## 4 Results and Discussion
### Relative Mass Change  
For the sake of clarity, the development of the relative mass changes in the sulfate bath (Figure 9) and in the water bath (Figure 10) has been plotted separately. Each graph can then be assessed individually, with the results partially verifying each other as described in the Section 3.7.2. It is not possible to \"clean\" the values acquired from the samples in the sulfate bath from their natural absorbency, i.e., to subtract the reference values (w) from the values acquired on the parallel samples in the corrosive environment (s). If this happened, the result would often be meaningless data. The structure of individual model mortars develops differently in a sulfate bath than in a water bath. Therefore, changes in mass will be monitored separately for the placement in sulfates (s) and separately in the case of data obtained in the water bath (w).  
Figure 9: Dependence of the relative mass change on the immersion time of the samples in the sulfate bath.  
Figure 9 indicates that the tested materials can be divided into three groups. Group 1 are the worst MMs (they have the highest mass gain). These are materials M2 and M3, which is completely in line with their composition and expectations. Group 2 are MMs of medium resistance. These are mortars M1 and M4, i.e., the reference mortar modeling vibro press compacted concrete and the mortar modeling optimized SCC (which is without special admixtures, however). When compared to groups 1 and 3, they again exhibit corresponding behavior to their composition. Group 3 are MMs of the highest resistance. This group comprises all mortars with a modified binder, i.e., M5 with GBFS and M6 to M8 with metakaolin. A significant benefit is evident in the case of the used admixtures, especially of metakaolin. This corresponds with the results already published [36; 37].  
If data in Figures 9 and 10 are compared, it can be stated that the trends in the behavior of individual MMs are not entirely identical. First of all, there is no significant division into 3 groups in regard to absorbency. However, it is true that the best--the least absorbent--are all MMs containing metakaolin or GBFS. An excellent match occurs here with the results from the sulfate bath. The remaining two groups of medium and least resistant materials have practically merged here into one, with the worst materials being mortars M1 and M4. This can be explained, for example, by the high cement paste content in M4, etc. However, as has been mentioned earlier, these are only supplementary results and in addition, exhibit a considerable variance of the measured values.  
Regarding the specific project task concerning the entire mass change issue, it can be stated that it was possible to demonstrably prove that the newly developed MMs with metakaolin or GBFS exhibit evidently better parameters than the other mortars.  
The project task also implies the obligation to compare the results of the main reference mortar M1 with the newly designed MMs with MK. The findings stated above clearly show that all three MMs with metakaolin exhibit significantly better resistance to sulfates than the reference mortar M1.