## 1 Introduction
### Characteristics of CWP  
According to the literature, CWP is typically cream or brownish in colour, with a fine and granular texture [24; 25; 26]. Table 1 provides a detailed comparison of the physical characteristics of CWP and PC from different studies. CWP, with specific gravities ranging from 2.53-2.97, tends to have lower densities than PC, which typically ranges from 3.10-3.15. This indicates that CWP is lighter than conventional cement. The bulk density of CWP ranged from 2.56-2.97 g/cm\({}^{3}\), while that of PC typically falls within the range of 1.44-1.60 g/cm\({}^{3}\). The specific surface area of CWP used in the literature varies widely, from as low as 365 m\({}^{2}\)/kg to as high as 34,100 m\({}^{2}\)/kg. This shows the high variation in the sizes of the powder used by different researchers. In comparison, PC usually has a specific surface area between 300 and 400 m\({}^{2}\)/kg. The water absorption of CWP was found to be 0.1% by [PERSON] et al. [25], which is an advantage in concrete, as it suggests low porosity. In contrast, PC has a slightly higher water absorption range of 0.25-0.30%. Finally, an autoclave expansion of 0.08% was observed for CWP by [PERSON] et al. [41], while PC typically shows an expansion of 0.80% [42]. Regardless of their source, the chemical compositions of different types of ceramic waste are similar [12; 34; 43]. Microstructural analyses have also established similarities between the chemical compositions of fired ceramic products and their raw materials, with differences primarily in the mineral composition post-heating [12]. Table 2 presents the chemical compositions of the CWP samples. CWP exhibits a distinct chemical composition compared to PC, primarily due to its high silica (SiO\({}_{2}\)) and alumina (Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)) content and low calcium oxide (CaO) content [44]. The silica concentration in CWP ranges from 57% to 66%, which is significantly higher than the 17-25% typically found in PC [33; 42; 45; 46; 47]. This high silica content suggests that CWP could serve as a pozzolanic material in cement blends, enhancing long-term strength through secondary hydration reactions. Amorphous SiO\({}_{2}\) in concrete reacts with CH, which is a byproduct of cement hydration. This is a secondary reaction (pozzolanic reaction) that occurs after hydration. This reaction produces additional C-S-H, which is a key strength-contributing phase in concrete [33]. This pozzolanic reaction can lead to strength improvements of 10-30%, depending on the pozzolan type, replacement level, and curing conditions. Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) in CWP contributes to early age strength and durability by forming calcium aluminate hydrates (C-A-H) and calcium aluminosilicate hydrates (C-A-S-H) [48]. These compounds improve the microstructure and early strength gain. Additionally, CWP contains 18-22% Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\), which is much higher than the 3-8% usually observed in PC, potentially benefiting early strength. Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) enhances the chloride binding capacity by forming Friedel's salt, which immobilises chlorides and mitigates their ingress [48; 49]. This property is especially valuable in aggressive environments, such as marine or dicing conditions, where chloride-induced corrosion is a concern. According to [PERSON] et al. [50], the chemical composition of CWP meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C618 [51] requirements for natural pozzolans, indicating its potential as an SCM. However, the low CaO content (2.5-7.4%) in CWP indicates that it lacks the necessary calcium for primary cementitious reactions, limiting its use as an independent binder. Minor oxides, such as iron oxide (Fe\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)) and sulphur trioxide (SO\({}_{3}\)), vary in CWP samples but generally fall within the typical range for Portland cement. Fe\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) in CWP does not significantly affect hydration because it is not highly reactive.