ArticleScientific reports2025
Investigation of flexural mechanical and creep properties of sleeve reinforced pultruded glass fibre reinforced polymer composite for crossarm application.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pultruded glass fiber-reinforced polymer (PGFRP) composites are innovative materials used in high-rise transmission towers that undergo failure due to long-term static loading phenomenon. This research focuses on retrofitting PGFRP composite cross-arms with plug-in type sleeve reinforcements by employing a three-point bending (3 PB) test to analyze the cross-arm's elastic properties, flexural creep response, and deflection behaviour. The addition of the sleeve retrofit significantly improved the load-deflection behaviour and long-term creep resistance, by 45.30% and 47.10%, respectively. Findley's power law model was used to accurately predict the viscoelastic response of the structure, revealing that the virgin cross-arm experienced a 75% drop in elastic modulus, while the sleeve-reinforced cross-arm saw only a 34% decrease indicating over 40% improvement in the cross-arm's ability to resist deformation over extended periods. Additionally, the overall reduction factor improved by 0.51 in contrast to virgin cross-arm. The sleeve-reinforced cross-arm showed reduced deflection, better creep resistance, increased bending strength, and a longer theoretical lifespan. Predictions indicate that the improved cross-arm surpasses the current one in long-term mechanical performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.