Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Failure analysis of natural gas buried X65 steel pipeline under deection load
using nite element method
P.F. Liu a, J.Y. Zheng a,*, B.J. Zhang a, P. Shi b
a
b

Institute of Chemical Machinery and Process Equipment, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China
Institute of Zhejiang Special Equipment Inspection, Hangzhou 310013, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 July 2009
Accepted 31 August 2009
Available online 6 September 2009
Keywords:
Plastic behavior
Failure analysis

a b s t r a c t
A 3D parametric nite element model of the pipeline and soil is established using nite element method
to perform the failure analysis of natural gas buried X65 steel pipeline under deection load. The pipeline
is assumed to be loaded in a parabolic deection displacement along the axial direction. Based on the true
stressstrain constitutive relationship of X65 steel, the elasticplastic nite element analysis employs the
arc-length algorithm and non-linear stabilization algorithm respectively to simulate the strain softening
properties of pipeline after plastic collapse. Besides, effects of the soil types and model sizes on the maximum deection displacement of pipeline are investigated. The proposed nite element method serves as
a base available for the safety design and evaluation as well as engineering acceptance criterion for the
failure of pipeline due to deection.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Under complex environments such as the external deection
loads, the natural gas buried pipeline which is representative of a
series of key lifeline projects usually experiences rigorous test.
The economic loss or person hurt due to pipeline burst or natural
gas leakage which arises from excess pipeline deection may be
enormous and hazardous. The safety evaluation and accident prevention of natural gas pipeline is a complex system engineering,
which relates to various factors such as the geological and climate
conditions, the pipeline materials and structure as well as the online monitor and management. Essentially, the pipeline cracking or
burst under deection loads results from large plastic deformation.
When the stress level in the pipeline exceeds its limit load-bearing
ability, the pipeline failure will bring about the leakage or burst of
natural gas in the pipeline. How to predict the limit deection
load-bearing ability of pipeline under some load conditions plays
an important role in guiding the theoretical design and safety evaluation of buried pipeline.
In general, different failure modes may appear for pipeline such
as the plastic collapse represented by gross plastic deformation under internal pressure, the fatigue failure under cyclic internal pressure, the buckling and post-buckling instability under external
pressure as well as the interaction of stress corrosion and defects
[1,2]. Research on various failure modes of pipeline helps to gain
insight into the practical failure mechanisms of pipeline and can
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 571 87953393.
E-mail address: piu1980@yahoo.com (J.Y. Zheng).
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.08.045

be further considered as an effective foundation for safety assessment and accident avoidment of pipeline.
Already, many theoretical methods with respect to these failure
modes for thin-walled structures had been proposed. Liu et al .
[36], Xue et al. [7] proposed effective nite element algorithms
respectively to predict the burst pressure of pressure vessels and
piping. Also, the burst pressure of pipeline with aw was calculated using the elasticplastic nite element analysis based on
the proposed failure criteria [8,9]. Furthermore, Liu et al. [1012]
and Wang [13] performed the optimal design of pressure vessels
and piping with nozzles under burst pressure constraint using genetic algorithm and immune algorithm respectively. In addition,
Liu et al. [14] proposed a nite element method to perform the fatigue lifetime evaluation of natural gas buried X65 steel pipeline
under cyclic internal pressure and vibrating loads. Song [15], Murray and Bilston [16] carried out the elastic buckling and non-linear
post-buckling analysis of thin-walled structures under external
pressure using nite element analysis. Based on the failure evaluation of pipeline, the inuence of the pipeline corrosion and imperfection on the failure mechanisms was further explored using
experiments and nite element analysis [1721]. However, little
attention is paid to the failure analysis of buried pipeline due to
deection by proposing powerful calculation methods or failure
criteria.
Under excess deection displacements, the pipeline may become physically unstable which is represented by local or global
plastic collapse. As it becomes collapse, the structure must release
strain energy to remain in equilibrium. When it comes to the
plastic collapse analysis of pipeline using the nite element

