INVITED REVIEW

Microalloy steels – the beginning

W. B. Morrison*
Although steels containing small amounts of vanadium or titanium had long been available, the
rapid development and exploitation of microalloy steels was initiated by the recognition of the
advantages of adding a small amount of niobium to C–Mn steels. This occurred in 1958 with
the first successful production of niobium treated steel by the Great Lakes Steel Corporation of the
USA. Various factors contributed towards this development including the availability of a supply of
relatively low cost ferroniobium in the late 1950s and the discovery at this time of very large
deposits of niobium bearing ores in Brazil and Canada which guaranteed the stability of future
supply and price. Further development of microalloy steels was held back by a lack of knowledge
of the exact role of niobium in influencing steel properties. Research carried out at The University
of Sheffield in 1959–1960 provided a fundamental understanding of the effect of niobium. This
was the first of many scientific investigations to study the influence of niobium, vanadium and
titanium which contributed to the successful development and production of microalloy steels.
Keywords: Microalloy steel, Niobium, Vanadium, Titanium, Niobium minerals, Grain size, Petch relationship, Controlled rolling

Introduction and titanium being used as microalloying additions

In 1958, it was announced in the Journal of Metals that
the Great Lakes Steel Corporation, a division of the
National Steel Corporation of the USA, had entered the
market with its GLX-W series of niobium – treated
steels, the first steel company in the world to do so.1
What made this development so special was the very
small, relatively low cost addition of niobium used,
0?005 to 0?03%, and the relatively large resultant
strengthening effect combined with good toughness.
Also the niobium was added to an ordinary semikilled
C–Mn steel (mild steel or mild carbon steel) and changed
its strength level from a low yield strength of around
300 MPa to a high yield strength of up to 415 MPa for
the GLX-60-W grade, equivalent to a conventional alloy
steel. W. D. MacDonnell, president of Great Lakes Steel
Corporation, stated that ‘The new steels are regarded as
an important metallurgical advance, because they make
available, on a volume production basis, superior
qualities of strength, toughness and weldability, pre-
viously obtainable only in higher priced steels …’.1
The term commonly used for such steels is microalloy,
defined as an alloy level of up to 0?10% for a single
microalloying element and 0?15% for a combination of
microalloys. It was probably first introduced as a term
by Noren2 who stated that the ‘amount of microalloying
elements … is one or two powers of ten less than would
have been the case for an alloying element in the
conventional meaning.’
Before the commercial use of niobium as a micro-
alloying element in 1958, there is no record of vanadium
Physical Metallurgy of Steel, Rotherham S60 2TX, UK
*Corresponding author, email billandhelenmor@talktalk.net
to C–Mn steel (mild steel) at the levels associated with
the early niobium development. Nevertheless, both
vanadium and titanium have had a long history as
microalloys (up to 0?1%) added to steel to improve
properties. Cone,3 in 1934, described the properties
of a 0?18%C, 1?45%Mn, 0?08–0?10%V steel in the as
rolled condition in the form of plate and strip. This
steel, developed by the Vanadium Corporation of
America, had a minimum yield strength of 345 MPa.
In 1945, Neumeister and Wiester4 also attributed
the attainment of a yield strength of 390 MPa to
the addition of 0?1%V to a 0?18%C, 1?5% Mn steel.
They suggested that the improvement was due to the
formation of vanadium carbides and nitrides. However,
vanadium was better known for its use in heat treated
steels in which it was known for its ability to provide
refinement and secondary hardening even at low levels
of 0?03%.5 This ability was attributed to the precipita-
tion of vanadium rich carbides.6 Compared to vana-
dium, titanium was less widely used. There is a record of
an addition of 0?1%Ti causing grain refinement in a C–
Mn forging steel7 and of an addition of 0?06% to
improve the strength of a high strength low alloy
structural steel.8 Vanadium was also used for this
purpose.8 Despite this early use of vanadium and
titanium as microalloying elements it was only when
there was the announcement of the successful produc-
tion of niobium microalloy steel by the Great Lakes
Steel Corporation in 1958 that there was an explosion
of interest world wide among steel producers that
eventually led to the development of the family of
microalloy steels that we have today. Such steels have
been hugely successful and it has been estimated that
they now constitute around 10% of total world steel
production.9,10

ß 2009 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 27 March 2008; accepted 28 April 2009
1066 DOI 10.1179/174328409X453299 Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO 9

Economic conditions
Although niobium had been discovered in 1801 by
Charles Hatchett (who named it columbium) it was not
until the 1950s that steelmakers discovered its micro-
alloying effect. Hadfield11 has pointed out that the
development of alloy steels had to await the produc-
tion of relatively cheap and reliable ferroalloys.
