Estonian system is based on soviet VSN 46-83 (which itself is based on Odemark-Boussinesq theory, but more complicated) with minor changes (increased load factors in ESAL calculations; some changes in E-modules of materials, some changes in safety or reserve factors). An Excel-application is written, however without static load tests and with some more deficiencies compared the soviet instruction.
Latvian system is similar, but is built as server application, based on ODN from 2001 (Russian solution, modified on the same VSN base, with major changes on repeated load calculations). In both cases, the main calculation engine is nomogram based. Depending on exact approach, there is risk, that interpolations from nomogram are exceeding the controlled limits of graphs.
In Russia, new 2018 standard is still based on the same old nomogram scheme.
Lithuania has chosen standard pavement design scheme, similar to German, but with lower standard (thinner layers due to economic considerations). Further development is expected with US latest MEPD-G software, to be used to recalculate standard designs and special cases.
Poland is neighbour to Germany and it seems that their system is similar to German. When asked, german experts confirmed, that their standard constructions (2011/2012 regulation) are experience-based, not calculated.
Denmark – MMOPP 2017, standard solutions for small traffic
Sweden – PMS Objekt (based on Shell’s BISAR), standard solutions for small traffic
Finland – simple Odemark formula (urban areas use standard solutions, however, different for each subground type). Different to all others, here the calculated bearing capacity value for each layer is serving as “target value”. However, if during construction the target bearing capacity (plate load test) is not met, the supervisor has to recalculate the bearing capacity levels based on actual used material properties and measured layer thicknesses.
Good if anybody is able to add bits and pieces to system. Or correct, if something seems wrong…