑐𝐵 𝑎𝑖𝑗 4 8 12 8/3 4/3
Surplus
2) 0.000000 3.333333 𝑐̅𝑗 = 𝑐𝑗 − 𝐸𝑗 0 -2 0 -8/3 -4/3
3) 0.000000 0.666666
So, The optimal solution is 𝑥1 = 1, 𝑥2 = 2, 𝑥3 =
0 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑇𝑘. (4 × 1 + 6 × 2 + 2 × 0) = 𝑇𝑘. 16.

4 Green University Press

GUB JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1, JULY 2014 IN 7 FONT SIZE

New optimal product mix is 𝑥1 = 2, 𝑥2 = 0, 𝑥3 = cost coefficient of the other basic variable Hot
1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑇𝑘. (4 × 2 + 6 × 0 + 12 × 1) = Chanachur.
𝑇𝑘. 20.

That means to achieve maximum profit the company B.3. Analysis on the Change of Right Hand Side of
has to manufacture 2 dozen of Super chanachur and 1 Constraint
dozen of Bar-B-Q Chanachur without manufacturing Find the range of changes of manpower and material
the Hot Chanachur. such that the current optimal solution remains optimal.
B.3. Analysis on the Change of Cost Coefficient of Result and discussion
Basic Variable We calculate the ranges of manpower and material
(i) Find the ranges of the profit of basic variable Super restriction using LINDO which is given bellow:
Chanachur (𝑐1 ) such that the current optimal solution
remains optimal. Right hand side ranges
Row Current Allowable Allowable
(ii) What happens if the profit per dozen of Super
RHS Increase Decrease
Chanachur (𝑐1 )is increased to Tk. 8?
2 3.000000 6.000000 0.750000
Result and discussion on (i) 3 9.000000 3.000000 6.000000
We calculate the range of c1 using LINDO
We observe from the above output of LINDO that
the range of change of manpower lies between 2.25 to
Range in which the basis is unchanged 9 and the range of change of material lies between 3 to
OBJ Coefficient Ranges 12.
Variable Current Allowable Allowable
B.4. Analysis on the Change in the Coefficients of the
Coefficient Increase Decrease
Constraints aij.
𝑥1 4.000000 2.000000 2.500000
(i) What is the effect on optimal solution if we change
𝑥2 6.000000 9.999999 2.000000 1 2
the column [ ] to [ ] in the expenditure of non-basic
7 2
𝑥3 2.000000 6.000000 Infinity variable Bar-B-Q Chanachur?
(ii) What is the effect on optimal solution if we change
We observe from the output of LINDO that the 1 3
the column [ ] to [ ] in the expenditure of basic
Range on 𝑐1 for the optimal product mix to remain 1 1
optimal is 1.5 ≤ 𝑐1 ≤ 6. variable Super Chanachur?
(iii) What is the effect on optimal solution if we change
Result and discussion on (ii) 1 1
𝑐 1 the column [ ] to [ ] in the expenditure of basic
When 𝑐1 = 8, 𝑐̅5 = 1 − 2 = ∗ 8 − 2 = 2/3 4 2
3 3
variable Hot Chanachur?
As 𝑐̅5 becomes positive, the solution given in Table 1
no longer remains optimal. Slack variable 𝑥5 enters the
solution. This is shown in Table 3: Result and discussion on (i)
Table 3 LP Optimum 2
𝑐𝑗 4 6 2 0 0 found at step
Objective
𝑐𝐵 Basis 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 𝑥4 𝑥5 b Function Value
8 𝑥1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1) 16.00000
0 𝑥2 0 3 6 -1 1 6 Variable Value Reduced Cost
𝐸𝑗 8 8 8 8 0 𝑥1 1.000000 0.000000
= ∑𝑐𝐵 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑥2 2.000000 0.000000
𝑐̅𝑗 = 𝑐𝑗 − 𝐸𝑗 0 -2 -6 -8 0
𝑥3 0.000000 6.000000

Thus the new optimal product mix is 𝑥1 = 3 dozen
with 𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑇𝑘. 24.
That means to achieve maximum profit the company
has to manufacture 3 dozen of Super Chanachur
without manufacturing Bar-B-Q Chanachur and Hot
Chanachur. Similarly we can analyze the change of
We observe from the above output of LINDO that if we
change the column for non-basic variable the
feasibility of the solution is not affected. The only
effect, if any, may be on the optimality of the solution.

Green University Press 5

FIRST AUTHOR LAST NAME ET AL: TITLE OF THE PAPER IN 7 FONT SIZE

Result and discussion on (ii) 𝑥1 1.000000 0.000000

LP Optimum 2 𝑥2 2.000000 0.000000

found at step
Objective 𝑥3 0.000000 6.000000
Function Value
1) 14.18182 𝑥6 0.000000 1.000000
Variable Value Reduced Cost
𝑥1 0.2727273 0.000000 We observe from the above output of LINDO that the
Special Super Chanachur will not be profitable to
𝑥2 2.181818 0.000000 manufacture.

𝑥3 0.000000 7.818182 Result and discussion on (ii)

LP Optimum 2
We observe from the above output of LINDO that if we
Found at Step
change the column for basic variable the problem
Objective
remain feasible but optimality has been changed.
Function Value
Result and discussion on (iii) 1) 17.0000
Variable Value Reduced Cost
LP Optimum 2 𝑥1 0.000000 1.000000
Found at Step
Objective 𝑥2 2.000000 0.000000
Function Value 𝑥3 0.000000 8.000000
1) 18.0000
Variable Value Reduced Cost 𝑥7 1.000000 0.000000
𝑥1 0.000000 2.000000
We observe from the above output of LINDO that if
𝑥2 3.000000 0.000000 company introduce new product Tamarind Bar in place
of Super Chanachur then it will be profitable.
𝑥3 0.000000 4.000000
B.6. Analysis on the Deletion of a Variable
(i) What is the effect of deleting a non-basic variable
Bar-B-Q Chanachur on optimality?
We observe from the above output of LINDO that if we
(ii) What is the effect of deleting a basic variable Hot
only manufacture the Hot Chanachur then it will be
Chanachur on optimality?
more profitable.
Result and discussion on (i)
LP Optimum Found at 2
B.5. Analysis on the Addition of a New Variable Step
(i) The company wants to manufacture a new product Objective Function
Special Super Chanachur (𝑥6 )which requires 1 unit of Value
manpower and 1 unit of material and earns a profit of 1) 16.0000
𝑇𝑘. 3 per dozen. For this circumstances what should be
the decision of the company about the manufacture of Variable Value Reduced
the product. Cost
(ii) The company wants to manufacture another new 𝑥1 1.000000 0.000000
product Tamarind Bar(𝑥7 ) which requires 1 unit of
𝑥2 2.000000 0.000000
manpower and 1 unit of material and earns a profit of
𝑇𝑘. 5 Per dozen. For this circumstances what should be
the decision of the company about the manufacture of We observe from the above output of LINDO that if
the product. company will not manufacture Bar-B-Q Chanachur
Result and discussion on (i) then there is no effect on the profit of the company.
Result and discussion on (ii)
LP Optimum 2
Found at Step LP Optimum Found at 2
Objective Step
Function Value Objective Function
1) 16.0000 Value
Variable Value Reduced Cost

6 Green University Press

GUB JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1, JULY 2014 IN 7 FONT SIZE

