Linear Programming

  • Raphael T. Haftka
  • Zafer Gürdal
Part of the Solid Mechanics And Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 11)


Mathematical programming is concerned with the extremization of a function f defined over an n-dimensional design space R n and bounded by a set S in the design space. The set S may be defined by equality or inequality constraints, and these constraints may assume linear or nonlinear forms. The function f together with the set S in the domain of f is called a mathematical program or a mathematical programming problem. This terminology is in common usage in the context of problems which arise in planning and scheduling which are generally studied under operations research, the branch of mathematics concerned with decision making processes. Mathematical programming problems may be classified into several different categories depending on the nature and form of the design variables, constraint functions, and the objective function. However, only two of these categories are of interest to us, namely linear and nonlinear programming problems (commonly designated as LP and NLP, respectively).


Objective Function Design Variable Linear Programming Problem Collapse Load Basic Feasible Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Charnes, A. and Greenberg, H. J., “Plastic Collapse and Linear Programming,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc, 57, 480, 1951.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Calladine, C.R., Engineering Plasticity. Pergamon Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Cohn, M.Z., Ghosh, S.K. and Parimi, S.R., “Unified Approach to Theory of Plastic Structures,” Journal of the EM Division, 98(EM5), pp. 1133–1158, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Neal, B. G., The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis, 3rd edition, Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Zeman, P. and Irvine, H. M., Plastic Design, An Imposed Hinge-Rotation Approach, Allen and Unwin, Boston, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Massonet, C.E. and Save, M.A., Plastic Analysis and Design, Beams and Frames, Vol. 1. Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1965.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Lin, T.Y. and Burns, N.H., Design of Prestressed Concrete Structures, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Parme, A.L. and Paris, G.H., “Designing for Continuity in Prestressed Concrete Structures,” J. Am. Concr. Inst., 23(1), pp. 45–64, 1951.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Morris, D., “Prestressed Concrete Design by Linear Programming,” J. Struct. Div., 104(ST3), pp. 439–452, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kirsch, U., “Optimum Design of Prestressed Beams,” Computers and Structures 2, pp. 573–583, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Luenberger, D. G., Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Majid, K.I., Nonlinear Structures, London, Butterworths, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Dantzig, G., Linear Programming and Extensions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1963.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Karmarkar, N., “A New Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Linear Programming,” Combinatorica, 4(4), pp. 373–395, 1984.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Todd, M. J. and Burrell, B. P., “An Extension of Karmarkar’s Algorithm for Linear Programming Using Dual Variables,” Algorithmica, 1, pp. 409–424, 1986.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Rinaldi, G., “A Projective Method for Linear Programming with Box-type Constraints,” Algorithmica, 1, pp. 517–527, 1986.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Strang, G., “Karmarkar’s Algorithm and its Place in Applied Mathematics,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, 9, 2, pp. 4–10, 1987.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Vanderbei, R. F., Meketon, M. S., and Freedman, B. A., “A Modification of Karmarkar’s Linear Programming Algorithm,” Algorithmica, 1, pp. 395–407, 1986.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Garfinkel, R. S., and Nemhauser, G. L., Integer Programming, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1972.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Lawler, E. L., and Wood, D. E., “Branch-and-Bound Methods—A Survey,” Operations research, 14, pp. 699–719, 1966.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Tomlin, J. A., “Branch-and-Bound Methods for Integer and Non-convex Programming,” in Integer and Nonlinear Programming, J. Abadie (ed.), pp. 437–450, Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, 1970.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Land, A. H., and Doig, A. G., “An Automatic Method for Solving Discrete Programming Problems,” Econometrica, 28, pp. 497–520, 1960.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Johnson, E. L., and Powell, S., “Integer Programming Codes,” in Design and Implementation of Optimization Software, Greenberg, H. J. (ed.), pp. 225–240, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Schrage, L., Linear, Integer, and Quadratic Programming with LINDO, 4th Edition, The Scientific Press, Redwood City CA., 1989.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Kovács, L. B., Combinatorial Methods of Discrete Programming, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research Series, Vol. 2, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1980.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Haftka, R. T., and Walsh, J. L., “Stacking-sequence Optimization for Buckling of Laminated Plates by Integer Programming,” AIAA J. (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphael T. Haftka
    • 1
  • Zafer Gürdal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace and Ocean EngineeringVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Engineering Science and MechanicsVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations