6.

By using very large costs for the routes that are eliminated and resolving the
problem, one finds the new optimal solution is: x11=39, x14=21, x21=61, x22=84,
x33=77, x34=78.
The total cost of the solution is 387,730, and the percentage error difference is
30%.
The spreadsheet solution appears below.
Solution to Problem 6.2

Variables

x11

Values

x12

39

Objective Coeff

x13
0

250 1.00E+30

x14

x21

21

x22

61

x23

84

x24
0

x31

x32
0

x33
77

x34 Operator

Value

RHS

48

380 280 1280 990 1.00E+30 1520 1.00E+30 1420 1660 1730

Min

387730

st
Constraint 1

Constraint 2

Constraint 3

Constraint 4

Constraint 5

6.4

1
1

1
1

Variables
Values
Obj Funct

x11 x12 x13 x21 x22 x23 x31 x32 x33 Operator
0

13

30

26

15

12

17

14

21

18

22

1
1

Value RHS

0
31 min

1126

st
Cons2
Cons3
Cons4
Cons5
Cons6

60

60

145

145

125

125

100

100

84

84

77

77

69

69

a) We solve the problem in units of 100 cars. Total production=100, total

requirements = 84. It follows that this is an unbalanced problem supply exceeding
demand. To find the greedy heuristic solution, add a dummy column with high
cost. Letting Flint, Fresno, and Monterrey correspond to sources 1, 2, and 3 and
Phoenix, Davenport, Columbia, and the Dummy column corresponding to sinks 1,
2, 3, and 4, the greedy heuristic yields x12=28, x13=15, x21=26, and x32=15 at a
total cost of 1126 (thousands). This is exactly the same cost as was obtained in the
chapter for the optimal solution. This shows that this problem has multiple
optimal solutions. See spreadsheet below.

Solution to Problem 6.4 b)

Cons1

Constraint 7

1
1

Constraint 6

1
1

1
1

43

43

26

26

1<

15

31

26

26

28

28

1=

30

30

1
1

<
<

c) 0%.
d) Replacing the Monterrey/Columbia cost with a high number and resolving the problem gives exactly the
same cost as part b). This is to be expected since x33 = 0 in the original optimal solution.
6.9

Although the problem asks to compute average sales based on forecasts, it makes more sense to
determine the net demand after taking out on order and in transit stock. Doing so yields the
following Net Demand Forecasts:

Week
6

Net Demand
85

25

12

19

8
0

33

The average of these values based on six periods of data is 29. (If one uses the original data one
obtains 33.25 here.) Using this as the value of in the EOQ formula gives the EOQ as

2 * 40 * 29/.25

= 96 (with the larger value of one obtains 103). Ordering in lots of 96

gives the following DRP Profile:

Weeks:

Sales Forecasts:
In Transit:
On Order:
EOQ placed:
EOQ arrives:
Projected
26
Balance

22
40

35

60

12

19

85

33

40

96
51

18

26
96
44

96
35

96
71

59

59

6.10 Again, we will use the net demand data as shown in the solution to problem 6.9.
Using the Silver Meal Algorithm with K=40, h=.25 gives the following solution
(starting in period 3): y3 = 56, y7=118, and all other values zero. The resulting DRP
Profile is:

Weeks:

Sales Forecasts:
In Transit:
On Order:
Order placed:
Order arrives:
Projected
26
Balance:

22
40

35

60

12

19

85

33

118
33

26
56
44

118
56
31

35

19

19

6.13

Consider Example 6.4 assuming that the truck capacity is 250 loaves instead of
300 loaves. Since (1,2) is the first pair in the ranking consider linking (1,2)
without violating the constraint. Since the total demand at these two locations is
247, include this link. Clearly it would be impossible to include any other
locations on this route. The next pair in the ranking which doesn't include either
location 1 or 2 is (3,5). These two locations can be linked since the total demand
in these locations is 26 + 110 = 136. Location 4 cannot be included on this
route since that brings the demand on this route to 136 + 140 = 276 > 25.
Hence location 4 would require a separate route. This solution thus requires three
distinct routes: (1,2), (3,5) and 4.

6.14

The distance matrix for this case is

0
1
2
3
4

45

35
10

30
15
15

10
35
25
20

30
25
35
20
20

The resulting values of sij are:

s12 = 70
s24
s25
s13 = 60
s14 = 20
s34
s15 = 50
s35
s45
s23 = 50

=
=
=
=
=

20
30
20
40
20

It turns out that the ranking of the pairs for this case is exactly the same as the ranking
when using the Euclidean metric, if one chooses to break ties to be consistent. Hence the
resulting solution is the same as the solution of Example 7.11.

6.17

The matrix one obtains of the straight-line distances separating locations is:

0
1
2
3
4

1
14.9

2
26.9
12.1

3
30.2
16.1
8.6

4
37.0
30.1
28.2
36.7

5
12.2
8.6
18.0
24.0
25.5

The savings terms are:

s12
s13
s14
s15
s23

=
=
=
=
=

29.7
29.0
21.8
18.5
41.0

s24
s25
s34
s35
s45

=
=
=
=
=

33.8
30.5
37.1
33.8
40.6

This results in the following ranking of the pairs:

(2,3), (4,5), (3,4), (2,4), (3,5), (2,5), (1,2), (1,3), (1,4), (1,5)

First locations 2 and 3 are combined to be on the same route. The req't. of this
route is 1,050. Assuming a 1200 gallon capacity this means this route is closed.
Locations 1, 4 and 5 can now be included in the second route. The total requirement of
this second route is 1100 gallons.