1) 12.0000 We observe from the above output of LINDO that the

company manufacture only Super Chanachur to
Variable Value Reduced maximize the profit.
Cost
𝑥1 3.000000 0.000000 Result and discussion on (ii)
LP Optimum 2
𝑥2 0.000000 2.000000
Found at Step
Objective
We observe from the above output of LINDO that if Function Value
the company does want to manufacture Hot Chanachur 1) 18.0000
then there is an effect on the profit of the company. In Variable Value Reduced Cost
this situation the company produce only Super 𝑥1 0.000000 2.000000
Chanachur to maximize the profit. 𝑥2 3.000000 0.000000
𝑥3 0.000000 4.000000
B.7. Analysis on the Addition of a New Constraint
If the company has to face a new type of expenditure We observe from the above output of LINDO that the
as transportation cost that is 2𝑥1 + 3𝑥2 + 2𝑥3 ≤ 4, company manufacture only Hot Chanachur to
then what is the new optimal policy? maximize the profit.
Result and discussion CONCLUSION
LP Optimum 2
In this paper we have presented a real life problem to
Found at Step
discuss Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Programming
Objective
Problem (LPP) and identify how much variations in the
Function Value
decision variables for a given input that will affect the
1) 8.0000 optimality. We have shown the effect of changing the
Variable Value Reduced Cost profit vector in the objective function as well as in the
𝑥1 2.000000 0.000000 constraint. In particular if the company face any new
𝑥2 0.000000 0.000000 type of expenditure then the company can take the
appropriate decision about this new expenditure using
SA. Also, the company can take decision about the
𝑥3 0.000000 2.000000
manufacturing of a new product as well as banding a
particular which is already in market. Finally we
We observe from the above output of LINDO that the conclude that if anyone having vast knowledge on SA
company manufacture manufacture only Super can take the best strategy to run his institution
Chanachur to maximize the profit. successfully.
B.8. Analysis on the Deletion of Constraint
REFERENCES
(i) What is the effect on optimality if the company
ignore man power cost? [1] Adler I, Monteiro R.D.C. (1992), A geometric
(ii) What is the effect on optimality if the company view of parametric linear programming, Algorithmica
ignore material cost? 8, 161-176.
Result and discussion on (i)
[2] Dahiya K, Verma V (2005), Sensitivity analysis in
LP Optimum 2 linear programming with bounded variables, ASOR
Found at Step Bulletin 24(3), 2-19.
Objective
Function Value [3] Dantzig, G.B. (1951), Maximization of a linear
1) 36.0000 function of variables subject to linear inequalities, in
Variable Value Reduced Cost TC Koopmans (Ed.): Activity Analysis in Production
𝑥1 9.000000 0.000000 and Allocation, John Wiley and Sons: New York, 339-
347, ASOR Bulletin, Volume 26, Number 4, December
𝑥2 0.000000 10.000000 2007 25
𝑥3 0.000000 26.000000
[4] Dantzig G.B. (1963), Linear programming and
extensions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.

Green University Press 7

 FIRST AUTHOR LAST NAME ET AL: TITLE OF THE PAPER IN 7 FONT SIZE

[5] Evans J.R., Barker N.R. (1982), Degeneracy and

the (mis)interpretation of sensitivity analysis in linear [18] Yang B.H. (1990), “A study on sensitivity
programming, Decision Sciences 13, 348-354. analysis for a non-extreme optimal solution in linear
programming”, Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National
[6] Greenberg, H.J. (2000), Simultaneous primal-dual University, Republic of Korea.
right-hand-side sensitivity analysis from a strictly
complementary solution of a linear program, SIAM [19] www.lindo.com Linus E. Schrage (1986), Linear,
Journal of Optimization 10, 427-442. Integer, and Quadratic Programming with Lindo,
Scientific Press, ISBN 0894260901
[7] Goldman A.J., Tucker A.W. (1956), Theory of
linear programming, Linear inequalities and related
systems, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey, 53-97.

[8] Jansen B, Roos C, Terlaky T (1992), “An interior

point approach to post optimal and parametric analysis
in linear programming”, Technical Report, 92-21,
Mathematics and computer science, Delft University
Of Technology, Netherlands.

[9] Jansen B, JJ de Jong , Ross C, Terlaky T (1997),

Sensitivity analysis in linear programming: just be
careful , European Journal of Operational Research
101, 15-28.

[10] Kuhn K.W., Tucker A.W (1956), Linear

inequalities and related systems, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New York.

[11] Maros I (2003), “A piecewise linear dual phase-I

algorithm for the simplex method”, Computational
Optimization and Applications 26, 63-81.
[12] Maros I (2003), A generalized dual phase-2
simplex algorithm, European Journal of Operational
Research 149, 1-16.

[13] Monteiro R.D.C., Mehrotra S (1996), “A general

parametric approach and its implications to sensitivity
analysis in interior point methods, Mathematical
Programming” 92, 65-82.

[14] Murty K.G. (1976), Linear and combinatorial

programming, John Wiley & Sons INC., New York
London Sydney Toronto.

[15] Park C, Kim W, Lee S, Park S (2004), Positive

sensitivity analysis in linear programming, Asia-
Pacific Journal of Operational Research 21 (1), 53-68.
[16] Roos .CT., Terlaky T, Vial (1997), Theory and
algorithms for linear optimization, New York, John
Wiley & Sons.

[17] Ward JE, RE Wendell (1990), “Approaches to

sensitivity analysis in linear programming, Journal of
Korean Operations Research and Management Science
Society” 13 (1), 1-9.

8 Green University Press

View publication stats