Entrants to this competition must be:

• Established businesses, academic institutions, start-ups, SMEs, or individual entrepreneurs
• UK based or have the intention to set up a UK base

Canal & River Trust manages and protects a historic network of inland waterways, including more than 2,000 miles of canals. Many canals were constructed using puddle clay liners, commonly around 300–600 mm thick, which provide the first line of defence against leakage. Over time, leakage pathways can develop through deterioration, settlement, vegetation, modifications, ground movement, erosion from boat wash, climate-related wetting and drying cycles, or defects in other liner types such as concrete or synthetic liners.

The Trust currently uses a range of leakage and seepage repair methods, including clay repairs, relining, clay cut-off trenches, cementitious grouts and polymeric grouting materials such as polyurethane (PU) foams.

For the grout replacement element of this challenge, the Trust is seeking alternatives to PU grouting materials only, not alternatives to cementitious grouts, clay repairs, relining or other repair material types. PU grouting is often attractive because it can be quick to install, relatively cost-effective, portable to difficult locations, and suitable for a wide range of ground and structural conditions. The Trust now wants to explore whether PU grout alternatives can maintain repair performance while improving carbon footprint, environmental impact, safe handling and practical deployment (without significantly increasing costs).

Canal & River Trust is seeking innovative solutions across two distinct but complementary focus areas. Applicants may respond to one or both.

Focus area 1: lower environmental impact alternatives to expansive polyurethane (PU) grouting materials that maintain repair performance while offering improvements in carbon footprint, environmental impact, material handling or deployment.

Focus area 2: novel alternative repair applications, methods or methodologies that can fix leaks at source in wet or operational conditions, while the canal remains in water.

For PU grout alternatives, the preferred solution would be a drop-in or near drop-in material that can use existing mixing and injection plant. Ideally, it would allow expansion level and expansion rate to be tailored to local ground conditions, leak or void size, temperature, moisture content and depth. For novel repair applications or methodologies, the Trust is interested in approaches that locate, access and seal leaks at source, particularly where dewatering is undesirable.

The Trust wants to find more effective ways to seal leaks in canal linings, wash walls and structures on operational, undrained canals. Current approaches typically seal the apparent leak pathway by injecting or inserting impermeable materials into subsoil near the back of the waterproof lining, which is often puddle clay. Where relevant, solutions should include or identify complementary technology to locate the leak point and verify repair effectiveness.

Solution providers should evidence performance, durability, expansion or swelling behaviour, curing or setting time, environmental safety, worker safety and expected design life. Solutions should already have been demonstrated in a relevant field, adjacent sector, or comparable wet-ground or submerged environment. They should be environmentally safe and legal to use and have no leaching. They should be capable of adaptation to the Trust’s operating context without fundamental research and development.

Addressing at least one focus area, the solution must:

• Be effective at sealing canal leaks or leakage pathways in wet ground and around operational canal assets.
• Demonstrate compatibility with aquatic life and the soil biome when cured.
• For material-based solutions, clearly describe uncured constituent handling requirements, worker safety considerations, any potential improvements in hazard profile, carbon footprint and environmental performance, compared with current PU grouting systems, and how risks to aquatic life, the soil biome and operatives will be controlled during deployment.
• Be portable and deployable in difficult access locations, including towpaths, embankments and offside canal banks.
• Be suitable for variable UK ground conditions, including sands, gravels, clays, topsoil, marls and mixed materials.
• Not biodegrade, deteriorate in water, shrink back, or be readily damaged by flora/fauna over its intended design life.
• Include clear information on shelf life, disposal of unused or expired material, container circularity, cleaning of equipment after use, and management of flushed or waste materials.

It is desirable that the materials and processes can be used and undertaken by the Trust’s existing contractors or volunteer workforce, with minimal training.

The solution must or should:

• Have a design life of at least 10 years. A longer design life would be advantageous.
• Provide an effectively impermeable seal once cured or set.
• Be capable of sealing leakage pathways, voids or defects associated with canal banks, wash walls, beds, linings or adjacent ground.
• Where proposed as an alternative to polyurethane (PU) foam grout, be expansive and capable of controlled expansion with no significant shrink-back.
• Ideally allow expansion level and reaction or cure rate to be tailored to suit site conditions such as soil type, leak or void size, water flow, temperature, moisture content and depth.
• Be compatible with existing or readily available mixing, pumping and injection equipment, or clearly explain any additional equipment required.
• Be suitable for use in wet or saturated ground and demonstrate that performance is not compromised by exposure to canal water.
• Be legal to use in the intended manner and physical context, and ideally with demonstrated environmental credentials that are acceptable to UK regulators.

The solution should work in the following conditions:

• Application on operational canals, with a strong preference for solutions that avoid canal dewatering and minimise disruption to navigation, towpath users and local communities. Short local towpath closures and minor disruption to navigation from workboats or similar activity are acceptable.
• Use in or near water, including saturated ground, seepage zones and leakage pathways where water may continue to flow during repair.
• Deployment from constrained locations such as narrow towpaths, embankments, offside banks or workboat-supported locations.
• Deployment in hard-to-access locations where heavy plant or transport vehicles cannot be used.
• Use in variable weather conditions throughout the year.
• Operation where mains power may not be available and where use of fossil fuel plant should be minimised where practical.
• Compatibility with heritage assets and standard environmental appraisal requirements used by the Trust.
• Component parts or uncured materials must have minimal toxicity to the water environment or be accompanied by clear handling instructions to minimise the risk of pollution to controlled waters, soil and ground water.

The following are out of scope:

• Solutions that require fundamental, long-term research before a field trial could be considered.
• Materials or processes that introduce unacceptable risks to operatives, aquatic life, the soil biome or the wider environment.
• Solutions that require canal dewatering as the primary installation method, unless there is a clear exceptional benefit.
• Approaches that rely on large, heavy or difficult-to-access plant where this would increase safety, access or disruption risks.
• Bentonite or clay pellet approaches that rely on slow expansion alone, unless applicants can demonstrate a materially improved performance in canal leakage conditions.
• Solutions that create hazardous waste streams, unmanaged residues, or disposal routes that conflict with the Trust’s environmental objectives.
• General leak detection, monitoring or quantification technologies that do not provide a repair material or repair method.

Solutions should be commercially realistic for routine canal leakage and seepage repairs. Applicants should provide indicative costs for materials, installation, equipment, consumables, cleaning, waste disposal and any specialist training or contractor requirements.

The Trust currently spends approximately £250k per year on grouting materials. Proposed solutions do not need to be cheaper than current materials at pilot stage, but should demonstrate a credible route to cost-effective deployment when whole-life benefits are considered. These benefits may include reduced maintenance, longer life, avoided dewatering, reduced environmental impact, lower carbon, improved safety and reduced risk of leak escalation.

Any trial budget, procurement route and wider commercial opportunity will be confirmed by Canal & River Trust. Applicants should state whether their proposed route is supply of material, supply and install, licensing, partnership, or another commercial model.

Successful applicants will have the opportunity to pitch their solution to Canal & River Trust. Selected solutions may then be invited to progress to a real-world trial in a canal environment, where innovators can demonstrate performance, refine their formulation or deployment approach, and benchmark their solution against the Trust’s operational requirements.

The benefits package for a successful applicant may also include:

• Support from Innovate UK Business Connect
• Support in the development of a prototype or pilot
• Technical support
• Invitation to attend or present at Innovate UK Business Connect events
• A potential business collaboration
• Investor introductions (if investment is required)
• Support if any Innovate UK or similar competitions are relevant.