Ferrotitanium and ferrovanadium were available in the
early 1900s.12 However, in 1930 world output of
niobium minerals was less than 5 tons13 and ferronio-
bium only began commercial production in the 1930s.
The Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation of the
USA pioneered the use of niobium as a carbide stabiliser
in austenitic stainless steels (eight times the carbon
content of the steel),14 but in the UK the high price of
niobium restricted its use to the creep resistant grades of
stainless steels.15 Thus in the 1930s, at a time when C–
Mn steels containing small additions of vanadium were
being developed,3 the high cost of ferroniobium
precluded its use in such low cost steels. In the 1930s,
niobium was used as an addition to stainless steels and
also had a major role in the development of high
temperature alloys which were used in the manufacture
of gas turbines.16
In the 1940s, however, the cost of ferroniobium,
although high, was not prohibitive.17 In 1939/1941 US
patents were issued to Becket and Franks related to an
improvement of steel properties by the addition of
niobium between 0?02 and 1%.18 In the first patent,
niobium was added to C–Mn steels and the main claim
related to grain refinement, particularly at carburis-
ing temperatures, with optimum niobium contents
generally above the microalloy range. Such niobium
contents would have been relatively expensive and there
is no evidence that the steels were ever commercially
produced.
Despite the example of the earlier vanadium micro-
alloy steels and the opportunity to utilise the available
supply of ferroniobium to make a microalloy addition,
no steel company, until the late 1950s appeared to have
considered conducting trials using small additions of
niobium to mild or plain carbon steels. However, there
are other factors which may have had an influence.
Niobium in the 1930s and 1940s was considered to be a
very special alloying element normally only added to
relatively exotic materials such as stainless steels and
high temperature alloys. Also the cost of a niobium
addition at that time reflected the balance between the
supply situation and the fairly restricted market
requirement of niobium.
Niobium mineral production and
reserves
In the 1940s and 1950s, the USA was the largest user of
niobium minerals and, for example, in 1955 it imported
in excess of 4000 tons of minerals equivalent to about
90% of total world production.13 During the Korean
War the USA recognised the strategic importance of
niobium and restrictions were placed on the use of this
metal which retarded its further application. The
Defence Procurement Agency of the USA paid an
incentive bonus of 100% to both foreign and home
producers of niobium. This started in May 1952 and
continued to December 1956 for foreign material and to
Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning
1 Price per kg contained niobium in ferroniobium in cur-
rent dollars (year end average)17
1958 for domestic supplies or until a stockpile of
15 million pounds (6?8 million kg) of niobium concen-
trate had been amassed.19 The resultant increase in price
of ferroniobium hindered developments related to the
use of niobium in the steel industry, particularly in the
UK. Imports to the USA of niobium mineral concen-
trates peaked in 1955 and prices remained high until
1958. The price of ferroniobium, however, peaked in
1954 and decreased to a much lower level in 1958.17
Figure 1 shows the price of niobium, in the form of
ferroniobium, in current dollars, ie actual historical
price, over a period 1940 to 1970.
From the late 1940s until the late 1950s the largest
producer of niobium mineral concentrates was Africa, in
particular Nigeria, then a member of the British Com-
monwealth. Other producing countries were Belgian
Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo), Norway,
Malaya (Malaysia), and Brazil.20 World reserves of
niobium minerals at that time were greatly increased by
the discovery of very large deposits of pyrochlore in
Brazil at Araxa and in Quebec, Canada.21 Thus, in 1958
the conditions were ideal in terms of the current price
and favourable future price and supply situation for an
important new development using niobium.
Early commercial trials
In 1957, the Molybdenum Corporation of the USA
bought a 25% share in the niobium mining operation at
Araxa [later to become Companhia Brasileira de
Metalurgia e Mineração (CBMM)]. In considering
possible new niobium developments to capitalise on
their investment, Molycorp encouraged some American
steel companies to add small additions of niobium to
ordinary commercial C–Mn steels.22 W. G. Wilson of
Molycorp, being aware of the Becket and Franks
patents claiming that niobium caused grain refine-
ment,18 assumed that the trials would successfully show
that niobium improved properties by reducing grain
size.22 In the first commercial trial in 1957 at the
Homestead Works of United States Steel, 0?22 to
0?90 kg of niobium as ferroniobium per ton of steel
(equivalent to approximately 0?02 to 0?08 wt-%Nb,
assuming 80% recovery) was added to ingots of C–Mn
steel and the ingots rolled on a plate mill using normal
rolling schedules. The strength of the plate increased due
to the niobium additions but the toughness was very
Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO 9 1067
Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning
2 Pipe and welding costs for various grades of pipeline25
poor as a result probably of the high finishing tem-
perature and lack of refinement of the microstruc-
ture.22,23 Thus, the trial was a failure. However N. F.
Tisdale of Molycorp22 then persuaded Great Lakes Steel
to conduct a trial using C–Mn semikilled steels with
individual ingots again being treated with niobium in
amounts of 0?11 to 0?45 kg per ton.24 The ingots were
rolled on a hot strip mill and the mechanical properties,
at thicknesses up to about 13 mm, were generally
excellent. Rolling conditions on the hot strip mill, when
optimised, resulted in a ferrite grain size of less than
ASTM 6 (40 mm). However, thicker plates up to 38 mm,
although of high strength, had poor toughness with
coarse grains of around ASTM 2 (160 mm). These latter
properties were similar to those obtained in the plates
rolled at US Steel. Despite having problems in the early
trials with variable and sometimes comparatively poor
results 24 there were a sufficient number of good results
at thicknesses less than 13 mm for Great Lakes Steel
Corporation to start production in 1958.1
The new niobium treated steels attracted the attention
of many other steel companies in the USA1 and in
several other parts of the world. This led a number of
companies to conduct their own trials.23 Meanwhile
Great Lakes Steel Corporation found ready markets for
their product of thin hot rolled niobium treated plate.
One such market was linepipe. With the co-operation of
A. G. Barkow of the Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of
America and other partners, a gas transmission pipeline
was installed in Texas.25 This was 508 mm diameter,
76 km long and was installed towards the end of 1960.
The strength of this new pipeline was X60 and replaced
the then common X52 strength level. There was no
problem with welding and installation was easy.
Furthermore, despite the steel costing 15–20 dollars
per ton more than the steel to make X52 pipe there was
an overall reduction in cost of 1000 dollars per mile due
to the total weight saving of 770 tons of steel and the
improved weldability (Fig. 2). Thus the niobium treat-
ment had been profitable for both the steelmaker and
the customer. Other uses for the new steel were for truck
frames and oxygen cylinders.26
Concerning those steel companies conducting early
trials on niobium treated C–Mn steels, little detailed
information is available. However records exist that
show that one such company, Colvilles Ltd of
Motherwell, Scotland, carried out an extensive
1068 Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO
programme using commercial open hearth casts with
niobium additions being made to individual ingots and
adjacent non-treated ingots used for comparison. The
UK had a plentiful supply of ferroniobium and exported
the majority of the production to the USA.13 By
September 1959, Colvilles had already produced at least
five reports describing results from these trials.27 It is
important to note that some practical problems were
encountered by steelmakers when adding ferroniobium
to individual ingots or whole casts. Due to its refractory
nature the dissolution of the ferroniobium was slow and
distribution within an ingot or cast was often vari-
able.28,29 In these trials Colvilles reported similar results
to those of US Steel regarding the mechanical properties
of as rolled plates. For example an addition of 0?015%Nb
to a 0?15%C–1?2%Mn steel in the form of as rolled
1?5 inch (38 mm) plate gave a significant increase in
strength but poor impact properties. Normalising low-
ered strength, but greatly improved impact properties.27
Leslie30 of US Steel summed up the problem as follows:
‘Unless economical means can be devised to eliminate the
detrimental effect of columbium on notch-toughness of
hot-rolled plate steels, it is likely that columbium-treated
steels will be used principally in sheet form, for which
impact properties are less important.’
Early explanations for the effect of
niobium
Thus, for niobium treated microalloy steels to progress
in their development what was urgently required after
the initial trials was a fundamental understanding of the
mechanism for the influence of niobium on steel
properties under different processing conditions.
Altenburger of Great Lakes Steel Corporation
explained that the beneficial effect of niobium on the
properties of their hot strip product was due to grain
refinement.24 Mareta and Joseph agreed with this
explanation but their attempt to discover the mechanism
of grain refinement was unsuccessful.28 Grain refinement
was also the explanation given for the improved strength
of niobium treated steel in the early patents of Becket
and Franks.18 Undoubtedly grain refinement of C–Mn
steel products by niobium was observed and provided a
ready explanation for the improved strength and impact
properties. However, for thicker products above about
12 mm, in the hot rolled condition, this explanation was
not valid. The strengthening effect of niobium was
present but there was no grain refinement.24,27,29
The first laboratory based investigation of the effect of
niobium additions in semikilled mild carbon steels was
conducted by Beiser of the Union Carbide Metals
Company of the USA. The results were presented in
an ASM preprint,31 which was widely circulated but
never published. However, the paper was reviewed in
Metals Progress, November 1959 and was also discussed
by Leslie.30 Beiser found that, in his 0?6 inch (15 mm) as
rolled plates increasing niobium content increased
strength but greatly impaired the Charpy properties,
despite giving some grain refinement. This detrimental
effect of niobium on as rolled impact properties was
totally reversed after a normalising treatment when
increased niobium improved impact properties (Fig. 3).
