## 3 Results and Discussion
### Findley Power Law Model  
Table 2 tabulates the values of \(A\) parameter and stress-independent material exponent, \(n\). \(A\) and \(n\) parameters were discovered based on Equation (4) by using Origin Pro 2016. The obtained values of \(A\) parameter are resumed on Figure 10. From Figure 10, it is apparent that \(A\) parameter is increased for braced wooden cross-arm. This result acknowledged that the implementing of bracing system could enhanced the transient creep strain of the structure. On the other hand, the left main member had higher \(A\) parameter value compared to the right main member in both cross-arms. This indicated that the left main member had grain orientation in either radial, tangential, or longitudinal direction which differed in terms of their creep resistance performance [42; 43]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Main** \\ **Member Arm** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Location**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(A\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(n\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Adj. R\({}^{2}\)**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & \begin{tabular}{c} **Current** \\ **Cross-Arm** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Braced** \\ **Cross-Arm** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Current** \\ **Cross-Arm** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Braced** \\ **Cross-Arm** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Current** \\ **Cross-Arm** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Braced** \\ **Cross-Arm** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Right} & 1 & 5.818 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) & 6.086 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 0.669 & 0.395 & 0.973 & 0.989 \\  & 2 & 6.977 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) & 1.005 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.726 & 0.402 & 0.957 & 0.981 \\  & 3 & 1.128 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 1.255 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.673 & 0.396 & 0.936 & 0.977 \\  & 4 & 1.927 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) & 1.350 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.895 & 0.372 & 0.888 & 0.951 \\  & 5 & 4.224 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\) & 1.429 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 1.045 & 0.278 & 0.833 & 0.938 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Left} & 1 & 1.647 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 6.331 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 0.551 & 0.389 & 0.981 & 0.991 \\  & 2 & 5.076 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 2.969 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.486 & 0.234 & 0.958 & 0.992 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 6.377 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 1.952 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.496 & 0.331 & 0.933 & 0.960 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4 & 5.313 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 6.858 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.528 & 0.123 & 0.920 & 0.958 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & 4.278 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) & 2.682 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 0.533 & 0.155 & 0.917 & 0.928 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Average parameters obtained from Findley power law for current and braced wooden cross-arms. Figure 10: \(A\) parameter for current and braced wooden cross-arms: (**a**) right; (**b**) left main members  
In terms of stress-independent material exponent, the findings showed that the average value for the existing right cross-arm (0.8016) was higher than the existing left cross-arm (0.5188) as shown in Table 3. This was probably due to both members of cross-arms having different grain direction and orientation, which would affect the \(n\) exponent. According to [PERSON] (2006) [44], the cell wall swelled significantly more either in radial or tangential directions rather than longitudinal orientation during water absorption process. This was affected by winding angle of microfibrils within the wood fibre layer. On the other hand, the manufacturer might cut each beam separately from different tree trunks or different heights. According to [PERSON] et al. [45] and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [46], a significant decrease of wood density would affect their bending properties when the height of timber varied. Apart from that, different heights of tree may contribute to different chemical compositions, such as cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and ash, which affect their physico-mechanical properties [47].