###### Abstract
[PERSON] and [PERSON] [22] addressed the standardization of laboratory compaction energies for different compaction methods, giving the description and comparison of three compaction methods; vibratory hammer, vibrating table and gyratory compactor, considering, among other parameters, costs, ease of use, consistent energy input as well as correlation with field compaction. As the alternative methods were weighted on the vibrating hammer test till such a decision is made, the recommendation on the vibrating hammer standard should be revised and made more precise, e.g., requiring calibration. Investigations of the effects of different laboratory compaction methods on the properties of cement-stabilized materials were done by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [23]. The mechanical performance of cement-stabilized samples of three types of soil--sand, sandy clay and clay--were compared, defining the appropriate technique for compaction of each of the soil types used. It was observed that for sand materials vibratory compaction gives substantially higher densities compared to the Proctor test (resulting in two times higher compressive and indirect tensile strength), and also that there is an increase in densities for stabilized sandy clay, as opposed to clay and stabilized clay, where no obvious improvement is noticed. A new soil compaction vibratory machine which can produce densities and optimal moisture contents that would mimic the Proctor test is described in [17], with the conclusion that soil densities increased with the increasing amplitude, time, and frequency of the machine, and that the vibratory soil compactor would work best at a frequency of 17 Hz and amplitude of 1.17 mm for 5 min. Field test results presented in [24] on the energy transferred to the ground compacted by a 4-sided impact roller confirmed that the towing speed influences the pressure imparted to the ground and hence the compaction effort, and that the current practice of using either kinetic energy or gravitational potential energy should be avoided, as neither can accurately quantify the rolling dynamic compaction when the towing speed is varied. This research aimed to determine the applicability of the vibrating hammer method compared to the modified Proctor test in the testing of unbound and hydraulically bound mixtures for pavement purposes using standard and some non-standard materials (waste rubber). The main purpose of the research conducted was to compare the compaction test conditions and their influence on the material behaviour through compaction and strength characterization. Also, the appropriateness of the two compaction methods on an alternative, waste material--waste rubber--was investigated. Namely, the use of waste rubber in the cement-bound base course (CBC) can reduce the occurrence of reflective cracks in the asphalt wearing course, resulting in natural resource preservation and extended service life of a pavement structure [25; 26]. Little research has been done on effect of crumb rubber on cement bound mixtures, while extensive research has been conducted on rubberized concrete. Natural aggregate replacement by crumb rubber inevitably contributes to the reduction of compressive strength, for which some researches have established a prediction model [27]. Crumb rubber addition to concrete changes failure pattern from brittle to ductile at the microscale observation and shows better performance under severe dynamic loads at the macroscale observation [28]. According to [29] rubber addition in concrete improves its resistance to frost which, besides brittleness, is a major problem in CBC mixtures. Encouraged by positive impact of rubber on concrete, authors decide to examine the influence of crumb rubber on CBC. Due to their long decomposition time, waste types cause severe environmental issue. This problem is growing every day, as the number of vehicles on roads increase all over the world.