& Senibina Logo& Senibina
  • Contact
Back to Blog
Technical InsightsBIMComplianceRevitSingapore

Why Does CORENET X Validation Fail After Export?

CORENET X validation failures happen because feedback comes after hours of IFC export. Upstream checking breaks the cycle before deadlines do.

Adib Zailan
•
December 23, 2025
•
5 min read

You're watching the IFC export progress bar crawl. Four hours in. The model is clean. Months of design, coordination, documentation. Native Revit families. Proper categorization. Shared parameters mapped to SGPset requirements. You've done everything right.

The export finishes. You upload to CORENET X. The Model Checker runs through its three validation layers: IFC schema compliance, quality checks, regulatory compliance.

Thirty-seven failures.

You click through the report. Missing property sets on curtain panels. Incorrect IFC class mappings on your custom families. SVY21 coordinates misconfigured. Somehow the project base point drifted. And buried in the middle: geometry validation errors on facades you transferred from Rhino three months ago, back when there was still time to fix them properly.

We've all been here. The moment where compliance issues surface too late to fix cheaply. Whether you designed in Rhino and transferred to Revit, or modeled natively the whole way, the result is the same: validation feedback that arrives after you've already committed to your approach.

This is the upstream geometry problem. And it's about to affect every project in Singapore.

The CORENET X Timeline Is Already Running

Singapore's CORENET X mandate isn't coming. It's here.

1 October 2025: All new projects with GFA ≥30,000 sqm must submit via CORENET X in IFC+SG format.

1 October 2026: All new projects regardless of size.

October 2027: All ongoing projects must migrate from CORENET 2.0.

This consolidates submissions to eight regulatory agencies (BCA, URA, LTA, PUB, NEA, SCDF, NParks, SLA) through a single platform. The old 20+ touchpoint process becomes three key gateways: Design, Construction, and Completion.

The submission format is IFC+SG: Singapore's extension of IFC4 with localized property sets (SGPset) for regulatory compliance. Your model needs the right properties on the right elements, SVY21 coordinates configured correctly, and IFC mappings that satisfy each agency's requirements.

Every workflow is affected.

Rhino-to-Revit teams face geometry transfer challenges. Complex facades, parametric forms, freeform structures. The geometry that makes your design distinctive is often the same geometry that breaks validation.

Native Revit teams aren't exempt. Even clean Revit models need correct IFC mappings, SGPset properties on the right elements, and SVY21 coordinates configured properly. Native modeling doesn't guarantee native compliance.

How the Export-Validate-Fix Cycle Compounds

Here's what the cycle looks like when it starts:

Week 1. Design development. You're working in Rhino on a doubly-curved facade. The geometry is beautiful, the design intent is clear. Transfer to Revit can wait. You're still in design mode.

Week 4. Schematic deadline. You bring the facade into Revit via DWG import. DirectShape geometry. It looks correct in 3D. The schedule is tight, so you move on.

Week 8. DD package. You start mapping SGPset properties. The facade geometry doesn't accept the parameters you need. It's imported, not native. You create workarounds: separate annotation families, manual overrides.

Week 12. First IFC export attempt. Four hours of export time. Submit to CORENET X. Forty-three failures. The facade geometry fails validation entirely. The workarounds for SGPset mapping created new problems. Your SVY21 coordinates are wrong.

Week 13. You're fixing issues you created three months ago, with a deadline you can't move.

Each cycle through export-validate-fix costs 4-6 hours of export time alone. Each cycle introduces risk. And each cycle happens after you've already lost the ability to change your approach cheaply.

The External Validator Workaround

Most teams don't submit directly to CORENET X without checking first. The standard workflow adds another step: export IFC from Revit, then import into an external validation tool.

Tools like BIMCollab Zoom, Solibri, or SimpleBIM let you run model checks before official submission. You can catch some issues earlier. You can review the IFC structure. You can iterate before committing to the CORENET X queue.

But this still requires the full export cycle. Every validation round means:

  • Export IFC from Revit (4+ hours)
  • Import into external validator
  • Run checks, find issues
  • Return to Revit, make fixes
  • Re-export IFC
  • Re-import into validator
  • Repeat until clean
  • Finally submit to CORENET X

The external tools are good at what they do. But they can't escape the fundamental constraint: validation happens on exported geometry, disconnected from your live model. You're still debugging blind. You're still waiting hours between iterations. And you're still discovering issues after you've lost the ability to fix them cheaply.

Why Late-Stage Validation Breaks Down

The fundamental issue: feedback happens after commitment.

By the time you discover a compliance problem, you've already committed to your modeling approach. You've already configured (or misconfigured) your IFC mappings. You've already waited hours for IFC export. And you've lost the direct link between validation errors and model elements.

The parameter mapping problem compounds this. SGPset properties need to live on specific IFC entities with specific relationships. Whether your geometry came from Rhino or was modeled natively, getting those properties onto the right elements in the right structure is manual, error-prone work. The Industry Mapping Excel file documents all the requirements. Translating that into your model is still on you.

The coordinate system problem adds another layer. SVY21 coordinates need to be set correctly before export. Get this wrong, and your perfectly modeled building is floating in the wrong location. A validation failure that has nothing to do with your geometry quality.

The debugging problem makes it worse. CORENET X's validation report tells you what failed, but navigating from that report back to the specific element in your Revit model is manual detective work. You're debugging blindfolded.

What Upstream Validation Would Change

Imagine validation that runs before IFC export:

  • Check compliance inside Revit before committing to a 4-hour export
  • Navigate directly to failed elements. Click a validation error, jump to the element in your model
  • Understand why elements fail with clear mapping between validation rules and your geometry
  • Fix once, validate once. Break the multi-hour round-trip cycle

The modeling challenges don't disappear. Complex geometry still needs careful handling. SGPset properties still need correct mapping. But the feedback loop gets dramatically shorter. Hours instead of days. Design phase instead of submission week.

This is what we're building with Senibina-Gateway: in-Revit compliance checking that catches issues upstream, before export. We're currently in Private Alpha ahead of the October 2026 deadline.

What You Can Use Today

While Gateway is in development, we've released a free tool for the parameter mapping problem.

The CORENET X Parameter Lookup Tool lets you search the entire IFC-SG Industry Mapping database - the same ~700 parameters you'd otherwise hunt through in Excel. Filter by agency, discipline, or element type. See exactly which SGPset properties you need and how to implement them in Revit, ArchiCAD, or Tekla.

It won't validate your model, but it cuts the research time dramatically.

Common CORENET X Compliance Questions

❓ Do native Revit models still need IFC mapping configuration?
✅ Yes. Native Revit families export cleanly, but you still need correct category-to-IFC-class mappings, SGPset property definitions, and SVY21 coordinate configuration. Native modeling doesn't guarantee native compliance.
❓ What's the difference between IFC4 and IFC-SG?
✅ IFC-SG extends IFC4 with Singapore-specific property sets (SGPset) required by local regulatory agencies. Standard IFC4 exports won't include the properties CORENET X validation requires.
❓ Why do IFC exports take so long for complex models?
✅ IFC export translates every Revit element into standardized geometry and property structures. Complex geometry, large models, and detailed property mappings all increase export time. Often 4-6 hours for submission-ready models.
❓ Can I validate my model without submitting to CORENET X?
✅ Currently, full validation requires submission to the CORENET X platform. Pre-submission validation tools like Senibina-Gateway aim to catch issues before you commit to the export-submit cycle.

Your Path Forward

CORENET X compliance isn't a format change. It's a workflow change. The teams that adapt early will spend their time on design, not debugging.

Actions you can take now:

  • Map your current IFC export configuration against SGPset requirements using the CORENET X Lookup Tool
  • Test validation on a non-critical project before your first real submission
  • Identify geometry transfer decisions that will affect compliance downstream
  • Join the Gateway waitlist for early access to upstream validation

Validation feedback can arrive during design, when changes are cheap. Or during submission, when they're not. The geometry you model today is the geometry you'll validate in October.

Back to Blog

Share this post

TwitterLinkedInFacebook

& Senibina

Enabling practitioners to focus on craft, not workarounds. Tools that turn software from a barrier into a bridge.

support@senibina.com.sg

Solutions

  • Senibina-Bridge
  • Senibina-Gateway
Labs
  • Senibina Vantage
  • PlanLah!
  • CORENET X Parameter Lookup

Resources

  • Documentation
  • Changelog
  • Blog
  • Questions & Answers
  • Contact
  • Terms of Service

Stay Updated

Get the latest from & Senibina on interoperability, BIM insights, digital construction, and product updates.

© 2026 & Senibina. All rights reserved.•Made in Singapore, Reg: 53484043D•Publisher Verified by Sectigo•Infrastructure by AWS

Disclaimer: & Senibina is an independent AEC technology provider based in Singapore. We are not affiliated with Autodesk, Inc. or Robert McNeel and Associates.