## 1 Introduction
Some researchers have obtained CWP from the final cutting and polishing stages of ceramic manufacturing. Others produce it by crushing and milling ceramic waste (tiles, sanitary ware, and tableware) into powder. Despite the different sources, the chemical composition of CWP is consistent [2; 24; 25; 26; 27]. Figure 1 shows an image of the CWP obtained from ceramic cutting and polishing, while Figure 2 shows the CWP obtained by crushing and milling ceramic waste. Figure 1: CWP obtained from the final cutting and polishing stages of ceramic production [28]. Researchers often use CWP as a pozzolanic material, like ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), fly ash, or silica fume, or as an inert filler, like limestone powder in concrete. When CWP is used in high quantities, such as replacing up to 50% of PC, researchers aim to observe whether it behaves as a pozzolanic material [2]. This expectation is reasonable, given that microstructural analyses frequently report that CWP contains high levels of silica (up to 65 %). Silica is crucial for pozzolanic reactions, where it combines with calcium hydroxide (CH) to form calcium silicate hydrate (C\(-\)S\(-\)H) gel, the main binding component in cement, contributing to its strength and durability [24; 25]. This reaction also helps mitigate the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete. In contrast, researchers have used smaller amounts of CWP, typically 10% PC replacement or less, expecting it to act more like an inert filler, which improves concrete durability by densifying the concrete matrix [30; 31]. The production processes that ceramic waste undergoes significantly affect the reactivity of the silica in its composition [32]. Consequently, silica may lose its pozzolanic reactivity, causing CWP to behave more like an inert filler than a reactive material. This raises a valid argument over the role of CWP in concrete--whether it acts as a pozzolan that contributes to hydration products and improves mechanical properties or as an inert filler that enhances concrete durability simply by filling the pores in the concrete microstructure. It is also important to note that other properties, such as the specific surface area of the powder, also play an important role in the reactivity of CWP in concrete [33]. Although many studies have shown consistent results regarding the performance of CWP concrete, some contradictions remain in the literature. Several studies have suggested that CWP exhibits lower strength at early ages but eventually gains strength comparable to that of PC concrete at later ages [24; 25; 34]. These Researchers observed that CWP concrete showed lower strength at 7 days but achieved higher strength at 28 to 90 days, similar to pozzolanic concrete [24; 25; 26; 27]. Pozzolans like fly ash, GGBS, and silica fume are known for their slower hydration rates, which initially result in lower compressive strength but lead to stronger and more durable concrete over time as additional C\(-\)S\(-\)H forms [33]. This delayed strength development is a basic characteristic of pozzolanic materials, as highlighted by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33]. However, some researchers have reported little or invariable strength development (compared to PC concrete) with no long-term strength improvement. These studies also observed improved durability at later curing ages. This suggests that CWP behaves similarly to inert materials like limestone powder.