No, but the bond wire did, which was a surprise. It looked like corrosion,
but was of course degrading of the microstructure due to mechanical stress.
When George worked for NBS, he gathered lots of reporting about vibration
and its impact on bond wires, and he performed own investigations as well.
The result was mainly this:

1. All his test samples (DIL, SOT, FP etc) were without any bond wire
damage up to 20,000 g' .
2. No falures on Aluminum bondings until over 100,000 g'.

Inge

On 3 January 2013 15:46, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Inge,
>
> Can you provide the link to your DropBox file?
>
> I did not observe any problems with sealed, or unsealed, MEMS structures
> either, but each of them would have to be reviewed independently, based on
> their structures.
>
>
> Did the aluminum bond pads corrode?
>
> Steve C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Inge Hernefjord
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
>  Subject: Re: [TN] Susceptibility of electronics to C-SAM
>
> Hi,
> We made a 'deep diving' into the topic decades ago. Several components were
> exposed to a range of harmonic vibration packages. All kind of bond wires
> were tested, long, short, thin, thick, gold, aluminum. We found that you
> must use at least one magnitude more energy to destroy bonds, than what you
> use in any Sonar scanning machine. And most important: When we observed
> damages, they were not caused because of high amplitude, but rather by LONG
> EXPOSURE.  The job was done by Professor Bill Brox.
>
> Most of these works were done many, many years ago. I've such an article on
> my DropBox under 'Analysis Methods'. Bad copy, but readable.  The
> conclusion
> was that CSAM is NONDESTRUCTABLE.
>
> Inge
>
>
>
> On 2 January 2013 19:59, Stadem, Richard D.
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> > Just as I suspected. Thank you all for your valuable feedback.
> > Sonoscan also provided me with good information. It appears that C-SAM
> > does not harm components, whether or not the wirebonds are encapsulated.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guy Ramsey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:52 PM
> > To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum'; Stadem, Richard D.
> > Subject: RE: [TN] Susceptibility of electronics to C-SAM
> >
> > I would be surprised to read that C-SAM would damage parts.
> > Cleaners operate in the thousands of cycles per second. C-SAM in the
> > millions.  Damage is done we harmonics are setup. I would not expect
> > to see damaging harmonics set up at super high frequency.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:48 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [TN] Susceptibility of electronics to C-SAM
> >
> > I have a good understanding of the effects of damage that can be
> > caused by cavitation when cleaning electronics using ultrasonic wash
> > with the wrong sweep frequency, but does anyone know if ultrasonic
> > energy from C-SAM analysis can cause damage to electronics? I recently
> > had a customer object when I suggested using Sonoscan to inspect some
> > components for die bond issues, and he said that he had heard ultrasonics
> could damage electronics.
> > I explained to him that while that was possibly true of ultrasonic
> > cleaning (if not done properly), I had never heard of C-SAM harming
> > electronics.
> > Anyone have any experience with damage caused by C-SAM inspection?
> >
> > This message and/or attachments may include information subject to
> > GDC4S S.P. 1.8.6 and GD Corporate Policy 07-105 and are intended to be
> > accessed only by authorized recipients. Use, storage and transmission
> > are governed by General Dynamics and its policies. Contractual
> > restrictions apply to third parties. Recipients should refer to the
> > policies or contract to determine proper handling. Unauthorized
> > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> > an intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies
> of
> the original message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ________________
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> > For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________