Inconsistent Data


Here you will find an explanation and best practices for solving Data inconsistency related synchronization errors.  

Category: Inconsistent Data

Inconsistent data refers to data that contains discrepancies or errors within a dataset. These inconsistencies can arise for various reasons and can make the data unreliable or difficult to work with.

Table of Contents

 

Alert messages 

The purpose of an alert message is to convey important information. 

Error: Ifc_0020, Ifc_0021

Error message: "An element in <File name> is re-using GlobalID <GUID>. The last seen element with this GlobalID will be present in the iModel."

Issue:

Visual fidelity issues in iModel such as missing element/s.

Cause:

Solution:

Error: Ifc_0048

Error message: "Units of type MASSDENSITYUNIT not defined"

Issue:

Missing information in the IFC file MASS DENSITY UNIT in the iModel viewer.

Cause:
MASS DENSITY UNIT values were incorrectly exported to the IFC file from the design application and can not be converted to the iModel 

Solution:
Since IFC is an open standard for the exchange of building information models (BIM) data and not a design file format, it cannot be updated directly. Updating the units in the IFC file will typically require making the appropriate changes in the design application so that the MASS DENSITY UNIT will be updated the next time an IFC file is generated from the design application. Once the unit is correctly reflected in the IFC file, it can be resynchronized into the iModel.

Error: Rvm_0007

Error message: "Cannot process geometry for RVM Component: <ComponentName>"

Issue:

Connector failed to process geometry of the given component.

Cause:
Inconsistent geometry data for the component, for example a radius value of 0 for CYLINDER/CTORUS etc. 

Solution:
Verify the geometry data for the component in the source application. Once the geometry data is correctled, the source file can be resynchronized into the iModel.

 

Attachment

The purpose of an alert message is to convey important information. 

Fatal Error: DgnV8_0140

Fatal Error message: File <> has <> as its document ID from the dgn file. However the attached data is from a different data source.

Issue:

The connector reports this issue during an update, while checking for deleted documents, when a reference attachment's document identity is inconsistent — the document identity recorded in the DGN file does not match the document that the data source now associates with that file. Because of this ambiguity, the connector cannot safely delete or reconcile the stale reference. 

This issue is raised when the file is present and not deleted, but its attached data comes from a different data source. It is reported as Fatal, so the update stops. 

The affected reference/attachment is not deleted or reconciled; it remains as a potentially stale reference in the iModel until the mismatch is resolved. The closely related Error-level issue DgnV8_0209 and the Fatal issue DgnV8_0141 are reported for related conditions found during the same step.

Cause:

This issue is reported when:

  1. The connector is running an update and is comparing previously converted source documents against the current document registry / data source.
  2. For a reference attachment, the document identity stored in the DGN differs from the document identity that the data source reports for that file

Common causes: 

  • A referenced file was re-registered, re-imported, or moved in the document management system (for example, ProjectWise), giving it a new document identity that no longer matches the one stored in the master DGN. 
  • The reference attachment was re-pointed so that the DGN's recorded document identity, and the data-source identity no longer agree.

Solution:

Reconcile the reference's document identity: 

  • In the document management system, confirm the referenced file's document identity matches what the master DGN expects. 
  • Re-attach or re-register the reference so its identity is consistent between the DGN and the data source.

 Re-run the synchronization: 

  • Re-run the connection and confirm the issue no longer appears, and the stale reference is correctly retained or deleted. 

 Best Practices: 

  • Keep reference attachments' document identities stable: avoid re-registering or re-importing referenced files in ways that change their document identity without updating the referencing DGNs. 
  • Ensure all referenced files are present and resolvable in the document registry before running update jobs. 
  • Read the reported synchronization issue text and severity, not the issue ID alone: the related issues DgnV8_0209 (Error) and DgnV8_0141 (Fatal) are reported from the same step for related conditions. 
  • When this issue appears, treat it as requiring manual review — the connector intentionally does not auto-delete data when document identity is ambiguous.

Error: DgnV8_0209

Error message: File <> has <> as its documentId from the dgn file. However the attachment data from the data source is <>.

