Advertisement

A state-of-the-art review on seismic SSI studies on building structures

  • Nishant Sharma
  • Kaustubh DasguptaEmail author
  • Arindam Dey
Review

Abstract

This article aims to provide a concise state-of-the-art review of the seismic soil–structure interaction (SSI) studies related to building structures. Irrespective of the type of structure, other associated studies are also presented that are considered as important and integral in SSI studies. Noted researchers working in the field of SSI expressed different types of views with regard to the adoption and beneficial effects of seismic SSI. However, as evidenced from the literature, it was observed that there exist contradictory opinions about its necessity, benefits, as well as its detrimental response. The inconclusiveness of the reports triggers the necessity to critically study the issues and aspects of seismic SSI and examine the various available codal guidelines in detail. The same has been reported in the present article. Certain relevant studies related to the methodology, various computational procedures and the modelling of the soil domain, that are found integral to any seismic SSI technique, has been presented with a view to develop a basic understanding of the subject. Finally, the seismic SSI studies along with guidelines present in various codes of design practice have been reviewed. Moreover, the gap areas that have not received their due attention in the past SSI studies related to buildings has been highlighted. Overall, this article provides a basic insight into the area of seismic SSI and the studies related to building structures supported on shallow and deep foundations. The article focuses to illuminate the areas that have not received due attention in the earlier studies.

Keywords

Soil–structure interaction Foundations Codes of practice and standards Buildings Earthquake engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The support and resources provided by Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, and Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD, Government of India), are gratefully acknowledged by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Hadjian AH, Luco JE, Tsai NC (1974) Soil–structure interaction: continuum or finite element? Nucl Eng Des 31(2):151–167Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(9):822–832Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, Zhai Y (2011) Structure–soil–structure interaction: literature review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(12):1724–1731.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roesset JM (2013) Soil structure interaction the early stages. J Appl Sci Eng 16(1):1–8Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kavitha PE, Beena KS, Narayanan KP (2016) A review on soil–structure interaction analysis of laterally loaded piles. Innov Infrastruct Solut 1(1):1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-016-0015-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    BSSC (1997) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASCE 7-05 (2006) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05). American Society of Civil Engineers, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil–structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(03):277–301Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yegian MK, Chang CY, Mullen CL, Mylonakis G (2001) Soil–structure interaction under dynamic loading for both shallow and deep foundations. In: Fourth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics and symposium in honor of Professor WD Liam Finn, San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luco J, Trifunac M, Wong H (1988) Isolation of soil–structure interaction effects by full-scale forced vibration tests. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16(1):1–21Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamahara H (1970) Ground motions during earthquakes and the input loss of earthquake power to an excitation of buildings. Soils Found 10(2):145–161Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aldea A, Iiba M, Demetriu S, Kashima T (2007) Evidence of soil–structure interaction from earthquake records at a high-rise building site in bucharest. In: 4th International conference on earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Celebi M, Safak E (1991) Seismic response of Transamerica building. I: data and preliminary analysis. J Struct Eng 117(8):2389–2404Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muria-Vila D, Taborda R, Zapata-Escobar A (2004) Soil–structure interaction effects in two instrumented tall buildings. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heidebrecht A, Henderson P, Naumoski N, Pappin J (1990) Seismic response and design for structures located on soft clay sites. Can Geotech J 27(3):330–341Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meli R, Faccioli E, Murià-Vila D, Quaas R, Paolucci R (1998) A study of site effects and seismic response of an instrumented building in Mexico City. J Earthq Eng 2(01):89–111Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guéguen P, Bard P-Y (2005) Soil–structure and soil–structure–soil interaction: experimental evidence at the Volvi test site. J Earthq Eng 9(05):657–693Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guéguen P, Bard P-Y, Chávez-Garc’ia FJ (2002) Site-city seismic interaction in Mexico city-like environments: an analytical study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(2):794–811Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook RD, Malkus DS, Plesha ME, Witt RJ (1989) Concepts and applications of finite element analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stevens DJ, Krauthammer T (1988) A finite difference/finite element approach to dynamic soil–structure interaction modelling. Comput Struct 29(2):199–205Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Godbole P, Viladkar M, Noorzaei J (1990) Nonlinear soil–structure interaction analysis using coupled finite–infinite elements. Comput Struct 36(6):1089–1096Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolf JP, Darbre GR (1984) Dynamic stiffness matrix of soil by the boundary-element method: conceptual aspects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 12(3):385–400Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Çelebi E, Firat S, Çankaya I (2006) The evaluation of impedance functions in the analysis of foundations vibrations using boundary element method. Appl Math Comput 173(1):636–667.