Closure to “Discussion of ‘Response Bounds for Linear Damped Systems’ ” (2000, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 67, p. 636)

We thank Mr. S. Shahruz for his interest in our paper and welcome his comment. In our paper we consider a response bound as a bound with time evolution. Instead of Eq. (7) in Mr. Shahruz’s discussion, our original response bound (Eq. (49) in 1) reads The term $e−ut$ appearing in this response bound plays an important role. For the maximum amplitude of the response $maxt‖yt‖,$ we prefer to call it amplitude bound. S. Shahruz and P. Mahavamana’s results in paper (2) and some results from W. Schiehlen and the first author of this closure in papers (3 4) are for the amplitude bounds. Here we would like to point out that the procedure listed in S. Shahruz’s discussion should be to compute our response bound given in Eq. (¹) above. It may not be meaningful for the amplitude bounds. In Eq. (29) of our paper, we gave an amplitude bound which also follows directly from Eq. (¹) in this closure. We can see that for the computation of this amplitude bound, most operations in the procedure listed in S. Shahruz’s discussion are not necessary. Compared with Mr. Shahruz and Mr. Mahavamana’s amplitude bound given in Eq. (8) of Mr. Shahruz’s discussion, we have the opinion that our amplitude bound is not harder to compute since either the computation of the smallest undamped frequency $ω1$ or the determination whether the matrix $DM−1K+KM−1D$ is positive semi-definite costs extra time. Though he showed their amplitude bounds are tighter than ours for two examples, we do not think this conclusion holds in general. Let us choose a simple example to explain this point. If we change the mass matrix in Eq. (9) of Mr. Shahruz’s discussion to and the numerical values of the damping matrix and the stiffness matrix remain unchanged, then Mr. Shahruz and Mr. Mahavamana’s amplitude bounds for both cases B1 and B2 become 10. However, our amplitude bounds remain unchanged. They are still 2.51 for the case B1 and 1.15 for the case B2. It is not difficult to find examples which show neither method to be superior.