E. original model-transship.mos -- Optimal for supply-transship.

mos
(All demands were met, slack of 14000 and 2000 on US and UK origins) Optimal
$185000

E. UK capacity changed to 5000 (from 10000)

Optimal solution changed to $217000 (All demands were met, slack of 11000 on
US and 0 on UK)
UK can ship only 5000 now, so its supply to Denmark and London has reduced.
Consequently, London cannot supply to Ireland anymore, since the only 3000 it
receives goes optimally to Belgium. Irelands minimum demand has to be
supplied by Philly now and hence 500 tons more from USA to Philly.

Also, to meet India and Russias demand, Denmark has to be supplied from US.
Reason for these major changes : Slack of only 2000 was available
previously. Any reduction of more than 2000 in RHS would cause the
optimal solution to change.

F. UK capacity changed to 5000 (from 10000), Ireland demand changed to 2500

(from 500);

Optimal $267000 (All demands were met, slack of 9000 on US and 0 on UK

origins)
Irelands demand of extra 2000 has to be supplied from Philadelphia, hence US
supplies 1500+2000=3500 to it.
To meet India and Russias demand,( Denmark was previously being supplied
from US) now Denmark gets its entire supply from UK since it is economical (US
to Denmark is 21, whereas UK to Denmark is 10).
Now, London receives 2500 tons from US at $19 economically (previously
Denmark was receiving at 21) to meet Belgiums demand.
Reason for changes: Dual or Shadow price of Demand (Ireland)
constraint was $25. Change of 2000 leads to change in 2000*25=50000 in
objective function [50000+217000=267000].

G. 9000 tons of capacity of US were unused (slack) in the previous model and the
dual for the constraint was 0. Hence, the worth of one less resource is 0. So,
reducing it by 7500 doesnt make any difference to the optimal. Now, there is a
slack of 1500 (previously 9000). Hence, unless it was reduced by another 1501, the
optimal solution would remain the same.
H. $36 is the highest shipping cost at which some goods will flow from Philadelphia
to India.
I. It is uneconomical for Philadelphia to supply to India now. A Denmark- India flow
of cost $25 becomes a part of the total optimal. Any slight increase above $36
for shipping cost of Philly-India will lead the optimal solution to deactivate
the flow over these. This knifes edge effect in linear programming is one in

which a small shift in the real-world prices could make a source-destination flow the
cheapest regardless of the other factors.
Reason: Reduced cost for variable Y(Philadelphia, India)= $9. So, this variable
will be a part of the optimum only when the objective coefficient (cost) is reduced
by $9 , i.e when it becomes at most 45-9=$36.
J. The model became infeasible because the demand constraint for Nigeria led to
total demand being more than the total supply. (Slack of only 1500 was available
from US from previous optimal) There is no solution which could meet the 2000 ton
min. requirement at Nigeria.

K. Nigeria demand changed from 2000 to 1000

Optimal 298000 (All demands were met, slack of 500 on US and 0 on UK
origins)
Optimal solution was to ship from US to Philly to Nigeria, since the value of
1000 tons made the demand constraint feasible. (Demand of 2000 at Nigeria
was previously infeasible)1500 tons which was the slack for the constraint
would make it exactly ship all amounts with no slack anywhere.
L. Transshipment model of packages
A manufacturing plant at the city marked PITT will make 450,000 packages of a
certain product in the next week, as indicated by the 450. The cities marked NE and
SE are the northeast and southeast distribution
centers, which receive packages from the plant and transship them to warehouses
at the cities Boston, Newark, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Orlando. These warehouses
require 90, 120, 120, 70 and 50 thousand packages, respectively, as indicated by
the numbers at the right. For each intercity link there is a shipping cost per
thousand packages and an upper limit on the packages that can be shipped,
indicated by the two numbers next to the corresponding arrow in the diagram. The
optimization problem over this network is to find the lowest-cost plan of
shipments that uses only the available links, respects the specified
capacities, and meets the requirements at the warehouses.

Transport data

Model file

Solution without the arc-capacities specified

When there is no flow restriction on any arc, the model gives optimal low cost
solution by shipping over the lowest cost routes. Pittsburgh supplies majorly to NE
DC as it has lowest cost of 2.5$ per ton.

When capacity on every arc is restricted

When there is flow restriction on any arc, the constraint leads to a more even
distribution of supply. Pitts to NE can only supply 250 now (previously 360 was
optimal) Optimal solution of $1802.

When capacity at Pittsburgh is changed to 600 from 450, it still gives the
same optimal solution. The excess 150 is built up as slack. Reason: Total
demand=450, Total supply=600
When capacity at Pittsburgh is changed to 400, it gives an infeasible
solution. Reason: Total demand=450, Total supply=400. This is a big conflict, which
results in an infeasible solution space.
When capacity at Pittsburgh is kept at 600 & demand for Baltimore is
changed from 120 to 160

Optimal solution changed to $1974 (All demands were met, slack of 110 on
Pittsburgh)
Increased demand of 40 at Baltimore led to shipping of the same amount
from Pitts via SE. It could not take the other NE route as the arc-capacity
constraint was binding.

When capacity at Pittsburgh is kept at 600 & demand for Baltimore is at 160 and
cost of Pitts-SE is decremented from $3.5. The solution does not change
until its cost becomes $2. Here, Pittsburgh supplies 250 tons to SE and
240 tons to NE (inverted previously). This is due to the knifes edge effect.

Previous changes retained & when a new location Memphis is added with costs
$1 from NE and $0.5 from SE, arc capacity 100 on both arcs, and demand 15

Optimal solution was to ship 10 tons from SE to Memphis,

Newark gets 100 and 20 from NE & SE respectively; before it got 90 & 30
respectively.
Since Memphis can be reached more economically from SE as compared to
NE($0.5 vs $1), and no other constraint severely binding, the SE-Memphis
route is activated.