Beiser recognised that grain size changes alone could
not explain the niobium effect in the as rolled condition.
9

3 Effect of niobium on the 20 J (15 ft lb) transition tem-
perature of hot rolled and normalised laboratory
steels31
Therefore, he made an attempt, using metallographic
techniques, to detect the presence of a strengthening and
embrittling phase. He found that in the as rolled steels
containing niobium ‘many rather continuous networks
of grain boundary carbides’ were present and that the
amount of carbide increased with niobium content.
These networks were removed by normalising. He
concluded that yield stress is affected because macro-
scopic yielding could not occur until the restraining
carbide network was broken. Likewise the presence of
this network was associated with the impaired tough-
ness. This explanation was endorsed by Van Voris.26
Using the presence of a carbide network to explain
yielding was, in 1959, rather dated. Before the establish-
ment of dislocation theory several authorities had
explained yielding by supposing grains to be surrounded
by a film of hard material, usually iron carbide, which
has to break before the softer ferrite grains can
deform.32 However, it had become generally acknowl-
edged before 1959 that the presence of segregated
atmospheres of carbon and nitrogen at dislocations
provided an acceptable theory for the sharp yield point
in steel and that the magnitude of the yield stress was
related to the stress at which enough dislocations pile up
at a grain boundary so that their stress field forces
dislocations in the adjoining grain to break away from
their atmospheres.33
Nevertheless, the existence of significant grain bound-
ary networks in niobium treated steels was confirmed
much later by Mintz et al.34 They found that small
additions of niobium or titanium to C–Mn steels caused
an increase in grain boundary carbide thickness, at
manganese contents less than 1%, and that the impact
transition temperature was related to the square root of
the carbide thickness. Therefore, Beiser’s conclusions
related to the influence of niobium on grain boundary
carbide thickness have some basis but only for low
manganese steels. Also the magnitude of the influence of
niobium on carbide thickness is much too small to
account for the poor impact properties of his niobium
treated steels.34
Study using the petch relationships
In 1959, Colvilles Ltd, who had conducted several trials
adding niobium to mild steel, concluded, in agreement
Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning
4 Variation of ssy with d21/2 for steels 3 and 445,46
with the view expressed by US Steel Corporation,30 that
an explanation for the effect of niobium on properties
was required if niobium treated plate steels were to be
successfully developed. They thus decided to utilise the
expertise in the Department of Metallurgy, The
University of Sheffield, UK, which had an excellent
reputation for the quality of its physical metallurgy
research. Accordingly I.M. Mackenzie, assistant chief
metallurgist of Colvilles, sent a member of staff, W.B.
Morrison, to Sheffield in September of that year to carry
out research under the supervision of J.H. Woodhead.
Woodhead was of the opinion that the Petch relation-
ships,35–43 describing the effect of the ferrite grain size on
the yield stress, fracture stress and ductile–brittle
transition temperature could be used to explain the
influence of niobium on the properties and, therefore, an
experimental procedure was devised to accomplish this.
This was the first occasion that the Petch relationships
had been used to describe quantitatively the properties
of an alloy steel.44 Commercial plate samples were
supplied by Colvilles from niobium treated ingots of C–
Mn steels and adjacent untreated ingots. Heat treat-
ments were applied to the samples using various
austenitising temperatures in order to vary the grain
size sufficiently to be able to plot a yield stress (sy)
versus grain size (d) graph in accordance with the Petch
relationship
sy ~so zky d{2
1
(1)
where so is the lattice friction stress opposing the motion
of a dislocation and ky is a measure of the localised
stress needed to propagate general yielding across the
polycrystalline grain boundaries. Although both so and
ky are constants for a given material, it was found that
the niobium treated steels did not obey the Petch
relationship, and an example is shown in Fig. 4.45,46 It
was clear that, at the coarse grain sizes, which were
obtained by using high austenitising temperatures,
niobium had an effect on the yield strength quite apart
from its influence on grain size. Likewise it was shown
that, independent of the effect of grain size, niobium
raised the impact transition temperature. It was rea-
soned that the niobium effect could be due to an
increase, either of the so or the ky term. However, by
considering the influence of so and ky on the transition
temperature, as described by Heslop and Petch,43
it was clear that niobium caused an increase in so.45
Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO 9 1069
Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning
5 Precipitation in the form of rows in a solution treated
niobium
This was suggested to be due to the presence of a
very fine precipitate of niobium carbide, nitride or
carbonitride.45,46
This early use of the Petch equations to analyse the
structure–property relationships in commercial steels
was the forerunner of many further investigations which
greatly aided steel development.
