The document appears to be a final design project report for a portable kegerator called the PortaKeg. It includes sections on researching existing products, developing alternative designs, choosing a final design, 3D CAD modeling of the design, manufacturing analysis, and conclusions. The design goals were for the kegerator to be portable, simple to use, durable, and low-cost. Three alternative designs were considered before the author selected Design 1 to model in detail with CAD software. The report provides details on modeling different subassemblies that make up the full kegerator design.

1. 2009
Final Design Project –
The PortaKeg
Jonathan E. Jones #3451-8370
University at Buffalo
12/14/2009

2. Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Product Description ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Design Goals .................................................................................................................................. 5
2 Research on Existing Products .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Design Information Gained ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Research Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 7
3 Project Management ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Gantt Chart.................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Alternative Design Sketches.......................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Design 1 ................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2 Design 2 ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3 Design 3 ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Assessment of Alternative Designs ............................................................................................. 11
3.4 The Final Choice .......................................................................................................................... 11
4 3D CAD Modeling ................................................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Fridge Assembly .......................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Fridge Components Assembly .................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Fridge Hinge Assembly ................................................................................................................ 15
4.4 Handle Assembly ......................................................................................................................... 16
4.5 Axle Assembly ............................................................................................................................. 17
4.6 Wheel Assembly.......................................................................................................................... 18
4.7 Top Tap Assembly ....................................................................................................................... 19
4.8 Bottom Tap Assembly ................................................................................................................. 20
4.9 Keg Base Assembly ...................................................................................................................... 22
4.10 Full Keg Assembly........................................................................................................................ 23
4.11 Full Fridge Assembly ................................................................................................................... 24
5 Manufacturing Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 2D and Bill of Materials Drawings ............................................................................................... 25
5.1.1 Axle Assembly ..................................................................................................................... 25
5.1.2 Bottom Tap Assembly ......................................................................................................... 26
2|Page

3. 5.1.3 Compressor Cover Assembly .............................................................................................. 27
5.1.4 Fridge Back .......................................................................................................................... 28
5.1.5 Fridge Door ......................................................................................................................... 29
5.1.6 Handle Assembly ................................................................................................................. 30
5.1.7 Hinge Assembly ................................................................................................................... 31
5.1.8 Keg Base Assembly .............................................................................................................. 32
5.1.9 Top Tap Assembly ............................................................................................................... 33
5.1.10 Wheel Assembly .................................................................................................................. 34
5.1.11 Full Bill of Materials Drawing .............................................................................................. 35
5.2 Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 36
6 Presentation Materials ....................................................................................................................... 37
6.1 Photorealistic Renderings ........................................................................................................... 37
6.2 Animation.................................................................................................................................... 38
7 Service Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 39
7.1 User Manual ................................................................................................................................ 39
7.2 Product Life Analysis ................................................................................................................... 40
8 Discussion / Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 40
8.1 Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 40
8.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 41
9 References .......................................................................................................................................... 41
3|Page

4. 1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
Project 08, duly titled our Final Project, is another whole leap into the design realm of
engineering. To this point in my engineering career, I have done little in terms of the design of a brand
new product, of marketing a new idea into an actual physical creation. Aptly, our Final Design Project
shells out a whole new depth of design ideals. I have to create a new consumer product intended to
answer a market’s needs and wants. If I was simply the “yes-man” version of an engineer and hadn’t
almost completed a semester’s worth of three-dimensional Computer Aided Design, the process would
end here. However, after ample research, goal planning, alternative weighing, and quite generally idea
honing, I have set about to model my working product within the realm of Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 4.0, a
popular engineering CAD program; quite a daunting task indeed. Spelling out the specific goals of this
project, I will have to:
 Generate a product idea
o Produce design goals
 Research existing products
o Compare products already in the market
 Maintain a heady sense of project management
o Create a Project Gantt Chart
o Sketch alternative designs
o Label the pros and cons of each design
o Come to a design conclusion with reasoning
 Construct 3D CAD modeling in Pro/ENGINEER
o Model parts, subassemblies, and assemblies necessary for working conditions
o “Photorender” these components for realism
o Generate a multifaceted movie showcasing my design
 Analyze the manufacturing of my design
o Create 2D drawings
o Cost analysis
o Create a user manual and analyze product life
 Present the design idea
o Utilizing a personal website
o By means of a in person presentation
4|Page

