While non-infill artificial turf offers compelling advantages in sustainability, maintenance, and long-term durability, it is not without its limitations. This section outlines key drawbacks of typical non-infill turf systems, followed by how VivaTurf has addressed these challenges through advanced material and system innovations.
1. Reduced Shock Absorption May Increase Injury Risk
Root Cause:
Traditional turf systems rely on rubber granules and silica sand to create a resilient shock-absorbing layer. In contrast, non-infill turf lacks these buffer materials, relying solely on the interaction between fibers and backing. This often results in lower impact absorption capacity.
Data Comparison:
According to third-party testing, vertical impact absorption for traditional infill turf averages 55%–65%. Non-infill systems typically register 40%–50%, with some brands as low as 42%—a 15%–25% performance gap. This means that during falls or high-impact play, joints and bones may be exposed to greater stress, especially in sports like football or rugby. The risk of knee and elbow injuries could rise by 20%–30%.
Real-World Impact:
On youth fields, where athletes are more prone to falls, non-infill turf may increase the likelihood of abrasions or joint sprains due to reduced shock attenuation.
2. Higher Surface Temperatures in Hot Weather
Thermal Conductivity Issue:
Infill materials such as rubber absorb and dissipate heat. Non-infill turf, composed of polyethylene or polypropylene yarn and backing, lacks this buffer and conducts heat more readily.
Temperature Measurements:
Under direct summer sunlight, traditional infill turf typically exceeds ambient temperature by 10–15°C (e.g., 30°C ambient = 40–45°C surface). Non-infill turf, however, may exceed it by 15–25°C, reaching 45–55°C or even over 60°C in extreme cases. These conditions can cause discomfort or burns upon direct skin contact and may accelerate material degradation.
Impact Scenario:
In hot climates, particularly in southern regions, extreme surface temperatures can limit field usability and increase the risk of dehydration or heatstroke.
3. Higher Initial Installation Cost
Cost Breakdown:
Traditional infill turf: ¥80–120 per m²
Non-infill turf: ¥150–250 per m² (due to advanced yarn geometry and specialty backing)
Initial installation cost increases by approximately 50%–100%.
Cost-Efficiency Considerations:
While maintenance costs are lower, high-frequency use (>8 hours/day) is required for the long-term savings to justify the upfront expense. If the turf is replaced within five years, traditional infill systems may offer better short-term ROI.
4. Drainage Limitations During Extreme Weather
Structural Differences:
Infill turf benefits from voids between particles to facilitate drainage. Non-infill turf relies solely on perforated backing. If yarn density is too high or drainage holes are clogged, water evacuation can slow down.
Data Comparison:
In heavy rain simulations (≥50mm/h), drainage rates are:
Infill turf: 20–30mm/min
Non-infill turf: 15–25mm/min
This leads to a 10%–15% higher risk of waterlogging, potentially delaying post-rain playability.
5. Differences in Ball Performance Require Adaptation
Bounce and Roll Behavior:
Without infill cushioning, balls rebound more on non-infill turf. For example, a football dropped from 1 meter bounces ~0.4m on infilled turf vs. 0.45–0.5m on non-infill. Roll distance also increases by 15%–20%.
Implications for Play:
Athletes accustomed to natural grass or infilled systems may misjudge ball behavior, resulting in more passing or control errors. Sports that require precise ball trajectory—like golf or tennis—may see reduced performance consistency on standard non-infill turf.
6. Structural Stability Under Extreme Climates
Cold Weather Challenges:
At temperatures below -10°C, the turf backing may harden, reducing elasticity. This weakens fiber anchorage and increases the risk of fiber pull-out by 5%–10% over traditional systems.
UV Degradation Risk:
Without adequate UV stabilizers, non-infill turf in high-UV environments (e.g., high altitudes, tropical zones) may discolor 10%–20% faster than infilled turf, affecting aesthetics and lifespan.
✅ How VivaTurf Solves These Challenges Through Innovation
VivaTurf, as a pioneer in non-infill turf technology, has systematically addressed these drawbacks through proprietary R&D:
Improved Shock Absorption
VivaTurf’s eco-mechanical backing increases vertical impact absorption up to 55%, aligning with top-tier traditional infill systems and significantly reducing injury risk in high-impact sports.Heat-Resistant Turf Design
Special thermal inhibitors reduce surface temperatures by 8–10°C compared to standard non-infill turf under identical sunlight conditions, ensuring safe usability in hot climates.Cost Efficiency Through Longevity
With a 12-year product lifespan, VivaTurf’s annualized cost becomes lower than traditional turf by year 5, even accounting for higher upfront investment.Superior Drainage Performance
A honeycomb drainage system boosts flow rate to 30mm/min, outperforming peers and ensuring rapid water dispersal even in tropical storms.Natural Ball Roll and Bounce
Patented 3D fiber architecture controls ball roll variance within 5% of natural grass, restoring game realism and reducing athlete adaptation time.
While non-infill artificial turf does pose technical and practical challenges, VivaTurf has successfully minimized these drawbacks through advanced system engineering. By enhancing shock absorption, thermal performance, drainage, and ball behavior, VivaTurf's non-infill turf is a future-proof solution ideal for professional stadiums, elite training grounds, and eco-conscious institutions seeking world-class performance without compromise.