About SIRUS

History

The first prototype of what would later become the SIRUS frame system was developed in 1967 in the Soviet Union by engineers A. Dorfman and L. Levontin. Their innovation centered on the critical node connecting a column and a floor slab, which became the defining element of the modern system. Initially named KUB-1, the design complied with Soviet construction standards and began to see application in several high-rise projects. However, the first version carried a limitation—it could only be used for buildings up to nine stories.

Ongoing refinement led to successive models—KUB-2 and KUB-3—each advancing the concept in important ways, though they struggled with either cost efficiency or construction speed. The breakthrough came with KUB-2.5, which successfully merged the strengths of the previous designs into one frame system that was efficient in cost, time, and structural performance. Extensive testing also confirmed its seismic reliability, withstanding earthquakes of up to magnitude 9.

From the 1980s through the early 2000s, KUB-2.5 was widely implemented not only across the Soviet Union but also in countries such as Iran, India, and throughout the Eastern bloc. Following the retirement of its original creators, Aleksey Konoplev—once an intern at the research institute behind the project—rose to become chief engineer of the KUB system. Under his leadership, the frame continued to be adopted in major construction projects, cementing its legacy in modern structural engineering.

Projects Done:

Why isn’t “KUB” popular in Russia anymore?

In its early stages, the system showed strong promise and gained traction among developers who believed in the value of our solutions, with over 2000 projects successfully finished.

However, during a period of transition, ownership was transferred to a management team that unfortunately did not share the same commitment to quality or long-term development. Rather than nurturing the foundation that had been built, the new leadership failed to realize the system’s true potential. Strategic missteps and a lack of vision prevented the system from reaching the trajectory it was designed for.