http://www.paper.edu.cn
P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

1385

Nomenclature
L
K
M
C
F
U

length of pipeline adopted in nite element analysis

stiffness matrix in nite element equation
mass matrix in nite element equation
damping matrix in nite element equation
load matrix in nite element equation
displacement matrix in nite element equation

method, this instability problem usually leads to calculation convergence difculties and requires the introduction of special
techniques.
Currently, two applicable methods based on the nite element
analysis appear which can be used to solve the strain softening
and limit load-bearing problems [22]. First, associated with the
NewtonRaphson iterative method, the load matrices in the nite
element equations are multiplied by a variable arc-length factor to
circumvent instability. This method is called as the modied Riks
method. Second, the damping effect is introduced into the nonlinear nite element equations to improve the convergence performance at the softening stage. This method is named as the nonlinear stabilization algorithm. In the nite element analysis, both
two methods are considerable improvements on the conventional
NewtonRaphson iterative algorithm which cannot deal with
strain softening problem.
In this paper, two methods above are comparatively used in the
nite element analysis to simulate the plastic collapse properties
and to calculate the maximum deection loads of buried pipeline.
The pipeline deection is assumed to be parabolic along its axial
direction and the true material stressstrain curve is used in the
elasto-plastic stress analysis. In addition, effects of the soil types
and model size on the maximum deection displacements of pipeline are explored. The proposed nite element method provides
valuable references for failure analysis of buried pipeline and other
engineering problems.

R
k
K
Hmax

arc-length radius in arc-length algorithm

load factor in arc-length algorithm
strength design coefcient
maximum deection displacement

A parametric 3D nite element model using the nite element

software ABAQUS is established to perform the failure analysis,
as shown in Fig. 3. The pipeline material is american. petroleum
institute (API) X65 steel. The diameter and thickness of the pipeline
are 813 mm and 12.5 mm, respectively. The width of model is
64,000 mm and the buried depth of pipeline is 1200 mm, and the
length of the model is adopted as L = 12,000 mm and 60,000 mm

2. Finite element analysis of natural gas buried X65 steel

pipeline under deection loads
2.1. Engineering accidents due to deection of pipeline
Fig. 1 shows two engineering accidents which relate to the
deection of buried pipeline in Zhejiang Province, China, in
20082009. Case (a) was due to the excess slope excavation near
the pipeline and the maximum deection displacement reaches
about 1900 mm. The stakes denoted the pipeline extension. Fortunately, the pipeline did not burst and the natural gas did not leak.
Case (b) arose mainly from the accumulation of a mass of mudrock ow from hillside on the top of pipeline under rainstorm environment. The pipeline burst caused large economic loss.
2.2. Finite element modeling of pipeline deection
Four basic assumptions are made in the following nite element
analysis:
(a) The welding between pipeline segments is not considered.
(b) The soil is linear-elastic and the pipeline is elasticplastic
and isotropic.
(c) The pipeline/soil interface is perfect without defects.
(d) The deection displacement of pipeline is parabolic along
the axial direction, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1. Engineering accidents due to pipeline deection in (a) Yuyao city and (b)
Ningbo city, Zhejiang province, China in 20082009.

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of pipeline deection.

http://www.paper.edu.cn

1386

P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

Table 1
Physical and mechanical parameters of X65 steel [21].
Youngs
modulus (MPa)

Poissons
ratio

Yielding
strength (MPa)

Tensile
strength (MPa)

Density
(kg/m3)

210.7E3

0.3

464.5

563.8

7850

Table 2
Physical and mechanical parameters of soil [2225].