5. 1.2 Product Description
What does every modern day American dream of? A slightly pessimistic yet poignant answer to
this question lies in one simple adjective: convenience. Would we as a nation rather buy groceries and
then have to bake a large cheese and pepperoni pizza for themselves, or rather pick up the phone and
have one delivered to your front door in 10% of the time with a 300% markup? Nine times out of ten,
the average American would undoubtedly choose convenience. In this vein, I have strove to create a
convenient, undeniably American product: a portable kegerator.
What exactly is a kegerator, one may ask. Combine a beer keg (a pressurized container that lets
you keep up to 80 servings of beer on hand at all times) and a miniature refrigerator, and that is exactly
what you get. Not throw in a set of heavy duty automobile style tires, a retractable handle that doubles
as a dolly, and you have my product: the PortaKeg.
Figure 1: The PortaKeg, a radical "go anywhere" kegerator from the Jones and Sons Company.
1.3 Design Goals
The PortaKeg will be designed based on a set of four design goals. As the name implies, the
kegerator will have to function as a portable—as in you can take this kegerator anywhere—beer
dispensing device. Also, to retain its hold on the convenience centered market, the design should remain
fairly simplistic in its means of operation—no zero gravity chilling chambers in this kegerator. So as to
appease the customer, the design will also focus on maintaining an overall durability and as always, a
low cost bottom line. Explicitly the design goals for this project are:
1. Portability
2. Simplicity of Use
3. Durability
4. Cost
5|Page

6. 2 Research on Existing Products
To research the current kegerator marketplace, a simple Google search returned literally
millions of hits. After sifting through some of the duds, I finally settled on three kegerators that I wanted
to research further, each with specific design features I wanted to include or eliminate from my design.
Product Features Pros Cons Price Pictures
Name
 Single tap  CO2 tap  Non- $740
 .184 m3  Relatively portable
interior small  CO2 might
Sanyo BC-  CO2 tap  Good cost to be too much
1206 Beer system quality ratio  Only one tap
Cooler  Compact size
 Cheap,  Cheap  Made of a $30
disposable  Fits any size garbage can
 Outdoor use keg  Requires ice
The College  Completely  Wheels for cooling
Kegerator portable included for  No visual
easy moving appeal
 Highest  Additional  Price $6049
quality on fridge space  Just too many
market  Visually features for
Perlick  Additional gorgeous the
Outdoor fridge space  High application
Keg Tapper  Luxurious performance  Immovable
design tap
 Outdoor use
optional
*Above information referenced as (Hops Aficionado 2009).
2.1 Design Information Gained
There are many facets of the above listed kegerators that I would like to incorporate into the
PortaKeg, whilst some designs that interfere directly with my design goals. In terms of the Sanyo
kegerator, the free-standing, single tap keg design is exactly what I had intended for the kegerator. The
price is also in my perceived range and the overall size matches what I desire fairly well: the ability to fit
a quarter-keg. Alternatively, the CO2 tap is extraneous in terms of my design goals, as I want to
incorporate a simple pump action tap for the ease of usage’s sake.
6|Page

7. There are actually much more worthwhile (albeit probably accidental) design applications than
meets the eye that I gleaned from The College Kegerator. The portable nature of the kegerator is genius,
and just needs some tweaking for my design. Although the intrinsically cheap yet durable nature is also
perfect for their application, I however need to have some visual appeal and manufacturing for the
PortaKeg, as it shouldn’t be limited to a college frat house or dank garage setting.
As the cream of the crop, the Perlick Outdoor Keg Tapper obviously has all of the tools needed
to run your own home brewery. Although their extreme attention to detail and high performance is
desirable in any product, I am not willing to sacrifice the required cost and simplicity of use needed to
gain this hallowed pedestal.
2.2 Research Conclusions
 The simplistic nature, size and cost of the Sanyo kegerator are ideal considerations for the PortaKeg.
 The portable design of The College Keg needs to be tweaked slightly for my application.
 The Perlick Kegerator, although extremely impressive, does not meet most of my design criteria.
3 Project Management
3.1 Gantt Chart
The following chart breaks down my initial schedule into the four phases needed for the
completion of the Final Project. A Gantt chart below is a project management tool that is meant to help
allocate my time in the best possible fashion for a relatively painless Final Project.
Figure 2: Project Gantt Chart detailing the timetable for the completion of this project.
7|Page

8. As I can now look back at this Gantt Chart with a retrospective eye—the PortaKeg project being
finished—the timeline did mean well. In all truth, the CAD Modeling phase should have been scheduled
for maybe a week sooner, as the problems, limitations, and time constraints found when modeled cost
the design process approximately two weeks of work. The original design for the PortaKeg was indeed
something entirely different, and had to more or less be designed while modeled. Other than that
hiccup, the overall timeline held together fairly securely.
3.2 Alternative Design Sketches
As an engineer in a design course, it is often helpful to put thoughts and ideas to paper in order
to better understand them. The following phase of this project underscores just that necessity, as I set
about creating a variety of sketches of the PortaKeg. In order to meet my design goals, three alternative
kegerators were designed, each with their own strengths and pitfalls. Below is each of my three
alternative sketches:
3.2.1 Design 1
Figure 3: This is the first alternative design.
8|Page

9. Design #1 strove to meet all of my design goals without truly compromising one entirely. The
need for a CO2 powered tap is exchanged with a simpler single pump tap design, the keg is just big
enough to fit a quarter keg, but small enough that the kegerator is fairly portable. A simplistic “piece is
too big for the hole” design is added to the dolly handle as well. The wheel design is meant to be
versatile enough to both allow the kegerator to be moved from room to room within a home and also
around outdoors in most conditions if an outdoor party is the task at hand.
This design excels at meets all of the design goals without sacrificing one singularly. The only
disadvantages lie in the weight and cost of the steel required to make the faces of the fridge and some
of the components.
3.2.2 Design 2
Figure 4: This is the second alternative design.
Design #2 lent itself to the consumer’s wallet, replacing some of the costlier design choices with
more economical decisions. All of the steel components have been replaced with aluminum, a lighter
and less expensive choice. This is all done at the ultimate loss of durability, as steel will hold up much
longer and stronger over the life cycle of the PortaKeg.
9|Page

10. 3.2.3 Design 3
Figure 5: This is the third alternative design sketch.
Design #3 focused on a different interpretation of the portability design goal. Instead of
designing a portability system that would indeed take you virtually everywhere, this wheel design was
meant for ease of say rolling the PortaKeg around a single room with a flat surface floor. This would
sacrifice some of the true portability of the kegerator, as it would be very difficult to move the product
around outdoors or from floor to floor.
10 | P a g e

11. 3.3 Assessment of Alternative Designs
Being of the mathematical/engineering mindset, it was easiest to set up a table to calculate
which of the above three designs was the best. In order to judge these designs fairly, each design goal
will be weighted in accordance to how important that goal is to the success of the project.
Design Goals
Alternative Design Simplicity of
Portability Use Durability Cost Total:
35% 20% 20% 25% 100%
1
30 19 18 20 87
2
35 15 10 25 85
3
20 20 15 20 75
Figure 6: Decision making chart for the alternative designs. Design 1 was chosen to be solid modeled.
3.4 The Final Choice
As one can see from the decision making chart in Figure 2, Design #1 proved to be the best
option for the PortaKeg design. I feel that this reflects a good “gut” choice as well, as it is truest to my
original design as it appeared in my head. Also, it truly does meet all four design goals well, without
compromising on one section; this is indicative of a well designed product.
11 | P a g e

12. 4 3D CAD Modeling
This facet of the project was what every design engineer has been waiting for: the actual CAD
modeling and construction of a working, three-dimensional model. Using the best tools PTC’s
Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 4.0 program has to offer, combined with an entire semester’s worth of learning,
and one should think that I had no issues during this part of the project. As you may already be able to
tell, there were a few hiccups along the way, but do not fear the PortaKeg was eventually modeled with
great success.
In order to ease the process of detailing each and every part in the PortaKeg, I have decided to
break up the following sections according to subassemblies. Below are my results.
4.1 Fridge Assembly
The fridge assembly is actually only comprised of two distinct parts in my model, the rear
housing and the fridge door itself. The handle is actually part of the door, and the rubber seal that seals
the air inside the fridge is permanently tacked on to both pieces. Each model was comprised mainly of a
generous amount of sketching and extruding, both cutting and adding mass to the model at different
phases. All of the interior of both pieces were modeled as being an off white plastic to reduce weight
and cost, while the outside surfaces were actually a thin layer of stainless steel. This would both add to
the visual appeal and overall durability of the PortaKeg. There is an additional rubber seal on the top of
the fridge in order to seal the hole where the tap protrudes from the fridge. Additionally, there is a large
vacancy in the back of the fridge for the internal workings of the fridge itself, and two smaller openings
for easy access to the handle. This will be gone into more detail later in this report.
(a) (b)
12 | P a g e

13. (c) (d)
Figure 7: (a) and (b) show the assembled fridge subassembly; (c) and (d) show the same assembly, exploded.
4.2 Fridge Components Assembly
Just so that the consumer is aware, I am not altering the design of the fridge at all in terms of its
actual chilling operation. Aside from a few mechanical changes, nothing is being altered with the fridge
itself. In that respect, I did not want to waste the time, money, or manpower to model each and every
internal fridge component. However, at the same time I did not want to showcase a model that did not
have any actual working sense either. I compromised by modeling two of the more important internal
components, and used them as a representation of the entire working components. The compressor
was modeled within ProE mainly by a few revolves, extrusions, and sweeps. The heating/cooling coil was
created using the often finicky helical sweep protrusion command. To complete this subassembly, I
designed a door that would be able to swing open and reveal the internal fridge components while still
offering them some protection. The pins and door were very easily created with a series of extrusions;
this subassembly turned out to be one of the easiest.
13 | P a g e

14. (a) (b)
Figure 8: (a) and (b) show the fridge components subassembly, including the door design.
(a) (b)
Figure 9: (a) shows the compressor model; (b) is the heating/cooling coil part.
14 | P a g e

15. 4.3 Fridge Hinge Assembly
The fridge hinge assembly is comprised of four unique parts, the front hinge, back hinge, hinge
pin and hinge screw. None of these parts were very difficult to model, as I again used the (at this point)
simple commands of extrusion, revolve, and helical sweep protrusion. This hinge is modeled after a
typical door hinge, and allows for full door range of motion. Each of these parts is made out of steel for
longevity and durability.
(a) (b)
Figure 10: (a) shows the assembled fridge hinge assembly; (b) shows the exploded view of the same assembly.
15 | P a g e

16. 4.4 Handle Assembly
The handle assembly proved to be quite the pain for how simple it should have been. To create
the handle, all that should have been required is a three-dimensional sweep of a constant cross section.
Essentially, it would be as if you took a pool noodle and just formed that to a specific curve.
Unfortunately for me, ProE, and anyone who ever uses this program, there is (as far as I can tell after
hours of trying) no three dimensional sweep command within ProE. The steel handle itself had to be
created using way too many extrusions than it should have taken, and really was unnecessarily hard to
model. The rubber handle caps, on the other hand, were a breeze.
(a) (b)
Figure 11: (a) shows the assembled handle; (b) shows the same assembly, exploded.
16 | P a g e

17. 4.5 Axle Assembly
The axle assembly was another fairly simple assembly as it consists of only two distinct parts:
the axle itself and the axle nuts. The axle and nuts were created using extrusions, revolves, and a few
helical sweep cuts and protrusions, and poised no major problems, as I have already modeled something
virtually identical to both parts many times over the course of this semester. Both parts are made out of
steel for durability and usability purposes.
(a) (b)
Figure 12: (a) shows the assembled axle assembly; (b) shows the exploded view of the same assembly.
17 | P a g e

18. 4.6 Wheel Assembly
The wheel assembly proved to actually be relatively enjoyable to model. For the sake of this
design and its respective goals (those pertinent being a high degree of portability), I decided to model
the PortaKeg’s wheels generally after automobile wheels. The wheel assembly was comprised of a
rubber tire with tread, a steel wheel center, and an aluminum hubcap to hold it all together. To create
the tread and holes in the hub caps, I now got to dip into the murky waters of the blend command.
Throughout my use of blend in the past, I have rarely—and I emphasize rarely—have gotten it to work,
let alone on my first try. However, after more carefully studying Professor Nicholas DiCorso’s online
blend tutorial, I was able to master the technique. The trick is to create the sketches while executing the
blend command, not make a separate sketch for each part before you execute the blend. To finish up
these parts, I had to utilize some radial patterning techniques, and finish them off with some touching
up via rounds.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 13: (a) and (b) show the assembled wheel assembly; (c) shows the exploded view.
18 | P a g e

19. 4.7 Top Tap Assembly
The top tap assembly was one of the more difficult parts to model, as it was the one of the most
asymmetrical and intricate. There were five distinct parts in this assembly: the tap pump, tap cylinder,
tap connection, air hose, and hose connectors. The tap pump, cylinder and connection are made of a
combination of black plastic and steel, while the hose and its connectors are rubber based.
The tap pump is the device used to pump pressure into the air inside the keg, the cylinder is the
means by which the beer is transported by tubing from the keg to a glass, and the connection offers the
means for which air to be pumped into the keg along a path separate to the beer itself—that air path
being the rubber hose. Basically, the user must pump the keg after tapping it (affixing the tap device to
the keg) to raise the pressure of the air inside the keg. Not only does this work to keep the beer
carbonated, but once the lever in the tap cylinder is released, the pressure forces the beer up through
the entire tap, out of the nozzle, and into the glass. To create these parts, I used a combination of
extrusions, revolves, blends, sweeps, and other by not simple modeling commands.
(a) (b)
19 | P a g e

20. (c) (d)
Figure 14: (a) shows the full top tap assembly, unexploded; (b) is a close up of the hose/connector/connection/cylinder; (c)
and (d) shows the exploded view for each respective view.
4.8 Bottom Tap Assembly
The bottom tap assembly is truly where the heavy lifting of the tap is done. It is comprised of six
unique parts, all of them playing a very specific purpose. The steel keg top is used to seal the keg in once
it has been filled with beer and air. The steel beer spear is used to draw the beer up once pressurized,
while also allowing air in through it during the pumping action. The valve ring and ball bearing, which
total a slightly bigger diameter than the valve spring, suck to the end of the tamp pump. Once the tap is
pumped down, the spring is then compressed, and will push the tap into its zero position once released.
This is all simultaneously being contained by the valve bushing, which holds everything in place along
the central axis. The ball bearing, ring and bushing are also made out of steel, while the spring is of a low
density copper. All of these parts were modeling using the identical tools used throughout this project,
only to create different features.
20 | P a g e

21. (a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 15: (a) and (b) show the assembled bottom tap assembly; (c) is exploded view; (d) is close up of the parts.
21 | P a g e

22. 4.9 Keg Base Assembly
The keg base assembly consists of only two parts, the base of the keg itself and the stand which
the keg sits on. For the purpose of this project, I modeled a quarter (“pony”) keg, and therefore I based
the dimensions for my keg from there. This steel keg base was created using basically one revolution,
and then a few cuts and rounds. As one might see from the total assembly, when the PortaKeg is filled
with a quarter keg, there is still a lot of space underneath the keg. The keg stand now comes into play;
this plastic piece is simply there to let the keg sit on it.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 16: (a) and (b) are the assembled keg base; (c) shows the exploded view.
22 | P a g e

23. 4.10 Full Keg Assembly
Once the above assemblies were completed, the full keg assembly snapped together in minutes.
This assembly was created essentially to make the assembling of the final fridge easier to do. This
assembly was a collection of the top tap, bottom tap, and keg base assemblies.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 17: (a) and (b) show the assembled views of the full keg assembly; (c) and (d) are the respective exploded views.
23 | P a g e

24. 4.11 Full Fridge Assembly
Again, this final full fridge assembly was no more than a few minutes work; that is the true
inherent benefit of creating many subassemblies. Essentially, this full assembly was a combination of the
full keg, fridge, axle, handle, wheel, and fridge components assemblies.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 18: (a) and (b) show different views of the full fridge assembly; (c) and (d) are the exploded views.
24 | P a g e

25. 5 Manufacturing Analysis
To better assess this project, one must thrust in the point of the PortaKeg’s real world
application. If this device were to be mass produced and introduced to the market, it must first be built,
to put it bluntly. From a set of two-dimensional drawings and a sufficient cost analysis, my product can
be both built and marketed.
5.1 2D and Bill of Materials Drawings
In order to properly translate my three-dimensional design to a more readily manufactured
arena, a series of two-dimensional drawings needed to be created. Any worker in any manufacturing
factory could create any one of my parts using two dimensional drawings. In that respect, they are vital
to the success of the PortaKeg. The following are my series of 2D drawings. ProE makes this relatively
easy in comparison to solely 2D CAD programs, as it prepares all the views for you, all you need to do is
add the proper dimensioning and text.
5.1.1 Axle Assembly
Figure 19: This is the 2D Axle Assembly Drawing.
25 | P a g e

26. 5.1.2 Bottom Tap Assembly
Figure 20: This is the 2D Bottom Tap Assembly Drawing.
26 | P a g e

27. 5.1.3 Compressor Cover Assembly
Figure 21: This is the 2D Compressor Cover Assembly.
27 | P a g e

28. 5.1.4 Fridge Back
Figure 22: This is the 2D Fridge Back Drawing.
28 | P a g e

29. 5.1.5 Fridge Door
Figure 23: This is the Fridge Door 2D drawing.
29 | P a g e

30. 5.1.6 Handle Assembly
Figure 24: This is the Handle Assembly 2D Drawing.
30 | P a g e

31. 5.1.7 Hinge Assembly
Figure 25: This is the Hinge Assembly 2D Drawing.
31 | P a g e

32. 5.1.8 Keg Base Assembly
Figure 26: This is the Keg Base 2D Drawing.
32 | P a g e

33. 5.1.9 Top Tap Assembly
Figure 27: This is the Top Tap Assembly 2D Drawing.
33 | P a g e

34. 5.1.10 Wheel Assembly
Figure 28: This is the Wheel Assembly 2D Drawing.
34 | P a g e

35. 5.1.11 Full Bill of Materials Drawing
Figure 29: This is the Full PortaKeg BOM Drawing.
35 | P a g e

