## 4 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & \(\eta 1\) & \(-75\) & \(-60\) & \(-45\) & \(-30\) & \(-15\) & \(0\) & \(15\) & \(30\) & \(45\) & \(60\) & \(75\) \\ \hline Al-WC & 1 & 0.0042 & 0.0270 & 0.0788 & 0.1655 & 0.2958 & 0.4601 & 0.5023 & 0.4962 & 0.4578 & 0.3726 & 0.2332 \\  & 1.25 & 0.0038 & 0.0241 & 0.0694 & 0.1427 & 0.2473 & 0.3683 & 0.3763 & 0.3327 & 0.2494 & 0.1316 & 0.0285 \\  & 1.5 & 0.0035 & 0.0218 & 0.0621 & 0.1256 & 0.2125 & 0.3071 & 0.3011 & 0.2509 & 0.1723 & 0.0807 & 0.0154 \\  & 1.75 & 0.0032 & 0.0199 & 0.0562 & 0.1122 & 0.1864 & 0.2634 & 0.2511 & 0.2018 & 0.1321 & 0.0585 & 0.0107 \\  & 2 & 0.0031 & 0.0184 & 0.0514 & 0.1015 & 0.1661 & 0.2306 & 0.2154 & 0.1690 & 0.1074 & 0.0460 & 0.0083 \\ \hline Al-SiC & 1 & 0.0050 & 0.0418 & 0.1254 & 0.2610 & 0.4957 & 0.5115 & 0.8418 & 0.7819 & 0.7287 & 0.5754 & 0.2779 \\  & 1.25 & 0.0048 & 0.0373 & 0.1103 & 0.2241 & 0.4192 & 0.4095 & 0.6380 & 0.5223 & 0.3940 & 0.2029 & 0.0353 \\  & 1.5 & 0.0043 & 0.0337 & 0.0976 & 0.1966 & 0.3651 & 0.3414 & 0.5172 & 0.3925 & 0.2705 & 0.1244 & 0.0196 \\  & 1.75 & 0.0042 & 0.0311 & 0.0880 & 0.1751 & 0.3252 & 0.2928 & 0.4379 & 0.3147 & 0.2065 & 0.0905 & 0.0139 \\  & 2 & 0.0041 & 0.0286 & 0.0801 & 0.1592 & 0.2948 & 0.2564 & 0.3824 & 0.2630 & 0.1671 & 0.0718 & 0.0111 \\ \hline Al-Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 1 & 0.0052 & 0.0340 & 0.0615 & 0.1622 & 0.1608 & 0.5554 & 0.2730 & 0.4859 & 0.3571 & 0.4703 & 0.2854 \\  & 1.25 & 0.0096 & 0.0317 & 0.0652 & 0.1490 & 0.2009 & 0.4446 & 0.3058 & 0.3473 & 0.2343 & 0.1727 & 0.0370 \\  & 1.5 & 0.0048 & 0.0297 & 0.0648 & 0.1375 & 0.1999 & 0.3707 & 0.2832 & 0.2746 & 0.1797 & 0.1097 & 0.0205 \\  & 1.75 & 0.0043 & 0.0286 & 0.0628 & 0.1275 & 0.1895 & 0.3180 & 0.2552 & 0.2374 & 0.1473 & 0.0837 & 0.0115 \\  & 2 & 0.0196 & 0.3347 & 0.0601 & 0.1187 & 0.1771 & 0.2784 & 0.2297 & 0.1977 & 0.1255 & 0.8545 & 0.0160 \\ \hline Al-ZrO\({}_{2}\) & 1 & 0.0068 & 0.0436 & 0.1271 & 0.2672 & 0.4787 & 0.7456 & 0.8128 & 0.8009 & 0.7388 & 0.6021 & 0.3777 \\  & 1.25 & 0.0062 & 0.0390 & 0.1120 & 0.2304 & 0.4001 & 0.5969 & 0.6090 & 0.5371 & 0.4025 & 0.2128 & 0.0462 \\  & 1.5 & 0.0057 & 0.0353 & 0.1002 & 0.2028 & 0.3439 & 0.4977 & 0.4873 & 0.4052 & 0.2782 & 0.1304 & 0.0250 \\  & 1.75 & 0.0053 & 0.0323 & 0.0908 & 0.1813 & 0.3017 & 0.4269 & 0.4063 & 0.3259 & 0.2133 & 0.0946 & 0.0174 \\  & 2 & 0.0049 & 0.0298 & 0.0831 & 0.1640 & 0.2688 & 0.3738 & 0.3486 & 0.2730 & 0.1735 & 0.0745 & 0.0134 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Non-dimensional maximum static deflection of all auxetic beams with a/h = 20 as a function of \(\theta\), \(\eta 1\) and \(\eta 3\). Concerning the shear correction factor, it was found that the Al-WC and Al-ZrO\({}_{2}\) FGM auxetic materials share a similar evolution profile, while the Al-Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) and Al-SiC FGM honeycomb auxetic materials present another trend. This is attributed to the influence of the greater or lesser similarity of the constituent materials' Poisson ratios. Regarding the geometric parameters, the angle \(\theta\) of the unit cell has a great influence on the shear correction factor, as the unit cell aspect ratio \(\eta 3\) does. The influence of the aspect ratio \(\eta 1\), although visible, is minor when compared with \(\eta 3\). Concerning the beams' maximum transverse deflection, it was again possible to identify two trends. When the FGM constituent materials possess closer Poisson ratios, the beams' non-dimensional maximum deflection increases from the angle \(\theta=-75^{\circ}\) to the angle \(\theta=15^{\circ}\) and then starts decreasing. When the Poisson ratios of the ceramic materials are lower than that of the aluminum, the beam's maximum non-dimensional deflection profiles present an oscillating trend regarding the evolution along the different angles studied. Regarding the geometrical parameters, the influence of the aspect ratio \(\eta 1\) on the non-dimensional maximum deflection is more effective for angles between \(\theta=-30^{\circ}\) and \(\theta=60^{\circ}\).