Viscous soil
Sandy soil

respectively for comparison. The nite element mesh includes

13,268 nodes and 11,700 elements using the eight-node and hexagonal solid element C3D8. The true stressstrain curve of X65
steel is shown in Fig. 4 [23]. For simplication, the soil is divided
mainly into two types: viscous soil and sandy soil. The physical
and mechanical parameters of the pipeline and soil are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. From the point of view of conservation,
the maximum values for all soil parameters are used in the failure
analysis. The xed constraints are exerted on all external surfaces
except the upper surface. The nodes in the pipeline within the middle region of 1/3L length are loaded by a parabolic displacement
along the axial direction. In addition, the gravity and internal pressure 6.3 MPa are considered in this analysis.
2.3. Solution algorithms for limit load-bearing analysis of pipeline
deection
Geometrical and material non-linear problems sometimes involve buckling or collapse behavior, where the loaddisplacement
response takes on the negative stiffnesses and negative eigenvalues. At this time, the structure must release strain energy to remain in equilibrium.
In the following, the arc-length algorithm and non-linear stabilization algorithm are employed respectively to solve the limit
load-bearing problem of pipeline due to deection.
(a) The nite element equation in the arc-length algorithm is
given by [3,4,22,2628,29]
1000

True stress, MPa

800

API X65 steel

400

200

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

True strain
Fig. 4. True stressstrain curve of X65 steel.

Poissons ratio

Density (kg/m3)

1228
2860

0.250.45
0.20.25

17501950
17001750

Ku kF

Fig. 3. Parametric nite element model.

600

Youngs modulus (MPa)

1.0

1.2

where k is a load factor within 1 and 1 which changes with

the stiffness matrices [K] to ensure an accurate solution of [u].
The arc-length algorithm imposes another constraint, which
is stated as

q
Du2 k2 R

where Du is the displacement increment and R is the arclength radius.

(b) The nite element equation in the non-linear stabilization
algorithm is [22]

Ku Cu F

where [K], [C], [F] and [u] are stiffness matrices, damping
matrices, load matrices and displacement matrices, respectively. When [K] becomes singular or non-positive after the
plastic collapse point, the viscous matrix [C] introduced is
sufciently large to prevent instantaneous collapse. In this
case, the reasonable solution can be obtained.
Parallel calculations are implemented on the high-performance
computer and the main congurations are Intel Xeon Central Processing Unit (CPU) with eight processors (the main frequency of
each processor is 2.33 GHz) and 3.99 GB memory. Each calculation
lasts for about 110 h depending on the solution algorithm and
model size.
3. Results and discussion
Figs. 5 and 6 show distributions of the Mises equivalent stress,
equivalent plastic strain and deection displacement for viscous
soil and L = 12,000 mm case using two algorithms. The maximum
displacement and stress appear at the maximum loading. By comparison, the non-linear stabilization algorithm leads to slightly
stronger load-bearing ability than the arc-length algorithm, and
the pipeline experiences more severe plastic deformation under
viscous soil environment than that under sandy soil environment.
The maximum Mises stress are 838.4 MPa and 844 MPa respectively for viscous soil using arc-length algorithm, which does not
reach the tensile strength 919 MPa. This indicates that a typical
unstable load-bearing due to excess plastic deformation results
in the collapse of pipeline. The large plastic deformation appears
before the structure failure and the corresponding maximum plastic strains are 0.1436 and 0.1372. The deformed shape of pipeline
takes on the parabolic distribution along the axial direction, which
is in good agreement with the assumption (d).
Fig. 7 shows the node forcedisplacement relationship at the
maximum stress and also compares the results using two algorithms for L = 12,000 mm case. The node force rst increases and
then decreases with increasing displacement. The point at the

http://www.paper.edu.cn
P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

1387

Fig. 5. Distributions of (a) Mises equivalent stress, (b) equivalent plastic strain and (c) displacement using arc-length algorithm for viscous soil and L = 12,000 mm case.

Fig. 6. Distributions of (a) Mises equivalent stress, (b) equivalent plastic strain and (c) displacement using non-linear stabilization algorithm for viscous soil and
L = 12,000 mm case.