Woodhead went on to study the influence of niobium
and vanadium microalloys at The University of Sheffield
in conjunction with Gray and Webster47,48 while
Morrison also continued his research of niobium treated
steels at Colvilles49 and, critically, proved the existence
of fine precipitates after hot rolling and normalising
using electron metallographic techniques.
The influence of niobium on properties –
early observations
As already explained in an earlier section, many
investigators attributed the beneficent effect of niobium
on properties to grain refinement. However, it was
recognised that other mechanisms were operative
particularly in thicker products. The work of Morrison
and Woodhead45,46 was the first to suggest that even
small amounts of niobium in steel could give significant
precipitation strengthening if sufficiently high austenitis-
ing temperatures were used to take into solution the
niobium compound initially present. However, metallo-
graphic studies using the electron microscope techniques
available at that time (1959/1960) did not find any direct
evidence for the existence of fine precipitates and
perhaps, not surprisingly, this was a strengthening
mechanism some investigators found difficult to accept
probably as a result of the lack of evidence and the very
small amount of niobium involved.
Beiser’s explanation based on the presence of brittle
grain boundary carbides31 was still being accepted much
later by Von Voris.26 Fletcher et al.50 suggested that the
small amount of niobium dissolved in the matrix acted
1070 Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO
6 Precipitation strengthening in low carbon steels with
particle diameters calculated from the Ashby-Orowan
relationship.59 The data shown are from niobium trea-
ted, hot rolled C–Mn steels, corrected to a grain size of
12 mm49
as a solid solution strengthener and this was also
proposed by Dekker.51 McLean,52 even when presented
with evidence in the form of electron micrographs
showing the existence of fine precipitates of niobium
carbide,49 preferred an alternative explanation based on
molecules of niobium and carbon since this produced
the closest possible spacing of obstacles to slip.
Morrison provided experimental evidence which refuted
both the molecular strengthening53 and the solid
solution strengthening proposals.54 Woodhead55 and
Leslie56 also presented arguments to counter the solid
solution strengthening mechanism.
Thus, it was clear that the presence of fine particles of
NbC or NbCN could account for the refinement of grain
size on normalising and for the strengthening after hot
rolling or high temperature austenitising.49 In steel in the
hot rolled condition the precipitates were in the form of
rows49,56,57 (Fig. 5), later explained by Gray and Yeo58
as due to precipitation on the advancing a/c interface
during transformation. Data from Morrison49 showing
increased strength with increasing niobium level in hot
rolled laboratory steels are considered in terms of the
Ashby-Orowan relationship59 in Fig. 6, which predicts
that strengthening is from precipitates with a size range
mainly between 5 and 10 nm.
Another important effect of niobium was also found
in the early work. Niobium in solution in the austenite
influenced transformation characteristics49,60 The trans-
formation temperature was lowered by about 100uC into
the bainite range particularly at higher manganese
contents of around 1?5%.49 Figure 7 shows CCT
diagrams obtained by Ronn60 and described by de
Kazinczy et al.61 Such coarse acicular structures would
also contribute towards the poor toughness of thick, as
rolled plates. It was obviously important to know the
solubility in austenite of NbC and NbN not only in
relation to the transformation characteristics but also in
relation to precipitation strengthening and some early
data were obtained by de Kazinczy et al.61
Co-operative expansion
As Meyer62 has pointed out, in the years immediately
following the Great Lakes Steel announcement,1 there
9

7 Transformation diagrams of an unalloyed steel and the
same steel with niobium added. Soaking temperature:
1300uC60,61
was a huge amount of work carried out on microalloy
steels in terms of research and production trials, initiated
and encouraged by the high degree of co-operation which
existed on an international level. For example US Steel,
Oxelosunde and Colvilles are known to have shared
research results.56,61 Steelmakers all over the world
gained confidence in the manufacture of microalloy steels
and data from steelmakers, research institutes and
universities were published.2,24,26,28–31,46–50,56,57,61,63–67
Because of the promising results from the niobium
treated steels the influence of the other microalloying
elements, vanadium and titanium, were subjected to the
same detailed analysis and the resulting data were
contained in the publications. Steels with various
combinations of the microalloying elements were also
included in some studies.
