This review analyzes processing maps for magnesium alloys, linking thermodynamics to high-temperature deformation, suggesting a new framework for understanding flow behavior.
• Processing maps for Mg alloys are re-examined from physical and energy views. • Flow instability in Mg alloys is linked to rate-controlled deformation mechanisms. • A unified framework reconciles Prasad, Murty, and Kim–Jeong instability criteria. • DRX enhances dissipation only when sufficient grain refinement enables GBS. This review consolidates decades of research on hot-deformation processing maps into a single, mechanism-based framework that connects macroscopic stability criteria with high-temperature deformation physics. It traces the evolution of major formulations—including those by Prasad, Murty, and Kim–Jeong—back to their common thermokinetic foundation in creep and dynamic-recrystallization (DRX) kinetics. Through this unified treatment, the review clarifies that power-dissipation efficiency ( η ) and flow-instability indices are different projections of the same rate-dependent constitutive response, which also dictates transitions between power-law deformation mechanism regimes and the onset of power-law breakdown. The paper is organized to move from theory to application. Early sections reconstruct the mathematical origin and physical meaning of η and instability functions; middle sections benchmark these criteria across published Mg datasets; and later sections provide practical guidance for constructing reliable maps using physics-constrained regression and uncertainty reporting. The review further clarifies—by distinguishing necessity from sufficiency in the DRX–η relationship—why DRX annotations and high-η domains frequently coincide without implying causal equivalence. Collectively, these contributions transform processing maps from empirical contour charts into predictive diagnostic tools and offers a reproducible workflow and interpretive hierarchy adaptable to diverse alloy systems and data qualities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: