Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article provides a comprehensive review of the existing numerical models for shot peening process and their ability to predict residual stress, surface roughness, and cold work. The authors have cited several studies that have attempted to simulate shot peening using finite element-based models. They have also highlighted the limitations of these models in accurately predicting the effects of shot peening on the treated material.

One potential bias in the article is that it focuses primarily on numerical modeling and does not provide much information about experimental studies or real-world applications of shot peening. While numerical modeling is an important tool for understanding the underlying physics of shot peening, it is essential to validate these models with experimental data.

Another limitation of the article is that it does not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on shot peening. For example, some researchers have argued that shot peening may not be effective in all cases and may even cause damage to certain materials. These perspectives are not discussed in the article, which could lead to a one-sided view of the topic.

The article also contains some unsupported claims, such as stating that shot peening is one of the most important and widely used surface treatments without providing any evidence to support this claim. Additionally, some points of consideration are missing from the discussion, such as environmental concerns related to shot peening and its potential impact on worker safety.

Overall, while the article provides a useful overview of existing numerical models for shot peening process, it would benefit from a more balanced discussion that includes both experimental data and alternative perspectives on this topic.