3/1/2023 Optimization

Techniques
Linear Programming case study
assignment
Submitted to:
Dr. Salman Habib
Submitted by:
2020-IM-08
2020-IM-27
2020-IM-28

Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

department
UET
Contents
1. Problem Statement:..........................................................................................................................2
2. Formulation of Model:......................................................................................................................3
3. Objective function:............................................................................................................................3
4. Constraint Descriptions and Specifications:......................................................................................3
5. Solution in LINGO:.............................................................................................................................5
6. Results through LINGO:.....................................................................................................................6
7. Conclusion:........................................................................................................................................6

Figure 1: script for model of case study in LINGO command window.........................................................5

Figure 2: results window in LINGO..............................................................................................................5

1
 Case Study
Spring Garden Tools

1. Problem Statement:
Spring family operates a garden tool manufacturing company and own that. In this case the
information scheduling of garden tool production for the upcoming month at Spring Garden
Tools. The spring garden manufacturing has two stages – Stage 1 that consists of stamping out
tool heads and hole- drilling, while Stage 2 involves tool assembly, finishing and packaging.
The first table provided here shows the processing times (in hours) per tool for each operation.

Operation Tool (hr./unit) Total hours available

Trowel Hoe Rake Shovel per month
Stamping 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.12 500
Drilling 0.05 0.14 - 0.14 400
Assembly 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.10 600
Finishing 0.05 0.21 0.02 0.10 550
Packaging 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.15 500

The second table provided here are the metal required for each tool and monthly contracted
production volume per tool. Sheet metal used could not be over 10000 square feet. The second stage
production does not use sheet metal at all.

Sheet metal (ft.2) Monthly contracted sales

Trowel 1.2 1800
Hoe 1.6 1400
Rake 2.1 1600
Shovel 2.4 1800

The company does not have 100 hours of overtime available for each month for each operation in
both case.The regular production and overtime costs per tool for both stages are provided in the
following table:

Stage 1 Stage 2
Regular cost Overtime Regular cost Overtime cost
cost
Trowel $6 $6.2 $3 $3.1
Hoe 10 10.7 5 5.4
Rake 8 8.5 4 4.3
Shovel 10 10.7 5 5.4
The cost of subcontracting in stage 1 adds 20% to the regular production cost.
The Spring Company’s objective involves minimizing cost from the total production and
subcontracting of garden tools, while satisfying the demand for each type of garden tool.

2
2. Formulation of Model:
2.1. Variable definition:
Let i=1 (trowel), 2 (hoe), 3 (rake), 4 (shovel).
Ri = regular production of product i in Stage 1
Si = subcontracted production of product in Stage1

Xi = overtime production of product i in Stage 1

Ai = regular production of product i in Stage 2
Yi = overtime production of product i in Stage 2

3. Objective function:

Minimization Cost for the total production and subcontracting of garden tools.
Min Z = 6R1+10R2+8R3+10R4+7.2S1+12S2+9.6S3+12S4+6.2x1+10.7x2+8.5x3+10.7x4+3A1+5A2+4A3
+5A4+3.1Y1+5.4Y2+4.3Y3+5.4Y4
4. Constraint Descriptions and Specifications:
Type 1:
Stage 1: Regular production time is limited to a max hours for each department
0.04R1+0.17R2+0.06R3+0.12R4<=500 hrs. (Stamping)
0.05R1+0.14R2+0.14R4 <=400 hrs. (Drilling)

Type 2:
Stage 1: Overtime production time is limited to a max hours for each department
0.04X1+0.17X2+0.06X3+0.12X4 <=100 hrs. (Stamping)
0.05X1+0.1XR2+0.14X4 <=100 hrs. (Drilling)

Type 3:
Sheet metal used could not be over 10000 square feet. The second stage production does not use
sheet metal at all.

1.2R1+1.6R2+2.1R3+2.4R4+1.2X1+1.6X2+2.1X3+2.4X4 <= 10,000 ft2.

Type 4:

Stage 2 regular production is limited to max hour for each department.

0.06A1+0.13A2+0.05A3+0.10A4 <= 600 hrs. (Assembly)

3
 0.05A1+0.21A2+0.02A3+0.10A4 <=550 hrs. (Finishing)
0.03A1+0.15A2+0.04A3+0.15A4<=500 (Packaging)

Type 5:

Stage 2 overtime production is limited to a max hours for each department

0.06Y1+0.13Y2+0.05Y3+0.10Y4 <= 100 hrs. (Assembly)

0.05Y1+0.21Y2+0.02Y3+0.10Y4 <=100 hrs. (Finishing)
0.03Y1+0.15Y2+0.04Y3+0.15Y4<=100 (Packaging)

Type 6:

Stage 1 and 2’s total quantities must be matched

R1+S1+X1 = A1+Y1
R2+S2+X2 = A2+Y2
R3+S3+X3 = A3+Y3
R4+S4+X4 = A4+Y4

Type 7:

Stage 2’s total quantity is used to satisfy demand

Y1+A1 = 1800
Y2+A2 = 1400
Y3+A3 = 1600
Y4+A4 = 1800

Type 8:

Non-negative constraints
R1>=0;
R2>=0;
R3>=0;
R4>=0;
S1>=0;
S2>=0;
S3>=0;
S4>=0;
X1>=0;
X2>=0;
X3>=0;
X4>=0;
A1>=0;
A2>=0;
4
A3>=0;
A4>=0;
Y1>=0;
Y2>=0;
Y3>=0;
Y4>=0;

5. Solution in LINGO:

Figure 1: script for model of case study in LINGO command window

5
Figure 2: results window in LINGO

6
6. Results through LINGO:

The value of Z (Objective value) = 85472.60

Total solver iterations = 8
Total variables = 20
Nonlinear variables = 0
Integer variables = 0
Total constraints = 40
Nonlinear constraints = 0
Total nonzeros = 114
Nonlinear nonzeros = 0
The values of regular production of product i in Stage 1:
R1 1691.954
R2 1319.540
R3 1600.000
R4 933.3333

The values of subcontracted production of product in stage 1:

S1 0.000000
S2 0.000000
S3 0.000000
S4 866.6667

The values of overtime production of product i in stage 1:

X1 108.0460
X2 80.45977
X3 0.000000
X4 0.000000

The values of regular production of product i in stage 2:

A1 1800.000
A2 1400.000
A3 1600.000
A4 1146.667

The overtime production of product i in stage 2:

Y1 0.000000
Y2 0.000000
Y3 0.000000
Y4 653.3333

7. Conclusion:
This case study demonstrates how linear programming can be used to optimize production
decisions and minimize costs. By formulating the problem as a linear programming model, we
obtained an optimal solution without violating the constraints and minimize our costs. Our costs
resulted to be $85472.60. We also get the best amount of units to be produced in each stages
7