8 Yield stress guarantees for plates and sections to BS 968:1941 and BS 968:196229
Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning
In the USA, most of the niobium microalloy steels in
the market place in the early 1960s were being produced
on hot strip mills by a number of steel companies in
addition to Great Lakes.23 However, in the UK the first
national standard to utilise niobium as a microalloying
element in plates and sections up to 50 mm thick was
introduced in 1962.29 Difficulty in welding structural steels
containing high levels of carbon and manganese (0?30%C,
1?5%Mn) led to the introduction in 1941 of BS 968 which
had a limited carbon content of 0?23%. The demand for a
higher strength, weldable steel was met by making micro
additions of niobium to a balanced steel. Thus, the BS 968
specification was revised in 1962 to take advantage of the
niobium treatment. Figure 8 compares the yield stress
guarantees for the old and new specifications for both
plates and sections. An addition of around 0?02%Nb
allowed the yield stress, up to 13 mm thickness, to be
maintained while giving a reduction in both carbon and
manganese contents. Up to 13 mm the steel was in the as
rolled condition while above this thickness a normalising
treatment was applied since controlled rolling had not yet
been developed as a technique. Due to the powerful grain
refining ability of the niobium (in the absence of
aluminium) the guaranteed yield stress was much higher,
at thicknesses greater than 13 mm, than in the old steel.
The relatively low cost of the new steel coupled with steel
weight savings and good weldability made it popular and
production increased rapidly in the UK.29 Further
developments in microalloy steels in various countries
were often influenced by the need to amend national
standards, design stresses and welding procedures.
Controlled rolling
One of the key effects of niobium, that of reducing the
recrystallisation rate of deformed austenite in C–Mn
steel, was not recognised by the early workers, although
evidence did exist in terms of the grain refinement
observed when increasing amounts of niobium were
added to steel rolled in a hot strip mill24 and when thin
plates were rolled in a conventional mill.29 The key to
obtaining a fine grain size in a low niobium steel
Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO 9 1071
Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning
9 General relationship between thickness and finishing temperature of rolling for plates and sections29
(y0?02 wt-%) is the low finish rolling temperature
which occurs naturally with thin plates. It was observed
by Mackenzie29 that finish rolling temperatures below
about 900uC gave acceptable notch ductility, equating to
as rolled plates up to about 13 mm. However, much
greater thicknesses could be tolerated in sections due to
their lower rolling rate (Fig. 9).
Vanderbeck had observed in his 1958 paper68 that a
number of European plate mills were practising ‘con-
trolled low-temperature hot rolling’. This involved
making the last several passes at lower than normal
temperatures so that the final pass was below about
850uC. Plates of C–Mn steel up to 50 mm thick were
being rolled in this way with considerable improvements
in Charpy transition temperature. However, when
similar practises were applied to niobium treated steels
the results were very variable. In the mid 1960s, the
British Iron and Steel Research Association (BISRA),
Sheffield UK, carried out numerous laboratory and
commercial rolling trials using niobium treated steels
and discovered that niobium greatly reduced the
recrystallisation rate of deformed austenite.69,70
Thereafter there gradually came the realisation that
nonuniform microstructures with regions of large grains
giving poor toughness, could be minimised by avoiding
deformation in the temperature region where recrystal-
lisation was sluggish while concentrating rolling above
and below this region. Very successful thermo mechan-
ical controlled rolling procedures were designed which
gave excellent properties in plates over a wide thickness
range. The availability of such microalloy steels had a
particularly dramatic effect on the oil and gas industry
by speeding the development of higher strength linepipe
steels and making it economic to exploit oil and gas
fields in some very inhospitable areas of the world.
Conclusions
Although steels containing small amounts of vanadium
or titanium had been commercially available for some
time, the rapid development and growth of microalloy
steels in the 1960s was instigated by the discovery of the
1072 Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO
major benefit of making a small addition of niobium to
C–Mn steels, as exemplified by the Great Lakes Steel
Corporation production casts of 1958. The initial
development of microalloy steels over a period of
approximately 1957–1964 depended upon a number of
factors.
1. Research carried out by Union Carbide in the USA
in the late 1930s which indicated that there were benefits
in adding small amounts of niobium to C–Mn steels.
2. The availability of a sufficient, low cost supply of
niobium minerals following the build up of strategic
supplies in the USA (1952–1958).
3. The discovery in the 1950s of very large deposits of
niobium bearing ores in Canada and especially in Brazil
which guaranteed stability of supply and price well into
the future.
4. The favourable outcome of the trials carried out by
the Great Lakes Steel Corporation in the USA, using a
hot strip mill, leading to production of thin niobium
treated plate in 1958 and thus creating huge interest
among the world’s steel producers.
5. The success of research carried out at The
University of Sheffield, UK in 1959–1960, which
provided a basic understanding of the influence of
niobium on the properties of C–Mn steel. This paved the
way for a large number of investigations by researchers
mainly in the UK and Europe which led to the successful
exploitation of microalloy steels over a wide product
thickness and property range.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Malcolm Gray, Rune
Lagneborg, Peter Mitchell and Fulvio Siciliano for
providing much useful information.
References
1. F. W. Starratt: J. Met., 1958, 10, 799.
2. T. M. Noren: ‘Columbium as a microalloying element in steels and
its effect on welding technology’, Special Report SSC-154, Ship
Structure Committee, US Department of Commerce, Washington
DC, USA, August 1963.
9
 Morrison Microalloy steels – the beginning

3. E. F. Cone: Steel, 1934, September, 41. 36. A. Cracknell and N. J. Petch: Acta Met., 1955, 3, 186.
4. H. Neumeister and H.-J. Wiester: Stahl und Eisen, 1945, 65, 36. 37. J. Heslop and N. J. Petch: Phil. Mag., 1956, 1, 866.
5. J. Strauss and F. F. Franklin: ‘Metals handbook’, 485; 1948, ASM, 38. J. Heslop and N. J. Petch: Phil. Mag., 1957, 2, 649.
Cleveland, OH. 39. J. Codd and N. J. Petch: Phil. Mag., 1960, 5, 30.
6. J. G. Zimmerman, R. H. Aborn and E. C. Bain: Trans. ASM, 1937, 40. N. J. Petch: Phil. Mag., 1958, 3, 1089.
25, 755. 41. N. J. Petch: Phil. Mag., 1956, 1, 186.
7. G. F. Comstock: Trans. ASM, 1940, 28, 608. 42. N. J. Petch: ‘Fracture’, 54; 1959, New York, NY, John Wiley.
8. H. W. Gillett: ‘Metals handbook’, 535; 1948, ASM, Cleveland, OH. 43. J. Heslop and N. J. Petch: Phil. Mag., 1958, 3, 1128.
9. W. B. Morrison: ‘HSLA steels 2000’, Xi’an, China, October– 44. T. N. Baker: ‘Future developments of metals and ceramics’, 75;
November 2000, Chinese Society for Metals, 11. 1992, London, Institute of Materials.
10. G. Tither: ‘Niobium science and technology’, 7; 2003, Bridgeville, 45. W. B. Morrison: ‘The effect of small niobium additions on the
PA, Niobium 2001 Ltd, TMS. mechanical properties of commercial mild steels’, M. Met. thesis,
11. R. A. Hadfield: ‘Metallurgy and its influence on modern progress’; Department of Metallurgy, Sheffield University, UK, June 1960.
1926, New York, NY, Van Nostrand and Co. 46. W. B. Morrison and J. H. Woodhead: JISI, 1963, 201, 43.
12. D. Dulieu: J. Hist. Met. Soc., 1985, 19, 97. 47. J. M. Gray, D. Webster and J. H. Woodhead: JISI, 1965, 203, 812.
13. G. L. Miller: ‘Tantalum and niobium’, 17–19; 1959, London, 48. J. H. Woodhead and D. Webster: JISI, 1969, 207, 51.
Butterworth Scientific Publications. 49. W. B. Morrison: JISI, 1963, 201, 765.
14. ‘The making, shaping and treating of steels’, 8th edn, 1125; 1964, 50. E. E. Fletcher, A. R. Elsea and E. C. Bain: Trans. ASM, 1961, 51,
Pittsburgh, PA, United States Steel Corp. 1.
15. G. L. Miller: ‘Tantalum and niobium’, 21; 1959, London, 51. P. F. W. Dekker: ‘Discussion of references 46 and 49’, JISI, 1963,
Butterworth Scientific Publications. 201, 766.
16. G. L. Miller: ‘Tantalum and niobium’, 26; 1959, London, 52. D. McLean: ‘Discussion of references 46 and 49’, JISI, 1963, 201,
Butterworth Scientific Publications. 764.
