本研究以捷運車門系統為對象，探討其安全性評估流程與安全完整性等級（Safety Integrity Level, SIL）之合理配置方法。車門系統為列車與乘客之間最直接的介面，其失效可能導致夾傷、跌落、列車延誤等安全與營運風險，因此國際標準普遍將其列為需達到 SIL 2 的安全相關系統。本研究旨在建立一套具系統性、可追溯且可量化之分析流程，以支持車門系統安全功能之識別、SIL 分配與驗證。
本研究採用失效模式、影響與嚴重性分析（Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis, FMECA）與 GO 分析法（GO Methodology）作為核心方法。首先透過 FMECA 進行自下而上的失效辨識，建立車門系統之失效模式、效應、嚴重性與關鍵度評估，並據以產出可靠度關鍵項目清冊（RCIL），作為安全功能判定與風險評估之基礎。其次，利用 GO 分析法建構車門系統之可靠度模型，將 FMECA 所獲得之元件失效率與系統架構整合，進行定量運算，以驗證系統在任務剖面下是否能滿足 SIL 2 所要求之危險失效平均概率（PFDavg）。
研究結果顯示，FMECA 能有效識別車門系統之關鍵失效模式，並協助界定需受 SIL 保護之安全功能；GO 分析法則能量化不同架構配置下之系統成功率，驗證冗餘設計與安全機制之必要性。兩者結合可形成一套完整的 SIL 分配與驗證流程，並可作為設計階段導入安全措施與後續測試驗證之依據。
本研究建立之分析流程可提升車門系統安全評估之透明度與一致性，並可作為國內軌道系統推動本土化安全標準與測試設備規劃之參考。另就風險接受觀點而言，本研究亦納入ALARP（最低合理可行原則）作為安全決策之補充依據，說明在滿足SIL 2要求之前提下，系統風險應持續降低至合理可行之最低水準。未來亦可延伸應用於月台門、煞車系統等其他安全相關子系統之 SIL 評估。

This thesis examines the safety assessment and Safety Integrity Level (SIL) allocation of a rapid transit vehicle door system. Because the door system directly interfaces with passengers, failures such as unintended opening, loss of locking confirmation, traction interlock malfunction, or ineffective obstacle detection may cause serious safety and operational consequences. This study integrates Failure Mode and Effects Analysis / Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMEA/FMECA), the GO methodology, and the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle to establish a traceable safety verification framework. FMEA/FMECA identifies critical failure modes and supports the Reliability Critical Item List (RCIL), while GO modeling verifies whether the selected architecture satisfies the SIL 2 quantitative target. The baseline hazardous failure frequency is approximately 8.8 × 10⁻⁷ / h, within the SIL 2 interval of 10⁻⁷ to 10⁻⁶ / h. A 12-month proof-test interval gives a PFDavg of 3.85 × 10⁻³, also within SIL 2 limits. Importance analysis shows that the locking unit and position sensors contribute about 73.1% of dangerous undetected failures. The ALARP assessment indicates that upgrading beyond SIL 2 would require substantial redundancy, increase life-cycle cost by more than 40%, and provide only marginal additional risk reduction under existing compensatory protections.

[1] CENELEC. (2017). EN 50126: Railway applications—The specification and demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS).
[2] CENELEC. (2011). EN 50128: Railway applications—Communication, signalling and processing systems—Software for railway control and protection systems.
[3] CENELEC. (2018). EN 50129: Railway applications—Communication, signalling and processing systems—Safety related electronic systems for signalling.
[4] IEC. (2010). IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems.
[5] IEC. (2018). IEC 60812: Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA and FMECA).
[6] Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation. (2015). Door system technical specification.
[7] UK Health and Safety Executive. (2001). Reducing risks, protecting people: HSE’s decision-making process.
[8] U.S. Department of Defense. (1980). MIL-STD-1629A: Procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis.
[9] 李應雄（2006）。軌道運輸系統保證作業探討。中華技術，72，102–113。
[10] 交通部運輸研究所（2018）。《風險式與自主式鐵路安全管理制度之實務調查與分析》。交通部運輸研究所。
[11] 蔡國強、周莉茗、李熙、賈利民（2011）。基於GO法的城市軌道交通車門系統可靠性分析。西南交通大學學報，46（2），265–270。
[12] 代寶乾、汪彤、蔣玉琨（2008）。地鐵運營系統安全綜合評價指標體系研究。地下空間與工程學報，4（1），1–5。
[13] 林德全、施元斌（2018）。FMEA與HazOp結合應用於車輛剎車系統。南亞學報，39，155–183。
[14] 維基百科編者（年代不詳）。某捷運公司高運量電聯車。維基百科。
[15] 林福明、陳星壁、簡士翔、林宇洲、邱建齊、許人權、劉俊佑等（2023）。鐵道車輛車門研發。工研院機械所軌道系統組。
[16] 新加坡商新加坡科技電子有限公司、韓商現代樂鐵股份有限公司（2022）。《高雄都會區大眾捷運系統岡山路竹延伸線RKM01標機電系統統包工程：失效模式、影響與嚴重性分析報告（A版）》。
[17] 新加坡商新加坡科技電子有限公司、韓商現代樂鐵股份有限公司（2023）。《高雄都會區大眾捷運系統岡山路竹延伸線RKM01標機電系統統包工程：PSD子系統設計安全研究（A版）》。
[18] 交通部運輸研究所（2025）。《台鐵行車事故與風險分析》。交通部運輸研究所。
[19] 交通部運輸研究所（2017）。《鐵路危害防制實務作業之研析與精進策略》。交通部運輸研究所。
[20] 李美蕃（1993）。簡介捷運工程的系統保證作業（續）—安全性及人性因素之考量。捷運技術，29–35。
[21] 孟慶元（2024）。SIL分析技術在軌道交通車輛產品中的應用研究。軌道交通裝備與技術，61（4），22–26。
[22] 交通部運輸研究所（2020）。《推動鐵道行車安全保證機制之研析》。交通部運輸研究所。
[23] Williams, R. L., & Gately, M. T. (1978). GO methodology—overview: Final report. Kaman Sciences Corporation.
[24] Billinton, R., & Allan, R. N. (1992). Reliability evaluation of engineering systems: Concepts and techniques (2nd ed.). Plenum Press.
[25] Cheng, X., Xing, Z., Qin, Y., & Xia, J. (2013). Reliability analysis of metro door system based on FMECA. Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications, 5(4), 216–220.
[26] Cai, G., Jia, L., Zhou, M., Sun, J., Zhang, K., & Feng, S. (2015). System architecture of a train sensor network for ubiquitous safety monitoring. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), 736.
[27] Guo, X., Zhao, N., Jing, C., Li, J., & Bai, M. (2016). Reliability analysis on CEDI water treatment system based on GO methodology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Manufacturing and Materials (ICIMM). Atlantis Press.
[28] Park, T. K., Park, K. W., & Uematsu, K. (2012). The assessment to achieve safety of the train door system in IEC 61508: The case of Busan-Gimhae Light Rapid Transit. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 2(3), 255–266.
[29] Shen, Z., Wang, Y., & Huang, X. (2003). A quantification algorithm for a repairable system in the GO methodology. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 80(3), 293–298.
[30] Szmel, D. (2019). Method for selecting the safety integrity level for the control-command and signaling functions. Sustainability, 11(24), 7062.
[31] Tian, H., Wen, J., Zheng, B. S., Xiao, J. H., & Zhou, F. (2024). Reliability analysis of the vehicle door system EDCU based on Weibull distribution. Eksploatacja i Niezawodność—Maintenance and Reliability.
[32] Vu, N.-T., Phan, L.-D., Nguyen, V.-D., & Vu, Q.-B. (2021). Research of determining low-reliability elements of multiple-flows compressed air braking system based on Goal-Oriented (GO) methodology. International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering, 18(2), 8814–8824.