Optimization of Wastewater Utilization in Irrigation: A

Case Study in Lebanon

Jennifer Gliem
Emily Parker

BE 431
Resource Optimization

1
 Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3

Objective…………………………………………………………………………………..4

Methods……………………………………………………………………………………5

Results……………………………………………………………………………………..7

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………9

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………10

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………11

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..20

List of Figures & Tables

Figure 1 (Location of study area)……………………………………………………….…4

Table 1 ( Net revenue and nitrogen and water requirements for specified
crops)………………………………………………………………………………………6

Table 2 (Net return, secondary treated wastewater and nitrogen consumption, and optimal
cropping pattern for the feasible scenarios)……………………………………………….7

Figure 2 (Total net revenue of scenarios 1 through 4)…………………………………….8

Figure 3 (Water consumption of scenarios 1 through 4b)………………………………...8

Figure 4 (Nitrogen consumption of scenarios 1 through 4b)……………………………...9

2
 Introduction

Wastewater is defined as the used water and solids from the community that flow to a
treatment plant (1). Wastewater is also made up of water that collects in street drains
during storms, as well as groundwater that enters through cracks in sewers. On average,
each person in the U.S. contributes 50 to 100 gallons of wastewater everyday (2).

Typically wastewater is subjected to three levels of treatment; primary, secondary, and

tertiary treatment. Primary treatment removes approximately 60% of the suspended
solids from wastewater, and reduces the BOD content by 35% (3). Secondary treatment
removes 90% of the rest of the suspended solids and BOD (1). The final treatment
process, tertiary treatment, removes 95% or more of the remaining contaminants (4).

Tertiary treatment of wastewater in the municipal system can be avoided by using

secondary treated wastewater for irrigation. The reuse of treated wastewater in irrigation
provides a cost effective and environmentally friendly alternative to wastewater disposal.
When wastewater is adequately treated it can be safely applied to crops, and poses no
greater risk to the consumer than conventional sources (5). Currently both Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina and Santa Rosa, California successfully use secondary treated
wastewater for supplemental irrigation (6).

Currently in Lebanon, there are no regulations on the levels of wastewater treatment

requirements. In many coastal areas wastewater is disposed directly into the
Mediterranean Sea without any preliminary treatment. These practices can lead to human
health hazards and eutrophication (7). The use of treated wastewater for irrigation in
Lebanon may be a practical alternative for wastewater disposal.

There are several benefits to using secondary treated wastewater for irrigation in
Lebanon.
• Nutrients in wastewater can supply much of the phosphorus and nitrogen required by
plants previously supplied by fertilizers.
• Application of wastewater to crops prevents the contamination of Lebanon’s surface
and groundwater supplies.
• Provides a solution to future water scarcity.
• Reduces the risk to human health caused by dumping untreated wastewater into
surface water.
• Provides an economically sound alternative to municipal wastewater treatment.

3
Objective
In this study, we will apply secondary treated wastewater for irrigation in Lebanon to
determine which cropping patterns will provide the best alternative for Lebanon by
looking at
1. Net revenue
2. Nitrogen removal
3. Water consumption

We will accomplish these objectives by utilizing linear programming for optimization of

wastewater reuse in irrigation. We have optimized five scenarios for wastewater
irrigation in Lebanon. These scenarios examine the net revenue produced by the optimal
cropping pattern, as well as nitrogen removal and water consumption.

Methods
We conducted a study on the use of waste
water for irrigation in Lebanon, based on a
previous study by Darwish et al.(7). The
study area selected is in the Tyre region of
south Lebanon (Figure1). The land
available in this region for agriculture use is
1500 ha. The study area currently cultivates
930 ha of citrus, 330 ha of bananas, 36 ha of
tomato greenhouses, 7 ha of cucumber
greenhouses. The remaining 197 ha are
divided between melons, peppers, field
tomatoes, and field cucumbers. The
wastewater produced by the study area is
primarily domestic (7). Further Study
Area
characteristics of the study area can be
found in Darwish et al. (7).

The amount of wastewater produced

Figure 1 – Location of the Study
annually is 8,891,035 m3. The total
Area
nitrogen provided from this wastewater is
350 thousand tons per year. The cropping
patterns currently in use generate a total net
revenue of $7,406,437 per year.

We examined five scenarios to maximize total net revenue grossed in the study area.
Scenarios 2 through 5 contain sub-scenarios, a and b. In sub-scenarios a only the crops
currently in cultivation in the study are considered when determining the cropping pattern
which maximizes total net revenue. In sub-scenarios b new crops are introduced. These
crops include alfalfa, roses in greenhouse, carnation in greenhouse, and gerbera in
greenhouse. The new crops were chosen primarily for their high nitrogen uptake and the

4
amount of revenue they produce. Other reasons for including these crops in this study
can be found in Darwish et al. (7).

Each scenario was subject to constraints land use. The total amount of land used by the
crops could not exceed the available 1500 ha. The amount of land used for citrus and
bananas could not be less than the amount currently in use for these crops (930 ha for
citrus and 330 for bananas). We did not deem it economically sound to remove citrus
and banana trees currently planted. To maintain the economic stability if the region, we
placed constraints which ensured that more than one type of crop would be produced.
Therefore, there had to be at least 100 ha of vegetable crop. Vegetable crops were
defined as tomatoes, cucumbers, melons, and peppers for scenarios a. Scenarios b
included alfalfa as a vegetable crop. Constraints were also placed on the amount of land
available for greenhouse crops. Since there are currently 36 ha allotted to greenhouse
production, we did not find it economical to remove or build new greenhouses.
Therefore, the amount of land used for greenhouse crops must be equal to 36 ha.

Scenario 1
Scenario 1 represents status quo. We used scenario 1 as a point of comparison for each
additional scenario.

Scenario 2a and 2b
Scenarios 2a and 2b maximize total net revenue in the study area with no constraints
placed on available wastewater or nitrogen. The only constraints are in reference to land
use.

Scenario 3a and 3b
Scenarios 3a and 3b maximize total net revenue in the study area while placing
constraints on the amount of wastewater available for irrigation. There are no constraints
placed on available nitrogen. The water used for irrigation had to be at least 8,891,035
m3, the amount of available wastewater produced by the study area. Therefore, in
Scenarios 3a and 3b, the entire amount of wastewater produced by the study area will be
used for irrigation.

Scenario 4a and 4b
Scenarios 4a and 4b maximize total net revenue in the study area while placing
constraints on the amount of nitrogen available in the wastewater. There are no
constraints placed on available wastewater. Scenarios 4a and 4b ensure that the crops
will utilize all of the nitrogen present in the wastewater. This prevents nitrogen
contamination of groundwater supplies.

Scenario 5a and 5b
Scenario 5a and 5b maximize total net revenue in the study area while placing constraints
on both the amount of water and the amount of nitrogen available. These scenarios
ensure that not only will all of the wastewater be disposed of through irrigation, but also
that all of the nitrogen will be removed from the wastewater by the crops.

5
 Table 1. Net revenue, nitrogen requirements, and water
requirements of selected crops.
Nitrogen Water
Net Return
Crop Requirements Requirements
($/ha)
(kg/ha) (L/ha)
Citrus 5,000 200 1,200,000
Banana 6,100 400 588,800,000
Alfalfa 870 1 1,600,000
Tomato field 2,990 134.4 600,00
Cucumber field 2,210 89.6 1,168,400
Melon 5,970 112 600,000
Pepper 3,900 112 900,000
Winter tomato in
18,340 134.4 600,000
greenhouse
Summer tomato in
18,250 134.4 600,000
greenhouse
Winter cucumber in
11,300 89.6 1,168,400
greenhouse
Summer cucumber in
11,260 89.6 1,168,400
greenhouse
Roses in greenhouse 185,320 951 1,981,200
Carnation in
183,650 951 1,981,200
greenhouse
Gerbera in greenhouse 112,500 951 1,981,200

The net revenue, nitrogen, and water requirements for each crop considered in this study
can be found in Table 1. For each scenario we maximized profit using a system of linear
equations and the ConstrainedMax function in Mathematica. The results of this
analyzation can be found in the appendix. The net revenue, wastewater, and nitrogen
consumption for each scenario were graphed to illustrate the relationships between each
scenario.

6
 Results
There was no feasible solution for scenario 5a or 5b. Therefore, scenarios 5a and 5b have
been omitted from the rest of this study.

