DDC 1 YASMINE SASSINE ModelCoordinationReport

UTS Central Project 

Extract from Construction BIM Management Plan 

Model Coordination: Interference Checking & RFIs 

MODEL COORDINATION REPORT 

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY 

16212 Digital Design and Construction 1 www.uts.edu.au 

Page 1 of 56




Contents 

Model Coordination Reporting Summary ........................................................................................................ 3 

1.0 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.1 BIM .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.2 Navisworks ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.3 Report Objective .......................................................................................................................................... 5 

1.4 Report Structure ............................................................................................................................................ 5 

1.5 Critical Elements Clash Matrix ................................................................................................................... 5 

1.6. Services Clash Matrix .................................................................................................................................. 6 

2.0 Federated Model Outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 7 

2.1 Build and Discipline Models ....................................................................................................................... 7 

2.2 Visualisations .................................................................................................................................................. 8 

2.2.1 Overall Federated Model ................................................................................................................... 8 

2.2.2 Level 14 .................................................................................................................................................. 12 

2.2.3 Roof Level .............................................................................................................................................. 13 

3.0 Allocated Level #14 .................................................................................................................................... 14 

3.1 Visual Hot Spots Check by #14 Level.................................................................................................... 15 

3.2 Automated Critical Elements Check by #14 Level .......................................................................... 18 

3.3 Automated Services Check by #14 Level ........................................................................................... 27 

4.0 Roof Level ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 

4.1 Visual Hot Spots Check by Roof Level .................................................................................................. 33 

4.2 Automated Critical Elements Check by Roof Level ......................................................................... 36 

4.3 Automated Services Check by Roof Level ......................................................................................... 46 

5.0 RFIs and Additional Comments .................................................................................................................. 52 

6.0 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 54 

8.0 Appendices...................................................................................................................................................... 55 

8.1 Appendix A: Level #14 Interference Check ....................................................................................... 55 

8.2 Appendix B: Roof Level Interference Check ...................................................................................... 56 



Page 2 of 56




UTS BIM MODEL AND CO-ORDINATION REVIEW TEMPLATE 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

Model Coordination Reporting Summary 

Project Details 

Project Name: UTS Central – Building 2 

Project Address: 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW 

Client Name: 

University of Technology, Sydney 

Date of Audit: 10 th April 2017 

MODEL SUMMARY 

Federated Model File Name Size Revision Download Date 

Co-ordination Model SASSINE_BUILDING 2 223KB 1 7 th April 2017 

Discipline Models File Name Size Revision Date Modified 

Architectural CB02_A-FJMT-Architecture-IFC[AE] 1 4 th May 2017 

Facade CB02_A-FJMT-Facade-IFC[AE] 1 4 th May 2017 

Structure CB02 Structure IFC2x3 1 4 th May 2017 

Mechanical CB02_M-SVA-Mechanical-RVT[AA] 1 4 th May 2017 

Hydraulic (Drainage) CB02_H-ERB-Drainage-NWC[O] 1 4 th May 2017 

Hydraulic (Water & Gas) CB02_H-ERB-Pressure-NWC[O] 1 4 th May 2017 

Electrical CB02_E-JHA-Electrical-NWC[AC] 1 4 th May 2017 

Fire CB02_R-ERB-Fire-NWC[O] 1 4 th May 2017




1.0 Executive Summary 

1.1 BIM 

The use of BIM is extremely beneficial to any project, particularly those of a larger scale in that it 

allows a collaborative approach between professionals working on any given project, to 

effectively use each other’s data to increase the speed of production. In particular, it allows 

issues with the design model of a project to be identified early in the design process to ensure 

these are rectified and eliminated quickly before further progression of the design and 

construction of the project, which could have a detrimental impact on the timeframe and cost 

associated with it. 

1.2 Navisworks 

Navisworks is a particularly effective, efficient and detailed software which allows multiple 

disciplines of a model to be imported into the system, to prepare for an in depth interference 

check. It allows clashes between the disciplines to be identified and therefore bring emphasis 

to core issues within the model that need to be fixed. Navisworks provides this information on a 

more detailed scale compared to other software such as Revit, which only provide a brief and 

basic report on such issues. 

Further, the following figure highlights the connection of BIM and Navisworks as well as 

demonstrating the core benefits of using Navisworks in design. 

Note: the following figure was prepared in Adobe Photoshop 

In essence, this figure shows that through 

BIM, documents and resources can be 

used on multiple platforms by multiple 

professionals in order to create a 

harmonious and efficient/effective 

platform of communication and 

design/construction. Documents from BIM 

get distributed into Navisworks, which 

allows ultimate clash detection, to enable 

solutions to be formed, therefore improving 

the efficiency of any given project. 



Page 4 of 56




1.3 Report Objective 

The purpose and overall objective of this report is to check and review each of the discipline 

models for UTS Central, Building 2, and their interaction with each other to highlight problem 

areas and recommend ways to resolve and eliminate these issues. 

The report will clearly identify the location of these clashes, state how the issue came to be, and 

how severe such clashes are. It is therefore a vital instrument for the progression of this project, 

as it provides information on the current state of the project and how any issues can be fixed to 

enable the project to continue moving forward. 

1.4 Report Structure 

This report focuses on 3 areas of interference checking as follows 

1. Visual Hot Spots Check & Reporting: This involves a manual inspection of each of the 

disciplines to identify key clashes on level 14 and the roof level. Resolutions for these 

issues are provided in the report. 

2. Automated check & reporting on critical elements: This is an automated interference 

check using the navisworks interface of the services (mechanical, electrical, hydraulic 

and fire) against the critical elements of the model (structure and architecture). Details 

about the core issues associated with each interference check including rectification 

methods are included below in the report. 

3. Automated check & reporting on services: This follows a similar scaffold to that of the 

above (automated check & reporting on critical elements), but rather than clashing the 

services against the critical elements, services are clashed against each other. 

1.5 Critical Elements Clash Matrix 

The following provides an overview of those clashes that did or did not return any results. Those 

areas highlighted in green therefore represent positive results i.e. there were clashes, whilst 

those in red, represents those that were cleared of any clashes. 

ST v ME 

ST V EL 

ST V HY (DRAINAGE) 

ST V HY (WATER & GAS) 

ST V FIRE 

AR V ME 

AR V EL 

AR V HY (DRAINAGE) 

AR V HY (WATER & GAS) 

AR V FI 

Level 14 

Roof Level (17, 18, Roof) 



Page 5 of 56




1.6. Services Clash Matrix 

Refer to the explanation provided under section 1.5 for details regarding the layout of this 

matrix. 

ME V HY (DRAINAGE) 

ME V HY (WATER & GAS) 

ME V EL 

ME V FI 

HY (DRAINAGE) V EL 

HY (DRAINAGE) V FI 

HY (WATER & GAS) V EL 

HY (WATER & GAS) V FI 

EL V FI 

Level 14 

Roof Level (17, 18, Roof) 



Page 6 of 56




2.0 Federated Model Outcomes 

2.1 Build and Discipline Models 

UTS Central, Building 2 is an 18 storey building of concrete structure and glass façade. The base, 

comprising all levels up to and inclusive of level 8 is of a wider structure which ultimately 

supports the narrower, more architecturally aesthetic levels 9-18. Such levels mentioned 

showcase an exterior of a wave effect designed with curtain walls. 

Structure 

The structure of Building 2 is a concrete structure opposed to steel frame. This includes concrete 

slabs, walls, columns, beams and stairs. The slabs vary mainly between 150mm and 240mm 

thickness, reaching up to 250mm for bondek slabs. The concrete columns in the structural 

discipline are vital to shaping and supporting the upper façade. 

Architecture 

The architectural discipline comprises all non-load bearing features of Building 2. This includes 

amenities, floor finishes, wall finishes etc… Floor finishes include that of timber, tiling and stone, 

with walls comprising painted plasterboard, timber cladding, brickwork and concrete 

blockwork. Also included in this discipline is the ceiling, constructed with suspended 

plasterboard, and the curtain wall façade that shapes the overall design and aesthetic of the 

building’s exterior. 

Hydraulics 

The hydraulic discipline is segregated into two categories, the first being drainage and the 

second, pressure. Drainage includes piping, predominantly PVC, as well as piping accessories 

including valves and plumbing fixtures such as that for storm water. The pressure discipline 

includes essentially the same features, but focuses on piping related to water and gas 

pathways rather than drainage. 

Fire 

This discipline basically revolves around the sprinkler system that must be in place to eliminate 

fires that may break out. Semi-recessed sprinklers are used abundantly and adequately 

throughout the model, with piping also included in the discipline necessary to power these 

sprinklers. 

Electrical 

The electrical discipline is all those features that enable electricity into the building, to power 

lighting, GPOs, electrical equipment etc… This includes cable trays, server cabinets, 

transformers, generators, security devices and TSP racks. 

Mechanical 

The mechanical discipline comprises mechanical equipment and ducts necessary for insulation, 

mechanical power, air-conditioning, use of fans and so on. It also includes piping, many of 

which are of stainless steel construction material. 



Page 7 of 56




2.2 Visualisations 

2.2.1 Overall Federated Model 

Figure 1: Overall Federated Model Viewpoint 1 Figure 2: Overall Federated Model Viewpoint 2 





Page 8 of 56




Architecture & Façade 

Figure 7: Architectural Viewpoint 1 Figure 8: Architectural Viewpoint 2 

Figure 8: Façade Viewpoint 1 Figure 9: Façade Viewpoint 2 

Structure (Concrete) 

Figure 10: Structure Viewpoint 1 Figure 11: Structure Viewpoint 2 



Page 9 of 56




Mechanical 

Figure 12: Mechanical Viewpoint 1 Figure 13: Mechanical Viewpoint 2 

Electrical 

Figure 14: Electrical Viewpoint 1 Figure 15: Electrical Viewpoint 2 

Hydraulic 

Figure 15: Hydraulic – Drainage 

Figure 16: Hydraulic – Pressure (Water & Gas) 



Page 10 of 56




Fire 

Figure 17: Fire Viewpoint 1 Figure 18: Fire Viewpoint 2 



Page 11 of 56




2.2.2 Level 14 

Figure 19: Level 14 All Disciplines 

Figure 20: Level 14 Architectural & Structural 

Figure 21: Level 14 Services 



Page 12 of 56




2.2.3 Roof Level 

Figure 22: Roof Level All Disciplines 

Figure 23: Roof Level Architectural & Structural 

Figure 24: Roof Level Services 



Page 13 of 56




3.0 Allocated Level #14 



Page 14 of 56




3.1 Visual Hot Spots Check by #14 Level 

Item No. Location Model Image Clash 

Type 

(Hard/ 

Soft) 

Description of 

Clash and/or Root 

Cause 

Suggested 

Action / 

Comments 

Disciplines 

responsible/ 

Assigned to 

Severity of 

Clash (High, 

Medium, Low) 

and Why 

A B Count (if 

applicable) 

1.0 Navisworks Clash Detection 

1.1 Allocated Floor = Level 14 

1.1.1 LEVEL 14 Hard Sprinklers 

intersecting 

mechanical duct. 

1.1.2 LEVEL 14 Hard Cable tray 

intersecting 

mechanical duct 

Generally pipes 

can travel 

through ducts 

assuming there is 

a hole for it to 

travel through. If 

space permits, 

the mechanical 

duct could be 

moved to the 

right to enable 

the sprinkler to sit 

without 

intersecting it. 

Otherwise, if 

possible it may 

be worth 

extending the 

pipe connecting 

the sprinkler to 

the system by at 

least 754mm so 

enabling the 

pipe to travel 

through the 

duct, with the 

sprinkler sitting on 

underneath 

without any 

interference with 

other elements. 

Clash can be 

resolved by 

moving the 

cable tray 

approximately 

384mm to the 

right, to ensure 

that it does not 

intersect the 

duct on the side. 

This will have flow 

on effects in that 

it will now 

intersect the 

Both the Fire 

Services and 

Mechanical 

Engineers will 

need to work in 

coordination 

with each 

other as both 

elements will 

most likely 

require 

amendment to 

enable both 

systems to 

operate 

without 

impacting the 

other. 

Both the 

electrical 

engineer and 

the 

mechanical 

engineer will 

be impacted 

by this clash 

and will need 

to work 

together in 

order to adjust 

both elements 

to avoid any 

Clash severity is 

medium. Whilst 

the count is 

only 3 and all 

instances of 

the clash can 

be solved 

almost at 

once, both 

elements/syste 

ms will have to 

be adjusted or 

changed to 

eliminate any 

clashes. Also, 

movement of 

the duct would 

have flow on 

effects to the 

rest of the 

ducting system 

of which it is 

connected to. 

Clash severity 

has been 

assessed as 

medium due to 

the relative 

ease of moving 

the cable tray 

across followed 

by cutting 

space for it to 

pass through 

as per usual. It 

is not low as 

moving one 

Fire Building 

System 

Electrical 

Building System 

Mechanical 

Building 

System 

Mechanical 

Building 

System 

3 – based on 

visual 

inspection of 

the fire and 

mechanical 

building 

systems. 


visual 

inspection of 

the electrical 

and 

mechanical 

building 

systems. 



Page 15 of 56




perpendicular 

duct at a 

different 

location, 

however this can 

be resolved as 

long as a space 

is cut in it to 

enable the cable 

tray to pass 

through. 

serious 

interference. 

small 

component will 

not solve the 

issue, as there 

are at least 5 

counts that 

have been 

identified 

based on visual 

inspection. 



Page 16 of 56



1.1.3 Model Coordination: LEVEL 14 Interference Checking & RFIs 

Hard Hydraulic pipe 

intersecting 

concrete slab. 

Piping cannot 

penetrate 

concrete 

particularly not in 

this volume. In 

order to 

eliminate this 

issue, the piping 

system will need 

to be moved 

down by 228mm 

so that the top of 

each pipe aligns 

with the exterior 

of the underside 

of the slab rather 

than intersecting 

it. However, must 

consider whether 

movement of this 

system will cause 

any clashes with 

any elements 

from other 

building systems 

that are located 

beneath its 

current location. 

This will mainly 

involve the 

hydraulic 

services 

engineer in 

that the piping 

system is the 

main cause of 

the issue 

shown. 

However, it 

may also 

impact the 

structural 

engineer, as 

well as the 

architect in the 

case that the 

ceiling may 

need to be 

adjusted. 

Clash severity 

has been 

assessed as 

high. This is 

firstly due to 

the high count 

of instances of 

this particular 

clash, but 

mainly as 

movement of 

the piping 

system could 

have several 

flow on affects 

that could 

significantly 

impact the 

design of the 

building. 

Hydraulic 

Drainage 


Structural 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

hydraulic 

(drainage) and 

structural 

building 

systems. 



Page 17 of 56




3.2 Automated Critical Elements Check by #14 Level 


Type 

(Hard/ 

Soft) 


Clash and/or 

Root Cause 

Suggested Action 

/ Comments 

Disciplines 

responsible/ 

Assigned to 

Severity of 

Clash (High, 

Medium, Low) 

and Why 

A B Count (if 

applicable) 

2.0 Level 14 Navisworks Clash 

Detection 

2.1 Structure 

2.1.1 LEVEL 14 Hard Structural column 

intersecting with 

Mechanical Duct 

Move duct a 

minimum of 

604mm to the right 

to avoid clashing 

with the column. 

Cannot move the 

column as this will 

affect the entire 

structure. 

Note that the 

yellow line shown 

in the figure 

represents the 

continuing line of 

the column to 

enable an 

accurate 

measurement of 

where the duct 

must be relocated 

to. 

This clash will 

primarily 

impact the 

Mechanical 

Engineer in that 

the ducts will 

need to be 

moved without 

compromising 

the 

mechanical 

duct. This also 

impacts the 

Structural 

Engineer. 

This clash is of 

medium 

severity in that 

the duct can 

easily be 

moved to 

avoid 

interference 

with column. It 

is not of low 

severity as not 

just the shown 

component of 

the duct must 

be moved, all 

the parts of the 

overall duct 

connected to 

this bit will 

have to be 

moved. 

Structural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

mechanical 

building 

systems 



Page 18 of 56



Model 2.1.2 Coordination: LEVEL Interference 14, Checking & RFIs 

Hard Structural column 


Mechanical Duct 

According to 

measurements 

shown in the figure, 

the duct would need 

to be moved 270mm 

to be clear of the 

concrete column (its 

continued line 

represented in 

yellow). However, 

when observing item 

number 2.1.1, it is 

shown that the duct 

must be moved 

approximately 

600mm in order to 

be clear in that 

instance. Since the 

ducts are 

connected 

therefore, the 

solution in this 

instance would be to 

match that of item 

number 2.1.1 i.e. 

move the duct 

604mm (minimum) to 

the right as per the 

diagram in item 

2.1.1. 

Mechanical 

Engineer and 

Structural 

Engineer. 


medium 


the duct can 

easily be 

moved to 

avoid 

interference 

with column. It 

is not of low 

severity as not 

just the shown 

component of 

the duct has to 

be moved, all 

the parts of the 

overall duct 

connected to 

this bit will 

have to be 

moved. 

Structural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

mechanical 

building 

systems 

2.1.3 LEVEL 14 Hard Structural axis 


cable tray 

Cable tray must be 

moved approx.. 


as shown in the 

figure to enable it 

to sit within the 

gap in the 

structural 

component. This 

will fix all instances 

of this clash as the 

cable tray is 

consistently 

misaligned. 

Structural 

engineer and 

electrical 

engineer 


medium 

severity as it is 

not 

detrimental to 

the project’s 

design, but is 

severe enough 

in that there 

are a number 

of counts of 

this clash 

which need to 

be resolved. 