36. 5.2 Cost Analysis
In order to assess the total cost of the PortaKeg, the following table was tabulated, accountant
style.
Part Cost ($) Quantity Total Part Cost (S)
Axle 10.00 1 10.00
Axle Nut 0.50 2 1.00
Beer Spear 15.00 1 15.00
Fridge Back 10.00 1 10.00
Fridge Door 7.00 1 7.00
Back Hinge 0.59 2 1.18
Front Hinge 0.49 2 0.98
Hinge Pin 0.10 2 0.20
Fridge Screw 0.05 12 0.60
Handle 5.00 1 5.00
Handle Cap 0.50 2 1.00
Hub Cap 20.00 2 40.00
Keg Base 60.00 1 60.00
Keg Stand 15.00 1 15.00
Keg Top 55.00 1 55.00
Tap Connection 35.00 1 35.00
Tap Cylinder 35.00 1 35.00
Tap Hose 5.00 1 5.00
Tap Pump 12.50 1 12.50
Tap Rubber 1.00 2 2.00
Tap Spring 7.00 1 7.00
Valve Ball Bearing 7.50 1 7.50
Valve Bushing 20.00 1 20.00
Valve Ring 2.00 1 2.00
Wheel Center 15.00 2 30.00
Wheel Tread 20.00 2 40.00
Compressor Cover 10.00 1 10.00
Cover Pin 0.50 2 1.00
Fridge Components 250.00 1 250.00
Total Parts Cost = $678.96
Extraneous Cost Applications Parts Cost X 40%
Including labor, marketing, resale markup
overhead, and other business practices
Bottom line Cost to Consumer = $950.54
36 | P a g e

37. 6 Presentation Materials
In order to properly showcase my design for the PortaKeg, and as any good engineer would, I
had to create a various set of presentation tools. The following sections detail this endeavor into
realism. To view my videos, visit http://sites.google.com/site/jonathanjonescaddesign2/.
6.1 Photorealistic Renderings
Accurately presenting the work done so far on this final project requires a great amount of
realism. In order to do this, each part and/or surface was given a unique appearance based on the type
of material it was made out of. Throwing this newly colored model into a floor and wall depiction of an
outdoor patio I put together with a few Google searched images and adding the appropriate lighting
yielded the following images.
Figure 30: Various views of the PortaKeg at different positions on an outdoor patio.
(a) (b)
Figure 31: Rendered views of the (a) the tap assembly and (b) the keg assembly.
37 | P a g e

38. (a) (b)
(c)
Figure 32: Rendered views of (a) the fridge assembly, (b) the fridge components, and (c) the axle and wheel.
6.2 Animation
The final use of ProE throughout this entire project came in terms of creating a design animation
movie. Utilizing the Animation toolbar within ProE allowed sundry amounts of options to be included in
the film. The movie showcased the various views of the PortaKeg, how each subassembly is attached to
the full assembly, how each subassembly is constructed, how the tap pump works, the pull-out
handle/dolly system works, and [supposedly] how the wheels work. Unfortunately, I could never
understand why my wheels rotate they way they do; it’s as if they decide to rotate about a collection of
five or so imaginary axes. Also, the sheer amount of power required to create a photorealistic movie file
is too much to handle for the computing machines we have available at the University at Buffalo. My
longest “successful” rendered video only created 15 seconds of film (out of two and a half minutes).
Although this depiction sure does look swell, the amount of effort needed to doctor up a halfway decent
movie. Both movies can be found at my CAD website, sited in the references at the end of this report.
38 | P a g e

39. (a) (b)
(c)
Figure 33: (a)-(c) show various screenshots of the “unrendered” video.
7 Service Analysis
7.1 User Manual
The user manual for the PortaKeg was completed as a separate document, and will be
accompanying this report.
39 | P a g e

