###### Abstract
An approximately 85% decrease in compressive strength was recorded when the rubber was completely replaced with coarse aggregates. The loss of compressive strength was lesser with smaller-sized rubber aggregates compared to that of the coarse aggregate. Rubber has good energy absorbing capacity; therefore, rubberized concrete showed a ductile failure when subjected to compressive forces [12]. [PERSON] et al. [13] used plastomers and other materials along with 3.5% to 5% of rubber. They performed various tests and concluded that the compressive strength of rubber plastic was 23 MPa, while the compressive strength of their control mixture was 36 MPa [13]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14] concluded that all parameters of strength were reduced in rubber concrete as compared to plain concrete [14]. [PERSON] et el. [15] used different percentages of rubber aggregates--5%, 10% and 15% by volume replacement of fine aggregate. They tested 180 samples for compressive strength, and the results indicated that compressive strength was reduced by adding 30% of crumb rubber. The strength properties of CRC vary with the size of the rubber aggregate. The results showed that large size of rubber particles in concrete mixtures attained a lower strength as compared to the smaller rubber particles [15; 16; 17]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18] investigated different concrete mixtures incorporating rubber for determining the tensile strength in comparison with conventional concrete. The results indicated that approximately 50% of the split tensile strength was reduced when course and fine aggregates were completely replaced with rubber particles. However, the rubberized concrete mixtures showed ductile behavior, and a large amount of energy was absorbed under tensile loads [18]. [PERSON] et al. [19] reported that rubber particles stabilize the cement matrix. The tensile strength was reduced because of the low tensile strength of the rubber particles. It was also reported that the stiffness increased due to the partial replacement of rubber particles [19]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [12] replaced the coarse aggregate in a large volume with rubber particles (75% and 100% replacement). They reported that after 7 and 28 days of curing, there was the least change in the tensile and compressive strength [12]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [20] worked on the self-consolidating rubberized concrete and evaluatedthe ductility and internal microcracking of tested mixtures [20]. Rubber particles bridge the crack propagation in rubber concrete; thus, flexural strength should be higher in CRC members. However, the results showed the opposite behavior, as investigated by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21]. They investigated the flexural strength for two mixtures with different w/c ratios of 0.40 and 0.60. The results indicated that the flexural strength was reduced in both of the tested mixtures. For example, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% replacement of the course aggregate with 0.40 w/c showed 18%, 44%, 52% and 63% reductions in flexural strength, respectively. One main reason for the lower flexural strengths of CRC is the weaker bond of the cement matrix and rubber particles [21]. [PERSON] et al. [22] worked on two types of rubber (rubber aggregates comprised of two sizes (5 mm and 10 mm), and granular rubber particles of about 2 mm in diameter) in concrete mixtures. The results indicated that rubber shreds withstand higher loads even after the ultimate load. Rubber shreds bridge the cracks under the failure load in such a manner that the specimen does not separate into pieces. The results also showed that the post-cracking strength increased for shredded rubber particles rather than for granular rubber particles. [PERSON] et al. [23] investigated the failure pattern and cracking behavior of rubberized concrete. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18] investigated the failure pattern of concrete with and without the addition of rubber and found the ductile behavior of rubberized concrete [18].