## 6 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Segment**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Diameter Using Traditional Method (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Diameter with Automation (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final Pressure with Traditional Method (mca)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final Pressure with Automation (mca)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error between Pressure Results (\%)**} \\ \hline MAP & RAP & 25 & 25 & 13.68 & 13.60 & 0.58\% \\ RAP & A & 25 & 25 & 13.12 & 13.49 & 2.82\% \\ A & B & 25 & 25 & 11.86 & 11.95 & 0.76\% \\ B & C & 19 & 19 & 10.41 & 8.63 & 17.10\% \\ C & D & 19 & 19 & 8.69 & 8.39 & 3.45\% \\ D & E & 19 & 19 & 8.37 & 8.29 & 0.96\% \\ E & F & 19 & 19 & 8.32 & 8.24 & 0.96\% \\ F & BOLL & 13 & 13 & 5.09 & 6.11 & 20.04\% \\ F & LO & 13 & 13 & 7.00 & 7.21 & 3.00\% \\ E & WC & 13 & 13 & 7.29 & 7.61 & 4.39\% \\ B & CAL & 19 & 19 & 10.60 & 10.46 & 1.32\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 24: Comparison of diameter and final pressure in a cold water system for type 2 retail store. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Segment**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Diameter Using Traditional Method (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Diameter with Automation (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final Pressure with Traditional Method (mca)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Final Pressure with Automation (mca)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Error between Results (\%)**} \\ \hline CAL & G & 25 & 19 & 8.44 & 6.51 & 22.87\% \\ G & H & 19 & 19 & 6.34 & 6.42 & 1.26\% \\ H & BOLL & 19 & 13 & 4.40 & 4.30 & 2.27\% \\ H & LO & 13 & 13 & 5.02 & 5.40 & 7.57\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 25: Comparisons of hot-water network final diameter and pressure for type 2 retail store. some situations, element modifications carried out by automated tasks break connection rules, producing mismatches and separating the geometric and parametric correlation of elements. Other errors are attributable to the use of MS Excel(r) in the data insertion stage; when working with lists separated by the system, data distribution must coincide with predefined sheet organisation. Otherwise, data packages can overwrite wrong cells, breaking the calculation logic and displaying incorrect results. As indicated by the case studies, the proposed approach demonstrates that parametric modelling can host plumbing system attributes correctly, generating subsystems with accuracy and without missing or incorrect information during the modelling stage and parameterisation. However, some issues were found in the plumbing fixture selection: predefined elements contain parameters and calculations relating to international codes, and these calculations may need to be excluded, while local regulations may need to be integrated into Dynamo. Without a unified modelling and mechanical equipment standard based on BIM, some necessary data may be omitted, reducing the model accuracy and detail level. Parametric design with visual programming helps designers in the early design stages, generating a process database that can be used to automate several actions and tasks. The application of these algorithms can be generalised, allowing users to understand their usage in diverse project topologies and obtain exact results if they provide their requirements consistently.