Add Values until Threshold is reached, then go to next Threshold - excel

I would need to add up values from D11 and downwards so that once the threshold in column E is reached, the remainder is assigned to the next threshold (so, once bucket A -E3- is filled, it goes on the next). As per below example, in D14 1 euro is assigned to Sector A and the other 32 to B. To reach the following threshold in E4 18 euros are needed, so that amount would be written in D15.
I tried with (in D11) =IF(SUM(OFFSET(C11,,,,1,1))<=E3,C11,E3-C11) to start, thinking I could somehow find a way to count the height of the range, but I am stuck. Maybe a Macro would be a better option? If so, could someone guide me on how to start?
[EDIT] Although I have received a perfectly working answer, I tried to continue with the logic I was using above, yet there is the need of one help column and a number of references that gives headache, plus, it still needs more work. Simple is better!

I would keep things simple with a pull-down/pull across formula like this:
=MIN($C12-SUM($D12:D12),E$10-SUM(E11:E$11))
Can split across multiple sectors if required:

Related

Split total by percentage and receive the same result

This is a little bit complicated to describe, but I will try my best. I have a total, let's say 1000. Then I want to split it by percentages, position count is all the time different. So there can be 3 or 70 or 130 positions or whatever. Then split sum should correspond to target value.
Here is an example of the case:
I input names under Customer request
I enter percentage for position under Percentage
In amount calculation I use =CEILING($C$5*C10;10) and in all the rest of the cells the same to get numbers look nice. It is working fine but he problem is that now totals does not match. It should end up in 15550 but after calculating totals after split it is 15660.
Is there any ideas what kind of master artificial intelligent formula can do the trick to produce nice looking numbers, taking in consideration to match Total (target) in the end if Total (calculated) percentage is 100%?
P.S. Any ideas are welcomed as well. The target is to have nice looking, rounded numbers that will sum in the same number as target - total.
Since you are using CEILING, your output number (e.g. 15660) is guaranteed to be greater than or equal to your input number (e.g. 15550). This is because any time a "perfect match" isn't found, it rounds up.
My first suggestion is to instead use ROUND instead of CEILING. Right off the bat this will perform better than CEILING because ROUND can round up or down but CEILING can only round up.
E.g. try this:
= ROUND($C$5*C10,-1)
Since you provide no details as to "how" the data needs to be adjusted to meet your input value, I can't really provide any automatic solution.
One manual solution is that you can make a new column which indicates whether the data was rounded up or rounded down, and you can adjust the percentages manually to get the data you're looking for.
Here's a formula to tell you if the data is rounded up or down (e.g. put formula in cell E10 and drag down):
= CHOOSE(SIGN(D10-($C$5*C10))+2,"Round Down","Perfect Match","Round Up")
You can use this information to manually tweak your percentages. For example... if your output value is too high, you can slightly decrease some of the higher percentages that "Round Up" and slightly increase some of the lower percentages (e.g. if you have 10% and 3%, maybe change them to 10.1% and 2.9% to see if that makes a difference.)

