When purchasing artificial turf, many clients notice that non-infill systems tend to have a higher upfront cost compared to traditional infill-based turf. This difference, however, is not merely a matter of pricing strategy—it reflects the fundamental distinctions between the two in terms of material performance, production complexity, structural integrity, and R&D investment. Since non-infill turf must independently deliver the performance that infill systems achieve with sand and rubber granules, its design and production demand significantly higher investment. Below are the four key drivers behind these costs.
1. Turf Fibers: Premium Materials to Compensate for the Absence of Infill
Fibers form the “backbone” of artificial turf. Infill-based systems rely on granules to provide support, allowing basic-grade fibers to suffice. Non-infill systems, however, place all structural and functional requirements on the fibers themselves, making higher-grade materials indispensable.
Raw Material Costs: Non-infill turf fibers are typically made from modified polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), or high-performance nylon (PA). Modified PE, enhanced with UV and abrasion-resistant additives, costs 50%–100% more than standard PE. Nylon, commonly used for professional sports fields, can be two to three times stronger than PE but also costs up to 200% more. For example, VivaTurf’s non-infill community turf uses modified PE with a tensile strength of 18N per fiber (compared to 10–12N in standard PE) and delivers superior colorfastness, raising raw material costs by around 60%.
Functional Coatings: To enhance user safety and hygiene, non-infill fibers are often treated with antibacterial and stain-resistant coatings. These additional processes increase unit fiber costs by 10%–15%, further widening the gap compared to conventional turf.
2. Manufacturing Complexity: More Processing Steps and Higher Testing Standards
Non-infill artificial turf requires far more intricate production than infill-based systems, leading to reduced efficiency and higher energy use.
Fiber Formation: While traditional turf relies on simple melt-spinning, non-infill fibers often feature composite or multi-layer structures, such as tri-layered filaments with tough cores, elastic mid-layers, and durable outer shells. This increases processing steps by three to five, lowers production speed by 30%, and raises tooling costs by 20%–30%.
Quality Assurance: Beyond basic tensile and dimensional checks, non-infill fibers undergo over 20 additional tests, including UV resistance, low-temperature performance, and antimicrobial durability. Each batch can cost 50%–80% more in quality testing compared to standard turf.
3. Structural Design: Higher Density and Elastic Cushion Layers Replace Infill
Instead of relying on quartz sand and rubber particles to provide support and shock absorption, non-infill turf achieves these through its own structure.
Higher Tuft Density: Non-infill systems require 20,000–25,000 tufts per square meter—up to 7,000 more than infill-based turf. This increases fiber consumption by 20%–30% and slows down tufting machines by another 20%, raising both material and production costs.
Advanced Backing Systems: Non-infill turf incorporates elastic TPE shock pads (8–15mm thick) and reinforced composite backings with fiberglass grids, offering 55%–65% shock absorption and superior tear resistance. This structural upgrade adds 7–12 RMB per square meter, increasing costs by 40%–60% compared to basic PP backings in infill turf.
4. R&D and Quality Control: Sustained Investment Driving Innovation
As an advanced product category, non-infill turf requires ongoing innovation, and this investment is reflected in its pricing.
Research & Development: Leading companies invest 5%–8% of annual revenue into R&D (compared to 2%–3% in traditional turf). For instance, VivaTurf spent over 5 million RMB developing high-resilience fibers, conducting more than 1,200 elasticity tests and 500 abrasion tests over an 18-month period.
Enhanced Quality Control: Non-infill production lines require 40% more QC staff. Raw materials undergo 100% environmental compliance checks, fiber bonding strength is tested every 100 meters (twice as often as in infill systems), and finished products are fully tested for impact absorption and vertical deformation. This tighter quality control raises labor costs by 35%–45%.
Balancing Higher Initial Costs with Long-Term Value
Although non-infill artificial turf involves greater upfront investment, leading manufacturers such as VivaTurf offset this through advanced material technologies, scaled production, and lifecycle cost savings.
Technical Innovation: In-house modified PE reduces reliance on imports, cutting raw material costs by 20%. Process optimizations improve fiber production efficiency by 15%.
Economies of Scale: With an annual capacity of 5 million square meters, VivaTurf lowers per-unit production costs by 10%–15% compared to smaller competitors.
Long-Term Savings: Non-infill turf offers a lifespan of 8–10 years (compared to 5–7 years for infill systems) and requires only one-fifth the maintenance costs. Over 10 years, total lifecycle costs can be 40% lower than traditional turf.
For safety-conscious, durability-focused buyers, the higher upfront cost of non-infill turf is less an expense and more an investment in lower maintenance, longer lifespan, and greater safety. With its technological leadership, VivaTurf ensures this investment delivers exceptional long-term value.