Issue:

The connector reports this issue during an update, while checking for deleted documents, when a reference attachment's document identity is inconsistent — the document identity recorded in the DGN file does not match the document that the data source now associates with that file. Because of this ambiguity, the connector cannot safely delete or reconcile the stale reference. Unlike the Fatal cases, this is reported as an Error and the update continues. 

This issue is raised for two related conditions: 

  • A single reference entry whose recorded identity does not match its data-source identity, for a file that was not deleted. 
  • A "missing reference" case, where a reference expected for the file cannot be resolved to a matching registry entry and cannot be cleaned up automatically. This case is reported as Error under this issue; other unresolved cases are escalated to the related Fatal issue DgnV8_0141. 

The affected reference/attachment is not deleted or reconciled; it remains as a potentially stale reference in the iModel until the mismatch is resolved. 

 

Cause:

This issue is reported when:

  1. The connector is running an update and is comparing previously converted source documents against the current document registry / data source.
  2. For a reference attachment, the document identity stored in the DGN differs from the document identity that the data source reports for that file. 

Common causes:

  • A referenced file was re-registered, re-imported, or moved in the document management system (for example, ProjectWise), giving it a new document identity that no longer matches the one stored in the master DGN.
  • The reference attachment was re-pointed so that the DGN's recorded document identity, and the data-source identity no longer agree.
  • A referenced file expected by the master DGN cannot be matched to an entry in the document registry (missing reference). 

Solution:

Reconcile the reference's document identity: 

  • In the document management system, confirm the referenced file's document identity matches what the master DGN expects. 
  • Re-attach or re-register the reference so its identity is consistent between the DGN and the data source. 
  • Restore or re-point any missing referenced file so it resolves to the correct registry entry. 

 Re-run synchronization: 

  • Re-run the connector and confirm the issue no longer appears, and the stale reference is correctly retained or deleted. 
 

Best Practices: 

  • Keep reference attachments' document identities stable: avoid re-registering or re-importing referenced files in ways that change their document GUID without updating the referencing DGNs. 
  • Ensure all referenced files are present and resolvable in the document registry before running update jobs. 
  • Read the reported synchronization issue text and severity, not the issue ID alone: the related issues DgnV8_0140 (Fatal) and DgnV8_0141 (Error) cover other unresolved stale references from the same step.
  • When this issue appears, treat it as requiring manual review — the connector intentionally does not auto-delete data when document identity is ambiguous. 

 

Duplicated data in an iModel

Duplicated data can be introduced in different scenarios and can cause duplicated data to appear in the iModel, which is not desired. 

Error: Dgn_0066, Error: DgnV8_0141, Error: DgnV8_0142

Error message: File <File name> has <File path> as its documentId from the dgn file. However, the attachment data from the data source is <File ID>.

Issue:
Visual fidelity issues such as graphical and properties duplication.

Cause:
References ID had changed due to reference file migration to a different data source.

Solution:
Run a Scan References on the master file and then restart the synchronization. If the duplicate issues cannot be solved, please contact Bentley support to further diagnose this kind of error: https://bentleysystems.service-now.com/csp
Read more about why reference scanning is important. 

 

Error: Dgn_0199

Error message: "Duplicate models found MasterSubject:<File name> MissingInputFile: <File path>.

Issue:
Visual fidelity issues in the model such as duplicated graphical information and properties. 

Cause:

 

Error: Dgn_0206

Error message: Overlapping geometry detected between File, Model <> and File, Model <>.

Issue:
Overlapping geometry between 2 different models has been detected. This check exists to help detect when the same model has been referenced from two or more different models and can result in the exact same model being synchronized twice. However, there are also cases where some of the overlapping geometry is not due to a duplicate model, but overlapping geometry.

Cause:
Duplicate models are being synchronized or there is overlapping geometry from different models.

Solution:
After the iModel has been synchronized, view the iModel and turn off all models except for the referenced models. Then alternate turning one of the two remaining models on and off to see if they are duplicated and or have overlapping geometry. If the models appear to be the same content, then you should update your iModel connections to resolve the duplication. If there is overlapping geometry and it is expected as the 2 models are different, but have intentionally added overlapping geometry, then you can ignore this issue.

 

Error: Dgn_0217

Error message:

One of the following errors will be mentioned:

Unable to delete the duplicated Model, File, Model <> and File, Model <> with ID <> where overlapping geometry was detected. Error <>.

Unable to delete the duplicated Model, File, Model <> and File, Model <> with ID <> where overlapping geometry was detected where overlapping geometry was detected after abandoning changes. Error <>.

Issue:
The un-mapping of a duplicated model has failed. During the synchronization, it was determined that there was overlapping geometry between two models. To prevent duplicate data within the iModel. it was attempted to un-map the model currently being synchronized, but the un-map failed.

Cause:
There was a failure in the un-mapping of an instance where overlapping geometry between models was detected.

Solution:
Please contact Bentley Support and mention this error number when submitting the service case so Bentley can investigate the cause of the error.

 

Warning: Dgn_0218

Warning message: 
It was determined that the models File, Model <> and File, Model <> with ID <> has overlapping geometry and the model was automatically un-mapped by the connector to prevent duplicates.

Issue:
When the iModel Connector determines that there is overlapping geometry between models, it will automatically un-map the newly added model to prevent duplicated geometry within the iModel. Normally, this is just a warning that you should check you iModel Connections to ensure that you have not configured the connections to introduce duplicates. However, there could be instances where the overlapping geometry is not caused by duplicated models, but by the intentional overlapping of geometry and in this case deleting the model is incorrect. In this case, please submit a service case as mentioned below and the un-mapping in this case can be turned off for this iModel. 

Cause:
It was determined that there is overlapping geometry between geometry from a model that already exists in thei iModel and the model currently being synchronized. In this condition, the default behaviour is to unmap the overlapping model in the current synchronization.

Solution:
Please check your iModel connections to ensure that they are not configured to bring in duplicate models. If you feel that the overlapping model should not have been unmapped, please contact Bentley Support for assistance and the automatic un-mapping can be disabled for your model.

 

Warning: Rvm_0006

Warning message: Duplicate component name at line #n.

Issue:
The attribute file has multiple components with the same name. When this happens, the connector combines them together and values for repeated properties are updated as per the latest component set.

Cause:
The file may contain duplicate components, or there may have been an issue when exporting the .att file from the source application. 

Solution:
Rename the duplicate component in source software and then re-export and resynchronize.

 

Element

Error: DgnV8_0201

Error message: Update of element [Element Name] [Model Name]failed; element (and any children) will be deleted. Status code: [error code] 

Issue:

The connector reports this error when it tries to update an existing element in the iModel and the update does not succeed. Because the element could not be safely updated, the connector may remove the element and any child elements to avoid leaving inconsistent or broken data behind. 

Example: 
Element: [Element Name] 
Model: [Model Name] 
Status code: [error code] 

This condition can happen when the target model contains stale or conflicting data, when another process is editing the same element, or when the database operation fails while saving the updated element. 

Cause:

The synchronization attempts to update an existing element so it matches the latest source content. If that update fails, the connector treats the element as unsafe and may delete it, along with its children, to prevent invalid or an inconsistent model state. 

This issue typically occurs when: 

  • Another user or process is holding a lock on the element. 
  • The source data or the existing iModel element is stale or inconsistent. 
  • The element has duplicate, conflicting, or corrupted state information. 
  • A database write or save operation fails during synchronization. 

Because the update did not complete successfully, the connector chooses to remove the element rather than leave the model in a partially updated state. 

Solution:

  1. Identify the element and model named in the error message.
  2. Check whether the element is currently locked by another process or user.
  3. Review the source data to confirm the elemebnt is valid and not duplicated or corrupted.
  4. Verify that the target iModel is not already in a conflicted or partially updated state.
  5. Re-run the synchronization after fixing the underlying lock, data, or model issue.
  6. If the issue persists, inspect the detailed synchronization report and the status code to find the exact database or model problem that prevented the update. 

If the element is no longer needed or is a stale duplicate, removing the redundant content may also resolve the issue. 

Best Practices:

  • Avoid concurrent edits to the same model or element.
  • Keep source data and iModel content synchronized and consistent.
  • Review synchronization logs for lock conflicts and write failures.
  • Remove stale or duplicate model content before re-running a large synchronization.
  • Validate model integrity after major updates or data imports.

 

Warning: DgnV8_0200

Warning message: The connector reports a duplicate-code warning when updating an element whose newly computed Code collides with a Code that is already in use by another element in the same iModel. The message identifies the duplicate code value, the existing element that already owns it, its model, and the code the connector will keep. 