Excel Group rows based on time interval

I have the following excel result:
I want to group the above result in groups based on sessions i.e. if the time gap between two successive timestamps is greater than 5 minutes, it must be a new row.
For example :
I need some formula to achieve this. As I'm fairly new to Excel this is causing to be a major headache for me. Please help me, if anyone knows how to do it or at least point me in a direction.
Thanks a ton !!!
Judging by your screenshot, it appears your timestamps are actually text values. Text by default is usually left aligned where as numbers are right aligned. You seem to have a space at the end of your time stamp suggesting that it is probably left aligned and therefore text. You can test it with the following formula which will return TRUE if its text.
=ISTEXT(P2)
where P2 is one of your time stamps.
CONVERT TIMESTAMPS TO TIME
There are a variety of ways to do this. Some will depend on system settings. Take a look at the following functions as each might be useable depending on your system. The first two are a guarantee, the last two are more dependent on system settings.
DATE
TIME
DATEVALUE
TIMEVALUE
Something important to remember here is that in excel dates are integers counting the days since 1900/01/01 with that date being 1. Time is stored as a decimal and represents fraction/percentage of a day. 24:00:00 is not a valid time in excel though some functions may work with it.
So in order to convert your time stamp in P2 I used the following formula to pull out the date:
=DATE(LEFT(P2,4),MID(P2,FIND("-",P2)+1,2),MID(P2,FIND(" ",P2)-2,2))
Basically it goes into the text and strips out the individual numbers for Year, Month and Day.
To pull out the time, I could have done the same procedure but elected to demonstrate the TIMEVALUE method which is a little more robust than DATEVALUE and not a subjective to system settings as much. With the following formula I stripped out the whole time code (MINUS"UTC"):
=TIMEVALUE(TRIM(MID(P2,FIND(" ",P2)+1,FIND("UTC",P2)-FIND(" ",P2)-1)))
I also made an assumption that you are not mixing and matching UTC with other time zones which means it can be ignored. Now to get DATE and TIME all in one cell, you just need to add the two formulas together to get:
=DATE(LEFT(P2,4),MID(P2,FIND("-",P2)+1,2),MID(P2,FIND(" ",P2)-2,2))+TIMEVALUE(TRIM(MID(P2,FIND(" ",P2)+1,FIND("UTC",P2)-FIND(" ",P2)-1)))
In the example at the end, I placed that formula in Q2 and copied down
DELTA TIME
Since you want to break your groups out based on a time difference between individual entries, I used a helper column to store the time difference. In my example at the end I stored this difference in Column S. The first entry is blank as there is no time before it. I used the following formula in S3 and copied it downward.
=Q3-Q2
I applied the custom formatting of [h]:mm:ss to the cell to get it to display as shown.
FIND GROUP BREAK POINTS
In my example I am using helper column T to hold breakpoint flags. At a minimum, you will have two break points. Your first time entry and your last time entry. To make like simple I simply hard coded my first breakpoint flag in T2 as 1. Stating in T3, Three checks need to be made. If any of them are TRUE then the next flag needs to be added with a value increase by one. the three checks are:
Is this the last entry
Is the next time delta greater than 5 minutes (means end of a group)
Is this time delta greater than 5 minutes (means start of a group)
Based on those three checks I placed the following formula in T3 and copied down:
=IF(OR(S4="",S4>TIME(0,5,0),S3>TIME(0,5,0)),MAX($T$2:T2)+1,"")
Note the $ on the first part of the range for the MAX function. This will lock the start of the range while the formula gets copied down while the end of the range increases accordingly.
Also the row after the last time entry must be blank. IF it is not blank and has a set value in it, change the S4="" to S4="set value".
GENERATE TABLE
There are multiple ways to reference the flags and pull the corresponding times. a couple of formulas you can look into are:
INDEX / MATCH
LOOKUP
In this example I elected to use LOOKUP though I believe INDEX and MATCH are more appropriate and robust. For starters we want to generate a list of ODD number and EVEN numbers. These represent the start and end of the groups and correspond to the flags set in column T. One way to generate ODD and EVEN numbers as you copy down is:
=ROW(A1)*2-1 (ODD)
=ROW(A1)*2 (EVEN)
The next step is to find the generated number in Column T and then pull its corresponding timestamp in Column Q. I did this with the following formula in V2 and copied down.
=LOOKUP(ROW(A1)*2-1,T:T,Q:Q)
And in W2
=LOOKUP(ROW(A1)*2,T:T,Q:Q)

Excel- Need to ignore "±" and sometimes a "°" in a larger function

I have a series of spreadsheets that list design drawing dimensions. A1 is a number corresponding to a drawing, B1 is the dimension on the drawing, C1 is the actual dimension we encountered, D1 is the manufacturing error tolerance which is something like ±.005 or ± 1°. They vary between a few numbers on each drawing, and the drawings vary. E1 is a column that needs to say either Accept or Reject, reject is when the B1 dimension is more than the D1 away from the C1 value.
I inherited the spreadsheet with the function =IF(AND(C1<=(B1+.005), C1>=(B1-.005)), "Accept", "Reject"). This works, but I need to keep changing the .005 to values like .020 and 1° and I want to finish this faster than doing it all by hand. I would like to be able to drag in down the whole E column and have it fill out accept and reject accordingly.
I tried changing it (C1<=(B1+D1)) so it pulls from the tolerance, but get a value error because every tolerance has a ± in front of it. I tried adding MID to it, but I keep getting errors because I'm not quite sure how to incorporate it.
I couldn't find other help online because most people using MID are trying to extract characters, but I need the tolerances to stay the same in the D column. Avoiding errors from "°" would also be helpful, but that's only about 5% of the data and I deal with doing those manually if I have to. Kinda new to excel, still trying to really understand the intricacies and necessary syntax of the functions, so sorry if this is and easy one.
For the Mid I tried C1<=(B1+(MID(D1,2,4))) Which I know is very wrong. Thanks for any and all help!
Taking your approach:
=IF(AND(C1<=(B1+MID(SUBSTITUTE(D1,"°",""),2,LEN(D1))),C1>=(B1-MID(SUBSTITUTE(D1,"°",""),2,LEN(D1)))),"Accept","Reject")
Thanks pnuts
=IF(AND(C1<=(B1+MID(SUBSTITUTE(D1,"°",""),2,LEN(D1))),C1>=(B1-MID(SUBSTITUTE(D1,"°",""),2,LEN(D1)))),"Accept","Reject