maximum node force represents the structural plastic collapse,

indicating a sudden transition from material hardening to geometrical softening. The end point of the curve shows the appearance of
pipeline cracking. By comparison, the node force under the sandy
soil environment is smaller than that under the viscous soil environment, but the maximum deection displacement under the
sandy soil environment is slightly larger than that under the viscous soil environment. Two algorithms lead to relatively consistent
node forcedisplacement curves. Table 3 compares the CPU time
for two algorithms. The non-linear stabilization algorithm costs

less time than the arc-length algorithm, and the latter requires
more calculation resources for complex problems. Compared with
these two algorithms, the conventional NewtonRaphson method
cannot simulate the softening properties since it cannot deal with
the negative stiffness matrix problems. It can also be found from
the nite element results that the internal pressure and inertia factors have not distinct effect on the limit load-bearing ability of
pipeline under large deection displacement.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the distributions of Mises stress, plastic
strain and deection displacement for sandy soil and

http://www.paper.edu.cn

1388

P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

30

Node force, 106 N

25

20

15

Plastic collapse point

Arc-length algorithm, viscous soil

Non-linear stabilization algorithm, viscous soil
Arc-length algorithm, sandy soil
Non-linear stabilization algorithm, sandy soil

10

Failure point

100

200

300

400

500

600

Node displacement, mm
Fig. 7. Node forcedisplacement curves using two algorithms for L = 12,000 mm
case.

Table 3
CPU time for two models and two algorithms (unit: second).

L = 12,000 mm
L = 60,000 mm

Arc-length algorithm

Non-linear stabilization algorithm

7467.4
8110.8

3009.1
4278.6

L = 60,000 mm case using two algorithms. The maximum Mises

stress 823 MPa for L = 60,000 mm case is slightly smaller than
838844 MPa for L = 12,000 mm case, but the maximum plastic
strain and deection displacement for L = 60,000 mm case are larger than those for L = 12,000 mm case. Fig. 10 shows the node
forcedisplacement curve at the maximum stress and also com-

pares the results using two algorithms for L = 60,000 mm case. Different from the L = 12,000 mm case, the node force experiences a
repeatedly process of rst increasing and then decreasing with
increasing displacement for L = 60,000 mm case, which indicates
a more severe geometrical unstable process. In addition, with the
increase of axial length L, the difference between the node force
displacement curves for two types of soil becomes large.
Table 4 lists the calculated maximum deection displacements
for two type of soil using two algorithms. By comparison, the nonlinear stabilization algorithm is a more preferable algorithm than
the arc-length algorithm in terms of their calculation efciency.
The predicted maximum deection displacement Hmax of pipeline
provides a valuable reference for proposing the safety acceptance
criterion for practical deection problem of pipeline. According
to the engineering design criterion for transportation gas pipeline
GB50251-2003 in PR China [30], the regions the pipeline passes
across are divided into four grades in terms of the number and
density of populations and houses near the pipeline and the corresponding strength design coefcients are k = 0.72, 0.6, 0.5, and 0.4
respectively. Here, an engineering acceptance criterion is proposed: rst, the maximum deection displacement Hmax of pipeline is calculated using the proposed nite element method and
the value Hmax  k is taken as a limit one; second, the measured
practical deection displacement of pipeline is compared with
the value Hmax  k to determine whether the safety performance
of pipeline can be guaranteed and some effective maintenance
measure are required to be adopted immediately. This simple criterion helps to improve the theoretical design and to maintain the
safe run of pipeline under deection loading from the point of view
of avoiding the engineering accidents. For example, the acceptable
limit deection displacement for case (a) above is 2202.4 
0.72 = 1586 mm, but the practical deection displacement reaches
about 1900 mm. Thus, some partial pipeline segment which experiences large plastic deformation must be replaced in order to
avoid the accidents.

Fig. 8. Distributions of (a) Mises equivalent stress, (b) equivalent plastic strain and (c) displacement using arc-length algorithm for sandy soil for L = 60,000 mm case.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

1389

Fig. 9. Distributions of (a) Mises equivalent stress, (b) equivalent plastic strain and (c) displacement using non-linear stabilization algorithm for sandy soil and L = 60,000 mm
case.

