# Size and Shape Optimization of a Guyed Mast Structure under Wind, Ice and Seismic Loading
## 7 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SCENARIO C—Optimized solution**} \\ \hline Element & d [mm] & t [mm] & L [mm] & Mass [Kg] \\ \hline Pole 1 (0–6 m) & 147 & 12.5 & 6000 & 249 \\ Pole 2 (6–12 m) & 136 & 12.5 & 6000 & 228 \\ Pole 3 (12–18 m) & 125 & 12.5 & 6000 & 208 \\ Pole 4 (18–24 m) & 114 & 12.5 & 6000 & 188 \\ Pole 5 (24–30 m) & 103 & 12.5 & 6000 & 167 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total Mass [kg]} & \(\Sigma\) & 1040 \\ \hline Mass variation [kg] & \(-\)400 & Mass variation [\%] & \(-\)27.79 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SCENARIO C—Design proposed according to the product list**} \\ \hline Element & d [mm] & t [mm] & L [mm] & Mass [Kg] \\ \hline Pole 1 (0–6 m) & 168.3 & 12.5 & 6000 & 288 \\ Pole 2 (6–12 m) & 139.7 & 12.5 & 6000 & 235 \\ Pole 3 (12–18 m) & 139.7 & 12.5 & 6000 & 235 \\ Pole 4 (18–24 m) & 114.3 & 10 & 6000 & 154 \\ Pole 5 (24–30 m) & 101.6 & 10 & 6000 & 135 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total Mass [kg]} & \(\Sigma\) & 1048 \\ \hline Mass variation [kg] & \(-\)392 & Mass variation [\%] & \(-\)27.22 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Ntrial = 5**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{\(\Phi_{i}\) [mm]} & \(\Phi_{f}\) [mm] & F [kN] & OF [kN] \\ \hline
152 & 92 & 1.8 & 41.393 \\ \hline
151 & 92 & 1.4 & 41.339 \\ \hline
149 & 92 & 1 & 41.230 \\ \hline
156 & 92 & 2.4 & 41.610 \\ \hline
**147** & **92** & **0.8** & **41.121** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Scenario C results: optimized solutions for the different independent executions (Ntrial), and the proposed industrial one according to the product list. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SCENARIO E–Optimized Solution**} \\ \hline Element & d [mm] & t [mm] & L [mm] & Mass [Kg] \\ \hline Pole 1 (0–6 m) & 165 & 6 & 6000 & 141 \\ Pole 2 (6–12 m) & 150 & 6 & 6000 & 128 \\ Pole 3 (12–18 m) & 135 & 6 & 6000 & 115 \\ Pole 4 (18–24 m) & 121 & 6 & 6000 & 102 \\ Pole 5 (24–30 m) & 106 & 6 & 6000 & 89 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total Mass [kg]} & \(\Sigma\) & 574 \\ \hline Mass variation [kg] & \(-866\) & Mass variation [\%] & \(-60.13\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SCENARIO E–Design proposed according to the product list**} \\ \hline Element & d [mm] & t [mm] & L [mm] & Mass [Kg] \\ \hline Pole 1 (0–6 m) & 168.3 & 6 & 6000 & 144 \\ Pole 2 (6–12 m) & 168.3 & 6 & 6000 & 144 \\ Pole 3 (12–18 m) & 139.7 & 6 & 6000 & 119 \\ Pole 4 (18–24 m) & 114.3 & 6 & 6000 & 96 \\ Pole 5 (24–30 m) & 101.6 & 6 & 6000 & 85 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total Mass [kg]} & \(\Sigma\) & 588 \\ \hline Mass variation [kg] & \(-853\) & Mass variation [\%] & \(-59.20\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Ntrial = 5**} \\ \hline \hline \(\Phi_{i}\) [mm] & \(\Phi_{f}\) [mm] & t [mm] & OF [kN] \\ \hline
161 & 92 & 6 & **36.465** \\ \hline
146 & 117 & 7 & 37.389 \\ \hline
162 & 92 & 6 & 36.491 \\ \hline
163 & 92 & 6 & 36.517 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Scenario E results: optimized solutions for the different independent executions (Ntrial) and the proposed industrial one according to the product list. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SCENARIO D—Optimized solution**} \\ \hline Element & d [mm] & t [mm] & L [mm] & Mass [Kg] \\ \hline Pole 1 (0–6 m) & 161 & 6 & 6000 & 138 \\ Pole 2 (6–12 m) & 147 & 6 & 6000 & 125 \\ Pole 3 (12–18 m) & 133 & 6 & 6000 & 113 \\ Pole 4 (18–24 m) & 120 & 6 & 6000 & 101 \\ Pole 5 (24–30 m) & 106 & 6 & 6000 & 89 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total Mass [kg]} & \(\Sigma\) & 565 \\ \hline Mass variation [kg] & \(-875\) & Mass variation [\%] & \(-60.75\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SCENARIO D—Design proposed according to the product list**} \\ \hline Element & d [mm] & t [mm] & L [mm] & Mass [Kg] \\ \hline Pole 1 (0–6 m) & 168.3 & 6 & 6000 & 144 \\ Pole 2 (6–12 m) & 168.3 & 6 & 6000 & 144 \\ Pole 3 (12–18 m) & 139.7 & 6 & 6000 & 119 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}