Need help for 4*18650 battery shield and SIM808 GPS and GSM dev. board module

Hello guys do you have 18650 battery shield module and SIM808 dev. board module. Thank you so much for any response.

here are the sample photos of the board for reference:

OK here is the battery shield. Note the dimensions were taken from a jpg image so are likely not all that accurate (mostly important in pcb!) If you have a board, print out the pcb footprint at 1:1 scale and compare it to the board (and provide corrections if it is wrong!) As well the mounting holes are by default not drilled in pcb, if you want mounting holes you need to drag a hole (from core partsépcb) in to the sketch and place it over the circle in silkscreen and set the appropriate size.

4x18650-battery-shield.fzpz (12.8 KB)

edit: Someone asked for the 1 and 2 battery versions as well, added here

2x18650-battery-shield.fzpz (9.8 KB)

1x18650-battery-shield.fzpz (8.6 KB)

I`ll do the other one in a while.


Here is the Sim808 module. The only unusual thing here is that the 3 row pin needs some special handling in pcb. First you need to reduce the grid size from 0.1in to 0.05in to allow for the reduced clearance between the pins:

then the traces to the middle row of pins need to be reduced to 16mil thickness in Inspector.

with that done the board passes DRC with the default professional settings.

Note some of the text labels on breadboard may be wrong. The jpeg images are poor quality and borderline unreadable so some are a guess.


See the discussion below, I decided since it was done anyway to add the modified part below. If you really need access to the middle pins this part gives you another (but more difficult!) path.

edit1: The better all around solution. This part will take default 24mil traces between the pins horizontally, and with a fine grid size for positioning (which is a bit odd!) 16mil traces vertically.

sim808-gps-gsm-dev-board.fzpz (33.4 KB)


I wonder if rotating the pads in the centre row of pins would help any? By 45° or maybe less. Simplify the trace connections. That should still leave room to route a (zig-zag) trace past the centre row if needed.

Interesting idea, I’ll try it and see if it works.


Doesn’t seem to buy enough to be worthwhile. Moving to just the (small!) underlying pads would be better I think. That way you have the option of going either way, with the loss of the extra area in the pad to solder to. The 45 degree angle makes both side and top of the middle pin inaccessible.

with only the circles you should be able to get a trace either way (with as noted a loss of solderable area.


What I was “thinking”, was to leave the outer columns straight, as they were, and only rotate the centre colomn. So on the above screen shot, the bottom row, leave the outer 2 as is, and rotate the middle one.

With a couple or 4mm reduction in pad width, that works and may be useful. Only with a 0.005 grid size and 8mil traces, but DRC passes while still leaving a decent solder pad and another routing option to the middle pins:

I’m not sure it is worth doing to this particular board, but in a more complex multi row connector setup it may be useful.


Looking at that, maybe slightly less rotation, so that it leaves room to get a trace between the rotated pads as well. If that does not close off the space between the centre and edge columns

It’s always going to be trade offs. Just another variant to consider. For edge cases.

Senility setting in is the only explanation! This is a solved problem (well the two row case is anyway.) A couple of years ago I made a RPI 40 pin GPIO connector that will take 24mil traces between pins. Starting from there I shrank the middle pad until I can get a 16mil trace up the middle (the offset is odd, so you need a really fine grid size though!) vertically and a 24mil horizontally. I even had a board made (only two row though) with 24mil traces between pins to verify that it really worked in practice. I’ll replace the part above with a proper one in a minute.


Hello sir, Thank you so much❤️