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alyagshi Eilouch MN, Sandhu RS (1986) A mixed method for transient analysis of soil–structure interaction under SH-motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 14(4):499–516Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Capuani D, Klein R, Antes H, Tralli A (1995) Dynamic soil–structure interaction of coupled shear walls by boundary element method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(6):861–879Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Padrón LA, Aznárez JJ, Maeso O (2009) Dynamic structure–soil–structure interaction between nearby piled buildings under seismic excitation by BEM–FEM model. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6):1084–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang S (1992) Coupled boundary and finite elements for dynamic structure (3D)–foundation–soil interaction. Comput Struct 44(4):807–812Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chuhan Z, Xinfeng C, Guanglun W (1999) A coupling model of FE-BE-IE-IBE for non-linear layered soil–structure interactions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(4):421–441.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199904)28:4<421:AID-EQE824>3.0.CO;2-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wolf JP (2003) The scaled boundary finite element method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wegner J, Yao M, Zhang X (2005) Dynamic wave–soil–structure interaction analysis in the time domain. Comput Struct 83(27):2206–2214Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bielak J, Loukakis K, Hisada Y, Yoshimura C (2003) Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake modeling in localized regions, part I: theory. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(2):817–824.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zdravkovic L, Kontoe S (2008) Some issues in modelling boundary conditions in dynamic geotechnical analysis. In: 12th international conference of international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics, India, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Datta TK (2010) Seismic analysis of structures. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1363–1381Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dutta SC, Roy R (2002) A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction among soil–foundation–structure system. Comput Struct 80(20):1579–1594Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Makris N, Gazetas G (1992) Dynamic pile–soil–pile interaction. Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21(2):145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gerolymos N, Gazetas G (2006) Development of winkler model for static and dynamic response of caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(5):363–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raychowdhury P, Singh P (2012) Effect of non-linear soil–structure interaction on seismic response of low-rise SMRF buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11(4):541–551Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kampitsis AE, Sapountzakis EJ, Giannakos SK, Gerolymos NA (2013) Seismic soil–pile–structure kinematic and inertial interaction—a new beam approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:211–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gajan S, Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL, Stewart JP (2010) Application and validation of practical tools for nonlinear soil–foundation interaction analysis. Earthq Spectra 26(1):111–129.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3263242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kausel E, Roesset JM, Wass G (1975) Dynamic analysis of footings on layered media. J Eng Mech Div 101:679–693Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lysmer J, Waas G (1972) Shear waves in plane infinite structures. Journal of Engineering MechanicsGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roesset JM, Ettouney MM (1977) Transmitting boundaries: a comparison. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1(2):151–176Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wolf JP, Somaini DR (1986) Approximate dynamic model of embedded foundation in time domain. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 14(5):683–703Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kausel E (1988) Local transmitting boundaries. J Eng Mech 114(6):1011–1027Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen ATF (1985) Transmitting boundaries and seismic response. J Geotech Eng 111(2):174–180Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jingbo L, Yandong L (1998) A direct method for analysis of dynamic soil–structure interaction based on interface idea. Dev Geotech Eng 83:261–276Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gentela SR (2011) Influence of soil–structure interaction on seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete integral bridge piers. M. Tech thesis. Indian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhang Y, Conte JP, Yang Z, Elgamal A, Bielak J, Acero G (2008) Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system. Earthq Spectra 24:343–386.