Example (conceptual): 
Duplicate element code 'PUMP-001' detected while updating element 0x30000000123 in model 'Structural'. Keeping existing code 'PUMP-001'. 

Issue: During an update, the connector recomputes each element's Code (its unique business key/identifier within its scope). If the new Code the connector wants to assign is already taken by a different element, the update would violate the iModel's uniqueness constraint on Codes. Instead of failing the element, the connector: 

  • Reports DgnV8_0200 as a Warning. 
  • Reverts the element back to its existing Code. 
  • Retries the update so the element's other changes are still applied. 

Effect: the element is updated successfully, but it does not receive the newly computed Code — it retains its previous Code. This can result in: 

  • Elements not carrying the business key/identifier expected from the source. 
  • Two source elements effectively competing for the same Code value. 
  • Downstream tools that rely on Codes (linking, reporting, deduplication) seeing an unexpected Code on the element. 

Conversion continues normally because this is a Warning, not a fatal error. 

Cause: Codes in an iModel must be unique within their scope. This issue arises when the connector computes a Code for the element being updated that matches a Code already assigned to another element. Common causes include: 

  • Duplicate business keys in the source data. Two or more source elements carry the same business-key property value, so they map to the same Code. 
  • Non-unique naming/keying in the design files (for example, repeated tags, names, or identifiers used as the Code source). 
  • Merged or copied content where the same identifier appears more than once (copied elements, duplicated cells, repeated references). 
  • Reclassification or key changes during an update that cause a new Code to collide with an existing element's Code. 
  • Scope collisions, where elements that were previously in different scopes now resolve to the same Code scope. 

 Solution:

  • Identify the duplicate: From the message, note the duplicate Code value, the element being updated, and the existing element that already owns that Code. 
  • Inspect the source business keys: Review the business-key property (or naming/tagging convention) that drives the Code in the source files. Confirm whether two source elements genuinely share the same key value. 
  • Make source identifiers unique: Where the duplication is unintended, correct the source so each element has a unique business key / identifier, then re-synchronize. 
  • Check for duplicated content: Look for copied elements, duplicated cells, or the same content included through multiple references that produce identical keys. 
  • Validate after re-sync: After correcting the source, run synchronization again and confirm DgnV8_0200 is no longer reported for that element and that the intended Code is now applied. 
  • Accept if expected: If the duplication is legitimate and acceptable, no action is required — the element remains updated with its existing Code and the warning is informational. 

Best Practices: 

  • Ensure business-key / identifier properties used for Codes are unique within their scope in the source data. 
  • Avoid duplicating design content (copied elements, repeated references) that produces identical identifiers. 
  • Establish and enforce consistent naming/tagging conventions before publishing large datasets. 
  • Review synchronization warnings for repeated DgnV8_0200 occurrences, which can indicate a systematic keying problem in the source. 
 

Illegal Units

Warning: Revit_0032

Error message:

<Property Name> property value <number> <unit symbol> of <unit name> dimension is ignored due to missing persistence units; perhaps the schema in the Revit model is damaged. Please contact Bentley support.

<Property Name> property value <number> <unit symbol> is ignored due to missing persistence units; perhaps the schema in the Revit model is damaged. Please contact Bentley support.

Issue:

The unit for a property can't be placed in the iModel.

Cause:

The property units are unknown in this case.

Solution:

Please contact Bentley support mentioning this warning and they will help analyze the problem and suggest a fix.

 

Geometry

Error: IfcFl_0003

Error message: "Invalid IfcDirection <>, expected (minimal) dimension"

Issue:

An IfcDirection entity in the IFC model does not have the required number of components (for example, fewer than 3 components for 3D geometry). This makes the direction invalid and prevents correct geometry interpretation. 

Cause:

  • The authoring application exported an incomplete or invalid IfcDirection (e.g., only one or two components).
  • The IFC file has been corrupted or altered, causing the loss of direction components. 

Solution:

  1. Use the synchronization report to locate the specific IfcDirection entity referenced by #.
  2. In the source/authoring application, correct the geometry so that all IfcDirection entities have at least the required number of components (typically X, Y, Z).
  3. Re‑export the IFC file after correcting the geometry.
  4. Optionally, implement or use pre‑processing/QA scripts to validate and repair IfcDirection entities before synchronization.