Table 2. Net Return above all costs, secondary treated wastewater and nitrogen consumption, and
optimal cropping pattern for the feasible scenarios and sub-scenarios
Scenarios and Sub-scenarios
1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b
Net Return ($ US) 7406437 8554640 14565920 8554640 14565920 8.55*106 8.55*106
Total secondary treated wastewater
consumption (L/ha)
Used 1.85*1011 2.44*1011 2.44*1011 2.44*1011 2.44*1011 2.44*1011 2.44*1011
Unused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supplementary 1.76*1011 2.35*1011 2.35*1011 2.35*1011 2.35*1011 2.35*1011 2.35*1011
Total Nitrogen Uptake
(kg/ha)
Used 345529.6 375638.4 405036 375638.4 405036 375638.4 375638.4
Unused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Additional 28014.9 58123.7 87521.3 58123.7 87521.3 58123.7 58123.7
Crop area (ha)
Citrus 930 930 930 930 930 930 930
Banana 330 434 434 434 434 434 434
Alfalfa NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 0
Tomato field * 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cucumber field * 0 0 0 0 0 0
Melon * 100 100 100 100 100 100
Pepper * 0 0 0 0 0 0
Winter tomato in greenhouse 36 36 0 36 0 36 36
Summer tomato in greenhouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Winter cucumber in greenhouse 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summer cucumber in greenhouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Roses in greenhouse NA NA 36 NA 36 NA 0
Carnation in greenhouse NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 0
Gerbera in greenhouse NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 0

The results for each scenario and sub scenario can be found in Table 2. The * indicates
that these crops covered a total of 197 ha.

7
 16000000
14000000

Total Net Revenue ($/yr)

12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b
Scenario

Figure 2 – Total Net Revenue of Scenarios 1 through 4b

The total net revenue produced by each scenario can be found in Figure 2. Scenarios 2b
and 3b produced the same cropping pattern, and therefore have the same net revenue.
Scenarios 2a, 3a, 4a, and 4b also produced the same cropping pattern and net revenue.
Scenarios 2b and 3b produced the highest total net revenue. All scenarios produce a
greater total net revenue than the cropping pattern currently in practice which is
represented by the dotted line in Figure 2.

3.00E+11
Water Consumption (L/ha)

2.50E+11

2.00E+11

1.50E+11

1.00E+11

5.00E+10

0.00E+00
1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b
Scenario

Figure 3 – Water Consumption of Scenarios 1 through 4b

The water requirements for each scenario can be found in Figure 3. Although two
cropping patterns were recommended (one for scenarios 2b and 3b, and another for
scenarios 2a, 3a, 4a, and 4b) the water requirements for all six scenarios are the same.
The two new cropping patterns consume more water than the cropping pattern currently
in place. All scenarios use more water than can be provided by the wastewater, which is
represented by the dotted line in Figure 3.

8
 410000

Nitrogen Consumption (kg/ha)

400000
390000
380000
370000
360000
350000
340000
330000
320000
310000
1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b
Scenario

Figure 4 – Nitrogen Consumption of Scenarios 1 through 4b

The nitrogen requirements of each scenario can be found in Figure 4. The cropping
pattern prescribed for scenario 2b and 3b uses more nitrogen than the cropping pattern
prescribed by scenario 2a, 3a, 4a, 4b, and the current cropping pattern (scenario 1). In
addition, scenario 2b and 3b are the only scenarios which consume all of the nitrogen
available in the wastewater.

Discussion
Given the model assumptions and specifications stated earlier the following conclusions
can be drawn.

Water consumption did not play an active role in deciding which scenario benefited the
study area the most. The water required by the crops in all scenarios were equivalent
and therefore water did not recommend one scenario over another.

Scenarios 2b and 3b require more nitrogen than scenarios 2a, 3a, 4a and 4b. Since all of
the scenarios consume more than the amount of nitrogen present in the wastewater all of
the scenarios satisfy our requirements. Therefore, the greatest impact nitrogen will have
on the solution will be the added cost of additional nitrogen.

The greatest profit for the study area would be achieved by implementing the cropping
pattern recommended by scenarios 2b and 3b. However, these figures are not entirely
accurate. The excessive nitrogen consumption of scenarios 2b and 3b would detract from
the profit gained from producing these crops. We estimate that although there will be the
added cost of nitrogen fertilizer, scenarios 2b and 3b will still provide higher profits than
scenarios 2a, 3a, 4a and 4b.

We recognize the possibility of local resistance to the addition of new crops which were
examined in scenarios 2b, 3b and 4b. However, the addition of the new crops will

9
provide higher net profits and serve to diversify the agricultural commodities on which
the study area is dependent.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we recommend the implementation of the cropping pattern suggested by

scenarios 2b and 3b. This cropping pattern will provide the study area with increased net
revenue, a diversified agricultural commodities market and an economically and
environmentally sound method of wastewater disposal.