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2923925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 99:421–427 (Tech Rpt) Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Häggblad B, Nordgren G (1987) Modelling nonlinear soil–structure interaction using interface elements, elastic–plastic soil elements and absorbing infinite elements. Comput Struct 26(1–2):307–324Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yun CB, Kim DK, Kim JM (2000) Analytical frequency-dependent infinite elements for soil–structure interaction analysis in two-dimensional medium. Eng Struct 22(3):258–271Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smith WD (1974) A nonreflecting plane boundary for wave propagation problems. J Comput Phys 15(4):492–503Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cundall PA, Kunar RR, Carpenter PC, Marti J (1978) Solution of infinite dynamic problems by finite modelling in the time domain. In: Second international conference on applied numerical modelling. Madrid Polytechnic University, Spain, pp 339–351Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kunar R, Rodriguez-Ovejero L (1980) A model with non-reflecting boundaries for use in explicit soil–structure interaction analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 8(4):361–374Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Deeks AJ, Randolph MF (1994) Axisymmetric time-domain transmitting boundaries. J Eng Mech 120(1):25–42Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nakamura N (2009) Nonlinear response analyses of a soil–structure interaction system using transformed energy transmitting boundary in the time domain. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(5):799–808Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Meek J, Veletsos A (1974) Simple models for foundations in lateral and rocking motion. In: 5th World conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, Italy, pp 2610–2631Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nagendra M, Sridharan A (1984) Footing response to horizontal vibration. J Eng Mech 110(4):648–654Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dobry R, Gazetas G (1986) Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations. J Geotech Eng 112(2):109–135Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2(1):2–42Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chatterjee P, Basu B (2008) Some analytical results on lateral dynamic stiffness for footings supported on hysteretic soil medium. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(1):36–43Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weissman K, Prevost JH (1991) Results and analysis of soil–structure interaction experiments performed in the centrifuge. Earthq Eng & Struct Dyn 20(3):259–274Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Blaney GW, O’Neill MW (1986) Measured lateral response of mass on single pile in clay. J Geotech Eng 112(4):443–457Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Randolph MF (1981) The response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Geotechnique 31(2):247–259Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Krishnan R, Gazetas G, Velez A (1983) Static and dynamic lateral deflexion of piles in non-homogeneous soil stratum. Geotechnique 33(3):307–325Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gazetas G (1984) Seismic response of end-bearing single piles. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(2):82–93Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gazetas G, Dobry R (1984) Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J Geotech Eng 110(1):20–40Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dezi F, Carbonari S, Leoni G (2009) A model for the 3D kinematic interaction analysis of pile groups in layered soils. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(11):1281–1305Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kavvads M, Gazetas G (1993) Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 43(2):207–222Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gazetas G, Dobry R (1984) Simple radiation damping model for piles and footings. J Eng Mech 110(6):937–956Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G (1997) Soil–pile-bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(3):337–359Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Berger E, Mahi SA, Pyke R (1977) Simplified method for evaluating soil–pile–structure interaction effects. In: 9th Annual offshore technology conference, Houston, Texas, pp 589–598Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dobry R, Gazetas G (1988) Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating pile groups. Geotechnique 38(4):557–574Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Badry P, Satyam N (2016) An efficient approach for assessing the seismic soil structure interaction effect for the asymmetrical pile group. Innov Infrastruct Solut 1(1):8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-016-0003-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Poulos HG, Davis EH (1990) Pile foundation analysis and design. Krieger Publication, MalabarGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A (1999) Seismic soil–pile–structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(9):750–759Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nogami T, Otani J, Konagai K, Chen HL (1992) Nonlinear soil–pile interaction model for dynamic lateral motion. J Geotech Eng 118(1):89–106Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Novak M, Sheta M (1980) Approximate approach to contact effects of piles. In: Dynamic response of pile foundations: analytical aspects, National Convention, ASCE. Geotechnical Engineering Division, Florida, USA, pp 53–79Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wang S, Kutter BL, Chacko MJ, Wilson DW, Boulanger RW, Abghari A (1998) Nonlinear seismic soil–pile structure interaction. Earthq Spectra 14(2):377–396Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B (2014) Assessment of soil–pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Comput Geotech 55:172–186Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC (2004) Assessing lateral period of building frames incorporating soil-flexibility. J Sound Vib 269(3):795–821Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Balkaya C, Yuksel SB, Derinoz O (2012) Soil–structure interaction effects on the fundamental periods of the shear-wall dominant buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 21(6):416–430Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nateghi-A F, Rezaei-Tabrizi A (2013) Nonlinear dynamic response of tall buildings considering structure–soil–structure effects. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 22(14):1075–1082Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Renzi S, Madiai C, Vannucchi G (2013) A simplified empirical method for assessing seismic soil–structure interaction effects on ordinary shear-type buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:100–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Veletsos AS, Meek JW (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(2):121–138Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Bielak J (1978) Dynamic response of non-linear building-foundation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(1):17–30Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Han Y (2002) Seismic response of tall building considering soil–pile–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 1(1):57–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-002-0008-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Sáez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A (2013) Inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings. Eng Struct 51:166–177Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kraus I, Džakić D (2013) Soil–structure interaction effects on seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frames. In: Skopje earthquake—50 Years European Earthquake Engineering, Skopje, MacedoniaGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Dutta SC, Bhattacharya K, Roy R (2004) Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(12):893–914Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Halabian A, El Naggar M, Vickery B (2002) Nonlinear seismic response of reinforced-concrete free-standing towers with application to TV towers on flexible foundations. Struct Des Tall Build 11(1):51–72Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    El Ganainy H, El Naggar MH (2009) Seismic performance of three-dimensional frame structures with underground stories. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(9):1249–1261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Oliveto G, Santini A (1993) A simplified model for the dynamic soil–structure interaction of planar frame-wall systems. Eng Struct 15(6):431–438Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Nadjai A, Johnson D (1996) Elastic analysis of spatial shear wall systems with flexible bases. Struct Des Tall Build 5(1):55–72Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G (2011) Linear soil–structure interaction of coupled wall–frame structures on pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(9):1296–1309Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G (2012) Nonlinear seismic behaviour of wall–frame dual systems accounting for soil–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(12):1651–1672Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kutanis M, Elmas M (2001) Non-linear seismic soil–structure interaction analysis based on the substructure method in the time domain. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 25(6):617–626Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Lu X, Chen B, Li P, Chen Y (2003) Numerical analysis of tall buildings considering dynamic soil–structure interaction. J Asian Archit Build Eng 2(1):1–8Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Matinmanesh H, Asheghabadi MS (2011) Seismic analysis on soil–structure interaction of buildings over sandy soil. Procedia Eng 14:1737–1743Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tabatabaiefar SHR, Fatahi B, Samali B (2013) Seismic behavior of building frames considering dynamic soil–structure interaction. Int J Geomech 13(4):409–420.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1: 2004). European Committee for Normalization (CEN), BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    JSCE (2007) Guidelines for concrete no. 15: standard specifications for concrete structures. Japan Society of Civil Engineers JSCE, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    IS 1893 (2002) Indian Standard Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1: general provisions and buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards BIS, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    del Distrito Federal G (2004) Normas técnicas complementarias para diseño por sismo. Gaceta Oficial del Gobierno del DF 2:55–77Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    FEMA 450 (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures part 1: provisions. Building Seismic Saftey Council BSSC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    FEMA 440 (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Applied Technical Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    ATC 40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (report no. ATC-40). Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nishant Sharma
    • 1
  • Kaustubh Dasgupta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arindam Dey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations