Comparative Evaluation of Voxel and Mesh Representations for Digital Defect Detection in Construction-Scale Additive Manufacturing. (2026-02)¶
Mirmotalebi Seyedali, , Tesiero Raymond,
Journal Article - Buildings, Vol. 16, Iss. 4, No. 805
Abstract
Additive manufacturing is increasingly used in construction, yet reliable quality assurance for three-dimensional-printed concrete elements remains a major challenge. Existing digital defect-detection methods, particularly voxel-based and mesh-based approaches, are often evaluated separately, which limits understanding of their relative capabilities for construction-scale inspection. This study establishes a controlled comparison of the two representations using identical scan-to-design data, consistent preprocessing, and unified defect thresholding. A voxel pipeline employing signed distance fields and a three-dimensional convolutional neural network, and a mesh pipeline using triangular surface reconstruction, geometric surface descriptors, and MeshCNN, were applied to structured-light scans of printed clay wall segments containing intentional voids, material buildup, and layer-height inconsistencies. Across common performance metrics, the voxel-based method achieved a recall of 95% for spatially coherent, volumetric-consistent void-related anomalies inferred from surface geometry, reflecting improved aggregation of distributed deviations, while the mesh-based method attained a mean surface defect localization error of 0.32 mm with a substantially lower computational cost in runtime and memory. These results clarify representation-dependent trade-offs and provide guidance for selecting appropriate inspection pipelines in extrusion-based construction. The findings establish a controlled, construction-oriented comparative framework for digital defect detection and support more efficient, reliable, and scalable quality-assurance workflows for sustainable additive manufacturing.
¶
8 References
- Bazli Milad, Ashrafi Hamed, Rajabipour Ali, Kutay Cat (2023-02)
3D Printing for Remote Housing:
Benefits and Challenges - Girskas Giedrius, Kligys Modestas (2025-06)
3D Concrete Printing Review:
Equipment, Materials, Mix Design, and Properties - Labonnote Nathalie, Rønnquist Anders, Manum Bendik, Rüther Petra (2016-09)
Additive Construction:
State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities - Madrid Javier, Ortega Guillermo, Gorostiza Carabaño Javier, Olsson Nils et al. (2023-02)
3D Claying:
3D Printing and Recycling Clay - Mawas Karam, Maboudi Mehdi, Gerke Markus (2025-09)
A Review on Geometry and Surface Inspection in 3D Concrete Printing - Mechtcherine Viktor, Bos Freek, Perrot Arnaud, Silva Wilson et al. (2020-03)
Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing with Cement-Based Materials:
Production Steps, Processes, and Their Underlying Physics - Rehman Atta, Kim Jung-Hoon (2021-07)
3D Concrete Printing:
A Systematic Review of Rheology, Mix Designs, Mechanical, Microstructural, and Durability Characteristics - Wolfs Robert, Bos Derk, Caron Jean-François, Gerke Markus et al. (2024-08)
On-Line and In-Line Quality-Assessment Across All Scale Levels of 3D Concrete Printing
0 Citations
BibTeX
@article{mirm_moon_tesi_noor.2026.CEoVaMRfDDDiCSAM,
author = "Seyedali Mirmotalebi and Hyosoo Moon and Raymond C. Tesiero and Sadia Jahan Noor",
title = "Comparative Evaluation of Voxel and Mesh Representations for Digital Defect Detection in Construction-Scale Additive Manufacturing.",
doi = "10.3390/buildings16040805",
year = "2026",
journal = "Buildings",
volume = "16",
number = "4",
pages = "805",
}
Formatted Citation
S. Mirmotalebi, H. Moon, R. C. Tesiero and S. J. Noor, “Comparative Evaluation of Voxel and Mesh Representations for Digital Defect Detection in Construction-Scale Additive Manufacturing.”, Buildings, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 805, 2026, doi: 10.3390/buildings16040805.
Mirmotalebi, Seyedali, Hyosoo Moon, Raymond C. Tesiero, and Sadia Jahan Noor. “Comparative Evaluation of Voxel and Mesh Representations for Digital Defect Detection in Construction-Scale Additive Manufacturing.”. Buildings 16, no. 4 (2026): 805. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16040805.