When selecting artificial turf, price is often one of the top concerns for clients. The question arises: Is non infill artificial grass more expensive than traditional infilled systems? The answer isn’t straightforward. A thorough analysis reveals how various factors—materials, construction, installation, and long-term maintenance—interact to determine the overall cost-effectiveness of each system.
1. Breaking Down the Cost Structure
a. Costs Associated with Infilled Turf
Traditional infill turf systems involve two main cost components: the turf surface and the infill materials. Turf prices vary depending on fiber type (e.g., polyethylene or polypropylene), pile height, and tuft density. Higher-grade PE yarns with taller pile and denser configurations tend to cost more.
Infill materials such as silica sand and rubber granules contribute significantly to the total expense. Their prices fluctuate widely based on quality—premium rubber granules, for instance, are much more expensive than recycled alternatives. Additionally, the installation process is labor-intensive, requiring skilled workers to distribute and groom the infill, further raising labor costs.
b. Costs Associated with Non Infill Turf
Non infill turf systems derive most of their cost from the turf itself. Since they must maintain blade uprightness and sports performance without infill support, these systems require specialized fiber design and manufacturing techniques. Although this R&D-driven complexity adds to the initial price, the absence of infill eliminates expenses for material sourcing, transport, and installation labor—streamlining the overall cost structure.
2. Price Comparisons Across Applications
a. Typical Price Ranges
For standard football applications:
Infilled turf (50mm pile, 10,500 stitches/m²) ranges from ¥28–¥50/m².
Non infill turf (30mm pile, 21,000 stitches/m²) generally costs ¥35–¥60/m².
In gateball courts:
Standard non infill models (15mm pile, 63,000 stitches/m²) are priced at ¥29–¥39/m².
High-end non infill models cost ¥42–¥45/m².
Infilled gateball turf typically ranges between ¥40–¥60/m².
Takeaway: In many cases, non infill turf is not inherently more expensive than infilled turf. In fact, depending on specifications, it may even offer better pricing.
b. Cost Efficiency by Scenario
In large or professional football stadiums, the volume of infill and complexity of installation can result in a higher total cost for infilled systems. Non infill turf, while initially more expensive due to its engineered design, eliminates the need for infill, often reducing total project costs.
For smaller spaces such as 5-a-side football fields or cage mini-pitches, the installation speed and lower maintenance requirements of non infill turf deliver clear cost advantages.
3. VIVATURF's Price-Performance Edge
VIVATURF’s non infill artificial grass strikes a smart balance between upfront investment and long-term value. Key features include:
a. Advanced Materials and Structure
Uses dual-shape monofilament (straight and curled) with a density of 20,000 stitches/m², ensuring blade uprightness and play consistency.
Simplified construction process shortens installation time by over 50%.
Reduces long-term maintenance costs by up to 80%.
b. Enhanced Sports Performance
Turf fibers are engineered for both soft underfoot feel and over 75% rebound resilience.
Shock-absorbing underlayers lower injury risk by up to 30%.
Surface friction conforms to international sports standards.
c. Environmental Benefits
The non infill design eliminates the need for mining, transporting, and disposing of rubber or sand infill—cutting carbon emissions by 45%.
In a Yangtze River Delta tech park case study, air particulate suppression improved by 92% after installing VIVATURF, significantly enhancing air quality.
VIVATURF offers non infill turf systems that deliver exceptional performance and durability at a reasonable price point. By eliminating hidden infill costs, speeding up installation, and reducing long-term upkeep, VIVATURF presents a high-value solution for schools, stadiums, and community recreation spaces alike.