10
 Appendix
Mathematical calculations for Scenario 2a

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9 +

11300 x10 + 11260 x11
5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 6100 x2 +
2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9
c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 £ 1500
c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 Š 36
x1 + x10 + x11 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330

@
8
x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100

88
x10 + x11 + x8 + x9 == 36
<8 <D
<
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 , x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11
8554640,
x1 ® 930, x2 ® 434, x4 ® 0, x5 ® 0, x6 ® 100, x7 ® 0, x8 ® 36, x9 ® 0, x10 ® 0, x11 ® 0

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 2b

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 +

18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 185320 x12 + 183650 x13 + 112500 x14
5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 185320 x12 + 183650 x13 + 112500 x14 +
6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9
c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x3 + x12 + x13 + x14 £ 1500
c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x3 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 Š 36
x1 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330
x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x8 + x9 == 36

11
 Appendix

@8 <
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 2b continued

8 <D
8 8
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 ,

<
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11, x3, x12, x13, x14
14565920, x1 ® 930, x2 ® 434, x4 ® 0, x5 ® 0, x6 ® 100, x7 ® 0,
x8 ® 0, x9 ® 0, x10 ® 0, x11 ® 0, x3 ® 0, x12 ® 36, x13 ® 0, x14 ® 0

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 3a

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 +

18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11
5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 6100 x2 +
2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9
c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 £ 1500
c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 Š 36
c6 = 1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 558800000 x2 + 600000 x4 +
1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 + 900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 >= 8890000000
x1 + x10 + x11 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330
x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x8 + x9 == 36

@8 <
1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 558800000 x2 + 600000 x4 +

8 <D
1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 + 900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000

88
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6 ,

<
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11
8554640, x1 ® 930, x2 ® 434, x4 ® 0,
x5 ® 0, x6 ® 100, x7 ® 0, x8 ® 36, x9 ® 0, x10 ® 0, x11 ® 0

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 3b

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 +

18340 x8 + 18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 185320 x12 + 183650 x13 +
112500 x14

12
 Appendix
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 3b continued

5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 185320 x12 + 183650 x13 + 112500 x14 +
6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9

c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x3 + x12 + x13 + x14 £ 1500

c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x3 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 Š 36
c6 = 1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 558800000 x2 +
600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 + 900000 x7 + 600000 x8 +
600000 x9 + 1981200 x12 + 1981200 x13 + 1981200 x14 + 1600000 x3 >=
8890000000
x1 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330
x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x8 + x9 == 36
1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 1981200 x12 + 1981200 x13 +
1981200 x14 + 558800000 x2 + 1600000 x3 + 600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 +
600000 x6 + 900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000
1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 1981200 x12 + 1981200 x13 +

@8 <
1981200 x14 + 558800000 x2 + 1600000 x3 + 600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 +

8 <D
600000 x6 + 900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x98890000000

8 8
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6 ,

<
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11, x3, x12, x13, x14
14565920, x1 ® 930, x2 ® 434, x4 ® 0, x5 ® 0, x6 ® 100, x7 ® 0, x8 ® 0,
x9 ® 0, x10 ® 0, x11 ® 0, x3 ® 0, x12 ® 36, x13 ® 0, x14 ® 0

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 4a

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 +

18340 x8 + 18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11
5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 6100 x2 + 2990 x4 +
2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9

13
 Appendix
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 4a continued

c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 £ 1500

c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 Š 36
c6 = 200 x1 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 + 112 x6 + 112 x7 +
134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 ³ 317514.7
x1 + x10 + x11 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330
x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x8 + x9 == 36

@8 <
200 x1 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 +

8 <D
89.6 x5 + 112 x6 + 112 x7 + 134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 ³ 317515.

8 8
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6 ,

<
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11
8.55464 ´ 106, x1 ® 930., x2 ® 434., x4 ® 0, x5 ® 0,
x6 ® 100., x7 ® 0, x8 ® 36., x9 ® 0, x10 ® 0, x11 ® 0

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 4b

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 +

3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 +
185320 x12 + 183650 x13 + 112500 x14
c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x3 +
x12 + x13 + x14 £ 1500
c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x3 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 Š 36
c6 = 200 x1 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 + 112 x6 + 112 x7 +
134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + x3 + 951 x12 +
951 x13 + 951 x14 ³ 317514.7
x1 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 +
x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930

14
 Appendix
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 4b continued

x2 ³ 330
x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x8 + x9 == 36
200 x1 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + 951 x12 +

@8 <
951 x13 + 951 x14 + 400 x2 + x3 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 +

