How Do I Solve This Multivariable Optimization Problem for Maximum Box Volume?

In summary, I attempted to find the critical points for maximizing the potential volume of a rectangular box using the second derivative test, but I got an incorrect answer.
  • #1
Pizzerer
10
0

Homework Statement


I have 12m2 of cardboard. I must make a rectangular box with no lid, but I must maximize the potential volume of the box. The length, width and height of the box are x,y,z.

Homework Equations


I know that xyz = V (volume). I know the surface area is 12m2
∴ 2xz+2yz+xy=12
∴z=(12-xy)/(2x+2y)
∴V = xy(12-xy)/(2x+2y)

I've done the calculations to find the first and second derivatives:

∂V/∂x = -y2(x2+2xy-12)/2(x+y)2
∂V/∂y = -x2(y2+2xy-12)/2(x+y)2

The Attempt at a Solution


I know I must make these = 0 in order to find the critical points. I must then use the Hessian matrix to apply the second derivative test.

For ∂V/∂x=0 I got the identity x=(12-y2)/2y
I then subbed this into x2+2xy-12

The I got this equation: 3y4+24y2-24=0

I think the y values of this equations represent the y-values of the critical points, but I don't know how to evaluate them. Or maybe I made a mistake somewhere along the way. Can anyone help me with this? I'd really appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Pizzerer said:

Homework Statement


I have 12m2 of cardboard. I must make a rectangular box with no lid, but I must maximize the potential volume of the box. The length, width and height of the box are x,y,z.


Homework Equations


I know that xyz = V (volume). I know the surface area is 12m2
∴ 2xz+2yz+xy=12
∴z=(12-xy)/(2x+2y)
∴V = xy(12-xy)/(2x+2y)

I've done the calculations to find the first and second derivatives:

∂V/∂x = -y2(x2+2xy-12)/2(x+y)2
∂V/∂y = -x2(y2+2xy-12)/2(x+y)2

The Attempt at a Solution


I know I must make these = 0 in order to find the critical points. I must then use the Hessian matrix to apply the second derivative test.

For ∂V/∂x=0 I got the identity x=(12-y2)/2y
I then subbed this into x2+2xy-12

The I got this equation: 3y4+24y2-24=0

I think the y values of this equations represent the y-values of the critical points, but I don't know how to evaluate them. Or maybe I made a mistake somewhere along the way. Can anyone help me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

Are you sure you're approaching this the right way? These kinds of problems usually start with a rectangular piece of cardboard or metal or whatever, and have squares cut out of the corners, forming four flaps. The flaps are then folded up to make the sides of the box.

Also, 12 m2 is a BIG piece of cardboard.
 
  • #3
I'm pretty sure. I even looked over some tutorial notes online and the V=xy(12-xy)/(2x+2y) formula was mentioned. I know of the method with cutting out the corners. I'll try that now instead, but my lecturer has, annoyingly, failed to provide the final answer to the problem, so I can't even check if my work is correct.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I just went over my notes. It seems I can only use the 'cutting out of corners' method when I have an actual value associated with the width, breath and height. I have no numerical values other the fact that the surface area = 12m2
 
  • #5
Pizzerer said:
I just went over my notes. It seems I can only use the 'cutting out of corners' method when I have an actual value associated with the width, breath and height. I have no numerical values other the fact that the surface area = 12m2

I think you are doing everything ok, basically. But I get 3y^4+24*y^2-144=0. That has simpler roots. Check your derivation. You can solve an equation like that by putting u=y^2 and solving the quadratic in u.
 
  • #6
Dick said:
I think you are doing everything ok, basically. But I get 3y^4+24*y^2-144=0. That has simpler roots. Check your derivation. You can solve an equation like that by putting u=y^2 and solving the quadratic in u.

Ah! Sweet, that makes complete sense. Thanks a million!
 
  • #7
Pizzerer said:

Homework Statement


I have 12m2 of cardboard. I must make a rectangular box with no lid, but I must maximize the potential volume of the box. The length, width and height of the box are x,y,z.


Homework Equations


I know that xyz = V (volume). I know the surface area is 12m2
∴ 2xz+2yz+xy=12
∴z=(12-xy)/(2x+2y)
∴V = xy(12-xy)/(2x+2y)

I've done the calculations to find the first and second derivatives:

∂V/∂x = -y2(x2+2xy-12)/2(x+y)2
∂V/∂y = -x2(y2+2xy-12)/2(x+y)2

The Attempt at a Solution


I know I must make these = 0 in order to find the critical points. I must then use the Hessian matrix to apply the second derivative test.

For ∂V/∂x=0 I got the identity x=(12-y2)/2y
I then subbed this into x2+2xy-12

The I got this equation: 3y4+24y2-24=0

I think the y values of this equations represent the y-values of the critical points, but I don't know how to evaluate them. Or maybe I made a mistake somewhere along the way. Can anyone help me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

Your solution is incorrect: the solution of the problem
[tex] \max V = f(x,y) = \frac{xy(12 - xy)}{2(x+y)}[/tex]
is ##x = y = 2##, ##V = 4##. However, the true solution to the problem is
[tex] x = y = \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}, \; z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}, \: V = \frac{16 \sqrt{3}}{9}
\doteq 3.0792.[/tex]
Your expression for area is incorrect.
 
  • #8
Ray Vickson said:
Your solution is incorrect: the solution of the problem
[tex] \max V = f(x,y) = \frac{xy(12 - xy)}{2(x+y)}[/tex]
is ##x = y = 2##, ##V = 4##. However, the true solution to the problem is
[tex] x = y = \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}, \; z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}, \: V = \frac{16 \sqrt{3}}{9}
\doteq 3.0792.[/tex]
Your expression for area is incorrect.

Why?
 
  • #9
Dick said:
Why?
I think Ray is assuming that the cardboard is provided as a single square, and that the box is to be made of a single piece cut from this. The second assumption would be reasonable if the first were a given, but since it is not the question becomes somewhat unclear.
Since the shape of the provided cardboard is not given, we are forced to assume that we can cut it and reglue it as necessary, without loss. This leads to the 2x2x1 solution, but calculus is unnecessary if we assume that the most efficient closed rectangular box is a cube.
 
  • #10
haruspex said:
I think Ray is assuming that the cardboard is provided as a single square, and that the box is to be made of a single piece cut from this. The second assumption would be reasonable if the first were a given, but since it is not the question becomes somewhat unclear.
Since the shape of the provided cardboard is not given, we are forced to assume that we can cut it and reglue it as necessary, without loss. This leads to the 2x2x1 solution, but calculus is unnecessary if we assume that the most efficient closed rectangular box is a cube.

The first part of the question responses went through cut out and fold option and rejected it. I guess Ray Vickson skipped that. Since it's an easy question and the question is labelled 'multivariable optimization' , I don't see why you would choose to 'assume that the most efficient closed rectangular box is a cube'. It's easy enough to prove.
 
  • #11
Dick said:
I don't see why you would choose to 'assume that the most efficient closed rectangular box is a cube'.
Let me put it a different way. If you already have the result that the most efficient closed rectangular box is a cube, by whatever means, you don't need calculus to solve the open rectangular box case. It's a two-liner.
 
  • #12
Dick said:
The first part of the question responses went through cut out and fold option and rejected it. I guess Ray Vickson skipped that. Since it's an easy question and the question is labelled 'multivariable optimization' , I don't see why you would choose to 'assume that the most efficient closed rectangular box is a cube'. It's easy enough to prove.

As far as I can make out the rejection of the cut-and-fold method was illegitimate. The OP said:
"I just went over my notes. It seems I can only use the 'cutting out of corners' method when I have an actual value associated with the width, breath and height. I have no numerical values other the fact that the surface area = 12m2".

He seems to be saying that he is not allowed to use the cut and fold method unless he already knows the numerical values. (I assume he does NOT mean that his instructor will only allow the non-cut-and-fold method!)

