## 6 Conclusions  
The paper presents a tool for the evaluation of the performance in-live of turbocharged diesel engines for marine application. The tool has been developed in G-Language within the LABVIEW environment; its management is very simple and rapid, even if it requires many formulas in order to reliably describe the thermodynamic phenomena resulting from supercharged combustion inside the engine. One of the main challenges fought has concerned a process of synthesis and selection of the input variables, which are in large part to be acquired from the network of sensors installed on the engine. In order to fully describe the engine performance, 584 different formulas were used in the different routines and subroutines. In the present work, the routine for evaluating air pollutant \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Symbol** & **Stage** & **Unit** & **In-Live Tool** & **Offline WIT Procedure** & **Percentage Error** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{\text{AV}}\)} & LP & \% & 81.541 & 85.276 & 4.381\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & \% & 79.758 & 81.943 & 2.740\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{T}\)} & LP & \% & 78.957 & 76.963 & \(-\)2.525\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & \% & 80.031 & 76.175 & \(-\)4.818\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{TI}\)} & LP & \% & 64.382 & 65.631 & 1.940\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & \% & 63.831 & 62.420 & \(-\)2.211\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Pi_{V}\)} & LP & / & 3.775 & 3.778 & 0.079\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & / & 1.992 & 1.973 & \(-\)0.954\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Pi_{T}\)} & LP & / & 3.004 & 3.007 & 0.100\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & / & 1.634 & 1.590 & \(-\)2.693\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{NO\({}_{\text{X}}\)} & g/kWh & 1.115 & 1.109 & \(-\)0.538\% \\ \hline CO & g/kWh & 330.817 & 346.029 & 4.598\% \\ \hline CO\({}_{2}\) & g/kWh & 0.642 & 0.672 & 4.673\% \\ \hline THC & g/kWh & 1.833 & 1.823 & \(-\)0.546\% \\ \hline O\({}_{2}\) & g/kWh & 497.347 & 520.217 & 4.598\% \\ \hline SO\({}_{2}\) & g/kWh & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison between the output values–Air Nozzle method results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Symbol** & **Stage** & **Unit** & **In-Live Tool** & **Offline WIT Procedure** & **Percentage Error** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{\text{AV}}\)} & LP & \% & 81.507 & 80.418 & \(-\)1.336\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & \% & 79.728 & 81.739 & 2.522\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{T}\)} & LP & \% & 79.007 & 79.297 & 0.367\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & \% & 80.153 & 77.379 & \(-\)3.461\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{TI}\)} & LP & \% & 64.396 & 63.769 & \(-\)0.974\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & \% & 63.904 & 63.249 & \(-\)1.025\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Pi_{V}\)} & LP & / & 3.770 & 3.584 & \(-\)4.934\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & / & 1.990 & 1.970 & \(-\)1.005\% \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Pi_{T}\)} & LP & / & 3.004 & 3.007 & 0.100\% \\ \cline{2-6}  & HP & / & 1.632 & 1.630 & \(-\)0.123\% \\ \hline NO\({}_{\text{X}}\) & g/kWh & 1.088 & 1.093 & 0.460\% \\ \hline CO & g/kWh & 322.808 & 340.936 & 5.616\% \\ \hline CO\({}_{2}\) & g/kWh & 0.627 & 0.662 & 5.581\% \\ \hline THC & g/kWh & 1.788 & 1.796 & 0.447\% \\ \hline O\({}_{2}\) & g/kWh & 485.307 & 512.561 & 5.616\% \\ \hline SO\({}_{2}\) & g/kWh & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Comparison between the output values–Carbon Balance method results. emissions in terms of NO\({}_{\rm X}\), SO\({}_{\rm X}\), CO\({}_{\rm X}\) and HC has been completely described. In particular, the two methods that are used (i.e., the Air Nozzle approach and Carbon Balance approach) have been thoroughly presented. The great novelty offered by this tool is the ability of processing all the data detected by the sensor network in-live in order to monitor and dynamically optimize the TDEs' operation, whereas the common practice involves the collection of performance data and then their off-line processing. The connection between the presented tool and the automation of the TDEs is currently under development.