8 <D
112 x6 + 112 x7 + 134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 ³ 317515.
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6 ,
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11, x3, x12,

8 8
x13, x14

<
8.55464 ´ 106, x1 ® 930., x2 ® 434.,
x4 ® 0, x5 ® 0, x6 ® 100., x7 ® 0, x8 ® 36., x9 ® 0,
x10 ® 0, x11 ® 0, x3 ® 0, x12 ® 0, x13 ® 0, x14 ® 0

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 5a

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 +

18340 x8 + 18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11
5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 6100 x2 + 2990 x4 +
2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9
c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 £ 1500
c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 Š 36
c6 = 1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 558800000 x2 +
600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 + 900000 x7 +
600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000
c7 = 200 x1 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 + 112 x6 + 112 x7 +
134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 ³ 317514.7
x1 + x10 + x11 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330
x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x8 + x9 == 36

15
 Appendix
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 5a continued

1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 +

558800000 x2 + 600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 +
900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000

@
8 <
200 x1 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 +

8 <D
89.6 x5 + 112 x6 + 112 x7 + 134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 ³ 317515.
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7 ,
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11
ConstrainedMax::nsatt :

@
The specified constraints cannot be
satisfied with tolerance 1.`*^-6.

8
ConstrainedMax 5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 6100 x2 +
2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9,
x1 + x10 + x11 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500,
x1 ³ 930, x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100, x10 + x11 + x8 + x9 == 36,
x2 ³ 330, 1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 +
558800000 x2 + 600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 +

<
900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000,

8 <D
200 x1 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 +
112 x6 + 112 x7 + 134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 ³ 317515. ,
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11

Mathematica calculations for Scenario 5b

f = 5000 x1 + 6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 +

3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 +
185320 x12 + 183650 x13 + 112500 x14
5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 + 185320 x12 +
183650 x13 + 112500 x14 + 6100 x2 + 870 x3 + 2990 x4 +
2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9

16
 Appendix
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 5b continued

c1 = x1 + x2 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x3 +
x12 + x13 + x14 £ 1500
c2 = x1 ³ 930
c5 = x2 ³ 330
c3 = x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x3 ³ 100
c4 = x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 Š 36
c6 = 200 x1 + 400 x2 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 + 112 x6 + 112 x7 +
134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + x3 + 951 x12 +
951 x13 + 951 x14 ³ 317514.7
c7 = 1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 558800000 x2 +
600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 + 900000 x7 +
600000 x8 + 600000 x9 + 1981200 x12 + 1981200 x13 +
1981200 x14 + 1600000 x3 >= 8890000000
x1 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 +
x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 £ 1500
x1 ³ 930
x2 ³ 330
x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100
x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x8 + x9 == 36
200 x1 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + 951 x12 +
951 x13 + 951 x14 + 400 x2 + x3 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 +
112 x6 + 112 x7 + 134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 ³ 317515.
1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 +
1981200 x12 + 1981200 x13 + 1981200 x14 + 558800000 x2 +

@8 <
1600000 x3 + 600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 +

8 <D
900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000
ConstrainedMax f, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7 ,
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11, x3, x12,
x13, x14

ConstrainedMax::nsatt :
The specified constraints cannot be
satisfied with tolerance 1.`*^-6.

17
 Appendix

@
Mathematica calculations for Scenario 5b continued

ConstrainedMax 5000 x1 + 11300 x10 + 11260 x11 +

8
185320 x12 + 183650 x13 + 112500 x14 + 6100 x2 + 870 x3 +
2990 x4 + 2210 x5 + 5970 x6 + 3900 x7 + 18340 x8 + 18250 x9,
x1 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 +
x8 + x9 £ 1500, x1 ³ 930, x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 ³ 100,
x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x8 + x9 == 36, x2 ³ 330,
200 x1 + 89.6 x10 + 89.6 x11 + 951 x12 + 951 x13 +
951 x14 + 400 x2 + x3 + 134.4 x4 + 89.6 x5 +
112 x6 + 112 x7 + 134.4 x8 + 134.4 x9 ³ 317515.,
1200000 x1 + 1168400 x10 + 1168400 x11 + 1981200 x12 +

<
1981200 x13 + 1981200 x14 + 558800000 x2 +

8
1600000 x3 + 600000 x4 + 1168400 x5 + 600000 x6 +

<D
900000 x7 + 600000 x8 + 600000 x9 ³ 8890000000 ,
x1, x2, x4, x5, x6, x7, x8, x9, x10, x11,
x3, x12, x13, x14

18