40. 7.2 Product Life Analysis
The decision to mainly utilize stainless steel for a grand majority of the parts and the outside
faces of the fridge itself was for the sake of longevity and durability. Any product made out of steel
should last the longest, for at least the life of the product, upwards of at least 50 years. The fridge itself
will last as long as any fridge will, based upon how long its components and power supply remain
working, possibly 30 years or more. As soon as the keg itself is emptied, the consumer will have to
replenish that with a newly filled keg, and as The Jones and Sons Co. is not yet dually marketable for the
sale and distribution of kegs, the lifecycle of the keg system will last for as long as there is a supply of
kegs. The wheels of the PortaKeg should last up to 5 years, as that is the expectancy for the rubber tire.
Aluminum and stainless steel, both being resistant to corrosion, will not limit the lifetime of the
kegerator in any respect.
8 Discussion / Conclusion
8.1 Discussion
Where to begin with this Final Project? So as to not appear completely cynical and pessimistic, I
would have to highlight its highpoints. This project truly forced me to think about engineering in a
completely different sense. Taking a product from its initial inception within the synapses of my brain all
the way through to its actual three-dimensional creation is truly something to be proud of. It’s almost as
if you gave birth to your own child and watched it grow up to be President of the free world; almost. In
that sense, I believe that the creation of the PortaKeg was a great success. I learned even more about
Pro/ENGINEER than I thought I would or wanted do. Difficult tasks such as a helical sweep cut or a six
sketch blend could now be executed entirely from memory. I also learned a great deal about how
difficult it is to manage a project of this magnitude over such a long expanse of time. The amount of
time and effort to actually design a working product is now much more realized, as is the extreme
difficulty of getting anything right the first time. This has been a project for the record books, that much
is unquestionably true.
Truthfully, if you were to look at my original intent for my final design project, the creation of
the PortaKeg was a complete failure that turned into an accidental success. Originally, I had intended
the kegerator to be immobile and only one feature out of many on a fully functional everything-plus-
the-kitchen-sink beer pong table. As one can undoubtedly tell, I did not create a beer pong table. The
sheer amount of additional work it would have required to model the rest of the table would have taken
probably another 100 man hours, a luxury I did not have. The resulting PortaKeg was a lovely byproduct,
however.
If I was given another month or so to work on this project, I would have taken the time to
correctly model the entire inner workings of the fridge itself. It should have been an entirely stand
alone, working model, but as The Jones and Sons Co. does not manufacture the workings of the fridge
(and as I want to retain what semblance of sanity I have left after a semester in this CAD design class) I
feel that this was a necessary omission. I would have also loved to learn how to model a fluid substance
in the Animation process, for then I could have truly shown how the pump action of the tap changed the
40 | P a g e

41. pressure in the keg and forced the beer out through the nozzle. A working Manikin application within
ProE would have been nice too, as I could show how the dolly works in comparison to a human and so
on. Finally, I would love to understand why anything that has to rotate around an axis within the
animation process never, ever works. It is a very low point in my movie, and something I would very
much have like to have corrected. But alas, I am only one man with one brain with only so very little
time.
Moving on to the topic of very large bones I have to pick with this project, I would like to start
with the general overkill in terms of file creation. Finally, after utilizing a .easm file in PowerPoint, do I
see the inherent usefulness of that particular file extension. However, .htm, .pdf copies of the 2D
drawings, the [entire] animation process to be truthful were a bit much. The animation process is a
great idea in concept, and something that should undoubtedly be taught, but for god sakes have
competent hardware and software so us poor students. Pro/ENGINEER is a woefully lacking program in
this respect, their animation program indeed coining the phrase “okay, now what is the exact opposite
thing I want to do? Do it, and the program should work.” Many, many a long day and night was wasted
trying to get the program to respond, work, or simply save my work correctly. In all honestly, if I could
go back and do it all over again, I would, but in an entirely different program. The real world wants
SolidWorks, so for god’s sake teach me SolidWorks.
8.2 Conclusion
This final design project of the PortaKeg was a completely different experience than any I have
ever had. Taking a product from its inception, changes, physical manifestation, application,
manufacturing analyses, presentation, until the end of its expected life is a very unique occurrence. I feel
that with the completion of this project, as well as my design course, I have made great strides on my
way to becoming a successful engineer, let’s keep this train rolling.
9 References
1.) "The German Keg King." Wikimedia. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Keg_geschnitten.jpg>.
2.) "Haier Refrigerated Direct Draw Tappers." Keg Man. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://tap-a-
keg.com/haier_kegger.html>.
3.) "Kegerator Reviews." Hops Aficionado. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.hopsaficionado.com/kegerators.html>.
4.) S System - Keg Coupler - Tap w/ Blue Lever Handle. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.micromatic.com/draft-keg-beer/keg-taps-couplers-pid-7486E.html>.
41 | P a g e