C OVER STORY TR ANSMIS SIONS

CO2 Potentials of
Dual-clutch Transmissions
A Technology Outlook
Dual-clutch Transmissions (DCT) and Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVTs) have their benefits and
disadvantages when it comes to energy efficiency and emissions. Related to regional preferences in Europe
and Japan, both transmission types are widespread in the markets. Getrag, Magna Powertrain, compares
both transmissions against their possibilities for fuel and CO2 reduction. The more dynamic load conditions
in the new WLTC are in favour of the DCT technology.

AUTHORS

Dipl.-Ing. Martin Bahne Dipl.-Ing. Ulrich Frey

is Senior Manager for Attribute & is Technical Specialist for Fuel
Technical Excellence at Getrag Economy, Efficiency & Performance
B. V. & Co. KG, Magna Powertrain, at Getrag B. V. & Co. KG, Magna © Stockwerk | stock.adobe.com
in Cologne (Germany). Powertrain, in Cologne (Germany).

REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE
EMISSIONS
Reducing CO2 emissions is becoming
more important in the global automotive
market. With stricter exhaust gas emis-
sion legislation, technologies with higher
efficiency potential will gain even more
importance than today. Transmissions
will play an essential role to help OEMs
achieve their emission goals.
18
Due to a steady growth of the market
share and continuously further technol-
ogy development, Dual-clutch Transmis-
sions (DCT) have reached within few
years an efficiency level that consider-
ably contributes to reducing CO2 and
fleet fuel consumption on a larger scale.
Advanced shift actuation is one major
contributor to this progress. Moreover,
continuous improvements are being
made in areas like friction or splash
losses, to some extent also thanks to
technology synergies with other layshaft
transmission types (Manual Transmis-
sion (MT) etc.).
In this article, Getrag, Magna Power-
train, focusses on a CO2 comparison
of a small DCT to a typical application
in a Continuously Variable Transmission
(CVT) in the B to C segment, based on
an identical setup of platform and engines
and real data. The purpose is to show
how the small DCT performs in the
direct competitive environment of
automated small cars. Furthermore,
it is shown how the results of this
comparison change when moving
from NEDC to the more dynamic WLTC,
and using advanced engine technology.
Besides this efficiency comparison, the
parameters are outlined here that define
the efficiency of DCT technology and the
potentials for further efficiency improve-
ATZ worldwide 12|2017
ment in terms of reducing losses, opti-
mising operation strategy, etc. – includ-
ing an outlook on advanced integrated
design and development methods in
future powertrains.
TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE WLTC
From September 2017, the CO2 and pol-
lutant emissions of new types of cars
will be measured using the Worldwide
Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Cycle
(WLTC). As is known, the WLTC has
higher dynamic requirements on the
powertrain compared to the NEDC;
maximum and average engine speed is
higher, load is generally more complex,
FIGURE 1. Within the transition period
until 2021, the results are converted to
NEDC equivalents to determine the
tax-relevant CO2 emissions. However,
19
C OVER STORY TR ANSMIS SIONS
FIGURE 1 Increased percentage loads in the WLTC for engine torque, engine speed, vehicle velocity and
high velocity time share – mean value comparison for a B-segment car with six-speed DCT (© Magna)
5
Better
[%]
0 ciency, measuring data were acquired.
6-speed AT
Worse
-5
-10
Fuel consumption with different transmission types in NEDC (extract);
source: DAT report, Q4 2016 / Q2 2017 [1]
-15
FIGURE 2 Efficiency comparison – mean value and median of fuel consumption of AT, CVT and DCT,
compared to MT in percent based on NEDC values [1]; differences were built for same vehicles/engines
(© Magna)
for new car developments, OEMs practi-
cally need to design their powertrains
according to the WLTC requirements
even today.
With regard to transmissions, OEMs
are confronted with a double challenge:
Firstly meeting future CO2 requirements
will be generally tougher, and secondly
the impact of the chosen transmission
technology will change. The reason is
not simply the need for best possible
base efficiency. In addition, higher
engine load changes the requirements
to adapt transmission ratios and shift
points to the consumption map.
BASIC DIFFERENCES OF DCT
AND CV T TECHNOLOGY
FIGURE 2 shows an efficiency compari-
son between MT, CVT, torque converter
Automatic Transmission (AT) and DCT,
based on VDA and DAT data [1]. In this
study, Getrag compares DCT and CVT
technology for typical B to C segment
20
CVT
6/7-speed DCT
Diesel, main value
Diesel, median
Gasoline, main value
Gasoline, median
high production volume applications.
These transmission types are common
in global high volume applications and
can affect fleet fuel consumptions to a
large extent.
Comparing DCT and CVT technology,
there are some basic differences that
may even come into higher effect when
moving to the future WLTC. The CVT
offers an “infinite” number of gears on
the one hand, but on the other hand it
is limited in terms of spread unless an
auxiliary gearset is added, which is not
common in lower car segments. DCTs
today have usually six to seven gears,
and – in contrast to planetary gear sets
of ATs – the single step ratios can be
widely varied for an optimal compromise
from driveability and consumption in
spread and stepping.
One obvious DCT advantage is that only
one friction element (the active clutch)
must be kept closed, while CVTs require
comparably large clamping forces for the
frictional connection of the push belt or
link chain. Amongst other findings, this
study will show that mechanical losses at
high vehicle velocities and actuation force
are likely to play a more important role on
the way from NEDC to WLTC and conse-
quently in “real-life” conditions.
TEST BENCH AND
SIMULATION SETUP
A fair comparison between two transmis-
sion types requires an identical environ-
ment in terms of vehicle architecture and
engine. In a first step, a typical B-segment
car with a CVT and a naturally aspirated
1.3-l gasoline engine, equipped with
torque loss sensors, was measured on a
roller test bench. Regarding NEDC and
WLTC emissions, shift strategy, converter
characteristics and transmission effi-
This data was transferred and correlated
to the according CVT model of a vehicle
simulation software [2]. FIGURE 3 shows
the benchmark approach for the CVT and
DCT application. On this basis, several
comparisons of DCT and CVT within the
same vehicle and with the same engine
could be made.
In further steps, turbo engines
were integrated into the model, as
well as variations of the spread for the
DCT. The purpose of this step-by-step
approach was to initially receive most
comparable base data, and then to move
to DCT CO2 potentials in further simula-
tions. The wider spread for example is
a realistic option for DCTs, while the
CVT is limited in this respect by design.
COMPARISON OF
PARASITIC LOSSES
The initially found results, FIGURE 4,
when comparing conventional MT,
DCT and CVT, showed little differences
between a six-speed MT and six-speed
DCT in terms of parasitical losses within
a torque range of 20 to 100 Nm [3]. For
both transmissions types, efficiency was
nearly equal, to about 95 % in a wide area,
with values just above 90 % at 20 Nm.
The additional splashing losses of the
dual clutch and its seal friction have only
minor effect on the total parasitic losses.
The CVT efficiency was generally
lower, below 90 % at the best point with
1:1 ratio, falling to values around 80 %
with different ratios in most conditions
within the NEDC or WLTC. In the case
FIGURE 3 Benchmark approach for the CVT and DCT application (© Magna)
of the CVT, the efficiency at low torque
is apparently lower, with values around
70 to 75 %. This effect can be explained
by the clamping forces, which require
disproportionally high actuation force
despite low torque requirements. Another
reason is that the clamping force cannot
be reduced proportionally to reduced
torque, because the CVT needs to be pro-
tected from road impacts via the chassis
to prevent slip at belt or chain.
Generally, it can be seen that actua-
tion force for frictional locking is a major
contributor to parasitical losses of CVTs.
The 6DCT200 from Getrag requires around
20 W for keeping the clutch closed in the
NEDC, thus having little effect on the
base efficiency even at lower loads.
COMPARISON OF
CONSUMPTION MAPS
The results for fuel consumption simu-
lation show why real-life consumption
with the CVT is better than the base effi-
ciency would suggest. In the comparison
of the standard six-speed DCT with the
FIGURE 4 Comparison of efficiencies for MT, DCT and CVT for a torque range of 20 to 100 Nm (© Magna)
ATZ worldwide 12|2017
benchmark CVT, it can be seen that the
CVT can more precisely adapt ratios to
efficient engine operation points at lower
engine speeds in the NEDC. However it
also becomes apparent that the CVT
requires higher engine power, reflecting
its higher parasitical losses. In other
words, the CVT allows the engine to
operate more efficiently by adjusting
torque and speed. Overall, this leads to
an equal fuel consumption of the CVT
and six-speed DCT in NEDC cycle,
while the DCT is about 2 % better in
WLTC due to lower efficiency of the
CVT at higher vehicle velocities portions
in the cycle, FIGURE 5.
In a further study lower engine target
speeds after gear shift were added to the
DCT. This results in lower engine speeds
and a shift towards better specific fuel
consumption areas in the map.
The study shows clearly, how DCT
operating points move to lower engine
speeds, which hardly exceed values