Without knowing the dimensions, the cardboard length is x + 2z and the width is y + 2z, so the area is (x+2z)*(y+2z) = 12. One can show that the optimal solution has x = y (for example, using the Lagrange multiplier method), so the problem is to maximize ##V = x^2 z,## subject to ##(x+2z)^2 = 12,## or ##x = \sqrt{12}-2z.## Now
[tex]V = z (\sqrt{12}-2z)^2[/tex] is pretty easy to maximize.
 
  • #13
Ray Vickson said:
As far as I can make out the rejection of the cut-and-fold method was illegitimate. The OP said:
"I just went over my notes. It seems I can only use the 'cutting out of corners' method when I have an actual value associated with the width, breath and height. I have no numerical values other the fact that the surface area = 12m2".

He seems to be saying that he is not allowed to use the cut and fold method unless he already knows the numerical values. (I assume he does NOT mean that his instructor will only allow the non-cut-and-fold method!)

Without knowing the dimensions, the cardboard length is x + 2z and the width is y + 2z, so the area is (x+2z)*(y+2z) = 12. One can show that the optimal solution has x = y (for example, using the Lagrange multiplier method), so the problem is to maximize ##V = x^2 z,## subject to ##(x+2z)^2 = 12,## or ##x = \sqrt{12}-2z.## Now
[tex]V = z (\sqrt{12}-2z)^2[/tex] is pretty easy to maximize.

I think the main evidence that the intent was to have the final area of the box be 12m^2 is that Pizzerer found V=xy(12-xy)/(2x+2y) in the tutorial notes, which omitted the final answer. Getting a nice whole number solution that way is also suggestive. Actually, I think the OP's main question was how to solve the quartic.
 
  • #14
Dick said:
I think the main evidence that the intent was to have the final area of the box be 12m^2 is that Pizzerer found V=xy(12-xy)/(2x+2y) in the tutorial notes, which omitted the final answer. Getting a nice whole number solution that way is also suggestive. Actually, I think the OP's main question was how to solve the quartic.

OK, but it would have been much easier if the OP noticed that V_x = 0 gives x^2 + 2xy = 12 and V_y = 0 gives y^2 + 2xy = 12. From these it follows that x = y, hence
[tex]V = x^2 (12-x^2)/(4x) = (1/4) x (12-x^2).[/tex]
It is much easier to maximize this simple cubic than to deal with a quartic (athough that quartic is a quadratic in disguise).
 
  • #15
Thanks for all the help, guys. I appreciate it.
 

FAQ: How Do I Solve This Multivariable Optimization Problem for Maximum Box Volume?

What is a multivariable optimization problem?

A multivariable optimization problem is a mathematical problem in which the goal is to find the optimal values for multiple variables in order to maximize or minimize a certain objective function. This type of problem is commonly encountered in fields such as engineering, economics, and physics.

2. How do you approach solving a multivariable optimization problem?

There are various approaches to solving a multivariable optimization problem, but one common method is to use mathematical techniques such as gradient descent or the simplex method. These methods involve iteratively adjusting the values of the variables in order to reach the optimal solution.

3. Are there any common challenges in solving multivariable optimization problems?

Yes, some common challenges in solving multivariable optimization problems include dealing with a large number of variables, finding a good starting point for the optimization process, and ensuring that the solution is a global optimum rather than a local one.

4. Can computer programs be used to solve multivariable optimization problems?

Yes, computer programs can be very useful in solving multivariable optimization problems. They can handle large amounts of data and perform complex calculations quickly and accurately. Many software packages specifically designed for optimization, such as MATLAB and Mathematica, are available for this purpose.

5. How can I check if my solution to a multivariable optimization problem is correct?

One way to check the correctness of a solution is to use sensitivity analysis, which involves changing the values of the variables slightly and observing the resulting changes in the objective function. Another approach is to compare the solution to results obtained using different optimization methods or to analytical solutions, if available.

Back
Top