Microsoft Excel 2007 Always round up even if the decimal is under 0.5

So I'm creating a spreadsheet that determines the cost of materials and the number of each material needed in order to complete a desire project using input from myself. Right now the desired project is a wall that is 250x9 that requires replace all the 4x8 sheets of wood with OSB and install Vinyl Siding. The issue I'm running into is I cannot get it to always round up. By that I mean even if the value is 1.1 it should round up. In this specific case I am buying nails for my nail gun in a box of 2,000 and each sheet of OSB will have 32 nails in it. If 250x9 area requires 70.3125 sheets of OSB it means I still have to buy 71 sheets of OSB. If that OSB is 71 sheets then it require that I have 2272 Nails then the result is I need 1.125 Boxes of nails. However I can't seem to get it to show this as 2 boxes because again I still need to purchase more than one box to complete the project. So with that being said if I take the number of OSB needed 70.3125 and I place it in a formula with a roundup function it still rounds down (gives me a headache that there is a roundup and a rounddown function and it will still round down on me. Perhaps it is the way I am using it in the formula that is incorrect, I'm not sure. So let me translate the formula's used and you can let me know if I'm doing something wrong or if there is a function or set of functions that I can use to solve this issue.
=SUM(((B30*C30)+(B35*C35)+(E30*F30)+(H30*I30))/(E9*G9))
This says that if I added Wall1 L*W with Wall2 L*W with Wall3 L*W with Wall4 L*W and divide it by OSB H*W I get the number of sheets needed. Which in this case is 2250/32 basically. But its programmed in a manner that I can input the information for individual walls to different area's and get it to spit out the total SqFt for each wall and give an individual breakdown per wall of material needed with cost associated per sq ft of material bleh bleh bleh. The point is I take the result that is the 70.3125 and I move it to a different workbook and I say "Sheets OSB Needed" and in that box I have
=ROUNDUP(Sheet1!A9,1)
Whereas I'm asking it to roundup A9 which is the result of the above formula by intervals of 1. But the output is still 70 instead of 71. and much the same case with the nails needed. Which can be calculated in a few different manners but regardless the amount of nails needed divided by 2000 would output the decimal answer which yields a value of less than 1.5 and it too provides me with a value of 1 instead of 2 with much the same formula. I could achieve my desired result I suppose with Trunc and Mod functions collaborating using multiple cells to output the different portions of the data. But is there a way to do this that doesn't involve so many cells being used up?
C7
=Trunc(A9)
Removes Decimal from 70.3125
C8
=MOD(A9)
Outputs decimals from 70.3125
C9
=IF(C8<1,"1",C8)
If Decimals are < a whole number make it a whole number
C3
=SUM(C7+C9)
Add the whole number to the Trunc Number to get value desired.
Which I'm already seeing an issue with this if there is no decimals in the sheets needed then wouldn't it always add one because the decimal place would be 0? How can I handle this issue? Isn't there an easier way to do this or a way to code it so that its all nested into one calculation or at least mostly all into one calculation without making a circular reference of some sort?
You need to change the second parameter to a 0 ROUNDUP(70.3125, 1) is 70.3 the 3 must be getting dropped elsewhere or lost in formatting.
ROUNDUP(70.3125, 0) will give 71.
The second parameter of round up is the decimal place. So to round to integers it should be 0 not 1

How can I implement 'balanced' error spreading functionality in Excel?

I have a requirement in Excel to spread small; i.e. pennies, monetry rounding errors fairly across the members of my club.
The error arises when I deduct money from members; e.g. £30 divided between 21 members is £1.428571... requiring £1.43 to be deducted from each member, totalling £30.03, in order to hit the £30 target.
The approach that I want to take, continuing the above example, is to deduct £1.42 from each member, totalling £29.82, and then deduct the remaining £0.18 using an error spreading technique to randomly take an extra penny from 18 of the 21 members.
This immediately made me think of Reservoir Sampling, and I used the information here: Random selection,
to construct the test Excel spreadsheet here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/snbkldt6e8qkcco/ErrorSpreading.xls, on Dropbox, for you guys to play with...
The problem I have is that each row of this spreadsheet calculates the error distribution indepentently of every other row, and this causes some members to contribute more than their fair share of extra pennies.
What I am looking for is a modification to the Resevoir Sampling technique, or another balanced / 2 dimensional error spreading methodology that I'm not aware of, that will minimise the overall error between members across many 'error spreading' rows.
I think this is one of those challenging problems that has a huge number of other uses, so I'm hoping you geniuses have some good ideas!
Thanks for any insight you can share :)
Will
I found a solution. Not very elegant, through.
You have to use two matrix. In the first you get completely random number, chosen with =RANDOM() and in the second you choose the n greater value
Say that in F30 you have the first
=RANDOM()
cell.
(I have experimented with your sheet.)
Just copy a column of n (in your sheet 8) in column A)
In cell F52 you put:
=IF(RANK(F30,$F30:$Z30)<=$A52, 1, 0)
Until now, if you drag left and down the formulas, you have the same situation that is in your sheet (only less elegant und efficient).
But starting from the second row of random number you could compensate for the penny esbursed.
In cell F31 you put:
=RANDOM()-SUM(F$52:F52)*0.5
(pay attention to the $, each random number should have a correction basated on penny already spent.)
If the $ are ok you should be OK dragging formulas left and down. You could also parametrize the 0.5 and experiment with other values. With 0,5 I have a error factor (the equivalent of your cell AB24) between 1 and 2

Resources