The people who use this type of joint generally believe that assembly and fixing plates to build box columns are easy and very economical because it has not joint preparation and do not need ultrasonic examination compared to CJP groove weld. I study a lot of books and standards like AWS D1.1, AISC design guide 21, AISC 360 and ... The major problems come with this type of joint, preparation and weld are LOF, melt through (some times called burn through), high weld width, high weld leg size per welding pass and LOP when have melting edges that is not verifiable and ....
What your idea about high weld metal, high welding operator skills, high flux wasting, high heat input and if plates overlap you have pre-made notch at the root of the joint!!!
By my opinion Figures 5.4 in AWS D1.1 (F) cause people to have mistake using outside corner joint fillet weld in building box columns!
Outside corner joint is not prequalified in figure 3.5 AWS D1.1-2015!!!? YOU KNOW WHY?

Okay, my wording may have come across slightly ultra negative saying there was "no way" (this is what you two are referring to, correct?) and I have used that type of corner connection for many applications as well, When Specified By The Engineer.  (I think you guys knew what I meant though)

There are times when that joint, if I understand him correctly, can be used (the attachment wouldn't open up for me BTW so I am only going by verbal description).  But on box columns?  If they are very long and if they are very thick it does not seem economical which was my main point.  Most fabricators I have been observing as a TPI have SAW systems that weld 2 - 4 welds at a time; all from the top so 2 box columns at once and 2 corners on each one at a time.  Using a corner weld would not be nearly as productive as using either PJP's or CJP's. 

And come on, beefing up existing columns isn't the same when adding extra for whatever reasons as building the new ones. 

Now, have I missed something, or is that what your comments were about?  I probably need to see if I can view his attachment yet.

Brent

I hope so Dear Brent
Thank you for your all attentions and comments.
Have a great moments, Hanif

Considering the large forces imposed on all members of a structure subject to seismic activity, I probably wouldn't use a fillet weld or a PJP groove weld on the outside corner joint. However, a major seismic event is not an everyday occurrence. Buildings in general are subjected to static loads. During a seismic event, the probability of an "overload" is a distinct possibility. The overload condition may result in structural failure, i.e., permanent deformation of the connections or individual members. In that case, connections that exhibit ductile failure is the desired failure mode rather than connections that may fail by brittle fracture. CJP welds have a higher allowable stress that either PJP or fillet welds. Compare a CJP weld that has the same allowable stress as the base metal. The short version: both the fillet weld and the PJP weld are on the order of 0.3 times the strength of the filler metal, but it cannot exceed 0.4 times the yield strength of the base metal. These are the allowable stresses for static loads. The New Farm Code is supplemented by D1.8 when the structure is located in an area where a seismic event is probable. The design parameters change and every effort is made to ensure ductile failure, i.e., the use fillet welds and PJP welds are restricted and the design of the connections are significantly modified when compared to the connections permitted where seismic activity is a low risk.

Best regards - Al