30 views

Uploaded by akshaymehra

sol

- s1-ln17554557801070420-1939656818hwf1532306637idv168824276417554557pdf hi0001 1
- 129873847-Chapter-12
- Line Drawing Algorithms
- section1-5.pdf
- Lecture 18 Gaussian Elimination Part 3 (Infinite Solns)
- quarter 2 pacing guide
- Inventory Models
- Thm14 - Parallel Prefix
- Permutation and Probability
- Quiz 1 Winter 2007 | 2005 - 2007 | www.iLearnMath.net
- Hy 201718 Xi Mock Exam
- An algorithm using GARCH process , Monte-Carlo simulation and wavelets analysis for stock prediction
- Math523 Mid
- 02_lpc_vq
- Gerencia operaciones
- Numerical Test 1
- meeeeeeeeeeeee
- DeMarco Path Planning
- bbb
- First Periodical Geometry

You are on page 1of 11

Instructor : Spyros Reveliotis

Summer 2006

Solutions for Homework #4

Homework 4 Solution

Chapter 7

14.

Demand = (6, 12, 4, 8,15, 25, 20, 5, 10, 20, 5, 12)

Starting inventory = 4

Ending inventory = 8

h=1

K = 40

Net out starting and ending inventories to obtain

r = (2, 12, 4, 8,15, 25, 20, 5, 10, 20, 5, 20)

a) Silver Meal

Start in period 1:

C(1) = 40

C(2) = (40 + 12)/2 = 26

C(3) = [40 + 12 + (2)(4)]/3 = 20

C(4) = [40 + 12 + (2)(4) + (3)(8)]/4 = 21

Stop.

Start in period 4:

C(1) = 40

C(2) = (40 + 15)/2 = 27.5

C(3) = [40 + 15 + (2)(25)]/3 = 35

Stop.

Start in period 6:

C(1) = 40

C(2) = (40 + 20)/2 = 30

C(3) = [40 + 20 + (2)(5)]/3 = 23.3333

C(4) = [40 + 20 + (2)(5) + (3)(10)]/4 = 25

Stop.

Start in period 9:

C(1) = 40

C(2) = (40 + 20)/2 = 30

C(3) = [40 + 20 + (2)(5)]/3 = 23.3333

C(4) = [40 + 20 + (2)(5) + (3)(20)]/4 = 32.5

Stop.

Silver Meal solution: r = (2, 12, 4, | 8,15, | 25, 20, 5, | 10, 20, 5, | 20)

b) LUC

Start in period 1:

C(1) = 40/2 = 20

C(2) = (40 + 12)/(2 + 12) = 3.71

C(3) = (40 + 12 + 8) /(2 + 12 + 4) = 3.33

Homework 4 Solution

C(5) = (40 + 12 + 8 + 24 + 60) /(2 + 12 + 4 + 8 + 15) = 3.51

Stop.

Start in period 5:

C(1) = 40/15 = 2.67

C(2) = (40 + 25)/(15 + 25) = 1.625

C(3) = (40 + 25 + 40)/(15 + 25 + 20) = 1.75

Stop.

Start in period 7:

C(1) = 40/20 = 2

C(2) = (40 + 5)/(20 + 5) = 1.8

C(3) = (40 + 5 + 20)/(20 + 5 + 10) = 1.86

Stop.

Start in period 9:

C(1) = 40/10 = 4

C(2) = (40 + 20)/(10 + 20) = 2

C(3) = (40 + 20 + 10)/(10 + 20 + 5) = 2

C(4) = (40 + 20 + 10 + 60)/(10 + 20 + 5 + 20) = 2.3636

LUC solution: r = (2, 12, 4, 8, | 15, 25, | 20, 5, | 10, 20, 5, | 20)

c) Part Period Balancing

This method sets the order horizon equal to the number of periods that most closely matches

the total holding cost with the setup cost, which is $40 in this problem. Therefore, we

compute the absolute value of the difference between the holding and setup costs in each

period and find the one with the lowest value.

Start in period 1:

# of Periods

2

3

4

Holding Cost

12

20

44

28

20

4

closest

Start in period 5:

# of Periods

2

3

Holding Cost

25

65

15

closest

25

Start in period 7:

# of Periods

2

3

4

Holding Cost

5

25

85

35

15

closest

45

# of Periods

Holding Cost

2

3

Homework 4 Solution

5

45

35

5

closest

Part Period Balancing solution: r = (2, 12, 4, 8, | 15, 25, | 20, 5, 10, | 20, 5, 20)

d) Cost comparison of three methods.

1. SM incurs a setup cost of $200 from the 5 setups and a holding cost of 20+15+30+30 =

$95. The total cost is $295.

2. LUC incurs a setup cost of $200 from the 5 setups and a holding cost of 44+25+5+30 =

$104. The total cost is $304.

3. PPB incurs a setup cost of $160 from the 4 setups and a holding cost of 44+25+25+45 =

$139. The total cost is $299.

In this case, Silver Meal is the least expensive method.

17.

a) Average demand = (335 + 200 + 140 + 440 + 300 + 200) / 6 = 269.17

EOQ =

(2)(200)(269.17)

= 599

0.3

Week

Demand

Production

Inventory

1

335

599

264

2

200

0

64

3

140

599

523

4

440

0

83

5

300

599

382

6

200

0

182

b) Silver Meal

Start in period 1:

C(1) = 200

C(2) = [200 + (200)(0.3)]/2 = 130

C(3) = [(2)(130) + (2)(140)(0.3)]/3 = 114.67

C(4) = [(3)(114.67) + (3)(440)(0.3)]/4 = 185

Stop.

Start in period 4:

C(1) = 200

C(2) = [200 + (300)(0.3)]/2 = 145

C(3) = [(2)(145) + (2)(200)(0.3)]/3 = 136.67

Stop.

Hence y1= 335 + 200 + 140 = 675, y4= 440 + 300 + 200 = 940

c) LUC

Start in period 1:

C(1) = 200/335 = 0.597

Homework 4 Solution

C(3) = [200 + (200)(0.3) + (140)(2)(0.3)]/(335 + 200 + 140) = 0.510

Stop.

Start in period 3:

C(1) = 200/140 = 1.428

C(2) = [200 + (400)(0.3)]/(140 + 440) = 0.572

C(3) = [200 + (400)(0.3) + (300)(2)(0.3)]/(140 + 440 + 300) = 0.582

Stop.

Start in period 5:

C(1) = 200/300 = 0.67

C(2) = [200 + (200)(0.3)]/(300 + 200) = 0.52

Stop.

Hence y1= 335 + 200 = 535, y3= 140 + 440 = 580, y5 = 300 + 200 = 500

d) Part Period Balancing

Start in period 1:

# of Periods

2

3

4

Holding Cost

60

144

540

140

56

closest

340

Start in period 4:

# of Periods

2

3

Holding Cost

90

210

110

10

closest

e) Cost comparison

1. Lot-for-lot costs = 6(200) = $1200

2. EOQ costs: 3(200) + (0.3)(264 + 64 + 523 + 83 + 382 + 102) = $1049.4

3. SM costs: 2(200) + (0.3)(200 + 280 + 300 + 400) = $754

4. LUC costs: 3(200) + (0.3)(200 + 440 + 200) = $852

5. PP costs: same as SM.

The Silver Meal and Part Period Balancing heuristics resulted in the same least expensive

costs.

19. Using the hint the modified requirements vector is (10, 3, 0, 26, 23), K = 30, h = 1.

Define

cij : the setup and holding cost of ordering in period i to meet requirements through

period j-1 (notice that these quantities correspond to the costs of the various arcs

appearing in the shortest path formulation of the problem).

Homework 4 Solution

c12 = 30

c13 = 30 + 3 = 33

c14 = 30 + 3 + 0 = 33

c15 = 30 + 3 + (26)(3) = 111

c16 = 30 + 3 + (26)(3) +(23)(4) = 203

c23 = 30

c24 = 30 + 0 = 30

c25 = 30 + (26)(2) = 82

c26 = 30 + (26)(2) + (23)(3) = 151

c34 = 30

c35 = 30 + 26 = 56

c36 = 30 + 26 + (23)(2) = 102

c45 = 30

c46 = 30 + 23 = 53

c56 = 30

The optimal solution can be computed using the Wanger-Whitin algorithm in the forward

sense, as presented in class, or in the backward sense, as presented in your textbook (in

general, the forward version of this type of algorithms is preferred over the backward one,

since it is deemed to be more intuitive). Below, we demonstrate both.

The forward verion of the Wagner-Whitin algorithm will be illustrated first; notice the

employment of the cij variables in the implementation of this algorithm that demonstrates the

connection of the concepts underlying this algorithm to those underlying the shortest path

formulation.

f1 = c12 =30 at i = 1

c13

= min

f 1 c 23

f2 = min

c14

f3 = min f1 c 24 = min

f c

2 34

33

= 33 at i = 1

30 30

33

30 30

33 30

= 33 at i = 1

c15

f c

1 25

f4 = min

= min

f 2 c35

f 3 c 45

f 3 c 46

= min

f 4 c56

f5 = min

Homework 4 Solution

111

30 82

= 63 at i = 4

33 56

33 30

33 53

63 30

= 86 at i = 4

The optimal cost is 2(20)+3+23 = $86.