Warning: IfcFl_0064

Warning message: "IFCPOLYLOOP contains identical points. Geometry may not be generated correctly."

Issue:

The IFC model contains one or more IFCPOLYLOOP entities where all (or multiple) loop points are identical. This produces a degenerate loop, so the connector may not be able to generate valid geometry (for example, a polygon requires at least three distinct points).

Cause:

  • The source application exported a polyloop where all vertices reference the same point.
  • Loops were created or modified incorrectly (for example, duplicate points left in the loop definition).

How to identify the affected element 

  1. Open the Synchronization Report and locate the entry for IfcFl_0064.
  2. The report entry will include the IFC entity ID of the affected IFCPOLYLOOP (for example, #12345).
  3. Open the IFC file (or use an IFC viewer) and search for that entity ID, for example:
    • #12345 = IFCPOLYLOOP(#22,#22,#22); In this example, all three loop vertices reference the same point #22, so the loop is invalid.  

Solution:

  1. In the authoring application, locate the corresponding geometry using the entity ID / element reference from the Synchronization Report.
  2. Correct the loop, so it has at least three distinct points, or remove/replace the invalid loop as appropriate.
  3. Re‑export the IFC file after fixing the geometry.
  4. Re‑run synchronization and verify that IfcFl_0064 no longer appears. 

 

Line Style

Warning: DgnV8_0048

Warning message: Could not find definition or name for line style <> in file <>

Issue:

During synchronization of the DGN source file, the connector encountered an element that references a line style by number, but no line style definition and no line style name could be found for that number in the file. The converter emits: 

This is a Warning, the conversion will continue. The affected element is converted without the referenced custom line style; it falls back to a default/solid line style, so its appearance may differ from the source. 

Cause:

Elements in a DGN file store a line style as a numeric ID. This warning occurs when the connector is unable to resolve neither a definition nor even a name for the given number. Common reasons: 

  • The line style definition lives in an external resource (.rsc) or .lin/library file that was not delivered with the dataset, so the number cannot be resolved. 
  • The referenced line style was deleted or renamed in the source file, leaving elements pointing at a nowmissing entry. 
  • Inconsistent or corrupt line style data in the file — the very large number in the example (2147483392 = 0x7FFFFF00) is typical of a stray/invalid or sentinel style ID rather than a normal userdefined style number, indicating the element's symbology data is inconsistent. 

(Note the related messages: DgnV8_0049 is raised when a name is found but the definition is missing; DgnV8_0046 when the component of a named style cannot be loaded. DgnV8_0048 is the case where nothing at all can be resolved.) 

Solution:

  1. Confirm whether the appearance matters: If the affected elements do not need that custom line style, the warning can be safely ignored — the element is still converted.
  2. Deliver the missing line style resources: If the style is defined in an external .rsc, .lin, or line style library, ensure those files are Included in the project’s workspace/workset and are available on the configured line style search path used during synchronization. Then re-synchronize.
  3. Repair the source element symbology: In the design application, open the source dgn file, locate the elements using the missing/invalid line style number, and reassign them to a valid, existing line style.
  4. Check for deleted/renamed styles: If the line style was removed or renamed, either restore it in the file's line style table or update the elements to reference the correct current style.
  5. Contact support if needed: If the source data looks correct but the warning persists, collect the source data and contact Bentley Support with the reported line style number and file name. 

Warning: DgnV8_0049

Warning message: Could not find definition for line style [LineStyleName]. Some elements may not display properly.   

Issue:

The connector reports the following warning message when processing DGN elements that reference a custom line style whose definition cannot be found: 

  • Could not find definition for line style [LineStyleName]. Some elements may not display properly. 
  • Example:

Could not find definition for line style [centerline]. Some elements may not display properly. 

  • During synchronization, the connector attempts to locate the line style definition in: 

The MicroStation system line style map.

The active DGN file.

Referenced resource files (.RSC).

Referenced DGN files. 

  • If the line style definition cannot be found but an element requires it for display, the connector generates warning DgnV8_0049 and maps the style to an invalid/default style.
  • As a result, elements using the missing line style may display differently in the iModel than they do in the source DGN. 
  • Typical symptoms include: 

Incorrect line appearance. 

