[web] Fixed header syntax.

web/content/docs/benchmarks/liquid-flow/buildup_test.pandoc

@@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ project = "/Parabolic/LiquidFlow/BuildupTest/buildup_test.prj"
 
 {{< data-link >}}
 
-Problem description {#problem-description .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-===================
+## Problem description
+
 
 The pressure buildup test is performed by shutting in a producing well
 at time $t=t_p$, after which a smooth rise of the well head pressure can
@@ -26,8 +26,7 @@ the model, a time dependent nodal source term was set up to represent
 the shut-in operation. The simulated pressure profile is then verified
 against the analytical solution.
 
-Model Setup {#model-setup .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-===========
+## Model Setup
 
 This benchmark represents a scenario in which the well had been
 producing geothermal brine for $118\ \mathrm{h}$ at a rate of
@@ -70,8 +69,7 @@ which corresponds to the infinite shut-in time $(\Delta t)$. This leads to
 an extrapolated pressure $p_0$ of $67.5~\mathrm{kPa}$, which is the
 undisturbed reservoir pressure .
 
-Input files {#input-files .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-===========
+## Input files
 
 The benchmark project is defined in the input file `buildup_test.prj`. It defines the process to
 be solved as "LiquidFlow" and the primary variable is hence pressure.
@@ -85,8 +83,7 @@ conditions, and source term can be found in `line_1000_axi.gml` file.
 The mesh is specified in `line_1000_axi.vtu`, which is stored in the
 VTK format and can be directly visualized in Paraview.
 
-Analytical solution {#analytical-solution .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-===================
+## Analytical solution
 
 The pressure buildup test is comparable to a pumping recovery test as
 the extraction rate is first kept constant at $Q$, and then becomes zero
@@ -101,8 +98,8 @@ $$\Delta p=\rho g \frac{-Q}{4\pi T}W\left(\frac{r^2S}{4Tt}\right)$$ and
 for $t>t_p$,
 $$\Delta p=\rho g \frac{-Q}{4\pi T}W\left(\frac{r^2S}{4Tt}\right)+\rho g \frac{Q}{4\pi T}W\left(\frac{r^2S}{4T(t-t_p)}\right)$$
 
-Results and evaluation {#results-and-evaluation .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-======================
+## Results and evaluation
+
 
 The pressure evolution is simulated throughout the domain and the result
 is compared with the analytical solution at $r=10.287\ \mathrm{m}$. In
@@ -121,12 +118,11 @@ Figure 2: OGS 6 result compared with analytical solution
 
 Figure 3: Absolute and relative error
 
-References {#references .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-========
+## References
+
 [1] RN Horne. Characterization, evaluation, and interpretation of well data. In: R DiPippo, editor,Geothermal Power Generation, chapter 6, pages 141–163.Elsevier, 2016.
 
-Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered .unnumbered}
-========
+## Appendix
 
 \centering
 | $\Delta t$ (h) | $\Delta p$ (bar)   |  $\Delta t$ (h)  | $\Delta p$ (bar) |