Minimisation question - volume

  • Thread starter Thread starter nathangrand
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Volume
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on minimizing the visible surface area of a cuboid coal box while ensuring it can contain a specified volume V of coal. Two primary methods are presented: substituting the volume constraint into the surface area formula and using Lagrange multipliers to derive a system of equations. The visible surface area is expressed as A = 2hd + wd, and the volume constraint is V = hwd. Both methods lead to a set of equations that can be solved to find optimal dimensions for height h and depth d.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically partial derivatives
  • Familiarity with optimization techniques, including Lagrange multipliers
  • Knowledge of geometric properties of cuboids
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Lagrange multipliers in optimization problems
  • Learn how to derive and solve partial derivatives in multivariable calculus
  • Explore geometric optimization problems involving volume and surface area
  • Investigate real-world applications of minimizing surface area in engineering design
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineering students, and professionals involved in optimization problems, particularly those focusing on geometric configurations and surface area minimization.

nathangrand
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
A coal box, in the shape of a cuboid, is to be placed flush against a wall so that only its top, front and two ends are visible. How should the height h and the depth d be chosen so a to minimise the visible surface area A under the constraint that the box must be able to contain atleast a certain volume V of coal?

Here's how far I've got:

V=hwd (where w is the width)
Visible surafce area = 2hd + homework +wd
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two ways to approach this. One is to use hwd= V to reduce the number of variables: h= V/wd so the function to be minimized becomes 2hd + homework +wd = 2(V/wd)d+ (V/wd)w+ wd= 2V/w+ V/d+ wd. Now take the partial derivatives with respect to w and d and set them equal to 0.

The other way is to use Lagrange multipliers. The gradient of the target function is <2h+ w, 2d+ w, h+ d> where the components are the derivatives with respect to d, h, and w in that order. The gradient of the constraint function, with derivatives in the same order, is <hw, wd, hd>. At the optimal point, we must have &lt;2h+ w, 2d+ w, h+ d&gt;= \lambda&lt;hw, wd, hd&gt;. That is, we must have 2h+ w= \lambda hw, 2d+w= \lambda wd, and h+ d= \lambda hd, which, together with hwd= V, give four equations for d, h, w, and \lambda.

Since a value of \lambda is not necessary for the solution, I find it is often best to eliminate \lambda by dividing one equation by another.
 
Thanks - I'll give both methods a go and see how I get on!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
29K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K