## 5 Case Study  
The case study focuses on the Miguel Marafna gate of Santa Ana Church in Seville, Spain, presented in Figure 7. This door has a rich history and has undergone stratigraphic, typological, and construction analyses, as presented in [40]. This work explains that the wall's foundation dates back to the 12 th century, the brick cladding to the 20 th century, and the marble column to the 16 th century. Throughout the door, several areas of damage were evident. Notably, there were long and narrow vertical openings resulting from the separation of the bricks.  
This structure was scanned with the LiDAR of the iPad Pro fixing the scanning parameters with those levels defined in the preceding section--a distance of 0.5 m, scanning  
Figure 6: E\({}_{\text{o}}\) values for the different experiments from the L18 and the scan with the selected scanning parameters (experiment 19 framed).  
Figure 7: Picture of the Miguel Marafna gate of Santa Ana Church.  
speed of approximately 1.26 m/s, variable sensor angle, natural lighting, and one pass. The scanning was conducted on a sunny day, 26 June 2024, at 7:30 PM.  
In order to validate the geometry of the model, the following reference distances (D) were defined: D1: Horizontal measurement of a stone brick, D2: Vertical measurement of a stone brick, D3, Horizontal measurement of clay brick, D4: Vertical distance of a first crack opening, and D5: Vertical distance of a second crack opening. The values of these distances measured on site were: D1 = 51.0 cm, D2 = 29.0 cm, D3 = 17.0 cm, D4 = 58.4 cm, and D5 = 38.2 cm, respectively. A picture of these considered distances in the model is presented in Figure 8.  
The dimensions of the bricks were averaged across 10 different measurement points, using a steel tape measure with an accuracy of 1 mm. It is important to highlight the targeted measurement points were selected on those bricks that presented the most uniform dimensions.  
Scans of two different areas of the door were performed. The digital models generated by the Polycam app are presented in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The obtained values of D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 in these scanned walls are summarized in Table 12. This table also includes overall error (Eo) adapting equation 1 to five measurements. The obtained value of this parameter of 3.59% indicates a high level of accuracy in the scanned geometry.  
To validate the positive impact of the selected scanning parameters, the case study was scanned using three alternative sets of parameters randomly chosen from the various levels studied. The values of the obtained measurements and the overall error (E\({}_{\text{o}}\)) for these additional models are summarized in Table 13.  
To illustrate the variability in the five targeted measurements (D), a box-and-whisker diagram was created based on the measurements from the four scanners used for the structure. This diagram is presented in Figure 11. This diagram shows the variability in all the five targeted parameters due to the scanning parameters.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **D\({}_{\text{1}}\) (cm)** & **D\({}_{\text{2}}\) (cm)** & **D\({}_{\text{3}}\) (cm)** & **D\({}_{\text{4}}\) (cm)** & **D\({}_{\text{5}}\) (cm)** & **E\%** \\ \hline Optimal parameters & 47.5 & 28.5 & 16.0 & 57.6 & 39.1 & 3.6 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Random parameters} & 44.8 & 26.6 & 11.2 & 64.6 & 39.5 & 13.7 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 47.1 & 20.6 & 12.8 & 63.7 & 33.3 & 16.6 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & 49.6 & 21.8 & 18.9 & 64.6 & 46.9 & 14.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 13: Comparison of the values of the targeted measurements D and the Eo for the optimal scanning parameters and three random cases.  
Figure 11: Box-and-whisker diagram of the targeted measurements D.  
Figure 10: Scan of the second area of the case study.