We welcome the comments offered by Papangelo et al. on our paper [1] and respond to them here. We established the percolation threshold under the effect of anisotropy and compared it with the theoretical results given by Persson et al. [2]. Papangelo et al. analyzed the percolation threshold problem and the underlying contact mechanism. Then, they put forward some interesting questions worth thinking about.
There are many discrepancies among studies regarding the real contact area at percolation; different authors report different calculated results. Consider the percolation threshold of isotropic rough surfaces, for example. Persson et al. reported 0.5 [2], Dapp et al. 0.41 [3], Yang et al. 0.48 [1], and Putignano et al. 0.36 [4]. The reasons for the discrepant results are as follows:
The rough surfaces used in the calculations were generated via different mathematical methods. Our...