Arc-length algorithm, viscous soil

Non-linear stabilization algorithm, viscous soil
Arc-length algorithm, sandy soil
Non-linear stabilization algorithm, sandy soil

120

Node force, 106 N

100
80

Failure point

60
40
20

Plastic collapse point

0
0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

Node displacement, mm
Fig. 10. Node forcedisplacement curves using two algorithms for L = 60,000 mm
case.

using non-linear stabilization algorithm at three stages. The stress

and strain at the middle cross-section increase as the curvature decreases, reecting the effect of deection loads on the pipeline. In
terms of two models and two algorithms, the calculated maximum
curvature radius which corresponds to the maximum deection displacement is listed in Table 5. It can be seen that the maximum curvature radius rapidly increases with the rise of pipeline length. If the
maximum curvature radius is regulated for some pipeline case, then
the maximum allowable deection displacement associated with
the design maximum strain can be obtained. This also provides an
efcient method to prevent the failure of pipeline from the point of
view of bending curvature radius.
In order to check the effect of mesh number on the calculation
results, a rened mesh model in terms of L = 12 m case is established, as shown in Fig. 12. The rened mesh model includes
105,896 nodes and 99,480 elements. From numerical calculations,
results show the maximum deection displacements do not
change largely with increasing mesh number.

4. Conclusions
Table 4
Calculated maximum deection displacements (comparison of two algorithms and
two models) (unit: mm).
Arc-length algorithm

Non-linear stabilization
algorithm

L = 12,000

Viscous soil
Sandy soil

567.5
617.1

584.7
640.5

L = 60,000

Viscous soil
Sandy soil

1803.2
2188.7

1824.4
2202.4

The deection load-bearing ability of pipeline can also be represented by the bending curvature, which is related to the actual stress
distribution on the pipeline cross-section. When the maximum
deection displacement is reached, the pipeline curvature attains a
limit value. Fig. 11 shows distributions of Mises stress and equivalent plastic strain at the middle cross-section for L = 12,000 mm case

This paper proposes a nite element method to predict the plastic collapse properties and the limit load-bearing ability of buried
natural gas X65 steel pipeline under deection loads. A parabolic
displacement distribution along the axial direction for the pipeline
is assumed. The arc-length algorithm and the non-linear stabilization algorithm are employed respectively to solve the strain softening problem. From numerical results, the following conclusions are
obtained:
(a) The loaddisplacement response using the non-linear stabilization algorithm is in good agreement with the arc-length
algorithm. However, the non-linear stabilization algorithm
exhibits more preferable calculation efciency than the
arc-length algorithm.
(b) The pipeline exhibits stronger deection load-bearing ability
under the sandy soil environment than under the viscous
soil environment


1390

http://www.paper.edu.cn
P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

Fig. 11. Distributions of Mises stress and equivalent plastic strain at the middle cross-section for L = 12,000 mm case using non-linear stabilization algorithm at maximum
deection displacement (a) 140 mm, (b) 486 mm and (c) 622 mm, respectively.

http://www.paper.edu.cn
P.F. Liu et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 13841391

1391

(c) Based on the proposed nite element method for predicting

the maximum deection displacement of pipeline, an effective engineering acceptance criterion is proposed to determine the safety performance of practically deected pipeline.

Acknowledgements
This research is supported by Standard System Study for Special
Equipment and Key Technology (Numbers: 2006BAK04A02-02 and
2006BAK02B02-08), and Research on Safety Performance of Buried
Pipeline under Deection Loading (Number: H20091654).
References

Fig. 11 (continued)

Table 5
Maximum curvature radius for two models and two algorithms (Unit:mm).
Arc-length algorithm

Non-linear stabilization
algorithm

L = 12,000

Viscous soil
Sandy soil

3808
3550

3713
3443

L = 60,000

Viscous soil
Sandy soil

28,633
23,936

28,324
23,808

Fig. 12. Rened mesh model for L = 12,000 mm case.

[1] Moglia M, Davis P, Burn S. Strong exploration of a cast iron pipe failure model.
Reliab Eng Syst Safety 2008;93:86374.
[2] Purbolaksono J, Hong YW, Nor SSM, et al. Evaluation on reheater tube failure.
Eng Fail Anal 2009;16:5337.
[3] Liu PF, Zheng JY, Miao CJ. Calculations of plastic collapse load of pressure vessel
using FEA. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2008;9(7):9006.
[4] Liu PF, Zheng JY. Progressive failure analysis of carbon ber/epoxy composite
laminates using continuum damage mechanics. Mater Sci Eng A 2008;485(1
2):7117.
[5] Zheng JY, Liu PF. Elasto-plastic stress analysis and burst strength evaluation of
Al-carbon ber/epoxy composite cylindrical laminates. Comput Mater Sci
2008;42(4):45361.
[6] Xu P, Zheng JY, Liu PF. Finite element analysis of burst pressure of composite
hydrogen storage vessels. Mater Des 2009;30:2295301.
[7] Xue LP, Widera GEO, Sang ZF. Burst analysis of cylindrical shells. J Press Vess
T ASME 2008;130:15.
[8] Kamayaa M, Suzukib T, Meshii T. Failure pressure of straight pipe with wall
thinning under internal pressure. Inter J Press Vess Pip 2008;85:62834.
[9] Rushtona N, Schleyera GK, Claytonb AM. Internal explosive loading of steel
pipes. Thin Wall Struct 2008;46:8707.
[10] Liu PF, Xu P, Han SX, Zheng JY. Optimal design of pressure vessel using an
improved genetic algorithm. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2008;9(9):12649.
[11] Xu P, Zheng JY, Chen HG, Liu PF. Optimal design of hydrogen storage vessel
using an adaptive genetic algorithm. Inter J Hydrogen Energy (in press).
[12] Liu PF, Xu P, Zheng JY. Articial immune system for optimal design of
composite hydrogen storage vessel. Comput Mater Sci (In press).
[13] Wang L. A hybrid genetic algorithmneural network strategy for simulation
optimization. Appl Math Comput 2005;170(2):132943.
[14] Liu PF, Zheng JY, Sun GY. Fatigue lifetime evaluation of buried pipeline under
internal pressure and vibrating loads. J Mech Strength (in press [In Chinese]).
[15] Song CY. Buckling of un-stiffened cylindrical shell under non-uniform. J
Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2002;3(5):52031.
[16] Murray NW, Bilston P. Local buckling of thin-walled pipes being bent in the
plastic range. Thin Wall Struct 1992;14(5):41134.
[17] Silva RCC, Guerreiro JNC, Loula AFD. A study of pipe interacting corrosion
defects using the FEM and neural networks. Adv Eng Softw 2007;38:86875.
[18] Kamayaa, M, Tomohisa Suzuki T. Normalizing the inuence of aw length on
failure pressure of straight pipe with wall-thinning. Nucl Eng Des
2008;238:815.
[19] Hasan F, Iqbal J, Ahmed F. Stress corrosion failure of high-pressure gas
pipeline. Eng Fail Anal 2007;14:8019.
[20] Fu GR. Failure analysis of rubber fuel pipes in aero-engines. Eng Fail Anal
1999;9:495509.
[21] Manfredi C, Otegui JL. Failures by SCC in buried pipeline. Eng Fail Anal
2002;9:495509.
[22] ABAQUS users manual. USA: Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. 2004.
[23] Oha CK, Kima YJ, Baekb JH. Ductile failure analysis of API X65 pipes with
notch-type defects using a local fracture criterion. Inter J Press Vess Piping
2007;84:51225.
[24] Liu JL. Stack foundation design and calculation. Beijing: Chinese Architecture
industry Press; 1990 (in Chinese).
[25] Dong JG. Soil mechanics and foundation base. Shanghai: Tongji university
press; 2005 (In Chinese).
[26] Riks E. An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling
problems. Inter J Solids Struct 1979;15:52951.
[27] Ramm E. Strategies for tracing the non-linear response near limit points. In:
Non-linear nite element analysis in structural mechanics. New
York: Springer; 1981. p. 6889.
[28] Criseld MA. An arc-length method including line searches and accelerations.
Inter J Numer Methods Eng 1983;19:126989.
[29] Liu PF, Zheng JY. A Monte Carlo nite element simulation of damage and
failure in SiC/TiAl composites. Mater Sci Eng 2006;425(1-2):2607.
[30] GB50251-2003: Engineering design criterion for transportation gas pipeline
[in Chinese].