Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / Hypothesis Tests for Variance Case I

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

Hypothesis Tests for Variance Case I

Hypothesis Tests for Variance Case I

Statistics is the language of variation. Everything varies, and we use variance (σ2) to describe the spread of the data. For any experimental work aimed at making improvements, whether in the design, manufacturing process or field performance, there are two ways to make improvements. Move the center of the distribution, or reduce the spread of the data.
The ability to determine changes in variance is the subject of hypothesis testing for variance. In this first case, we will explore the situation where the variance of the population is known. In another post, we will discuss the case when we do not have a defined or known variance.

When considering the:

• comparison of a target or population variance with a variance of a sample
• comparison between several sample variances
• comparison between frequency proportions

The χ2 distribution supports the hypothesis test statistic. Population variance distributions are described by the χ2 distribution; therefore inferences about single population variances may use the χ2. For the serious student, please reference a statistical-theory text to understand this connection.
Let’s say we want to compare a variance, σ2x, to a fixed value, σ2o. Like other hypothesis tests, we have three comparisons possible. The null hypothesis, Ho, could be equal to, greater than, or less than the fixed value, σ2o. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, defines the contrary conditions.

The three cases then are:

1. The population variance is equal to a fixed (given) value.

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{{H}_{o}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}=\sigma _{o}^{2}\\{{H}_{a}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}\ne \sigma _{o}^{2}\end{array}$$

2. The population variance is less then or equal to a fixed value.

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{{H}_{o}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}\le \sigma _{o}^{2}\\{{H}_{a}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}>\sigma _{o}^{2}\end{array}$$

3. The population variance is greater than or equal to a fixed value.

$$ \large\displaystyle\begin{array}{l}{{H}_{o}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}\ge \sigma _{o}^{2}\\{{H}_{a}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}<\sigma _{o}^{2}\end{array}$$

The test statistic is given by

$$ \large\displaystyle {{\chi }^{2}}=\frac{\left( n-1 \right){{s}^{2}}}{\sigma _{x}^{2}}$$

Where

σ2x is the known population variance

n is the number of samples measured

s2 is the sample variance.

The test statistic is compared to a critical value, χ2α, or χ2α/2 based on the significance level,α and for two or single-tailed test, respectively. The hypothesis test evaluating if the sample is equal or not is the two-tailed test, the others are single tail tests.
The χ2 distribution requires determining the degrees of freedom for the sample. It is just one less than the sample size, n, thus d.f. = n-1.

Example Problem

In the design of the molding process for a seal, an experiment explored reducing the variability of the resulting tensile strength of units produced. The goal was to have four σ tensile variation less than or equal to 60 psi 95% of the time.
The team determined the appropriate setting for the molding process and created eight seals. The tensile strength testing resulted in a tensile σ of 8 psi. Does the team have a good enough production setup? Validate with 95% confidence.

Solution

Assuming the variation of tensile strengths from the process is normally distributed, we can use the χ2 hypothesis test. A four σ spread encompasses approximately 95% of occurrences. The target range is 60 psi or less over a four σ range, thus the standard deviation, σ, is 60 / 4 = 15.
The null and alternative hypotheses are:

$$ \large\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}{{H}_{o}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}\ge 60\\{{H}_{a}}:\sigma _{x}^{2}<60\end{array}$$

The degrees-of-freedom is n-1 = 8-1 = 7. Because the sample variance is less then the target value, and we are seeking to determine if the sample shows a variance that is lower than the target, we use the lower tail for the χ2 distribution. Enter the sample with the degrees-of-freedom and 95% confidence to determine the critical value of 2.17. This means the calculated value if from the same population (not one that has a lower variance) would have a calculated χ2 value less than 2.17 only 5% of the time.
The calculated statistic from the sample is:

$$ \large\displaystyle {{\chi }^{2}}=\frac{\left( n-1 \right){{s}^{2}}}{\sigma _{x}^{2}}=\frac{\left( 8-1 \right){{8}^{2}}}{{{15}^{2}}}=1.99$$

Comparing the sample value of 1.99 to the critical value of 2.17, shows that the team accomplished the goal of a tensile strength variation below the target.


Related:

Hypothesis Test Selection (article)

Hypothesis un-equal variance (article)

Two samples variance hypothesis test (article)

 

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability Tagged With: Hypothesis testing

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Hypothesis Tests for Proportion
Reliability Program Structure »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ][display_form id=266][/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy