Alftek runs multi-discipline model federation and clash detection on Qatar construction projects — catching architectural, structural and MEP conflicts on-screen before they become rework on site. Using Navisworks, Revizto and Solibri, we deliver clear resolution reporting that keeps every discipline aligned.
Get a Free Coordination QuoteOn fast-moving Qatar projects — metro and rail, aviation, healthcare, hospitality and high-rise developments — an unresolved clash between structural, MEP and architectural elements can stall a site team for days. Coordinating disciplines in the model, before construction, is one of the highest-value BIM activities on any project.
Headquartered at Alfardan Centre on Grand Hamad Street in Doha and operating since 2018, Alftek federates discipline models and runs structured clash-detection passes using Navisworks, Revizto and Solibri, producing resolution reports that design teams and contractors can act on directly.
From model federation to a resolved, construction-ready coordinated model.
Architectural, structural and MEP models combined into a single coordinated federated model.
Structured clash-detection passes in Navisworks, Revizto and Solibri, scoped by discipline and priority.
Clear, actionable clash reports the design and site team can track through to sign-off.
Underlying discipline modeling to LOD 100–500, so coordination is checking real, build-ready geometry.
Explore BIM Services →Clash detection is often described as if it were a single button press. In practice the value comes from running a disciplined, repeating cycle — and from what happens after the clash report is produced, which is where most coordination processes break down.
Before the first run, the team fixes the model exchange schedule, the shared coordinate system, discipline naming conventions and the clash matrix — which disciplines are tested against which, and at what tolerance. Skipping this stage is the single most common reason coordination produces thousands of meaningless clashes that nobody acts on.
Discipline models are combined into a single federated model at the agreed exchange point. Models are checked for correct positioning and completeness first — a discipline model delivered in the wrong coordinate system will generate a clash against nearly every element in the building and invalidate the run.
Tests are run according to the clash matrix rather than everything against everything. Hard clashes (physical intersection), clearance clashes (insufficient access or maintenance space) and workflow clashes (elements correct in space but wrong in sequence) are separated, because each needs a different kind of resolution.
Raw clash counts are close to useless. Results are de-duplicated and grouped by root cause, so that a single mis-routed duct producing forty individual clashes is presented and resolved as one issue rather than forty. This is the step that turns a report into something a design team can act on.
Each grouped issue is assigned to a responsible discipline with a due date, and tracked to closure. Issues are exported in an open, trackable format (BCF) so they can move between different software without losing their history or their screenshots.
The following cycle verifies that closed issues are genuinely resolved and have not introduced new conflicts. Coordination is iterative by nature — clash counts should fall steadily cycle over cycle, and that trend is the real measure of whether the process is working.
Treating every conflict as the same type of problem is why some coordination reports are ignored. Each category has a different cost of being missed and a different route to resolution.
| Clash type | What it is | Consequence if missed |
|---|---|---|
| Hard clash | Two elements physically occupy the same space — a duct running through a beam | Direct rework on site; the most expensive and most visible failure |
| Clearance / soft clash | Elements do not intersect but violate required access, insulation or maintenance space | Equipment installed but not maintainable; frequently discovered only at handover |
| Workflow / 4D clash | Elements are correct in space but conflict in construction sequence or access | Programme delay and trade stacking rather than physical rework |
The commercial case for clash detection rests on a simple asymmetry: the cost of resolving a conflict rises sharply the later it is found. A clash resolved by moving a duct in the model costs design time. The same clash found after installation costs demolition, rework, materials, re-inspection and programme — and often triggers a variation claim.
Coordination works best when it starts early. Running the first federation at concept or early developed design — when moving a service route is still a drawing change — captures far more value than a single pre-construction check once the design is effectively fixed.
Multi-platform coordination experience paired with the underlying modeling capability to fix what clash detection finds.
Standardised, auditable information management so coordination findings are traceable end to end.
Navisworks, Revizto and Solibri coordination, matched to what your project team already uses.
The same team that finds a clash can remodel the fix — no handoff delay between detection and resolution.
Metro & rail, aviation, healthcare, hospitality, high-rise, education and infrastructure.
Clash detection is the process of overlaying architectural, structural and MEP BIM models to identify physical conflicts between building elements before construction starts, so they can be resolved on-screen instead of on site.
Yes. Alftek runs multi-discipline model federation and clash detection on Qatar projects using Navisworks, Revizto and Solibri, with resolution reporting to keep design teams aligned.
Alftek uses Navisworks, Revizto and Solibri for multi-discipline model federation, clash detection runs and resolution reporting.
A hard clash is a physical intersection — two elements occupying the same space, such as a duct passing through a beam. A soft or clearance clash is where elements do not intersect but violate a required buffer, such as insufficient maintenance access around a plant item or inadequate insulation clearance. Soft clashes are missed more often and frequently surface only at handover.
As early as models are exchangeable — typically concept or early developed design. Starting early captures far more value, because at that stage resolving a conflict is a drawing change. A single pre-construction check once the design is effectively fixed catches problems at the point where they are most expensive to fix.
Coordination is iterative rather than one-off. Cycles are usually tied to the model exchange schedule agreed in the BIM Execution Plan, commonly fortnightly or monthly during active design. What matters more than the interval is that clash counts fall steadily cycle over cycle — that trend is the real indicator the process is working.
A clash matrix defines which discipline models are tested against which, and at what tolerance. Without one, tests run everything against everything and generate thousands of results nobody acts on. The matrix is agreed at the start of the project as part of the coordination framework.
A grouped and filtered issue report rather than a raw clash count — de-duplicated and organised by root cause, with each issue assigned to a responsible discipline and a due date. Issues are exported in BCF format so they can move between different software without losing history or screenshots, alongside the federated model itself.
Alftek is headquartered at Alfardan Centre, 2nd Floor, Grand Hamad Street, Doha, Qatar, and delivers BIM services nationwide including Doha, Lusail, Al Khor and Al Wakrah.
Talk to Alftek's Doha-based BIM team about federating and coordinating your project models. Get a free consultation and a tailored scope and quote.
Request a Free Quote