Structural 


Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

electrical 

building 

systems 



Page 19 of 56




2.1.4 LEVEL 14 

Hard 

Structural axis 


cable tray 

Image 1 shows 

that the cable tray 

in this clash is to be 

placed vertically 

against the 

structural axis 

rather than go 

through its gaps as 

per item 2.1.3. 

Image 2 shows 

how this cable tray 

should be placed, 

with a width of 

50mm. Image 3 

however shows the 

clash with only 

48mm of the width 

being exposed 

from the structural 

component. 

Therefore, the 

cable tray must be 

moved 2mm out 

from the structural 

component in 

order to sit without 

interference as per 

image 2. 

Both the 

structural 

engineer and 

electrical 

engineers will 

be impacted 

by this clash, 

however it is 

probable that 


engineer will be 

most affected 

as it is difficult 

to change the 

structural 

discipline 

without 

impacting the 

entire design of 

the building. 


low severity as 

the movement 

of this 

component 

does not 

impact any 

other 

components of 

the building. 

Once the 

cable tray is 

moved 2mm 

out, the clash 

will be 

resolved. 

Structural 


Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

electrical 

building 

systems 



Page 20 of 56




2.1.5 LEVEL 14 

Hard 

Drainage pipe 

intersecting 

structural 

concrete beam. 

2.1.6 LEVEL 14 Hard Drainage pipe 

intersecting 

structural 


In order to resolve 

this issue, either the 

drainage pipe will 

need to be moved 

down about 

745mm to enable 

it to sit without 

intersecting the 

beam from the 

underside, or the 

beam will require 

movement up of 

this same measure. 

However, the latter 

could impact the 

entire structural 

design of the 

building and 

therefore may not 

be an appropriate 

course of 

resolution. 

Alternatively, if 

pipe system is 

moved up approx. 

745mm, it will sit on 

top of the beam 

without any 

interference and 

will not impact the 

structure of the 

level above. 

If corrective action 

as per 2.1.5 is 

taking which 

involves moving 

the drainage 

system down or 

beam up, this 

clash will still be an 

issue. In this case, 

the piping system 

may need to 

move left or right 

to keep these 

longer pipes away 

from the beam. 

However, other 

counts of this 

particular clash are 

located in areas 

within the beam 

that will not enable 

the clash to be 

Structural 

engineer and 

hydraulic 

services 


impacted by 

this together, as 

they will need 

to determine 

the most 

appropriate 

method of 

resolution and 

how each of 

their systems will 

need to be 

amended 

accordingly. 

Structural 

engineer and 

hydraulic 

services 


impacted in 

conjunction 

with each other 

as movement 

of the piping 

system is not a 

simple action, 

and may still 

impact the 

structure 

depending on 

how and where 

it is moved. 


high severity as 

either an entire 

drainage pipe 

system must be 

moved which 

could have 

flow on effects, 

or the beam 

has to be 

moved which 

will affect the 

building’s 

structure. Note 

that there are 

12 counts of 

this clash. 



it is connected 

to many other 

components of 

the drainage 

system and 

therefore it 

cannot be 

resolved 

without 

impacting the 

rest of the 

system. 

Structural 


Structural 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

hydraulic 

(drainage) 

building 

systems. 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

hydraulic 

(drainage) 

building 

systems 



Page 21 of 56




resolved by such 

movement. 

Alternatively, if the 

drainage system is 

moved up as per 

image 2, also 

shown in item 2.1.5, 

both clash issues 

will be resolved as 

the system will be 

sitting above the 

beam rather than 


2.1.7 LEVEL 14 No clashes between structural 

and hydraulic/pressure 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 

2.1.8 LEVEL 14 No clashes between structural 

and hydraulic/pressure 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 

2.1.9 LEVEL 14 Hard Fire steel pipe 

intersecting 

structural axis. 



Page 22 of 56 

As shown in the 

images, the piping 

system cuts 

through the 

structural 

component 

518mm from the 

top. If this fire 

piping system is 

therefore moved 

up by this amount, 

it will resolve the 

clash issue. 

However, this will 

require all other 

parts of the piping 

system to be 

moved 

accordingly, which 

may cause 

interference with 

the upper slab. 

Alternatively, if the 

structural 

component is 

replaced with one 

that contains holes 

specifically for 

piping to fit 

through, it will 

resolve the issue. 

Structural 

engineer and 

fire service 

engineer will 

both be 

affected in 

conjunction 

with each 

other, as they 

will need to find 

a way to 

effectively 

locate each 

element in 

order to avoid 

conflict and 

enable the 

systems and 

support to 

function 

correctly. 


medium to 


the movement 

of the piping 

component 

will have a 

flow on effect 

to other areas 

of the building. 

If it is moved 

up or down, it 

could interfere 

with other 

structural 

components 

including 

beams and 

slabs. This 

leaves the 

resolution of 

getting an 

alternate 

structural 

piece for the 


through, which 

is an 

exuberant 

solution to the 

issue. 

Structural 


Structural 


Structural 


Hydraulic 

(Water & 

Gas) Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & 

Gas) Building 

System 

Fire Building 

System 

- 

- 


automated 

clash between 

structure and 

fire building 

systems




2.1.10 LEVEL 14 

Hard 

Fire Detection 

Cable Tray 

intersecting 

Structural Axis. 

2.2 Architecture – Ceiling 

2.2.1 Hard Draft Round-End 

Blank intersecting 

Ceiling. 

There is a space in 

the structural 

component meant 

specifically for 

items such as 

cable trays to go 

through. Therefore, 

if the cable tray is 

moved 797mm to 

the right, it will 

resolve the 

interference. 

This clash can be 

resolved through 

the movement of 

the round-end 

upwards by 47mm 

to ensure it is clear 

of the ceiling that it 

is intersecting. 

Structural 

engineer and 

fire service 

engineer will 

both be 

affected, 

primarily the fire 

services 

engineer in that 


element is 

already 

prepared for 


to pass through 

it. 

The Architect 

and 

mechanical 

engineer will 

need to work 

together to 

ensure the 

mechanical 

and 

architectural 

elements do 

not clash. 



there is only 

one count of 

this issue which 

can be simply 

fixed without 

impacting any 

other elements 

of the building. 



the movement 

of the draft 

round-ends will 

not impact 

any other 

components of 

the building 

and is simple 

to change in 

the model. 

However, it 

may progress 

into the 

medium 

category as 

there are 8 

counts of this 

clash and 

therefore the 

issue cannot 

be resolved 

instantly. 

Structural 


Architectural 


Fire Building 

System 

Mechanical 

Building 

System 

1– based on 

automated 

clash between 

structure and 

fire building 

systems 


automated 

clash between 

architectural 

and 

mechanical 

building 

systems 



Page 23 of 56




2.2.2 LEVEL 14 

Hard 

Mechanical duct 

intersecting 

ceiling. 

This clash will be 

resolved if duct is 

moved 42mm up 

as shown in images 

1 and 2. However, 


third image, 

movement of the 

rectangular duct 

will have significant 

flow on effects, 

one of which 

being that it will no 

longer be aligned 

with the round 

duct, causing a 

mechanical issue. 

Therefore, all ducts 

will need to be 

moved, however, 

this may in turn 

cause 

misalignment with 

air terminals. 

Structural 

engineer and 

mechanical 

engineer will 


cooperation to 

ensure that the 

mechanical 

duct can sit 

without 

impacting the 

ceiling level. 

This clash 

would be 

considered 


the clash 

cannot be 

easily resolved 

by moving the 

duct away 

from the 

ceiling without 

impact on 

other building 

elements. 

Architectural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

architectural 

and 

mechanical 

building 

systems 

2.2.3 LEVEL 14 No clashes between 

architectural and electrical 


disciplines. 

- - - - - 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 


architectural and electrical 

2.2.5 LEVEL 14 Hard PVC Drainage 

Pipe Intersects 

Ceiling. 


Page 24 of 56 

The reason for this 

being a clash is 

unclear, as it is 

actually necessary 

that the pipe goes 

through the ceiling 

to enable the 

drainage system to 

function. 

Therefore, 


pipes highlighted 

in the image 

downwards to 

eliminate 

Architect and 

Hydraulic 

Services 

Engineer will 

need to work 

together 

closely to 

ensure the 

piping system 

does not 

majorly impact 

the ceiling to 

an extent 

requiring ceiling 

level 


medium 

severity 

assuming the 

solution taken 

is that of 

cutting a hole 

through the 

ceiling of the 

piping to pass 

through. This is 

because it is 

relatively easy 

but not a 

simply fix to the 

Architectural 


Architectural 


Architectural 


Electrical 

Building 

- 

System 

Electrical 

Building 

- 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

architectural 

and hydraulic 

(drainage) 

building 

systems.




2.2.6 LEVEL 14 Note, only one type of clash 

existed between the 

Architectural Building System 

and Hydraulic (Drainage) 

Building System on Level 14. 


architectural and 

interference will 

not necessarily 

solve any issues. If 

however the 

reason for this 

being a clash is 

due to lack of 

holes being 

present in the 

ceiling for the 

pipes to pass 

through, the 

solution is to cut 

this space in the 

ceiling to enable 

this. 

adjustment. 

solution as the 

ceiling has to 

be redesigned 

in order to 

allow this. 

- - - - - 

hydraulic/pressure disciplines. 

- - - - - 


architectural and 

hydraulic/pressure disciplines. 

- - - - - 

2.2.9 LEVEL 14 Hard Fire Steel Piping 

intersecting 

ceiling. 

Moving the pipes 

in any direction will 

not resolve the 

issue as the 

sprinklers that will 

be connected to 

them need to be 

situated as shown 

in the image to 

ensure the fire 

safety of the 

building. Therefore 

it is likely that the 

clash issue is that 

there is no space 

left in the ceiling 

for the pipes and 

sprinklers to travel 

through. It is 

advised that the 

ceiling be 

amended to 

provide holes for 

the pipes and 

sprinklers to do so. 

As with all 

clashes 

involving the 

architectural 

building system, 

the Architect 

will be a vital 

consultant in 

the resolving of 

the issue to 


particular 

ceiling level is 

at the 

appropriate 

height to 

ensure all 

services may sit 

without 

interference. 

Also note that 

the Fire Services 

Engineer will be 

necessary if not 

the most 


medium to 

high severity 

due to the 

ease of 

correcting the 

issue through 

the ceiling 

design 

amendment 

i.e. cutting 

holes that the 

pipes will go 

through. It is 

not considered 


it is not an 

extremely 

simplistic 

activity, but is 

rather seen to 

progress into 

the high 

category due 

to the vast 

Architectural 


Architectural 


Architectural 


Architectural 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & 

Gas) Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & 

Gas) Building 

System 

Fire Building 

System 

- 

- 

- 


automated 

clash between 

architectural 

and fire 

building 

systems. 



Page 25 of 56




2.2.10 LEVEL 14 Hard Sprinkler 


ceiling. 

In order to resolve 

the issue shown in 

the image 

whereby the 

sprinkler system is 

not down far 

enough to 

eliminate 

penetration of the 

sprinkler face with 

the ceiling, the 

sprinkler system will 

need to moved 

down. This will 

ensure that only 

the piping 

intersects the 

ceiling. This is ok as 

long as there are 

holes for the piping 

to pass through the 

ceiling. 

primarily 

important of 

the two, in that 

the entire 

system of 

piping connect 

to that shown in 

the image will 

need to be 

amended to 

eliminate any 

clashes. 

Architect and 

Fire Services 

Engineer will 


conjunction 

with one 

another to 

enable the fire 

sprinklers to 

penetrate the 

ceiling 

appropriately 

and effectively 

to eliminate 

any issues. 

number of 

instances of 

the clash that 


resolved. 

The clash is of 

medium to 

high severity 


the ease of 

relocating/ 

moving the 

sprinklers down 

to avoid 

intersecting 

with the 

ceiling. 

However, the 

latter severity 

category has 

been applied 

and assessed 

due to the 

high count of 

instances. 

Architectural 


Fire Building 

System 

46 - based on 

automated 

clash between 

architectural 

and fire 

building 

systems. 



Page 26 of 56




3.3 Automated Services Check by #14 Level 


Type 

(Hard/ 

Soft) 


Clash and/or 

Root Cause 


/ Comments 

Disciplines 

responsible/ 

Assigned to 

Severity of 

Clash (High, 

Medium, Low) 

and Why 

A B Count (if 

applicable) 


3.1 Allocated Floor = Level 14 

3.1.1 LEVEL 14 No clashes between mechanical 

and hydraulic/drainage 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 



disciplines. 

- - - - - 



disciplines. 

- - - - - 



disciplines. 

- - - - - 

3.1.5 LEVEL 14 Hard Cable tray 

intersecting 


section. 

In order to avoid 

clashing of the 

cable tray and 

mechanical duct, 

the cable tray will 


up 190mm. This will 

ensure that it sits 

on top of the duct 

rather than 


However, note 

that this will require 

all cable trays 

connected to the 

ones represented 

in this clash 

detection to be 

moved which 

could cause some 

interference in 

other areas. 

Mainly 

concerns 

electrical 

engineer as the 

cable tray is 

the element 

that needs to 

be moved. 

However, this 

does affect the 

mechanical 

engineer as 

well as in its 

current state, 


is clashing with 

the 

mechanical 

duct. 

This clash has 

been assessed 

as high severity 

primarily due 

to the very 

high count of 

clash 

instances. 

Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & 

Gas) Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & 

Gas) Building 

System 

Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Clashes 2-10, 

14-15, 18, 21- 

39, 41-53, 55, 

64-72, 75-90, 

92-93, 95-98, 

100-101, 103 

Total count: 79 

- based on 

automated 

clash between 

mechanical 

and electrical 

building 

systems 



Page 27 of 56




3.1.6 LEVEL 14 Hard Draft rectangular 

end intersecting 

cable tray. 

3.1.7 LEVEL 14 Fire pipe 

intersecting 

mechanical 

duct. 



Page 28 of 56 


image, this set of 

clashes links closely 

with that of 3.1.5. It 

is a different piece, 

being the draft 

sections rather 

than the duct itself, 

however as these 

elements are 

linked together, 

the solution from 

3.1.5 applies here 

as well; that is, the 

cable tray is to be 

moved up 190mm. 

If the model 

permits, the issue 

can be solved by 

moving the fire 

pipe down 

210mm. However, 

as identified in the 

second image, 

moving the 

clashed pipe 

down could then 

cause a clash 

between the top 

pipe (circled in 

yellow) and the 

Mainly 

concerns 

electrical 


cable tray is 

the element 

that needs to 

be moved. 

However, this 

does affect the 

mechanical 

engineer as 

well as in its 

current state, 


is clashing with 

the 

mechanical 

draft element. 


include both 

the 

mechanical 

engineer and 

fire services 

engineer as 

both engineers 

will need to find 

a way to either 

fit the duct 

between the 

different pipe 

sections, or 

enable a way 

This clash 

would be 

assessed as 

low had there 

been only one 

instance of the 

clash, 

assuming the 

clash noted in 

3.1.5 is fixed, as 

it will solve this 

clash as well. 

However, it will 

be noted on 

this report as 

medium 

severity due to 

the substantial 

count shown in 

the final 

column. 

Medium to 

high 

Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Electrical 

Building 

System 

Fire Building 

System 

Clashes 11-13, 

16-17, 19-20, 

40, 54, 56, 74, 

104-105 


- based on 

automated 

clash between 

mechanical 


building 

systems 


– based on 

automated 

clash between 

mechanical 

and fire 

building 

systems




mechanical duct. 

Alternatively, if a 

section can be cut 

through the duct 

without 

compromising it’s 

strength and ability 

to function, this will 

solve the issue. 

for the pipe to 

travel through 

the duct. 

3.1.8 LEVEL 14 Hard Sprinkler system 

intersecting 

mechanical 

duct. 

Image 2 shows a 

section where the 

sprinkler system 

and mechanical 

duct work 

effectively without 

any intersecting/ 

clashing. 

Therefore, the 

solution to this 

clash is to follow 

this design in that 

the sprinkler pipe 

must be 

extended/ 

lengthened to 

enable the 

sprinkler face to sit 

below the duct 

rather than begin 

mid-duct. 

This primarily 

affects the fire 

services 

engineer in 

that the 


elements must 

be 

amended/cha 

nged in order 

to eliminate the 

clash. 

However, the 

mechanical 

engineer may 

need to be 

involved to 


sprinkler pipe 

can go through 

the section 

without causing 

any issues with 

the duct 

system. 


been assessed 

as medium 


the slight but 

low complexity 

of the element 

adjustment. 

Mechanical 


Fire Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

mechanical 

and fire 

building 

systems 

3.1.9 LEVEL 14 No clashes between hydraulic 

(drainage) and electrical 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 


(drainage) and electrical 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 

Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 



Page 29 of 56



Model Coordination: Interference No clashes Checking between & RFIs hydraulic 

3.1.11 LEVEL 14 

(drainage) and fire disciplines. 

- - - - - 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Fire Building 

System 

- 


(drainage) and fire disciplines. 

- - - - - 


(water & gas) and electrical 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 


(water & gas) and electrical 


disciplines. 

- - - - - 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 

disciplines. 

- - - - - 


(water & gas) and fire 


(water & gas) and fire 

3.1.17 LEVEL 14 Hard Victaulic 

grouped 

coupling 

intersecting 

cable tray. 


Page 30 of 56 

Note that the 

Victaulic element 

cannot simply be 

moved due to its 

location, being 

placed around the 

pipe. As a result, 

the entire pipe will 

require movement 

and relocation to 

the left by 30mm, 

however be aware 

that this could 

cause further 

clashes with other 

elements 

throughout the 

model within close 

proximity of the 

pipe. Alternatively, 

moving the cable 

tray to the right will 

instantly eliminate 

the issue with 

much more ease 

than the first 

solution, but seeing 

as this will be 

connected to a 

high number of 

The electrical 

engineer and 

fire services 

engineer will 


conjunction 

with one 

another to 

determine the 

most 

appropriate 

method of 

solution 

following those 

mentioned in 

the previous 

column. 

This clash is 

classified in the 

high column 

due to the 

high count, 

but also the 

high potential 

impact on 


elements if 

either of the 

currently 

clashing 

elements are 

relocated or 

moved. 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Electrical 


Fire Building 

System 

- 

Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 

Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 

Fire Building 

System 

- 

Fire Building 

System 

- 

Fire Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

electrical and 

fire building 

systems




3.1.18 LEVEL 14 Hard Fire piping 

intersecting 

cable tray. 

other trays, this 

could cause those 

that a moved by 

association to 

clash with other 

elements in their 

relative locations. 

There are two 

courses of 

resolution 

available for this 

clash instance. The 

first is the move the 

cable tray up 

49mm, whilst the 

second is to move 

the pipe down 

49mm. The option 

which will have less 

flow on impacts 

onto other 

elements would be 

the recommended 

course of action. 

Electrical 

engineer and 

fire services 

engineer will 

both be vital to 


this issue as 

either solution 

could be 

applicable. 

Whoever will 

be more 

impacted 

should leave 

their system as 

is. 

This is a 

relatively high 

severity clash 

as there are a 

number of 

counts of the 

issue, and 

there will be 

several flow on 

effects in that 

an entire set of 

piping or 

electrical 

cable trays will 

require 

movement to 

solve the issue, 

which is likely 

to cause other 

clashes with 


of the model, 

whether it be 

within these 

two systems, or 

another. 

Electrical 


Fire Building 

System 

9 - based on 

automated 

clash between 


fire building 

systems 



Page 31 of 56




4.0 Roof Level 



Page 32 of 56




4.1 Visual Hot Spots Check by Roof Level 

Item 

No. 

Location Model Image Clash 

Type 

(Hard/ 

Soft) 

Description of Clash 

and/or Root Cause 


/ Comments 

Disciplines 

responsible/ 

Assigned to 

Severity of 

Clash (High, 

Medium, Low) 

and Why 

A B Count (if 

applicable) 


1.1 Roof Level 

1.1.1 RF ROOF Hard Mechanical duct 

intersecting Metal 

Cladding 

Movement of the 

duct by 89mm in 

a downward 

direction will 

resolve the issue 

so that the 


sits against the 

under side of the 

cladding rather 

than cutting 

through it where it 

cannot pass 

through. 

However, it is 

necessary to note 

that since this is 

simply a visual 

interrogation, it is 

difficult to know 

whether there has 

been space cut 

in the cladding 

for this duct to 

pass through. In 

this case, there 

would be no 

issue/clash. 

Architect and 

mechanical 


mostly 

responsibly for 

the solution of 

this clash, as 


to work 

together to 

choose an 

appropriate 

course of 

action. 


been assessed 

as reasonably 

low severity due 

to the minor 

count and 

simple fix. 

Architectural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


visual 

interrogation of 

the building 

model. 


intersecting Metal 

Cladding 



Page 33 of 56 

Mechanical duct 


moved down by 

43mm minimum 

or cladding will 

require 

movement up of 

the same 

measure. It is 

however more 

practical to move 

the ducts rather 

than the cladding 

as these ducts are 

Architect and 

mechanical 


mostly 

responsibly for 

the solution of 

this clash, as 


to work 

together to 

determine the 

most efficient 

way to solve 

the issue in 


been assessed 

as medium 

severity as there 

is a relatively 

low count of 

instances of the 

clash which 

can be 

resolved quickly 

be easily 

moving one of 

the 

components 

Architectural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 

5 – Based on 

visual 


the building 

model.





intersecting steel 

component 

not shown to be 

connected to 

any others and 

therefore will not 

have a large 

impact on the 

rest of the model. 

Whilst this 

particular clash 

may seem almost 

identical to that 

of 1.1.1, it 

protrudes the 

cladding by a 

different measure 

and therefore in 

order to 

effectively solve 

both clashes, 

each case will 

need to be 

considered in 

conjunction with 

one another. 

Either mechanical 

duct will need to 

be relocated 

186mm to the 

right as shown in 

image 2, or steel 


need to be 

moved by this 

measure to the 

left. However, 

both courses of 

action will have 

significant flow on 

effects as they 

are not individual 

components; 

rather they are 

linked to several 


i.e. moving the 

steel will impact 

all other structural 

elements linked to 

this one piece by 

any association, 

and moving of 

the duct will 

impact all duct 

elements 

terms of time 

and money. 

Resolution of 

this issue will 

mainly concern 


and structural 

engineers in 

conjunction 

with one 

another as it will 

require 

investigation 

into the impact 

of the 

movement of 

either piece to 

determine the 

most effective 

solution. 

mentioned. 


been assessed 


as movement 

of one piece 

will not resolve 

the issue, but 

rather cause a 

number of flow 

on effects to all 

pieces/ 

elements 

connected to it. 

Structural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 

3 – Based on 

visual 


the model. 



Page 34 of 56




connected to it 

as they must all 

move together at 

once for the 

system to be able 

to effectively 

operate. Note 

that if the number 

of duct elements 

linked to the one 

shown in the 

images is minor, 

this would be the 

element to 

relocate rather 

than the steel 

component as 

movement of any 

structural piece 

could have a 

significant impact 

on the entire 

building. 



Page 35 of 56




Note: the levels clashed to conduct the test on the roof level include levels 17, 18 and the roof level itself as all 3 levels are considered part of the roof level. 

4.2 Automated Critical Elements Check by Roof Level 


Type 

(Hard/ 

Soft) 


Clash and/or 

Root Cause 


/ Comments 

Disciplines 

responsible/ 

Assigned to 

Severity of 

Clash (High, 

Medium, Low) 

and Why 

A B Count (if 

applicable) 

2.0 Roof Level Navisworks Clash 

Detection 

2.1 Structure 

2.1.1 ROOF Hard Steel structural 

element 

intersecting 

mechanical 

duct. 

Image 1 shows the 

various locations of 

the clash. Clashes 

of the nature like 

that shown in 

image 2 can be 

solved by allowing 

a space in the 

duct for the steel 

element to pass 

through. However 

some of these steel 

elements are 

placed in a way 

that does not show 

them going directly 

through the 

internal of the 

duct, as with 

image 4, which 

shows it being half 

within the duct and 

half external. In this 

case, to apply the 

previous solution, 

the steel element 

would need to be 

moved inwards to 

be able to go 

through a pre-cut 

hole. Alternatively 

in this case, the 

steel element 

could be moved 

completely out of 

the way of duct, as 

shown in image 4. 

Here it can be seen 

that moving the 

steel element 

Structural 

engineer and 

mechanical 

engineer will 


close proximity 

with one 

another in other 

to ensure both 

elements are 

able to fit within 

the roof 

constraints 

without 

impacting firstly 

each other, but 

more 

importantly, the 

rest of the 

model 

depending on 

how this clash is 

solved. 


been assessed 

as relatively 

high firstly due 

to there being 

9 counts where 

this clash 

needs to be 

resolved, 

therefore 

emphasizing 

that there is no 

easy fix to the 

issue. 

With each steel 

element shown 

in the clash 

detection 

report 

presenting the 

same clash but 

in a different 

location, 

moving one 

element could 

cause domino 

effect issues. 

Structural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 

structural and 

mechanical 

building 

systems. 



Page 36 of 56





would enable it to 

sit against the duct 

rather than within 

it. However, note 

that this may cause 

misalignment with 

the pre-cut hole 

that the steel is 

passing through in 

the duct above. 

2.1.2 ROOF Hard Mechanical duct 

intersecting 

concrete wall 

slab. 

In each instance of 

this clash, the issue 

is like that shown in 

image 2, which 

depicts a 


being located in a 

spot that causes it 

to sit essentially 

inside the wall slab. 

In the particular 

instance shown in 

the image, the 

issue can be solved 

by moving the 

duct 86mm to the 

left so it sits against 

the wall rather than 

inside the wall. This 

same solution can 

be applied to 

each instance 

accordingly 

depending on how 

far into the 

structural axis they 

are located. 

Mechanical 

engineer and 

structural 

engineer. 

Clash severity is 

high as each 

individual duct 

involved in the 

clash, of which 

there are 14, 

has to be 

relocated so as 

to avoid the 

structural wall 

axis. 

Structural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


automated 

clash between 


mechanical 

service models 

2.1.3 ROOF Hard Cable tray 

intersecting 


Firstly by assessing 

the level of 

importance and 

priority of each of 

the elements 

present in this 

particular clash, it 

can be noted that 


element is much 

more important to 

the overall building 

structure and 

Structural 

engineer and 

electrical 

engineer are 

both 

responsible for 


clash, however 

it will mainly 

impact the 

electrical 

engineer 

assuming the 


been assessed 

as medium 

severity as 

movement of 


down could 

impact much 

of the 

electrical 

system on this 

level. However, 

this issue is not 

Structural 


Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 



electrical 

building 

systems. 



Page 37 of 56





reducer 

intersecting 


support system. 

Therefore, moving 

this structural 

component could 

have a large 

impact on the rest 

of the building’s 

structural support 

design. Hence, it is 

necessary to make 


cable try, by 24mm 


image in order to 

solve the issue 

without having any 

major impacts on 

the building’s 

structural capacity. 

Note that 

movement of this 

cable tray will 


of all cable trays 

linked to this and 

therefore may still 

have a large 

impact despite it 

not being as large 

as that of 


structural piece. 


cable tray reducer 

down by 24mm 

should provide an 

effective and 

efficient solution to 

this clash 

particularly with 

there only being 2 

instances of this. 

Note however that 

this also means the 

entire cable tray 


moved down as 

the reducer and 

the tray itself are 

connected, 

therefore 

potentially 

increasing the 

severity of this 

cable tray is the 

element that is 

adjusted. 

Note – the 

architect may 

also be 

impacted by 

this clash as 

movement of 


downwards 

could impact 

on the ceiling 

level. 

Structural 

engineer and 

electrical 


mostly 

impacted by 

this clash, 

predominantly 



cable tray 

reducer has 

been the 

chosen 

element to be 

moved in order 

to quickly and 

easily resolve 

the issue. Note 

that this may 

also impact the 

architect if the 

too impactful 

in that there 

are only a few 

instances of 

this clash. 

Whilst it may 

seem like a 

relatively low 

key issue to 

resolve, this has 

been assessed 

as medium 


there are a 

number of flow 

on effects to 

other electrical 

elements 

associated 

with the 

movement of 


reducer. 

Structural 


Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 



electrical 

building 

systems. 



Page 38 of 56




2.1.5 ROOF Hard uPVC pipe 

intersecting 


2.1.6 ROOF Hard uPVC pipe 

intersecting 


clash. 

Seeing as it is the 

concrete element 

that is being 

penetrated rather 

than perhaps an 

architectural 

element i.e. the 

ceiling, it is evident 

that the beam 

cannot be 

redesigned in a 

way that allows the 


through. As a result, 

the piping will need 

to be moved down 

by 278mm. 

This clash is similar 

to that of the 

previous (2.1.6) in 

that it is the same 

material, but of a 

different size. Thus, 

the solution 

remains that 


pipe to avoid 

intersection/ 

interference should 

resolve the issue 

promptly. Each of 

the pipes picked 

up as a clash in the 

automated 

clashing 

investigation will 


down by 340mm. 

cable tray is 

moved down 

by such an 

amount that 

the ceiling level 

is impacted. 

This clash 

should only 

impact on the 


hydraulic 

(drainage) 

services 

engineers. 

This clash 

should only 

impact on the 


hydraulic 

(drainage) 

services 

engineers. 


been assessed 

as medium to 


it is not a 

simple task to 

move pipes 

down without 

impacting on 

the rest of the 

building which 

it most likely will 

as the image 

shows it being 

a lengthy 

piping system. 


been assessed 

as medium to 


it is not a 

simple task to 

move pipes 

down without 

impacting on 


building. Also 

note that this 

issue cannot 

be resolved by 

the simple 

movement of 

one element, 

but rather 4, as 

represented in 

the clash 

investigation. 

Structural 


Structural 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 


automated 



hydraulic 

(drainage) 

building 

systems. 


automated 



hydraulic 

(drainage) 

building 

systems. 



Page 39 of 56



Model 2.1.7 Coordination: ROOF Interference Checking & RFIs 

Hard Copper hydraulic 

pipe intersecting 

concrete slab. 

2.1.8 ROOF Note, only one type of clash 

existed between the Structural 

Building System and Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) Building System on 

the Roof Level (Consisting of 

Levels 17, 18 and Roof). 

2.1.9 ROOF Hard Sprinkler 

intersecting roof 

steel element. 


pipe in this case will 

not resolve the 

issue as it is not just 

slightly protruding 

from one end or 

the other. Thus, 

there will need to 

be a blocker 

placed when 

pouring the 

concrete to ensure 

that there is a gap 

left for the copper 

pipe to pass 

through. 


mainly impact 



pouring process 

of the concrete 


adjusted to 

ensure the 

hydraulic piping 

can pass 

through. It will 

however, also 

impact on the 

hydraulic 

services 

engineer 

greatly too as 


to 

communicate 

with and work 

together to 

ensure that this 

pipe can pass 

through. 


been assessed 

as low severity 

as it can be 

simply resolved 

by placing a 

blocker to 

allow the pipe 

to pass 

through. 

- - - - - 


sprinkler 27mm to 

the left will enable 

the sprinklers to sit 

without intersecting 

the steel. However, 

note that 

movement of these 

sprinklers will 


of the pipes that 

support them and 

other sprinklers 

attached in other 

areas, and 

therefore may 

have flow on 

effects and cause 

other clashes 

elsewhere. 

The structural 

engineer and 

fire services 

engineer will 


conjunction 

with one 

another resolve 

this issue. It 

should not 

impact on any 


systems or 

disciplines. 

This has been 

assessed as a 

clash of 

medium 


the ease of 

movement but 

need to 

recognize any 

other issues in 

other areas of 

the level that it 

may cause. 

Structural 


Structural 


Structural 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Building 

System 

Fire Building 

System 


automated 



hydraulic 

(water & gas) 

buildings 

system 

- 


automated 



fire building 

systems. 



Page 40 of 56




2.1.10 ROOF Hard Fire steel pipe 

intersecting steel 

structural 

component. 

This issue can be 

simply resolved by 

cutting a 

hole/ordering the 

steel prefabricated 

with a 

hole, to enable the 

pipe to pass 

through the steel. 

Note that image 2 

shows that the pipe 

may be able to be 

moved to 

completely avoid 


component 

however this would 

have much greater 

impacts on the rest 

of the building 

model than simply 

redesigning the 

structural 

component. 

This clash 

makes both the 


fire services 

engineers 

responsible as 



require 

amendment 

and redesign, 

and the fire 

services 

engineer will 

need to 

communicate 

according to 

size of the 

piping. 

This clash 

severity is quite 

high due to the 

large number 

of instances of 

the particular 

clash. Whilst it is 

a simple fix, all 

steel 

components 

that this piping 

intersects will 

need to be 

amended in 

terms of 

design. 

Structural 


Fire Building 

System 


automated 



fire building 

systems. 

2.2 Architecture – Ceiling 

2.2.1 ROOF Hard BMA Duct 

Transition 

intersecting 

Ceiling. 


Image 2 shows two 

different 

measurements, 

one of 71 and one 

of 98 in order to 

determine the 

overall movement 

measure of 169mm 

that will be 

required to 

eliminate this clash. 

Hence, either the 

ceiling will need to 

The architect 

and 

mechanical 

engineer will 

both be jointly 



this clash. The 

architect will 

need to 

establish the 

level of 

inconvenience 


been assessed 

as medium 

severity as 

there is not a 

high count of 

this issue, and 

once the 

solution has 

been 

determined for 

one 

duct/ceiling 

Architectural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 


automated 


architectural 

and 

mechanical 

building 

systems. 


Page 41 of 56




2.2.2 ROOF Hard BMA Duct 

Rectangular 

Elbow 

intersecting 

ceiling 


intersecting 

ceiling 

be moved 

upwards, or the 

ducts downwards 

by this measure. 

That with the least 

flow on effects 

would be the most 

appropriate 

solution. Note that 


ceiling will likely 

impact the façade 

of the building and 

therefore may not 

be practical. 

It is much simpler to 

move the duct 

rather than the 

ceiling, as the 


ceiling will have a 

large impact on 


building in that it 

could cause further 

clashes with other 

service elements, 

or could require 

redesign of the 

building’s design. 

Thus it is most 

appropriate to 

move the duct 

elbow 22mm to the 

right as shown in 

the image. 

As mentioned 

previously, 


ceiling is probably 

the most inefficient 

and ineffective 

course of action in 

terms of resolving 

any issues, thus it is 

best to move the 

electrical 

component. 


cable tray by 

20mm will enable it 

to sit against the 

ceiling without 

intersecting it at 

and impact of 

changing the 

ceiling height 

and hence, if it 

is too complex 

to amend, the 

duct transition 

elements will 

need to be 

relocated 

accordingly. 


impact both 

the architect 

and the 

mechanical 

engineer, 

especially the 

latter as it has 

been 

determined 

that it is best to 

leave the 

celling as is, 

and rather 

move the 

mechanical 

element. 

This will 

predominantly 

impact the 

electrical 



will have to be 

moved rather 

than the 

ceiling, 

however the 

architect will 

also be relevant 

and 

responsible. 

clash, it can be 

applied to the 

other two 

clashes; or in 

fact may 

simply resolve 

the other 

clashes all at 

once if the 

ceiling level is 

adjusted. 


been assessed 


due to the 

singular 

instance of the 

clash and 

simple solution 

as mentioned. 

This clash sits 

between the 

medium and 

high severity 

levels as there 

is a large 

number of 

instances, 

however if this 

solution is 

applied to all 

instances, it 

should 

immediately fix 

the issue 

without 

significant 

impact. Note 

Architectural 


Architectural 


Mechanical 

Building 

System 

Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 


architectural 

and 

mechanical 

building 

systems. 


automated 


architectural 


building 

systems. 



Page 42 of 56




any point. 

however that 

all cable trays 

connected to 

those that 

require moving 

will be 

impacted and 

therefore could 

increase the 

severity of the 

issue. 


segmented bend 

intersecting 

ceiling 

2.2.5 ROOF Note: clashes occur between 

hydraulic drainage pipes and the 

ceilings on levels below level 17, 

however there are no clashes to 

report on that occur on the roof 

levels (level 17 in this case) 

between the architectural 

building system and hydraulic 

(drainage) building system. 


hydraulic drainage pipes and the 

ceilings on levels below level 17, 

however there are no clashes to 

report on that occur on the roof 

levels (level 17 in this case) 

between the architectural 


(drainage) building system. 


hydraulic (water & gas) pipes 

and ceiling on level 16, however 

there are no clashes to report on 



Page 43 of 56 

Whilst this is a 

similar clash of that 

above in 2.2.3, it 

differs in that it is a 

different section of 

the cable tray. 

However, the same 

solution can be 

applied by moving 


bend piece up by 

20mm so that it sits 

on top of the 

ceiling rather than 

through it. 

Architect and 

electrical 

engineer will 

both be 

impacted, 

particularly the 

electrical 

engineer as it is 


that will require 

most 

amendment. 

Whilst there is 

only one count 

of this 

particular 

clash, the 

element is 

linked to/ 

connected to 


cable trays 

present on this 

level therefore 

making this 

clash of a 

higher severity. 

- - - - - 

- - - - - 

- - - - - 

Architectural 


Architectural 


Architectural 


Architectural 


Electrical 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Building 

System 


automated 


architectural 


building 

systems. 

- 

- 

-



Model Coordination: Interference the roof Checking levels (level & RFIs 17 in this 

case) between the architectural 


(water & gas) building system. 


hydraulic (water & gas) pipes 

and ceiling on level 16, however 

there are no clashes to report on 

the roof levels (level 17 in this 

case) between the architectural 


(water & gas) building system. 

2.2.9 ROOF Hard Sprinkler 

intersecting 

ceiling. 

- - - - - 

Due to the 

intersecting of the 

sprinkler through 

the ceiling, it is 

difficult to 

determine the 

overall length of 

the sprinkler face 

to provide a 

length/measure by 

which the sprinkler 


moved down. 


definite that the 

sprinkler will need 

to be moved 

down, with a hole 

cut in the ceiling 

for the pipes to 

travel through to 

connect the 

sprinklers shown to 

occupants of the 

building to the 

services hidden 

above. Note that 


sprinklers will 

require moving of 

the entire piping 

system that it 

connects to. 

This will greatly 

impact both 

disciplines 

involved in this 

clash i.e. the 

architect and 

the fire services 

engineer. This is 

due to the 

need to firstly 

move the 

sprinkler system, 

but also amend 

the ceiling 

design to 


piping can 

travel through. 


been assessed 

as medium 

due to relative 

ease of 

pushing the 


down and 

puncturing a 

hole through 

the ceiling. 

However, 

seeing as the 

ceiling will 

need to be 

amended for 4 

counts and the 

movement of 

the piping 

system could 

cause other 

clashes 

elsewhere that 

are not shown 

in the clash 

detection, it is 

not necessarily 

of low severity. 

Architectural 


Architectural 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Building 

System 

Fire Building 

System 

- 


automated 


architectural 

and fire 

building 

systems. 



Page 44 of 56




Hard Sprinkler pipe 

intersecting 

ceiling. 

The solution of this 

clash resonates 

with that of 2.2.9 in 

that the most 

appropriate and 

efficient form of 

solution in this case 

would be to 

puncture a hole 

through the ceiling 

for the pipe to pass 

through. 

The architect 

and fire services 

engineer are 

both 


the fixing of the 

issues shown in 

this clash report 

section. 

Unlike 2.2.9, 

movement of 

the sprinkler 

system is 

unnecessary, 

but rather the 

solution only 

requires 

puncturing of 

the ceiling. 

Thus, this clash 

can be 

considered to 

be of 

reasonable low 

severity. 

Architectural 


Fire Building 

System 


automated 


architectural 

and fire 

building 

systems. 



Page 45 of 56




4.3 Automated Services Check by Roof Level 


Type 

(Hard/ 

Soft) 


Clash and/or 

Root Cause 


/ Comments 

Disciplines 

responsible/ 

Assigned to 

Severity of 

Clash (High, 

Medium, Low) 

and Why 

A B Count (if 

applicable) 


3.1 Allocated Floor = Roof Level 

3.1.1 ROOF No clashes between architectural 

and electrical disciplines. 

- - - - - 



- - - - - 

3.1.3 ROOF Hard Rectangular 


intersecting 

water tank. 

3.1.4 ROOF Hard Hydraulic copper 

fight intersecting 

rectangular 

mechanical 

duct. 


image, there is 

space above the 

duct that will 

enable it to be 

moved up by 

125mm. This will 

quickly solve the 

issue, however it is 

important to 

acknowledge and 

consider that 

movement of one 

duct that is causing 

the issue will not be 

ample, but rather 

the entire duct 

system that is linked 

to this particular 

section will require 

relocation which 

may cause other 

clashes elsewhere. 

In order to 

effectively resolve 

this issue, it is best 

that a section be 

cut through the 

duct to enable the 

hydraulic 

component to pass 

through rather than 

moving any 

Mechanical 

engineer and 

hydraulic 

services 


jointly 

impacted by 

this clash. 


more likely that 



mostly affected 

as it is less 

difficult to 

move the ducts 

than the water 

tanks. 

Mechanical 

engineer and 

hydraulic 

services 

engineer are 

both 




issue by 


been assessed 

as medium 


the relative 


the ducts up 

by the given 

measure. 


not considered 

to be of a low 


there being 

multiple counts 

of the issue, 

and due to the 

potential flow 

on effects 

related to 

moving the 

ducting system 

as mentioned 

previously. 

This clash can 

be seen to be 

generally of 


there are only 

3 counts of the 


and the 

mechanical 

duct can 

Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Building 

System 

Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Building 

System 

- 

- 


automated 


mechanical 

and hydraulic 

(water & gas) 

building 

systems 


automated 


mechanical 

and hydraulic 

(water & gas) 

buildings 

systems. 



Page 46 of 56





intersecting 



intersecting 


transition. 

elements up or 

down as this could 

cause a number of 

flow on effects by 

creating new 

clashes. 

The best solution in 

this clashing 

instance is to cut a 

hole for the cable 

tray to pass 

through the duct 

as moving it 

anywhere else 

could cause other 

clashes to arise. 

It is recommended 

that the cable tray 

be moved up by 

approximately 

122mm to enable it 

to sit comfortably 

on top of the duct 

elements without 

intersecting it as 

such. 

determining 

how they will 

enable the 

pipe to 

effectively pass 

through without 

impact on the 

duct 

enormously. 

This will require 



engineers to 

work together 

to enable the 

solution 

recommended 

to be put into 

practice. 

Should not 

impact on any 

other systems as 

there will be no 

movement of 

either element. 

Movement of 


will mainly 

impact on the 

electrical 

engineer who 

will need to 

work closely 

with the 

mechanical 

engineer to 

allow both 

elements to sit 

comfortably 

without 

interference. 

simply be 

redesigned to 

allow the 

hydraulic 

elements to 

pass through. 


been assessed 

as medium 

severity rather 

than high 

despite the 

high count of 

instances as it 

is the same 

repetitive 

action that will 

resolve the 

issue in that the 

ducts will 

simply need to 

be redesigned 

to enable the 

cable tray to 

pass through. 

Due to the very 

low count of 

instances of 


clash, this issue 

has been 

assessed as low 

severity 

particularly 

since the 

solution is quite 

simply and 

easy to carry 

out. 

Mechanical 


Mechanical 


Electrical 

Building 

System 

Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 


mechanical 


building 

systems 


automated 


mechanical 


building 

systems. 



Page 47 of 56




Hard Fire steel pipe 

intersecting 

rectangular 

mechanical 

duct. 

Generally the pipe 

can travel through 

the duct if there is 

a hole permitting it 

to do so, however 

due to the location 

of the pipe, a hole 

would be 

ineffective as it 

would not be 

enclosed. Thus, the 

best course of 

action would be to 

move the pipe 


so that it does not 

interfere with the 

duct. However, if 

this causes any 

additional clashes, 

it may be best to 

move it to the left 

instead and cut a 

hole in this new 

location for it to 

pass through. 

This clash 

concerns both 



engineers who 

will need to 

work in 

coordination 

with one 

another to 

determine the 

most effective 

solution that will 

have the most 

minimal and 

minor flow on 

effects. 


been identified 



the high 

number of 

instances of 

this clash, but 

also due to the 

fact that 

movement of 

the pipe is likely 

to cause 

further issues 

with other 

building 

systems. If this is 

the case, the 

alternative 

solution 

mentioned 

previously will 

need to be 

taken which 

will be difficult 

and complex. 

Mechanical 


Fire Building 

System 


automated 


mechanical 

and fire 

building 

systems 

3.1.8 ROOF Hard Victaulic groove 

coupling 

intersecting 

rectangular 

mechanical 

duct. 



Page 48 of 56 

Movement of 

either the 

mechanical or fire 

components is 

likely to have large 

flow on effects, as 


Victaulic groove 

coupling will 


of the entire fire 

piping system of 

which it is 

connected to, and 


duct will require of 

the entire 

mechanical system 

connected to that. 

The measurements 

highlight that the 

Victaulic element 

should measure to 

about 246mm in 

total width, and 

thus, 16mm of the 

element is 


impact both 





to 

communicate 

and provide 

different 

methods of 

solution to 

determine the 

best system to 

move, and 

which will have 

the most flow 

on effects. 

The clash is of 

high severity 

due to the high 

count of 

instances as 

well as the 

large and likely 


that will arise as 

a result of 

movement of 

either element. 

Mechanical 


Fire Building 

System 


automated 


mechanical 

and fire 

building 

systems





protruding the 

duct. As a result, 

keeping in mind 

the further impacts 

mentioned, either 


will require 

movement of 

16mm, or the duct 

will. 


- - - - - 


- - - - - 


- - - - - 



Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 

Electrical 

Building 

System 

- 

Fire Building 

System 

- 



- - - - - 


intersecting 

water tank. 


water tank may be 

impractical and 

thus, the best 

solution in this case 

would be to move 

the cable trays up 

by 1018mm so as 

to sit on top of the 

tank rather than 

intersect it. 

The 

professionals 

relevant to this 


include the 

hydraulics 

engineer and 

electrical 

engineer who 

will need to 

coordinate the 

best tactic to 

moving the 

cable trays. 


relatively low 

severity as 

there are only 

2 counts of the 

issue, which 

can simply be 

resolved by 

moving the 

cable trays up. 

Hydraulic 

(Drainage) 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Fire Building 

System 

- 

Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 


hydraulic 

(water & gas) 


building 

systems 



Page 49 of 56




Hard Cable tray 

segmented bend 

intersecting 

water tank 

By moving the 

cable trays as per 

section 3.1.13, this 

current clash 

should be resolved 

as the entire set of 

cable tray 

elements that are 

connected will 


i.e. resolving the 

previous clash by 

moving the trays 

up by 1018mm will 

eliminate this clash. 

Hydraulic 

services 

engineer and 

electrical 

engineer in 

conjunction 

with one 

another will be 

required to 

resolve this 

clash. 


been assessed 


particularly 

due to the low 

count of 

instances as 

well as the fact 

that resolving 

the previous 

clash will 

eleiminate this 

one. 

Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Electrical 

Building 

System 


automated 


hydraulic 

(water & gas) 


building 

systems 

3.1.15 ROOF Hard Hydraulic pipe 

intersecting 

sprinkler 




Page 50 of 56 

There are two 

options that may 

be applied to 

resolve this clash. 

The first is to move 

the sprinkler to the 

right by 121mm, 

the second being 

the move the pipe. 

However, moving 

of the pipe may 

cause clashes 

further down the 

model on other 

levels whereas 


sprinkler should 

only affect the roof 

level, thus making it 

the most 

appropriate 

method of solution. 

However, must 

take into 

consideration what 

clashes may arise 

instead by moving 

the sprinkler system. 

The hydraulic 

services 

engineer and 

fire services 

engineer are 

both impacted 

by this 

rearrangement 

of elements 

and will need 

to consider the 


of any 

amendments 

made. 


been assessed 

as medium 


the ease of 

moving either 

elements, but 

not of enough 

ease to be 

considered low 

as there will 

most likely be 

other impacts 

associated 

with either 

movement. 

existed between the Hydraulic 

- - - - - 

Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 


Hydraulic 

(Water & Gas) 

Fire Building 

System 

Fire Building 

System 

-



Model Coordination: Interference (Water Checking & Gas) Building & RFIs System 

and Fire Building System on the 

Roof Level (Consisting of Levels 

17, 18 and Roof). 

3.1.17 ROOF Hard Fire pipe 

intersecting 

cable tray 


existed between the Electrical 

Building System and Fire Building 

System on the Roof Level 

(Consisting of Levels 17, 18 and 

Roof). 


cable tray by 

27mm will allow the 

piping to sit without 

intersecting. Note 

that it will be more 

effective to move 

the cable tray than 


as the pipes will be 

connected to a 

number of other 

pipes, whereas 

moving the cable 

tray will simply shift 

the few that it is 

connected to. 

Whilst it is most 

likely that the 

cable tray will 

be moved 

rather than the 

pipes, both the 


fire services 

engineer are 


eliminating this 

clash in that 


to ensure that 

either 

movement will 

not cause any 

further issues. 


been assessed 

as medium 


the relative 


either element, 

however 

cannot be 

considered low 

as there is not 

one instance. 

- - - - - 


Electrical 


Electrical 


Fire Building 

System 


automated 



fire building 

systems. 

Fire Building 

System 

- 



Page 51 of 56




1.0 

RFIS 

5.0 RFIs and Additional Comments 

1.1 TO BE RAISED 

1.1.1 LEVEL 

14, 

ROOF 

One of the key issues that was repeatedly an issue throughout the clash detection process was whether particular structural 

elements would still be structurally sound if redesigned in such a way to provide a hole for other elements from other systems to 

pass through. It is requested that the structural engineer provide such information, including how much certain size gaps will 

impact the structural capacity of a particular component, and the maximum it can hold without being compromised. This issue 

is of high priority and importance as one of the main solution recommendations including remodeling such elements to enable 

another component to pass through. If the structural elements do not have the capacity for this level of change, new solutions 

will need to be determined. 

1.1.2 LEVEL 

14, 

ROOF 

1.1.3 LEVEL 

14, 

ROOF 

1.1.4 LEVEL 

14, 

ROOF 

1.1.5 LEVEL 

14, 

ROOF 

1.1.6 LEVEL 

14, 

ROOF 

Request for information from the fire services engineer regarding the impact of lengthening/shortening sprinkler pipes to enable 

sprinklers to sit right up against the ceiling. If there is no impact on the system, this is an effective solution that was mentioned in 

the above report. 

Request for information from the mechanical engineer as to whether creating gaps in the structure of mechanical ducts will 

impact their ability to service the building. If not, this recommended solution repeatedly mentioned above is an effective 

course of action. 

Request for information from each of the engineers relevant to this building project regarding the prices associated with cutting 

holes in different elements to enable other components to pass through. This is highly important as if redesign of the elements 

will cause a cost blowout this may not be the most effective course of action for much of the clashes described in the report. 

Request for information from the hydraulics engineer regarding movement of water tanks. Are water tanks able to be moved 

up or down as per the design of this building. If so, this may provide an alternate method to several of the clash issues 

mentioned in the report. This however is not an issue of high importance or priority as there are alternative solutions available. 

Request for information from the architect regarding movement of the ceiling levels. If movement up or down of the ceiling 

height will impact the external façade of the building, this will not be a recommended course of action to resolve issues where 

clashes occur between service elements and the ceiling. However, if this does not have a noteworthy impact on the façade, 

this may provide another option to resolve issues.



2.0 Model Coordination: ADDITIONAL Interference COMMENTS Checking & RFIs 

2.1 

Mast of the issues mentioned in the report can be resolved by making minor adjustments i.e. moving elements slightly in a 

2.1.1 

certain direction. The most complex of the resolution methods tend to focus on redesigning structural or mechanical elements 

to enable other elements to pass through. 

Must ensure elaborate analysis and research regarding the impact of particular movements of elements on the rest of the 

2.1.2 

building model. Whilst moving an element in a certain direction as mentioned in 2.1.1 may resolve a clash quickly and easily, it 

may lead to other clashes forming elsewhere. 

Note that most elements are not singular in existence but tend to be linked to/connected to a series of elements the same in 

2.1.3 

order to operate as an overall system. Therefore, moving one element will cause an entire system or section of a system to be 

moved at the same time, which may lead to other issues rising. 

2.1.4 Need to ensure when moving sprinklers around that they sit right up against ceiling underside for architectural purposes.

DDC 1 YASMINE SASSINE ModelCoordinationReport

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?