Missing custom line patterns. 

Elements displayed with continuous/default styles. 

Visual differences between the source design file and the resulting iModel. 

Cause:

The synchronization process imports custom line style definitions before geometry conversion. 

This warning occurs when a line style referenced by an element cannot be resolved from the available source data. 

Common causes include: 

  • The custom line style exists in an external .RSC resource file that was not included in the synchronized dataset. 
  • The line style definition exists in a referenced DGN that is missing or inaccessible. 
  • The source DGN references a legacy line style library that is no longer available. 
  • The line style definition was removed, renamed, or corrupted after elements were created. 
  • Resource search paths used by MicroStation are unavailable during synchronization. 
  • The project was transferred without all supporting resource files. 

Based on the converter code, the warning is only generated when: 

  1. An element actively uses the line style.
  2. The line style definition cannot be found in either the system map or DGN/resource file lookup.
  3. The connector therefore cannot create a corresponding iModel line style definition. 

Solution:

Identify the Missing Line Style: 
Review the synchronization log and note the line style name reported in the warning message, for example: 

pa_centerline 

Verify the Line Style Exists in the Source Environment: 
Open the source DGN in MicroStation and confirm that the reported line style can be displayed correctly. 

Check Resource Files (.RSC): 
Ensure all custom line style resource files used by the project are available and included in the synchronization dataset. 

Review Referenced Files: 
Verify that all DGN references containing custom line style definitions are present and accessible. 

Validate Workspace Configuration: 
Confirm that the workspace and workset used during synchronization contain the same configuration variables and resource locations used by the authoring environment. 

Repair Missing Definitions: 
If the line style no longer exists:

  • Restore the missing resource file. 
  • Reattach the referenced file containing the definition. 
  • Recreate the line style definition if necessary. 

Replace Obsolete Line Styles: 
If the style is no longer required: 

  • Replace the missing line style with a valid project standard line style. 
  • Save the source file. 
  • Re-run synchronization. 

Re-Synchronize and Validate: 
After restoring the missing definitions: 

  • Perform a fresh synchronization. 
  • Confirm that warning DgnV8_0049 no longer appears. 
  • Verify that affected elements display correctly in the iModel. 

Best Practices: 

  • Store custom line styles in managed project resources. 
  • Package all required .RSC files with deliverables. 
  • Avoid dependencies on local workstation resource paths. 
  • Validate custom line styles before publishing large datasets. 
  • Periodically audit referenced files and resource libraries to ensure definitions remain accessible. 

 

Model

Warning: DgnV8_0080

Warning message: DgnModel <model> was previously imported with a different DGN->iModel transform. Check GCS and/or reference attachment. - <file>  

Issue:

While converting/updating a DGN dataset, the iModel connector found that a model it is about to import was already imported previously, but with a different DGN→iModel placement transform

This is a Warning and the conversion will continue. Because the model's current transform does not match the one it was first imported with, the converter does not reuse the existing mapping for that transform; the geometry may be placed differently than expected, or effectively duplicated at a new location.

Cause:

When a model is imported, the connector records the transform that maps the source DGN coordinates into the iModel spatial coordinate system, keyed to that model. On a later pass (or when the same model is reached through another reference path), the converter compares the current transform against the stored one. DgnV8_0080 is raised when a matching model exists but none of the stored transforms match the current one within tolerance. The typical reasons are: 

  • GCS (Geographic Coordinate System) change or mismatch. The model's GCS — or the GCS of a file it is referenced from — was added, removed, or changed between runs, so the computed DGN→iModel transform shifted. 
  • Reference attachment change. The same model is attached at a different position/rotation/scale than before (for example, the attachment transform, master/reference units, or annotation scaling changed), or it is reached through a different attachment path that applies a different transform. 
  • Inconsistent placement across references. The same model is attached in more than one place with conflicting transforms, so at least one path disagrees with the originally imported transform. 

Solution:

Property Definition

Warning: Ifc_0029 

Warning message: "Datatype mismatch found in property: <> from the current IFC file" 

Issue:

The connector detected that the same logical property is defined with different datatypes in the IFC file. This can cause inconsistency and potential data loss during mapping and synchronization.