17. L. D. Cunningham: ‘Columbium (Niobium)’, US Geological 53. W. B. Morrison: ‘Discussion of references 46 and 49’, JISI, 1963,
Survey, Minerals Information, Commodity Statistics, available 201, 765.
at: http://minerals.usgsgov/minerals/pubs/commodity/niobium/ 54. W. B. Morrison: ‘Discussion of references 46 and 49’, JISI, 1963,
230798.pdf 201, 768.
18. F. M. Becket and R. Franks: US patents no. 2,158,651, 1939; 55. J. H. Woodhead: ‘Discussion of references 46 and 49’, JISI, 1963,
no. 2,158,652, 1939; no. 2,194,178, 1940; no. 2,264,355, 1941. 201, 768.
19. G. L. Miller: ‘Tantalum and niobium’, 22; 1959, London, 56. W. C. Leslie: Proc. Conf. on ‘Relation between structure and
Butterworth Scientific Publications. strength in metals and alloys’, 333; 1963, London, HMSO.
20. G. L. Miller: ‘Tantalum and niobium’, 5–7; 1959, London, 57. K. J. Irving and F. B. Pickering: JISI, 1963, 201, 944.
Butterworth Scientific Publications. 58. J. M. Gray and R. B. G. Yeo: Trans. ASM, 1968, 61, 225.
21. G. L. Miller: ‘Tantalum and niobium’, 11–14; 1959, London, 59. T. Gladman: Mater. Sci. Tech., 1999, 15, 30.
Butterworth Scientific Publications. 60. L. Ronn: ‘Niobs inverkan pa TTT-diagrammet av ett mjukt stal’,
22. J. D. Vital: ‘The American experience’, 45–47; 1999, Sao Paulo, thesis for degree of metallurgical engineer, The Royal Institute of
Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineracao. Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1963.
23. H. Stuart and B. L. Jones: J. Met., 1983, 35, 17. 61. F. de Kazinczy, A. Axnas and P. Pachleitner: Jerk. Ann., 1963, 147,
24. C. L. Altenburger: AISI Regional Tech. Meet., Buffalo, NY, USA, 408.
1960, AISI, 59. 62. L. Meyer: ‘Niobium science and technology’, 359; 2003,
25. Iron Age, 1961, 188, 94. Bridgeville, PA, Niobium 2001 Ltd, TMS.
26. F. E. van Voris: Met. Prog., 1962, August, 84. 63. M. J. Goldshteyn and S. G. Guterman: ‘Technology of ferrous
27. A. MacLean: ‘The mechanical testing of JTA101 quality steel metals production’, Proc. URAL Scientific Res. Inst. Ferrous
containing columbium’, metallurgical report no. D10/5,16 Metall., 1961, 1, 122.
September 1959, Colvilles Ltd, Motherwell, UK. 64. P. Brozzo, V. Benuti, S. di Bartolo and S. Michelucci: Rev. Met.,
28. J. T. Mareta and R. W. Joseph: Proc. Open Hearth Steel Conf., 1964, 61, 475.
421; 1961, AIME. 65. L. Meyer, C. Strassburger and D. Schauwinhold: Arch. Eisen.,
29. I. M. Mackenzie: ‘Metallurgical developments in carbon steels’, Sp. 1964, 35, 541.
Report 81, ISI, London, UK, 1963, 30. 66. M. Tarino, T. Nishida, T. Ohoka and N. Yoshikawa: Nippon
30. W. C. Leslie: J. Met., 1960, 12, 159. Kinzoku Gakhaishi, 1965, 29, 734.
31. C. A. Beiser: ‘The effect of small columbium additions to semi 67. M. Economopoulos and T. Greday: CNRM, No. 1, 1964, October,
killed, medium carbon steels’, ASM Preprint no. 138, 1959. 45.
32. A. H. Cottrell: ‘Dislocations and plastic flow in crystals’, 147; 1953, 68. R. W. Vanderbeck: Weld. Res. Suppl., 1958, 37, 114s.
Oxford, Oxford University Press. 69. J. J. Irani, D. Burton, J. D. Jones and A. B. Rothwell: ‘Strong
33. C. S. Barrett: ‘Structure of metals’, 2nd edn, 406; 1952, New York, tough structural steels’, Sp. Report 104, ISI, London, UK, 1967,
NY, McGraw-Hill. 110.
34. B. Mintz, W. B. Morrison and A. Jones: Met. Tech., 1979, 6, 252. 70. J. D. Jones and A. B. Rothwell: ‘Deformation under hot working
35. N. J. Petch: JISI, 1953, 174, 25. conditions’, Sp. Report 108, ISI, London, UK, 1968, 78.

Materials Science and Technology 2009 VOL 25 NO 9 1073