Lawmakers pressed services on 3D-printed construction as Corps, NAVFAC report pilots and limits

At a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on military construction innovation, witnesses from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Naval Facilities Engineering Command told lawmakers additive construction (commonly called 3D printing) has moved from research to limited field pilots but still requires more testing before wider use.

The Corps' director of military programs, Dave Morrow, said additive construction “has potential to reduce costs, manpower, logistics, and time” and that the Corps’ Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) is supporting consolidated testing to expand the technology’s allowable use. “Any innovative design solution that meets the UFC and mission requirements is acceptable,” Morrow told the panel, referring to the Unified Facilities Criteria that set technical requirements for military facilities.

Why it matters: Members cited pressure to reduce project timelines and construction cost premiums for military facilities. Committee members and witnesses framed additive construction as one avenue to speed delivery and increase options for expeditionary and remote-area construction, but several lawmakers pressed for more concrete evidence of durability, seismic performance and performance in extreme climates.

What witnesses described: Morrow said the UFC currently permits additive construction in seismic zones A and B, and in seismic zone B when a shake-table test demonstrates structural soundness. He outlined ERDC-led research and field demonstrations at Fort Bliss and Tyndall Air Force Base and noted a barracks-design pilot at Mountain Home Air Force Base that uses mass timber elements while additive pilots have occurred at sites including Camp MacGregor. He also described testing of nontraditional cement chemistries and geosynthetics.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Chief Engineer Keith Hamilton told the subcommittee NAVFAC is “closely following and is keenly interested in applying additive construction methods” and is using industrialized (modular/prefabricated) construction in current projects. NAVFAC said it piloted an industrialized-construction project using authority in 10 U.S.C. §4022 to develop a child development center in Little Creek, Va., and is evaluating expanded use of off-site fabrication yards for repeatable modules.

Constraints and testing: Panelists and members repeatedly noted limits to current applications. In Q&A Morrow said additive construction approvals are presently limited by seismic zone and multi-story restrictions, and that “additional testing is required” to expand into higher seismic zones or multi-story buildings. Witnesses confirmed concrete-based printers and gantry-style printers have practical height and structural limits today and that ERDC’s testing lab in Champaign, Ill., is the primary venue for structural and blast testing.

Operational environment testing: Witnesses said some expeditionary pilots in Guam used native aggregates and saltwater-based mixes to avoid transporting fresh water and aggregate to remote islands. Morrow said blast testing on those pilot structures “were very successful” and that saltwater concrete showed similar short-term strength for expeditionary, 1–2 year contingency uses.

Unanswered questions and next steps: Committee members asked about long-term durability, reinforcement, and cold-weather performance. Industry witnesses described metal additive use already approved in aviation parts and said some printed components (metal alloys such as cobalt chromium) resist extreme heat and cold. The Corps and NAVFAC emphasized the need for consolidated, funded testing programs and clearer demand signals so industry can scale manufacturing and field demonstrations.

Ending: Subcommittee members indicated support for expanded pilots and asked for clearer cost and life-cycle data as projects move from demonstration to procurement. No formal policy changes or votes were taken during the hearing.