The backward version of the Wanger-Whitin algorithm for this problem is as follows:

f6 = 0

f5 = 30 at j = 6

c 45 f 5

30 30

= min 53 0 = 53 at j = 6

c 46 f 6

f4 = min

c34 f 4

c f

6

36

30 53

56 30

c 23 f 3

c f

24

4

f2 = min

= min

c 25 f 5

c 26 f 6

30 83

30 53

= 83 at j = 4

82 30

151 0

c12

c

13

f1 = min c14

c

15

c16

30 83

33 83

33 53

111 30

203 0

f2

f 3

f 4 = min

f5

f 6

102 0

= 83 at j = 4

= 86 at j = 4

The solution is the same as the one obtained by the forward dynamic programming method.

22. The given information is

r = (335, 200, 140, 440, 300, 200)

Homework 4 Solution

K = $200

h = 0.30

The resulting cij matrix for this problem is:

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

200

3

260

200

4

344

242

200

5

740

506

332

200

6

1100

776

512

290

200

7

1400

1016

692

410

260

200

As in problem 17, both forward and backward versions of the WW algorithm can be used.

We illustrate the backward version here:

f6 = c67 = 200

(c5 j f j ) = min (400, 260) = 260 at j = 7.

f5 = min

j 5

200 260

f4 = min

j 4

(c 3 j

f3 = min

j 3

410

200

410

332 260

f j ) = min

= 592 at j = 5.

512

200

692

(c 2 j

f2 = min

j 2

200 592

242 410

776 200

1016

(c1 j

f1 = min

j 1

200 652

260 592

344 410

f j ) = min

= 754 at j = 4.

740 260

1100 200

1400

The minimum cost is thus 754. In order to determine the optimal policy, we start with f1 and

retrace the optimal solutions at the correct stages. Since in period 1 the optimal i = 4, it

follows that y1 = r1 + r2 + r3 = 675, y2 = 0, y3 = 0. The next period of ordering is period 4. Since

the optimal value of j corresponding to f4 is j = 7, it follows that y4 = r4 + r5 + r6 = 940 and y5 =

y6 = 0. Note that this is the same solution obtained by the Silver-Meal heuristic.

8

Homework 4 Solution

27. Because of the maximum order size constraint, we first check the feasibility condition:

j

j

1 j

ci ri for j = 1, , n. Equivalently, we may check if ri is less than c=20 for all

j i 1

i 1

i 1

j.

Feasibility check:

r1

(r1+r2)/2

(r1+r2+r3)/3

(r1+r2+r3+r4)/4

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5)/5

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6)/6

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7)/7

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7+r8)/8

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7+r8+r9)/9

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7+r8+r9+r10)/10

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7+r8+r9+r10+r11)/11

(r1+r2+r3+r4+r5+r6+r7+r8+r9+r10+r11+r12)/12

=(2+12)/2

=(2+12+4)/3

=(2+12+4+8)/4

=(2+12+4+8+25)/5

=(2+12+4+8+25+15)/6

=(2+12+4+8+25+15+20)/7

=(2+12+4+8+25+15+20+5)/8

=(2+12+4+8+25+15+20+5+10)/9

=(2+12+4+8+25+15+20+5+10+20)/10

=(2+12+4+8+25+15+20+5+10+20+5)/11

=(2+12+4+8+25+15+20+5+10+20+5+20)/12

=2

=7

=6

=6.5

=10.2

=11

=12.2

=11.3

=11.2

=12.1

=11.4

=12.1

All the ratios are less than 20, so there exists a feasible solution.

Initial Solution:

Next, we obtain a feasible solution by back-shifting demands in the periods that is higher

than 20. Period 5 has a demand of 25 units, which is 5 units higher than the maximum order

size. The 5 units of excess is back-shifted to period 4, yielding a modified requirement

schedule: r = (2, 12, 4, 8, 20, 20, 20, 5, 10, 20, 5, 20). This is a feasible schedule and the

relevant data is shown in the following table:

Month

r'

c

y

Excess cap.

1

2

20

2

18

2

12

20

12

8

3

4

20

4

16

4

8

20

8

12

5

20

20

20

0

6

20

20

20

0

7

20

20

20

0

8

5

20

5

15

9

10

20

10

10

10

20

20

20

0

11

5

20

5

15

12

20

20

20

0

Improvement Steps:

Starting from the last period, consider shifting the demand to earlier periods:

From Period

12

12

To Period

11

9

15

= (12-11)(15)(1) = 15

5

= (12-9)(5)(1) = 15

The saving in setup cost of $40 is greater than the additional holding costs.

Month

r'

C

1

2

20

2

12

20

3

4

20

4

8

20

5

20

20

6

20

20

7

20

20

8

5

20

9

10

20

15

10

20

20

11

5

20

20

12

20

20

0

Y

Excess cap.

Homework 4 Solution

12

20

20

20

18

16

12

15

10

5

10

20

0

5

0

15

20

0

Shifting demands in period 11 to earlier periods does not result in a saving, but period 10

does.

From Period

10

10

To Period

9

8

5

= (10-9)(5)(1) = 5

15

= (10-8)(15)(1) = 30

Again, the saving in setup cost of $40 is greater than the additional holding costs.

Month

r'

c

Excess cap.

1

2

20

2

12

20

3

4

20

4

8

20

5

20

20

6

20

20

7

20

20

8

5

20

12

20

20

20

20

5

18

16

12

0

15

9

10

20

20

15

10

0

5

10

10

20

20

11

5

20

12

20

20

0

20

20

5

0

20

0

15

The next improvement step comes in period 4.

From Period

4

Month

r'

c

Excess cap.

To Period

3

8

= (4-3)(8)(1) = 8

1

2

20

2

12

20

3

4

20

4

8

20

5

20

20

6

20

20

7

20

20

8

5

20

12

12

4

0

8

20

20

20

20

5

8

16

20

12

0

15

18

9

10

20

20

15

10

0

5

10

10

20

20

11

5

20

12

20

20

0

20

20

5

0

20

20

0

0

15

20

0

10

20

20

11

5

20

12

20

20

20

From Period

3

3

Month

r'

c

To Period

2

1

8

= (3-2)(8)(1) = 8

4

= (3-1)(4)(1) = 8

1

2

20

2

12

20

20

3

4

20

0

12

4

8

20

0

5

20

20

6

20

20

7

20

20

8

5

20

20

9

10

20

20

15

10

y

Excess cap.

12

14

18

0

8

Homework 4 Solution

4

20

8

16

20

20

20

20

12

0

15

10

0

5

10

20

20

20

0

0

15

20

0

The capacitated solution is y =(6, 20, 0, 0, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 0, 20, 0)

50.

b) Using POQ, one will never order in periods in which there is positive inventory, which we

know from the results of section 3 is optimal. Hence, this method is likely to be better than

simple EOQ.

c) This method orders a fixed number of periods of supply and ignores the magnitudes of the

requirements. The three heuristic methods we discussed (S/M, PPB, and LUC) do take the

sizes of demands into account and for that reason are more likely to yield lower cost

solutions. However, the computations are simpler with this method.

d) From problem 17, we have

EOQ = 599

ri = 1615 which gives = 1615/6 = 269.17

P = EOQ/= 599/269.17 = 2.23

which we round to 2. Hence, the POQ solution is

y = (535, 0, 580, 0, 500, 0).

The cost of this solution is (3)(200)+(0.30)(200+440+200) = 852.

11

- s1-ln17554557801070420-1939656818hwf1532306637idv168824276417554557pdf hi0001 1Uploaded byapi-252382347
- 129873847-Chapter-12Uploaded bySahil Vadhia
- Line Drawing AlgorithmsUploaded bySwati Choudhary
- section1-5.pdfUploaded byegor
- Lecture 18 Gaussian Elimination Part 3 (Infinite Solns)Uploaded byffskdjfdkfjjk
- quarter 2 pacing guideUploaded byapi-252558610
- Inventory ModelsUploaded bySandeep Singh
- Thm14 - Parallel PrefixUploaded byash2love007
- Permutation and ProbabilityUploaded bysonusk777
- Quiz 1 Winter 2007 | 2005 - 2007 | www.iLearnMath.netUploaded byteachopensource
- Hy 201718 Xi Mock ExamUploaded byManikant kumar
- An algorithm using GARCH process , Monte-Carlo simulation and wavelets analysis for stock predictionUploaded bygiovanis3202
- Math523 MidUploaded byRene Barrera
- 02_lpc_vqUploaded byyoudiez
- Gerencia operacionesUploaded byTaty S. Vargas
- Numerical Test 1Uploaded bybiomedmaulik
- meeeeeeeeeeeeeUploaded byapi-256233331
- DeMarco Path PlanningUploaded bySyllogismRXS
- bbbUploaded byapi-233107805
- First Periodical GeometryUploaded byOilrigPontejo
- division sol 4 4 study guideUploaded byapi-297727492
- Edexcel Maths Paper 2HUploaded byb74669c1e0
- Assignments Sheet Week 7Uploaded byroh009
- qsupUploaded byteo2005
- Solution 8Uploaded byKalyan Srinivas
- Math Methods Units 3&4 PreTestUploaded byAnonymous na314kKjOA
- 2012 Galois ContestUploaded byMathiarasu Muthumanickam
- sampleworkplanUploaded byapi-366521992
- Applications in TransportationUploaded bysamik489
- Independence of EventsUploaded byabhi_bhatye

- HPUploaded byakshaymehra
- 1.xlsxUploaded byakshaymehra
- 2Uploaded byakshaymehra
- People Per HourUploaded byakshaymehra
- ONGC UranUploaded byakshaymehra
- 123Uploaded byakshaymehra
- Goa Carbon Stock Price, Quality, Valuation, Financial Trend, Stock Mojo, Share Price, Live Stock Price NSE_BSE, Goa Carbon Mojo Scorecard Goa Carbon News, Recommendations, & About Goa CarbonUploaded byakshaymehra
- CompoundingUploaded byakshaymehra
- Multibagger AnalysisUploaded byakshaymehra
- Temporary Excel CalculationsUploaded byakshaymehra
- Waterfall ChartUploaded byakshaymehra
- Current TopicsUploaded byakshaymehra
- Business ProgramUploaded byakshaymehra
- Important QuestionsUploaded byakshaymehra
- 1.xlsxUploaded byakshaymehra
- ExcelUploaded byakshaymehra
- dasdasdUploaded byakshaymehra
- Gas in GAILUploaded byakshaymehra
- Access Scholarship Rules CFA & FRMUploaded byAvinash Ghodake
- Upload a Document _ ScribdUploaded byakshaymehra
- Basel I, Basel II and Solvency IIUploaded byakshaymehra
- Indian Councils Act 1892 - General Knowledge TodayUploaded byakshaymehra
- Pre StrategyUploaded byakshaymehra
- Indian Councils Act 1861 - General Knowledge TodayUploaded byakshaymehra
- Singapore Visa Application Form 14AUploaded bysatishakumara
- 151106 49 Patterns of Problem SolvingUploaded byakshaymehra
- Master the MarketsUploaded byakshaymehra
- fisd11Uploaded byakshaymehra
- Preparatory QuestionsUploaded byakshaymehra

- gb.psUploaded by'Pulkit Sharma
- CONSTRAINT LOGIC PROGRAMMING USING ECLiPSeUploaded byjafobr4152
- 232777626-Manual de Julia.pdfUploaded byGregort Kloy
- 09-tocUploaded byPreyanshMitharwal
- Fuzzy LogicUploaded byApurva Jaipal
- Artificial Intelligence(AI)_ Water-Jug ProblemUploaded byAbhishek Lahoti
- A Note on'a New Approach for Solving Intuitionistic Fuzzy Transportation Problem of Type-2'Uploaded byP.SENTHIL KUMAR
- 7.1 Signal Flow GraphsUploaded byvidya_sagar826
- Guass EliminationUploaded byChandrakant Dhyani
- Bounded Tree Width GraphsUploaded byYashoda Neupane
- GAN ReportUploaded bysenthilnathan
- Systematic Circuit AnalysisUploaded bybogdanyel
- Number SystemsUploaded byGirish Acharya
- What Algorithms Need to Know in Order to Become a Good ProgrammerUploaded byMarco Zubieta
- Compiler InterviewUploaded bysanober shahin
- dcdUploaded byDaniel Chen
- 04 LAB a Implementing Stacks & Queues - AnswersUploaded byCatherine Rosales Tio
- Introduction to different programming paradigmsUploaded bymadhurisanjay
- 12.Review.fullUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Siam News Nov 12Uploaded byFU
- Comparison of Clustering Algorithms ReportUploaded bysan343
- chap5.pdfUploaded byAlice Baldwin
- Lecture 36Uploaded byvarunsingh214761
- Radio Labeling 2nd PaperUploaded bykfal
- BucketRadix.pptUploaded byGeraldi MCz
- Project IdeasUploaded byResmi Gopalakrishnan
- 0618783768_138794Uploaded byJackson Lam
- fdbdfgreUploaded byAnonymous 8oNe6jz
- Control Problems on Block Diagram and SFG for Prof. Fathhy & Mr. FaragUploaded byAhmedMido
- Midterm 2 Practice With AnswersUploaded byNick As Tello