around 1800 rpm, while the CVT vehicle
uses similar speeds but at higher loads.
This down-speeding effect through a
larger spread and longer top gear ratio
in combination with modern torsional
dampers brings a further advantage of
up to 5 % in the NEDC and 6 % in the
WLTC, in favour of the DCT.
EFFECTS OF GEARSET
LAYOUT VARIATION
Other than for CVTs – unless they have
an auxiliary gearset – the spread of DCTs
can be freely varied and extended, a rea-
sonable scale in principle being defined
by driveability, traction demand, shift
comfort and consumption. In an earlier
survey [4], Getrag has found that in mid
torque applications, seven gears often
represent a good balance. Depending
on boundary conditions like maximum
torque, vehicle velocity, etc. six or eight
gears are adequate. Latest spread studies
in conjunctions with a 1.0-l turbo engine
have shown that a longer top gear ratio
and larger spread enable a significant
fuel saving effect, FIGURE 6. This holds
true in several configurations with dif-
ferent spreads and top gear ratios.
21
C OVER STORY TR ANSMIS SIONS
Interestingly, the CO2 benefit from
seven to nine gears is low when reduc-
ing engine speeds after upshifts. This
can be achieved by using a modern
damper instead of a usual dual-mass
flywheel, allowing to reduce the engine
speed after upshift to about 1000 rpm.
As a result, further downsizing potential
can be exploited while at the same time
reducing the need for additional gears.
The number of gears is in practice rather
driven by performance and drivability
requirements, where a seventh speed
may make sense.
SUMMARY
Technology benchmark and comparison
is limited in that it cannot reflect every
possible use case. Here, Getrag, Magna
Powertrain, focusses on DCT and CVT
technology for the B to C segment that
have a huge impact in global volume car
production and can affect fleet fuel con-
sumption to a large extent. Generally,
CVTs have an advantage when it comes
to precise load point optimisation within
a given test cycle. However, this advan-
tage becomes smaller with higher engine
loads in the WLTC. Broadly speaking,
FIGURE 6 Study about top gear ratio, number of gears and spread varied (© Magna)
22
the comparably parasitic losses become
the more relevant, the more operation
points are defined by higher vehicle
speeds and the more engines provide
wide efficiency sweet areas.
In an initial comparison, the CVT and
DCT with six speeds and similar spread,
both transmissions performed equally
in the NEDC, while the DCT is 2 %
better in the WLTC. By optimising the
DCT in terms of spread and top gear
ratio, using a modern damper and a
1.0-l turbo engine, the DCT performs
up to 5 % better in the NEDC and 6 %
better in the WLTC.
One general finding was that more
dynamic load conditions in the WLTC
are in favour of the DCT technology.
Therefore the DCT will remain fuel
efficiency leader in B to C segment
due to flexible gear ratios, large spread
(down-speeding) and excellent mechani-
cal efficiency.
While not being measured in this
study, further potential can be found by
measures like once more reduced splash
losses, optimised gear friction, improved
bearings and extended load monitoring
or warm-up strategy. Furthermore – but
beyond direct influence of transmission
FIGURE 5 Comparison
of engine operation
points for a six-speed
DCT of the type Getrag
6DCT200 and for a
CVT (© Magna)
developers – larger engine areas of activ-
ity will further improve the efficiency
advantage of DCTs.
REFERENCES
[1] DAT Deutsche Automobil-Treuhand: Leitfaden
über den Kraftstoffverbrauch, die CO 2-Emissionen
und den Stromverbrauch. 3 rd quarter 2017, online:
https://www.dat.de/angebote/verlagsprodukte/leit-
faden-kraftstoffverbrauch.html, access: 10 August
2017
[2] Diehl, M.: Lösungsansätze durch System-
simulation. AVL Transmission Tech Day, Neu-Ulm
(Germany), March 2016
[3] Bahne, M.; Frey, U.: CO 2 Potentials of DCTs –
Competition Benchmark and Technology Outlook.
Getrag Drivetrain Forum, Untergruppenbach
(Germany), October 2016
[4] Lexa, D.; Eggert, U.: Transmission Design Revo-
lution in the Spot-Light of Combustion Engine Tech-
nology Evolution. 26 th International AVL Conference
Engine & Environment, Graz (Austria), September
2014
 chassis tech . plus

9th International Munich Chassis Symposium

12 and 13 June 2018 | Munich | Germany

INNOVATIONS IN VEHICLE DYNAMICS

ICS
Enhancing agility and comfort

NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Optimizing the customer experience
nce

CHASSIS AND DRIVER ASSISTANCEE

Automated and safe driving

/// SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR

Prof. Dr. Peter E. Pfeffer,

Munich University
of Applied Sciences

/// ONE FOR ALL

Four congresses
in one event

/// PARTNER

Phone +49 611 7878-131 PROGRAM AND REGISTRATION

Abraham-Lincoln-Straße 46
65189 Wiesbaden | Germany
Fax +49 611 7878-452
ATZlive@springer.com www.ATZlive.com
ATZ worldwide 12|2017 23