Skip to main content
Log in

A critical review of the experimental and theoretical research on cyclic hydraulic fracturing for geothermal reservoir stimulation

  • Review
  • Published:
Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing is necessary to stimulate deep geothermal reservoirs. Compared with traditional hydraulic fracturing (THF), cyclic hydraulic fracturing (CHF) decreases the breakdown pressure (BP), generates a more complex crack network and reduces the induced seismicity; thus, it has attracted increasing attention. In this work, state-of-the-art studies on CHF are comprehensively reviewed for the first time. Six CHF cyclic loading schemes are clarified, and their stimulation results are discussed. It is difficult to assess which loading schemes are the most advantageous because the reservoir boundary conditions and properties of rock specimens vary. The effects of critical influential factors on the stimulation results of CHF are reviewed in detail. A higher confining pressure generally produces longer cracks, and a lower-viscosity fracturing fluid more easily connects micropores and widens cracks. The existing theoretical and numerical models of CHF, which are based mainly on fracture mechanics and damage mechanics, are summarized and discussed. Based on this comprehensive review, some aspects through which the failure mechanism of CHF can be further understood are suggested. This work can benefit the application of CHF to exploit deep geothermal resources.

Article Highlights

  • Six different cyclic hydraulic fracturing schemes are classified, and the corresponding stimulated effects are discussed.

  • The effects of the primary influencing factors on cyclic hydraulic fracturing are summarized.

  • Recommendations for further studying cyclic hydraulic fracturing are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

modified from reference (Sun et al. 2020))

Fig. 8

modified from reference (Zhuang et al. 2019))

Fig. 9

modified from reference (Goyal et al. 2020))

Fig. 10
Fig. 11

modified from reference (Diaz et al. 2020))

Fig. 12
Fig. 13

modified from reference (Ji et al. 2021))

Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AE:

Acoustic emission

BP:

Breakdown pressure

CHF:

Cyclic hydraulic fracturing

CPI:

Cyclic progressive injection

CPP:

Cyclic pulse pressurization

CPUC:

Controlled-pressure uniform cyclic injection

CRUC:

Controlled-rate uniform cyclic injection

EGS:

Enhanced geothermal system

KGD:

Kristianovich-Geertsma-de Klerk model

PKN:

Perkins-Kern-Nordgren model

SPP:

Stepwise pulse pressurization

THF:

Traditional hydraulic fracturing

THMC:

Four-field coupling of temperature-hydrological-mechanical-chemical

VSHTCI:

Variable stress holding time cyclic injection

G :

Amplitude of the strain energy (MN/m)

K :

Change in the stress intensity factor (MPa·m0.5)

t 1 :

Peak pressure holding time (s)

t 2 :

Valley pressure holding time (s)

∆σ:

Cyclic stress amplitude (MPa)

a :

Fracture length (m)

K c :

Critical stress intensity value (MPa·m0.5)

K IC :

Stress intensity factor (MPa·m0.5)

K max :

Maximum stress intensity factor (MPa·m0.5)

K min :

Minimum stress intensity factor (MPa·m0.5)

m and C :

Experimental fitting parameters (m/cy, MPa·m0.5)

N :

Number of cycles –

N d :

Number of limit cycles –

R :

Loading ratio (1)

U :

Elber constant (1)

σupper limit :

Cyclic loading upper limit (MPa)

σlower limit :

Cyclic unloading lower limit (MPa)

σH :

Maximum horizontal principal stress (MPa)

σh :

Minimum horizontal principal stress (MPa)

σv :

Vertical principal stress (MPa)

ω :

Microdamage variable (1)

t d :

Stress holding time (s

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Department of Science and Technology of Guangdong Province (No. 2019ZT08G315), National Natural Science Funding of China (Nos. 12172230, 51804203, U2013603, 51827901), and DOE Laboratory of Deep Earth Science and Engineering (Nos. DESE202102, DESE202108).

Funding

Department of Science and Technology of Guangdong Province, No. 2019ZT08G315, Heping Xie; National Natural Science Funding of China, No. 12172230, Cunbao Li, No. 51804203, Cunbao Li, No. U2013603, Cunbao Li, No. 51827901, Cunbao Li; DOE Laboratory of Deep Earth Science and Engineering, No. DESE202102, No. DESE202108, Cunbao Li

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cunbao Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, N., Xie, H., Hu, J. et al. A critical review of the experimental and theoretical research on cyclic hydraulic fracturing for geothermal reservoir stimulation. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour. 8, 7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-021-00309-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-021-00309-7

Keywords

Navigation