Cause:

  • Different elements or contexts use different datatypes for the same property name within a property set (for example, string vs numeric). 
  • Misconfigured property sets, templates, or export settings in the authoring application. 

Solution:

  1. Read the error message to identify the affected property: 
    • Property set
    • Property
  2. In the source/authoring application, review how this property is defined and ensure it uses one consistent datatype for all occurrences.
  3. Correct any templates, catalogs, or libraries that define this property differently.
  4. Re‑export the IFC file once property definitions have been harmonized.
  5. If required, coordinate with the authoring application vendor or configuration owner to enforce consistent property typing. 

Warning: Ifc_0042

Warning message: "Multiple datatypes 'DataTypeName' are defined for property 'Property Name' in the property set 'Property Set Name' resulting in data loss. This inconsistency needs to be corrected by the source application for this property to be consistently synchronized."

Issue:

Data loss is observed for the element with the problematic property in the iModel (e.g. Property 'NEL_Diameter' shows an empty value in the properties section in the iModel).

Cause:

  • An element in the iModel has a problematic property that is inconsistently defined by different IFC datatypes in multiple property sets (e.g. property for one property set is defined as 'IfcText' and in other property sets it is defined as 'IfcReal') which resulted in data loss. The inconsistency causes this unpredictable behavior during synchronization.
  • The source application, configuration, or template defines or exports the same property with different datatypes across different elements or contexts.
  • Data modeling rules or templates are not aligned, so instances of the same property use inconsistent types.

Solution:

The inconsistency of datatypes for the problematic property should be fixed in the IFC File. Since IFC is an open standard for the exchange of building information models (BIM) data, it cannot be updated directly. The inconsistency in the IFC file should be corrected in the design application so that there will be no missing data for the property in the iModel. Once the IFC file has been corrected and generated from the design application, resynchronize the IFC file to the iModel. This should solve any issues with the missing data for the problematic property.

How to fix the IFC file: 

  • Identify the affected property from the error message:
    • Property set
    • Property
  • In the authoring application, standardize this property to use one consistent datatype for all elements (typically a numeric type for measurable values such as Diameter).
  • Review the entire property set for other properties with multiple datatypes and correct them as needed.
  • Re‑export the IFC file after harmonizing the property definitions.
  • Contact Bentley Support for assistance if these issues cannot be solved.

 

Invalid Input Data

Warning: Nwd_0014  

Warning message: "RVM data was used as input, but no RefId type of value was found for [xx] element(s)." 

Issue:

When bringing AVEVA E3D data that has been exported into the RVM format into the iTwin platform via the Navisworks (NWD) connector, you might encounter the Nwd_0014 warning: "RVM data was used as input, but no RefId type of value was found."
While it is easy to dismiss as a minor property warning, missing RefId (Reference Identifier) data fundamentally impacts your iModel's integrity, as the RefId is the unique key linking the iModel element back to the original authoring tool. Without it, the connector loses its ability to track elements across synchronizations.

Missing RefId in the exported NWD file can cause a few issues: 

  • The missing RefId breaks incremental synchronization, as the same element has to be deleted and recreated, increasing the iModel synchronizing time.  
  • Missing RefID can also can create orphaned elements, as child components (e.g., nozzles, valves) cannot find their structural parents, breaking logical hierarchies.
  • The missing RefID also impacts version comparison and any future data analytics, as without stable IDs it is impossible to track historical element changes. 

The following are accepted values for RefId, these values are case sensitive.

REF

REF-NO

REFNO

RefId

RefNo

:RefId

:RefNo

Ref-Id

Ref-No

:Ref-Id

:Ref-No

PDMSRef

:PDMSRef

Cause:

Solution:

Re-generate the NWD file with the following properties and synchronize to the iModel: 

  • Ensure that when the att file is generated it contains an accepted value for RefId. Please see this section for information on how to configure the att files exports: RVM Considerations. Any configuration needs to set the text used for RefId be set to 1 of the 13 accepted strings listed above.
  • AVEVA Export to RVM: Confirm that a companion .att or .txt file was successfully generated and named identically to the .rvm file.
  • Navisworks Settings: Go to Global -> Options > File Readers > RVM and verify Convert Attributes is checked, and the mapped extension match your attribute output (.att or .txt)